Sukkah, Daf Yod Gimmel, Part 5
אמר רבי אבא אמר שמואל: ירקות שאמרו חכמים אדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח – מביאין את הטומאה, ואין חוצצין בפני הטומאה, ופוסלין בסוכה משום אויר.
R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Herbs concerning which the sages said that a person fulfills with them his obligation on Pesah, convey ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and invalidate a sukkah in the same manner as an air space.
Shmuel says that any of the five species that can be used as marror on Pesah (see Mishnah Pesahim 2:6) also have the following three halakhic characteristics.
1) They convey impurity. This means that they can act as a "tent." If a dead body or part thereof is found underneath one part of the vegetable and a vessel underneath the other part, the herb acts as a tent to convey the impurity from the dead body to the vessel.
2) They do not block impurity. If a dead body is underneath the herb, the herb does not block impurity from defiling a vessel found above the herb.
3) If used as skhakh they invalidate the sukkah as if it was an open gap of air space, and not as if they were invalid skhakh. The Talmud will now explain why.
Clearly the reason this law is here is to teach the third principle what the rule is if these herbs are used as skhakh.
מאי טעמא – כיון דלכי יבשי פרכי ונפלי, כמאן דליתנהו דמי.
What is the reason? Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there.
Why do these herbs count as open air space and not merely invalid skhakh? The reason is that they will dry up, crumble and disappear. Thus even before they crumble away, we look at the space they occupy as if nothing is there. If there are three handbreadths of open space, the sukkah is invalid. If they had been treated as invalid skhakh, there would have to be four handbreadths to invalidate the sukkah.
ואמר רבי אבא אמר רב הונא: הבוצר לגת – אין לו ידות.
ורב מנשיא בר גדא אמר רב הונא: הקוצר לסכך אין לו ידות.
R. Abba further said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests grapes for the vat, does not render their "handles" [stalks] susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness;
While R. Menashia b. Gada said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests [ears of grain] for skhakh does not render their handles susceptible to uncleanliness.
The Talmud now cites another statement by R. Abba. This statement is probably brought here because the statement which follows it is related to the laws of skhakh. When one harvests grapes to press them, the stems do not become susceptible to impurity because one doesn’t need to use the stems to make wine, nor does he need to use them to hold the grapes. Things are susceptible to impurity only if one intends to use them as food or as handles to hold on to the food part of the plant.
Similarly, when one harvests grain to use the stalks as skhakh the stalks themselves are not susceptible to impurity. This is because the person doesn’t want to use the kernels of the grain, since they can’t be used for skhakh anyway. Since the stalks aren’t necessary as "handles" for the kernels, they are not susceptible to impurity.
מאן דאמר קוצר – כל שכן בוצר, דלא ניחא ליה דלא נימצייה לחמריה. מאן דאמר בוצר שאין לו ידות, אבל קוצר – יש לו ידות, דניחא ליה דליסכך בהו, כי היכי דלא ליבדרן.
The one that said this with regard to harvesting [grain] certainly holds it with regard to harvesting grapes, since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one’s wine;
But the one that said this with regard to harvesting grapes, that he does not render their stalks susceptible to uncleanliness, holds that the harvesting [ears of grain] does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the skhakh in order that [the grains] be not scattered.
The Talmud now explains why one amora made his statement with regard to grapes harvested for wine while the other amora made his statement with regard to ears of grain harvested to use for skhakh.
The one who made the statement with regard to the grain, R. Menashye, would agree with R. Abba’s statement regarding the grapes because clearly one doesn’t want the stalks of the grapes to be harvested with the grapes. These grapes would suck up the wine and cause a loss. Since they are undesirable, they are not susceptible to impurity.
However, R. Abba, who made his statement with regard to the grapes, might hold that someone actually wants to keep the grain attached to the stalks to that the grain doesn’t get lost until it is time to use it. Since he might like the grain still attached to the stalks, the stalks are considered handles to the food and they are susceptible to impurity.
נימא דרב מנשיא בר גדא תנאי היא, דתניא: סוכי תאנים ובהן תאנים, פרכילין ובהן ענבים, קשין ובהן שבלים, מכבדות ובהן תמרים, כולן אם פסולת מרובה על האוכלין – כשרה, ואם לאו – פסולה. אחרים אומרים: עד שיהו קשין מרובין על הידות ועל האוכלין.
מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי; דמר סבר: יש להן ידות, ומר סבר: אין להן ידות.
Shall we say that the [ruling of] R. Menashya b. Gada is a dispute between tannas? For it has been taught: Boughs of fig-trees on which there are figs, branches of vines on which there are grapes, or straws on which there are ears of grain, palm-branches on which there are dates, all these, if the inedible part is greater than the edible are valid [for skhakh], otherwise, they are invalid. Others say, [they are not valid] unless the straw is more than both the handle and the food.
Isn’t it this that they argue about: that one master holds the opinion they render the handles susceptible to uncleanliness, while the other master holds the opinion that they do not render the handles susceptible to uncleanliness?
To remind ourselves, R. Menashye said that one who harvests grain to use as skhakh does not render the stalks susceptible to uncleanness, because he doesn’t want the grain to stay with the stalks. The stalks don’t count as "handles." The Talmud now suggests that this issue is actually a tannaitic dispute found in a baraita. According to the first opinion in the baraita one can use branches that have food products on them for skhakh as long as the inedible part is greater than the edible part. The "others" say that the inedible part, the straw, must be greater than both the edible part and the stalks, the handles by which the food can be hold. The "handles" are also susceptible to impurity.
According to this second opinion, when one harvests these handles with the food part and wants to use it all for skhakh he would render the handles susceptible to impurity. According to the first opinion, he does not. Therefore, using the branch with the food is just a matter of making sure that the inedible part is greater than the edible part.