Sukkah, Daf Yod Aleph, Part 4
Introduction
This section continues to discuss the case of a person putting tzitzit onto the corners of his garment and only then cutting them so that there are 8 single strings and not 4 doubled strings.
איכא דאמרי, אמר רב מתנה: בדידי הוה עובדא, ואתאי לקמיה דמר שמואל, ואמר לי: פסולין לעולם.
Another version: R. Matanah said: Such an incident happened to me, and when I came before Shmuel he told me: They are invalid forever.
This is a restatement of the end of yesterday’s section. To refresh our memories, if someone ties tzitzit to a garment but does not yet cut the ends, Shmuel holds that they are invalid even if he cuts them afterwards.
מיתיבי: תלאן ואחר כך פסק ראשי חוטין שלהן – פסולין.
ועוד תניא גבי סוכה: +דברים טז+ תעשה – ולא מן העשוי. מכאן אמרו: הדלה עליה את הגפן ואת הדלעת ואת הקיסוס וסיכך על גבן – פסולה. היכי דמי? אילימא בשלא קצצן – מאי איריא משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי? תיפוק ליה דמחוברין נינהו, אלא בשקצצן, וקתני פסולה, ושמע מינה דלא אמרינן קציצתן זו היא עשייתן, ותיובתא דרב!
They objected: If he inserted them and then cut their ends, they are invalid.
And it was also taught concerning a Sukkah: "You shall make" but not from that which is already made. From here they said: If one trained a vine or a gourd or ivy [over the walls of a sukkah] and then covered them with skhakh it is invalid.
How so? If you say that it is a case where one did not cut them, why did he give the reason "You shall make" but not from that which is already made ?
Let him rather give the reason that they are joined to the ground?
Consequently it must be a case where he cut them, and yet it is taught that they are invalid.
Learn from this that we do not say that their cutting is their making.
And this is a refutation of Rav?
The Talmud now brings two sources as difficulties upon Rav, who holds that cutting the tzitzit or cutting the vines/branches from the ground does count as their making.
The first is from a baraita that directly teaches that if he first inserts the tzitzit into the garment and then cuts the threads, the tzitzit are invalid.
The second difficulty is from the mishnah concerning sukkah. The halakhah in this mishnah is based on a midrash on the words, "You shall make." One must "make" a sukkah and not turn something already made into a sukkah. This notion is then connected to the mishnah which disqualifies a case where one trained a vine, gourd or ivy over a sukkah and covered it also with valid skhakh. If the vine was still attached to the ground it is invalid because it is attached to the ground, not because of a midrash on "you shall make." Therefore, the Talmud concludes, such a sukkah is invalid even if he first trained the vine over the sukkah and then cut the vine from the ground. This is invalid because cutting something from the ground is not a sufficient act to be considered "making" a sukkah.
This is a refutation of Rav’s opinion.
אמר לך רב: הכא במאי עסקינן – דשלפינהו שלופי, דלא מינכרא עשיה דידהו.
Rav could answer that here we are dealing with a case where he pulled them [from the trunk] so that their making is not apparent.
Rav could answer this difficulty by saying that in this case he didn’t really cut the vines from the tree, he just pulled them out of the tree. This is enough to make the skhakh technically valid because it is detached but it will look like it’s still attached to the tree and therefore it is invalid.
But if he had really cut them from the tree, the skhakh, according to Rav would be valid for "their cutting is their making."
מכל מקום, תלאן ואחר כך פסק קשיא לרב! – קשיא.
In any case, [the baraita] "he inserted them and then cut their ends" is a difficulty against Rav?
It is a difficulty.
Unfortunately for Rav, the above solves only the second difficulty against him. The first difficulty, from the baraita concerning the tzitzit, remains a difficulty for it explicitly states that if he put the tzitzit on the garment first and then cut the ends, it is invalid. Rav does not offer a resolution to this difficulty.