Daf Ditty Succah 10: (Noy Succah)

Daf Ditty Succah 10: (Noy Succah) 1 2 MISHNA: If one spread a sheet over the roofing as protection for those sitting in the sukka due to the sun, or if one spread a sheet beneath the roofing as protection due to the falling leaves, or if one spread a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post [kinof] bed, the area in the sukka beneath the sheets is unfit. In the first two cases, because the sheet is susceptible to ritual impurity, it renders the otherwise fit roofing unfit. In the case of the canopy, one is not sitting under the roofing of the sukka; rather, he is sitting inside a tent. However, one may spread the sheet over the frame of a two-post [naklitei] bed, which has one post in the middle of each end of the bed. When spreading the sheet over the posts it forms an inclined rather than a flat roof, and a tent with an inclined roof is not considered a significant structure. 3 GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda said: The Sages taught the ruling that the sheet renders the sukka unfit only when it is placed underneath the roofing due to the falling leaves; however, if his intent was to spread the sheet for decorative purposes to beautify the sukka, it is not in the category of roofing and the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as: Due to the falling leaves, is what we learned in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the same is true, i.e., the sukka is unfit, even when the sheet was spread to beautify the sukka, and the reason that the mishna teaches specifically the case where one spread the sheet due to the falling leaves is that the mishna teaches the matter, spreading a sheet in the sukka, in the manner in which it typically occurs. Rav Ḥisda teaches us that the formulation of the mishna is precise and the halakha applies specifically to the case cited. If one spread the sheet for decorative purposes, it does not render the sukka unfit. 4 The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following Tosefta supports the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. If one roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to derive benefit and use them. Summary Continuing with yesterday's discussion, we learn that there are times when the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit. The example given describes the lower roof as allowing more shade than sunlight while the upper roof allows more sunlight than shade. In addition, the roofs of both are within 20 cubits of the ground.1 Alternately, there are times when the upper sukka is fit and the lower is unfit. The example of this is when both sukkot have roofs that allow more shade than sunlight, but the roof of the upper sukka is less than 20 cubits from the roof of the lower sukka. 1 http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/02/ 5 We learn in a note that there are numerous commentaries about these statements, which do not seem to be consistent upon first read-through. Eventually the rabbis agree that fit sukkot adhere to complex laws, particularly regarding roofing. The rabbis continue to discuss the fitness of two sukkot, one upon the other, with regard to different measurements: the height of the upper sukka's roof, the distance between the upper and lower roofs, any barriers that might intercede between the roof and the ground. From this discussion the rabbis move to a Mishna that examines those barriers. They discuss the use of a sheet within a sukka. Although area is important (a four-by-four cubit area must be uncovered, etc.), it seems that intention is just as significant in this consideration. Is the sheet serving as decoration? Is it intended to cover a bed, or to shield the dwellers from falling leaves? A sheet covering a four- post bed invalidates the sukka, but a sheet covering a two post bed allows the sukka to be fit. Decorations are discussed at some length. The rabbis are careful to specify whether or not hanging decorations will change the area of the sukka. They tell a number of stories regarding both the fitness of a sukka and the appearance of fitness. As always, we build a fence around the mitzvot to protect the sanctity of those mitzvot. The rabbis tell us that drying a shirt on a sukka could be misinterpreted as condoning an unfit roof. Then again, we learn that they find loopholes to explain their actions rather than insult the Exilarch. We end our daf with a great example of using one argument to prove another. The rabbis discuss what is done when a person is naked, in bed, wanting to recite the shema. Of course, s/he should put his/her head outside of the netting (out of respect for our prayer and G-d, the body should be clothed when reciting the shema). Does this prove that the netting of a sheet/tent is not clothing? How might this affect the halachot of the sukka? Then again, the rabbis continue, perhaps this netting is ten feet above the person. In that case, the netting would not be 'clothing' at all, but a roof where the bed is a residence. Or might there be another interpretation? The arguments of Masechet Sukkot are relatively simple compared with other halachot that I have been learning. However, they draw upon many other masechtot. As a true novice, I cannot even recognize how much I do not know. At the same time, I am able to grasp so much more of this learning after having studied every day for the past year and a half. Amazing. Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2 The Mishna rules that if one spread a sheet on top of the s’chach to protect him from the sun or if he placed a sheet under the s’chach in order to prevent the leaves from falling on his table, the Sukkah is invalid. The reason for this ruling is that the sheet is a material which is unfit for s’chach. If one placed a sheet on top of four bedposts, the Sukkah is invalid because he is not sitting under 2 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sukkah_10.pdf 6 the s’chach. Rather, he is deemed to be sitting under a tent. If one spreads a sheet over a bed that has two posts, the Sukkah is valid as long as the roof of the tent is not a tefach wide. Rav Chisda qualifies the ruling of the Mishna that a sheet that is spread under the s’chach invalidates the Sukkah. If one placed the sheet under the s’chach for decorative purposes, the Sukkah would be deemed valid (because the sheet is not deemed to be s’chach at all). The Gemora provides support for Rav Chisda from the following braisa: If he covered his Sukkah according to the law, and adorned it with colored hangings and embroidered linens, and hung in it nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, bunches of grapes, wreaths of grain, (bottles of) wine, oil or fine flour, it is forbidden to make use of them (for they are regarded as muktzeh since they were designated for a mitzvah) until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival, but if he expressed a condition about them (that he does not relinquish his right to use them at the beginning of the festival), all depends on the terms of his condition. The Gemora rejects the proof: No! It is possible that the ruling (that the hangings do not invalidate the Sukkah) was made with reference to sheets hung at the side (of the Sukkah, i.e., on its walls; but if they were hung from the s’chach, they would indeed invalidate the Sukkah). It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah do not diminish the height of the Sukkah. Rav Ashi said: But at the side, they do diminish (the width of a Sukkah). Minyamin, the servant of Rav Ashi, had his shirt soaked in water, and he spread it out on their Sukkah (in order to dry). Rav Ashi said to him: Remove it, lest they say that it is permissible to use as s’chach something which is susceptible to tumah. Minyamin asked: But can they not see that it is wet? Rav Ashi answered: I mean when it is dry. There is a debate in the Gemara regarding a sheet that was hung for decorative purposes at a distance of more than four tefachim away from the s’chach. Rav Nachman rules that the Sukkah is valid because the sheet is subordinate to the s’chach. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna maintain that the Sukkah is invalid because the decorations are considered independent of the s’chach above it. The Gemora relates: Rav Chisda and Rabbah son of Rav Huna once came to the house of the Exilarch, and Rav Nachman sheltered them in a Sukkah whose decorations were separated four tefachim from the s’chach. They were silent and said nothing to him. Rav Nachman said to them: Have our Rabbis retracted their teaching? They answered him: We are on a mitzvah errand, and therefore exempt from the obligation of the Sukkah.

Load more