Sukkah 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises an objection:

If

it is as you say, that you derive these laws from the offering of the festival peace-offering, then you should derive:

Just as the festival peace-offering consists of living creatures, so too the roofing of the sukka must specifically consist of living creatures,

and any sukka not made from living creatures should be disqualified. Since it is clear from the Mishna that it is not necessary to make the walls of the sukka specifically from living creatures, certainly the laws of sukka are not derived from the festival peace-offering.

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan

gave another derivation:

The verse says: “You shall make for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days,

when you gather in from your threshing floor and from your winepress,

when you gather in from your threshing floor and from your winepress.”

The Sages expounded:

The verse speaks of the refuse of the threshing floor,

which is the straw separated from the stalks by threshing,

and

the refuse

of the winepress,

namely, branches and empty grape clusters;

the verse speaks

of roofing with them. They grow from the ground and are not susceptible to ritual impurity, because they are not “food.”

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from where do you know that the verse speaks of the refuse of the threshing floor and winepress,

rather, say that it refers to the threshing floor itself

with the straw and stalks,

and to the winepress itself

with the grape clusters and grapes, which are food, and that the Torah stated that one should roof with them?!

Rabbi Zeira said:

You are compelled to conclude that the verse does not refer to the threshing floor and winepress themselves, but rather to the refuse of the threshing floor and winepress. For

“winepress” is written here,

which indicates that the wine has already been produced,

and

therefore

it is impossible to roof with it

with wine. Rather, the Torah certainly stated that one should roof with the refuse remaining after the wine has been produced.

Rabbi Yirmeya challenges this:

Is it really impossible to roof with wine?

Rather, say that

“winepress” refers to

congealed wine,

frozen,

that comes from Senir

[a place],

which resembles round cakes of dried figs

[dried figs], and it is possible to roof with it?!

Rabbi Zeira said: We had this matter in our possession,

until now we had thought that the reason for our Mishna was derived from the verse just mentioned,

but Rabbi Yirmeya came and struck it with an ax

[cut it down with an ax], offering a decisive answer.

Rav Ashi said:

These laws can still be derived from the very meaning of this verse. For the verse says, “when you gather in

from your threshing floor,”

indicating that you gather it and take it from the threshing floor. That is, the threshing floor is the primary object, and from it you gather the refuse,

not the threshing floor itself.

Likewise, “when you gather in

from your winepress”

means that you gather it from the winepress,

not the winepress itself.

Rav Hisda said:

These laws—that roofing is valid only with something that grows from the ground and is not susceptible to ritual impurity—can be learned

from here:

As it is stated [Nehemiah 8]: “On the second day, the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the people gathered together, and they found written in the Torah that the Lord had commanded through Moses that the Children of Israel dwell in sukkot. And they spread the word … saying,

‘Go out to the mountain and bring olive branches, branches of oil trees, branches of myrtles, branches of palms, and branches of leafy trees,

to make sukkot from them.’”

The verse did not mention all these species without purpose. Rather, it comes to teach us that only species of this kind—those that grow from the ground and are not susceptible to ritual impurity—are valid for roofing.

The Gemara explains the words of the verse: Why did it mention both branches of myrtle and branches of leafy trees?

Is this not myrtle, and is this not a leafy tree?

They are one and the same, since the myrtle is called “a leafy tree” in the language of Scripture because its leaves are arranged one upon another, like braided cords and chains?!

Rav Hisda said:

The verse spoke of two mitzvot:

the wild myrtle,

whose foliage is not arranged in sets of three leaves,

for

the roofing of the

sukka

[since it is disqualified for taking the lulav],

and the leafy tree,

that is, a three-leaved myrtle,

for

the mitzva of

lulav.

Mishna:

The Mishna now presents a case in which the sukka is disqualified even when it was roofed with valid roofing:

Bundles of straw, bundles of wood,

bundles of beams tied together,

and bundles of branches—

thin branches, which are also among the species valid for roofing, since they are not susceptible to ritual impurity and grow from the ground—

one may not roof with them,

because they are tied together as a bundle.

The reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

And all of them,

all those bundles mentioned,

that

were placed on the sukka while still tied, and afterward

he untied them

on it, they are

valid

for roofing.

And all of them,

all the disqualified materials that we learned with regard to roofing—that is, something susceptible to ritual impurity, something that does not grow from the ground, or roofing tied in a bundle—are

valid for the walls.

For these disqualifications were stated regarding “sukkot,” and a sukka mentioned in the Torah refers only to the roofing, not to the walls, which is why it is called a sukka on account of the roofing.

