Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 43

are woven together, it may not. R. Ishmael bar Jose said in the name of his father : Both may be used to cover, and the same said R. Dosa. TRACT SUCCAH. 2^ We have learned (Edioth, III. 4) : ''AH hutzlahs * are liable to become unclean from a corpse, so is the decree of R. Dosa ; but the sages said : They are liable to become unclean only by pressing." What are hutzlahs? Said R. Simeon bar Lakish : It Tieans ordinary mats, and the same is according to his theory elsewhere, where he said : I would sacrifice myself to bring back to life R. Hiya and his children, because in the ancient time, when the Torah was forgotten by Israel, Ezra came from Baby- lon, and reestablished it again ; when afterwards it was again for- gotten, Hillel the Babylonian came up from Babylon and restored it again ; and when it was again forgotten, came R. Hiya and his children and restored it again. And they said to this : That R. Dosa and the sages did not differ about the mats of the city of Usha, that they are subject to defilement, and ihat the mats of Tiberia are not ; what they do differ about is the mats of other places : one holds that because nobody sits on them, they arc equal to those of Tiberia ; and the others hold that because it can happen that somebody should sit upon them, they are equal to the mats of Usha. We learned in a Boraitha : R. Hananiah said : When I came into the exile, I found an old man who said to me that to cover a Succah with a mat is lawful ; afterwards, when I came to R. Joshuah my father's brother, he admitted this theory. Said R. Hisda : This is only when it is not seamed. Said Ullah : The mats from the city of Mehuzah, but for their seams, would be lawful to be used for covering. So also we have learned in a Boraitha : Mats may be used for covering, provided they have no seams. * See Levi's Dictionary. CHAPTER 11. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH A BOOTH MAY BE PLACED, WHAT MUST BE DONE IN IT, ETC. MISHNA: He who sleeps under a bed in the booth has not fulfilled his duty (of sleeping there). Said R. Jehudah : We were in the habit of sleeping under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they never said anything to us. Said R. Simeon : It hap- pened that Tabbi, the slave of R. Gamaliel, used to sleep under a bed. But R. Gamaliel said to the elders : Do you see my slave Tabbi ? He is a scholar (Talmud Hakham), and knows that slaves are exempt from the duty of Succah. Therefore he sleeps under a bedstead. From this we infer that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his duty. GEMARA: Why? The bed is usually not ten spans high ? Samuel explained this, that the case is when the bed is high ten spans. (But if so,) what is the reason of R. Jehudah's decree? This is according to his theory elsewhere, that the Succah must be a permanent dwelling, and the bed is only a temporary dwell- ing, and a temporary dwelling cannot make ignored a permanent one. But did not R. Simeon hold the same theory, that a Succah must be a permanent dwelling (because his decree is that it must have four walls), and nevertheless he does not allow to sleep under the bed ? This is the point of their difference : according to R. Simeon a temporary dwelling makes ignored, and according to R. Jehudah it does not. ''It happened once that Tabbi the slave,'' etc. We have learned in a Boraitha : R. Simeon said : From R. Gamaliel's remarks we have learned two things : That slaves are free from the duty of a Succah, and that one who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled the duty of Succah. Let him say, " from R. GamaHel's decree," he comes to teach us by the way that R. A'ha bar Adda, according to others the same in the name of R. Hamnuna, quoting Rabh, said : Whence do we know that even a remark of a scholar must be studied ? Because it is written [Ps. i.] ** And the leaf does not wither," even a slight thing as a leaf is not valueless. TRACT SUCCAH. 27 MISHNA : If one supports his Succah with a bedstead, it is vahd. R. Jehudah said : A Succah that cannot stand by itself is invaUd. GEMARA : What is the reason of R. Jehudah's decree? R. Zera and R. Abba bar Mamel differed : One says : Because so it is not made a permanent dwelHng ; and one says : Because he sup- ports it with a thing subject to defilement. What is the differ- ence ? If one put iron spits and covered it, according to them who say because it is not permanent, the iron spits are permanent ; but according to those who say because he supports with a thing subject to defilement, the iron spits are subject to defilement, and are invalid. Said Abayi : They differ only if he supports the booth with the bedstead ; but if he has roofed the bed itself, all agree it is valid. Why so ? Because to them who say, because it is not permanent, it can be said the bed is permanent ; and to them who say because he supports with a thing subject to defile- ment, it can be said the roof is not subject to defilement. MISHNA: A Succah covered thinly, if there is more shadow than sun, is valid ; if the covering is close, like the roof of a house, though the stars are not visible through it, it is nevertheless valid. GEMARA: What is meant by thin covering? Said Rabh : Scanty covering (too much empty space between one stick and the other). And Samuel said : Irregular covering — one twig down, one twig up, that is. Rabh interpreted that the Mishna teaches only one case, a poor Succah, in which there is more shadow than sun, is valid ; and according to Samuel, the Mishna teaches two things : first, that a Succah with an irregular cover- ing is valid ; and secondly, that all Succahs where the shadow is more than the sunshine are valid. Said Abayi : The Mishna refers to a case where there is not three spans distance from one twig to the other ; but if there is, it is invalid. Rabha, however, said : Even if there were three spans between, provided the twig was not wide at the top a span, it is invalid ; but if it was, it is valid, because we say : Havit ramii^ and it is valid. ^' If there is more shadow than sun^ From this we may infer, that if they were equal, it is not valid ; but in the first chapter * This expression has the same meaning dJS, gud achith, explained in Erubin, p. 6, and means, if the twig was a span at the top, it is considered whether the top lies over the empty place. And Rashi explains this, that the twigs were not lying but standing upright, and therefore the top when wide a span is considered to be lying. 28 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the Mishna teaches, if the sunshine was more than the shadow it is invaUd, from which we may infer that if they were equal it is vahd? It presents no difficulty. If on the top the empty place