Sukkah, Daf Tet, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today’s section raises a difficulty against Bet Hillel who seems to hold that in general ritual objects don’t need to be made with the specific purpose of their ritual use in mind.

 

ובית הלל לית להו דרב יהודה אמר רב? דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב: עשאה מן הקוצין ומן הנימין ומן הגרדין – פסולה, מן הסיסין – כשרה. כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי: אף מן הסיסין נמי פסולה, (אלמא) דבעינן טויה לשמה.

הכי נמי, נבעיא סוכה עשויה לשמה!

 

But doesn’t Bet Hillel agree with the statement of Rav Judah in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If a man made [tzitzit] from the hanging web or woof, or sewing threads, they are invalid; but if he made them from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are valid.

When I repeated this in the presence of Shmuel he said to me: Even if from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are also not valid, because it is necessary that the weaving shall be done specifically for its purpose.

Here too then we should require a sukkah be made specifically for its purpose?

 

Above, we learned that according to Bet Hillel a sukkah doesn’t need to be built with the specific intention of being used for the festival. The Talmud extrapolates from this that Bet Hillel would hold that in general religious objects need not be made with the specific ritual use in mind. Thus a sukkah could be built as a hut for some other purpose and then used as a sukkah when the time came along.

This contradicts with what Rav Judah said in the name of Rav and Shmuel confirmed tzitzit cannot be made with string spun for other purposes. The examples here are threads that were made for various other purposes. So if tzitzit must be made for the purpose of being used for tzitzit, why doesn’t the sukkah have to be made for its use as a sukkah?

 

שאני התם – דאמר קרא +דברים כב+ גדלים תעשה לך – לך לשם חובך.

[Tzitzit are] different, since Scripture says, "You shalt make for yourself twisted cords" (Deuteronomy 22:12): "for yourself" [means] for the specific purpose of your obligation.

 

The Talmud initially answers that there is a specific verse that is midrashically interpreted to mean that tzitzit need to be made for the sake of use as tzitzit.

 

הכא נמי חג הסכת תעשה לך לך – לשם חובך! –

 

But here also [Scripture says], "The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself," "for yourself" for the specific purpose of your obligation.

 

The problem with the previous explanation is that the same language is used in reference to Sukkot. So if the words "for yourself" imply that tzitzit must be made for the sake of your obligation to wear tzitzit, then the same should apply to sukkot.

 

ההוא מיבעי ליה למעוטי גזולה.

 

That [phrase] is needed to exclude a stolen [Sukkah].

 

The answer is that that verse doesn’t teach that one has to build the sukkah for the sake of Sukkot, but that one cannot use a stolen sukkah (this is a topic we will discuss at greater length later in the tractate).

 

התם נמי מיבעי ליה למעוטי גזולה!

 

But in the other case too it is needed to exclude stolen [tzitzit]?

 

The follow up question is obvious. If we use the word "for yourself" to teach that one cannot use a stolen sukkah, then why not use the same word to teach that halakhah with regard to tzitzit one cannot use stolen tzitzit. This would mean that one could use tzitzit not made for the festival, as long as they were not stolen.

 

התם כתיב קרא אחרינא: +במדבר טו+ ועשו להם – משלהם.

 

In that case there is another verse, "And they shall make for themselves" (Numbers 15:38) of their own.

 

Tzitzit are referred to in another verse that uses a similar word for themselves. That verse is used to teach that one cannot use stolen tzitzit. This frees up the verse from Deuteronomy to teach that one cannot use tzitzit that were not made for use as tzitzit. But when it comes to the sukkah, there is only one verse and this verse is used to teach that one cannot use a stolen sukkah.