Gemara:

Rabbi Ya’akov said: I heard two matters from Rabbi Yohanan,

that is, I heard from him the reason for two disqualifications of roofing taught in the mishnayot in this chapter:

One

reason was the reason for

this

in our Mishna: that one may not roof with bundles of straw, bundles of wood, or bundles of branches.

And the other

reason was for what we learned in the following Mishna:

One who hollows out a grainstack to make a sukka for himself

that is, he removes the sheaves from the grainstack near the ground and makes an empty space in it large enough for a valid sukka, so that the roofing comes into existence on its own—

it is not a sukka.

And the reason for

one

of these mishnayot he explained to me was that by Torah law the sukka is valid, and its entire disqualification is only rabbinic,

because of the decree concerning a storehouse.

That is, if we were to validate this sukka, a person might never make a sukka; instead, he would go and eat and sleep in his grain storehouse, which was never made for shade. Such a structure is not a sukka at all, but merely an ordinary house. Therefore, the Sages decreed and disqualified this sukka, even though he made it for shade, lest he also sleep in a place that was not made for shade.

And one—

he explained to me that the reason for the second Mishna is that it is disqualified by Torah law,

because of “you shall make it,

and not from that which is already made.”

And I do not know

which

of them

is the Mishna in which the disqualification is rabbinic,

because of

the decree concerning

a storehouse, and

which

of them

he explained as being disqualified by Torah law,

because of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made.”

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us examine the matter,

let us consider the matter and determine in which Mishna the disqualification is by Torah law and in which it is rabbinic;

For

there is

the following statement of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Why did they say that one may not roof with bundles of straw, bundles of wood, or bundles of branches?

Because

sometimes a person comes from the field

during the summer

in the evening, with his bundle on his shoulder, and he lifts it up and places it on his sukka

that he made for his animals for the entire year,

in order to dry it

and store it for fuel during the cold winter, and he did not place it there for the sake of shade,

and

when the festival arrived,

he reconsidered its status,

changing the purpose of the bundle so that it would be

for roofing.

And

this sukka is disqualified, since

the Torah said, “you shall make it,”

and the Sages expounded: “You shall make it,”

and not from that which is already made

in a state of disqualification. Since he placed it there not for the sake of shade, but in order to dry it, this is not a sukka. Therefore, now that he changes the purpose of the bundle, the roofing is found to have been made on its own. The Sages therefore decreed that one may not roof a sukka with bundles, even if he places them on the sukka for the sake of the festival sukka, lest he not roof his sukka at all and rely on those bundles that he placed there to dry. These bundles are disqualified for roofing by Torah law, because of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made.”

And if so, we have learned:

From this

—the Mishna that disqualifies roofing with bundles—

because of the decree concerning a storehouse,

it necessarily follows that

this

—the second Mishna, concerning one who hollows out a grainstack—the reason for the disqualification is

because of “you shall make it, and not

from that which is already made.”

And Rabbi Ya’akov,

who was uncertain about this, even though the matter is explicit in Rabbi Yohanan’s own words, was uncertain because

he had not heard this statement of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba.

He said

[in astonishment]

Rav Ashi

regarding Rabbi Yohanan’s words, who explained that in our Mishna the sukka is disqualified by rabbinic law, whereas in the Mishna of one who hollows out a grainstack, the sukka is disqualified by Torah law:

But

is it really so

that the Mishna of

bundles of straw and bundles of wood

can be disqualified only

because of the decree concerning a storehouse,

whereas

because of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made,” it cannot?

After all, our Mishna too can be explained as referring to those very bundles that he placed there to dry and later reconsidered, changing their purpose to roofing. Therefore, the sukka should be disqualified by Torah law, because of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made”?!

And

likewise, the Mishna of

one who hollows out a grainstack, because

of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made,”

is it

possible

to disqualify it, whereas

because of the decree concerning a storehouse, it is not?

After all, this Mishna too can be explained as referring to a case in which he dismantled the grainstack upward, shook the upper sheaves, and then replaced them for the sake of the sukka. Therefore, it should not be disqualified because of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made”; rather, the reason for the disqualification is a decree, lest he fail to shake them, in which case the sukka would be disqualified by Torah law. This is similar to what was explained above regarding bundles of straw and bundles of wood.

The Gemara answers:

And Rabbi Yohanan can say to you:

From the wording of the mishnayot one can learn that in our Mishna the reason is rabbinic—because of the decree concerning a storehouse—whereas in the Mishna of one who hollows out a grainstack, the disqualification is by Torah law—because of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made.”