Daf Yod Aleph, Part 3
Introduction
Today’s section begins with a new mishnah. This is a long section, but don’t blame me I’m just explaining, I didn’t write the stuff!
משנה. הדלה עליה את הגפן ואת הדלעת ואת הקיסוס, וסיכך על גבה – פסולה. ואם היה סיכוך הרבה מהן, או שקצצן – כשרה. זה הכלל: כל שהוא מקבל טומאה, ואין גידולו מן הארץ – אין מסככין בו. וכל דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה, וגידולו מן הארץ – מסככין בו.
If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid.
But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid.
This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.
In this mishnah we learn several important rules governing skhakh. The first is that the skhakh must be detached from the ground. If one takes living vines and trains them on top of his sukkah, the sukkah is invalid. This is true even if he put some valid skhakh on top of the vines that were still attached to the ground. The sukkah becomes valid only if he puts more valid skhakh than the invalid attached vines, or if he cuts down the vines. This is an important point. The only thing that makes the vines invalid is that they are still attached to the ground.
The second part of the mishnah presents two general rules. The first is that the skhakh has to be something that cannot receive ritual impurity. This means that clothing, chairs, tables, dishes, sheets, etc. cannot be used as skhakh. Basically, this includes most things that have been made or fashioned by human hands. Branches of trees cannot become impure and hence can be used for skhakh. Secondly, it has to be something that originally grew from the ground. This rules out metal, stone, clay, plastic etc.
Interestingly, these two rules, and that in the previous section, are in a sense foils for one another. The skhakh must be dead, but it must be something that was once alive. Something has to have been done to it by human hands it has to be cut from the ground, but not too much can be done with it humans can t turn it into useful instruments. The skkakh is then liminal it mediates between the natural world and the humanly created world. So too it is above us, mediating between God and humanity.
גמרא. יתיב רב יוסף קמיה דרב הונא, ויתיב וקאמר: או שקצצן כשרה. ואמר רב: צריך לנענע. אמר ליה רב הונא: הא שמואל אמרה. אהדרינהו רב יוסף לאפיה ואמר ליה: אטו מי קאמינא לך דלא אמרה שמואל? אמרה רב ואמרה שמואל.
GEMARA. R. Joseph sat before R. Huna, and he sat and he stated: "Or if he cut them it is valid. And Rav said: He must shake them.
R. Huna said to him: That has been said by Shmuel!
R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it and Shmuel also said it.
In this scene, R. Joseph is reciting the mishnah before R. Huna while the two of them are studying, perhaps in front of others as well. R. Joseph adds to the mishnah a statement made by Rav, an earlier amora: "he must shake them." This refers to the line in the mishnah that said if "or if he cut them down, it is valid." According to Rav it is not sufficient just to cut down the branches or vines that were attached to the ground. He must pick them up and shake them, thereby performing a positive act to show that he means to use them as skhakh. In other words he must put them there as valid skhakh he must make the sukkah/skhakh and not have the skhakh already there when it was invalid and then just have it turned into valid skhakh.
R. Huna rebukes R. Joseph by questioning the attribution of the statement it was stated by Shmuel, no Rav.
R. Joseph responds by being annoyed with R. Huna. R. Joseph claims that when he said that Rav issued the statement, he didn’t mean that Rav said it and not Shmuel. They both said the same thing (this sounds fishy to me).
אמר ליה רב הונא: הכי קאמינא לך, דשמואל אמרה ולא רב, דרב אכשורי מכשר. כי הא דרב עמרם חסידא רמא תכלתא לפרזומא דאינשי ביתיה, תלאן ולא פסק ראשי חוטין שלהן. אתא לקמיה דרב חייא בר אשי, אמר ליה: הכי אמר רב מפסקן והן כשרין. אלמא: פסיקתן זו היא עשייתן, הכא נמי, קציצתן זו היא עשייתן.
R. Huna said back to him: This is what I meant to say to you: that, Shmuel said it, and not Rav, for Rav declares it valid [without shaking],
As in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but he did not cut off the ends of the threads.
When he came before R. Hiyya b. Ashi the latter said to him: Thus said Rav, [In such a case the threads] may be cut and they are valid.
