Sukkah, Daf Yod Tet, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today’s section begins with a new mishnah.

 

משנה. מחצלת קנים גדולה, עשאה לשכיבה – מקבלת טומאה ואין מסככין בה, לסיכוך – מסככין בה ואינה מקבלת טומאה. רבי אליעזר אומר: אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה, עשאה לשכיבה – מקבלת טומאה, ואין מסככין בה, לסיכוך – מסככין בה ואינה מקבלת טומאה.

 

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh.

If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large:

If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh;

If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

 

This section of the mishnah requires a few words of introduction concerning the susceptibility of objects to impurity. Objects are susceptible to impurity if they are considered vessels." This halakhic category includes most objects that have been fashioned to be of use for people, but not things that are used for building. For instance a cup is susceptible to impurity but a brick is not. In the case under discussion here, a reed mat made to be sat upon is susceptible to impurities whereas a reed mat made to be used as skhakh is not.

According to the sages, all small mats may have been made to be sat upon and hence they are all susceptible to impurity. We learned above in mishnah four that anything that is receptive to impurity cannot be used as skhakh. Hence, small reed mats cannot be used for skhakh. A large reed mat may have been made either to sit upon or to use as skhakh. Hence, its susceptibility to impurity and its validity as skhakh depend upon the intent in which it was made. If it was made to be used for sitting, it cannot be used as skhakh. But if it was made to be used as skhakh then it is valid.

Rabbi Eliezer says that the size of the skhakh does not matter. All that matters is whether the mat was made for sitting or for skhakh. As long as it was made for skhakh it can be used as such, no matter its size.

 

 

 

גמרא. הא גופה קשיא, אמרת: עשאה לשכיבה מקבלת טומאה ואין מסככין בה. טעמא – דעשאה לשכיבה, הא סתמא – לסיכוך.

והדר תני: לסיכוך – מסככין בה ואינה מקבלת טומאה. טעמא – דעשאה לסיכוך, הא סתמא – לשכיבה!

 

GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, if made for reclining upon is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for skhakh. And then it is taught: if made for a covering it is valid as skhakh and is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. The reason then is because it was made specifically for a covering, but if it was made without specific purpose [it would be assumed that it was] made for reclining upon?

 

The Talmud begins by trying to draw out a contradiction within the mishnah. The mishnah says that if he makes it intentionally to recline upon it, then it is subject to impurity and cannot be used as skhakh. However, if he had no specific intention as to its use when he made it, then it is usable as skhakh.

However, the second half says that it usable for skhakh only if he made it with the purpose of using it as covering. If he made it without any express purpose, it would be assumed that he made it for reclining and he wouldn’t be able to use it.

Thus the mishnah contradicts itself in terms of what the law is when a mat is made without it having an express purpose. The first half would say it is valid for skhakh whereas the second half would say it is not.

 

הא לא קשיא; כאן – בגדולה, כאן – בקטנה.

 

This is no difficulty. The former case refers to a large [mat], the latter to a small one.

 

The Talmud resolves this difficulty by saying that the first half of the mishnah refers to a large mat. Such a mat is valid as use for skhakh even if it was made without any intention as to its use. Since it is large, we can assume that the intent was to use it for a covering.

However, if it is a small mat and it was made without any specific intent, it is invalid, because we can assume it was made to be used for reclining.

In other words, if something is made without any intent in mind, its size will determine its function and susceptibility to impurity.

We should also note how the Talmud "teases" more information out of a mishnah. The mishnah teaches only the simple situations where he made the mat for an express purpose. It doesn’t really state what the rule is if he had no use in mind when he made the mat. The Talmud gleans this info out of the mishnah by trying to create a contradiction between the first half and the second half. This is a common talmudic technique.