Thus it is obvious that their cutting is considered thei making, so too here, their cutting is considered their making.
R. Huna responds that according to Shmuel the skhakh needs to be shaken, as we explained above. Rav, on the other hand, hold that it does not need to be shaken.
R. Huna derives Rav’s opinion from a ruling issued by Rav concerning tzitzit. R. Amram attached fringes to the aprons of women in his house (according to R. Amram women are obligated to wear tzitzit). The way he did this was to first place one string on the apron, double it and then double it over again, such that there would be four double strings. Once already in place, he would cut them, thereby creating the necessary 8 strings. The question of what to do came before Rav and Rav said that if he cut them after they had already been put into place, the tzitzit would be valid.
This, according to R. Huna, is similar to the case of the skhakh. You have something that is already in place and then is just cut. Just as the tzitzit is valid without any other step, so too the skhakh is valid without having to shake it. This is how R. Huna knows that Rav did not say, "And he must shake it."
וסבר שמואל לא אמרינן פסיקתן זו היא עשייתן? והא תני שמואל משום רבי חייא: הטיל לשני קרנות בבת אחת, ואחר כך פסק ראשי חוטין שלהן – כשרין.
מאי לאו – שקושר ואחר כך פוסק?
But does Shmuel hold that we do not say that their cutting is their making?
But didn’t Shmuel in fact teach in the name of R. Hiyya, If one attached [tzitzit] to two corners at one time and then cut the ends of these threads, the tzitzi are valid. Does not this mean that he first knotted them and then cut them?
The Talmud questions whether Shmuel disagrees with Rav on this issue. Shmuel too seems to hold that one can first put tzitzit onto a garment, have them fully knotted and then cut double ends. This is because Shmuel also seems to hold that "their cutting is their making."
לא, שפוסק ואחר כך קושר.
פוסק ואחר כך קושר מאי למימרא!
מהו דתימא: בעינן כנף בשעת פתיל וליכא, קא משמע לן.
No, he cut them first and afterwards knotted them.
If he cut them first and then knotted them, why mention it?
One might have thought that it was necessary to insert the threads in one corner at a time, which he did not do this, therefore he taught us [that this is not so].
The Talmud resolves this by saying that Shmuel was referring to a situation where he put the threads onto two corners of the garment before he knotted them, then he cut them, and only then he knotted them.
That this is valid would seem is obvious. Obviously one could put the threads on the corners without knots, then cut them, then knot them. The knotting while on the corners would certainly count as making them. Why would Shmuel even need to issue such a ruling?
The answer is that we might have thought that each tzitzit thread must be inserted into each corner after it has already been separated from the other threads. Therefore Shmuel had to state that as long as he knots them after having put them on the corners and after having been cut, they are valid. But Shmuel does not hold that their cutting is their making.
מיתיבי: תלאן ולא פסק ראשי חוטין שלהן – פסולין. מאי לאו – פסולין לעולם, ותיובתא דרב?
It was objected: If he hung them and did not cut their ends, they are invalid. Does not this mean invalid for ever,and is thus a refutation of Rav?
The Talmud cites a baraita as a difficulty upon Rav. The baraita seems to imply that if he doesn’t cut the tzitzit before he hangs them on the garment they are forever invalid. This would refute Rav who says that they may be cut after they have already been put on the garment.
אמר לך רב: מאי פסולין – פסולין עד שיפסקו.
[No!] Rav can answer: What is the meaning of invalid ? Invalid until they are cut.
The Talmud responds on Rav’s behalf by reinterpreting the baraita. The tzitzit are invalid only until they are cut. But they may indeed be cut even after they have been placed on the garment.
ושמואל אמר: פסולין לעולם. וכן אמר לוי: פסולין לעולם, וכן אמר רב מתנה אמר שמואל: פסולין לעולם.
Shmuel, however, says: They are invalid forever. And so said Levi: They are invalid forever. And so said R. Matanah in the name of Smuel: They are invalid forever.
These amoraim, among them Shmuel, hold that if he puts the threads on the garment before they are cut, they are forever invalid. Cutting them doesn’t count as "making tzitzit."