Sukkah 12b — the Talmud in English

For after all

here

in our Mishna

which teaches: “One does not roof with them,”

and it does not teach, “It is not a sukka,” it follows,

that it is only ab initio ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location of the amud")

that one does not roof

with those bundles, and this is rabbinic,

because of the decree concerning a storehouse,

and it follows,

but by Torah law, it is fit.

But

there,

in the Mishna concerning one who hollows out a haystack,

which teaches, “It is not a sukka,”

it follows that it is invalid

even after the fact,

and therefore it appears that

by Torah law as well it is not a sukka,

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

But if, after hollowing out the haystack, he again moved the roofing for the sake of a sukka, the sukka is valid even rabbinically, and there is no concern that he may do so without moving it. For when he moved the roofing, he demonstrated that he knows that the roofing of the sukka must be made in a valid manner, and there is no concern that he will come to sit beneath the roof of his house. Only in the Mishna concerning bundles of wood, where we do not know whether he knows that the sukka must be roofed for the sake of shade, is there concern that he may place bundles of wood in order to dry them, and afterward change their designation to roofing without moving them.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Arrows in their time were made of two parts: the arrow itself was made of metal, but its handle was made of wood. There were two types of handles. One projected at its end, and it entered into a receptacle in the arrow itself; this handle was called “male”—for it had no receptacle. The second type was a handle that had a receptacle, and the arrow was inserted into it; this handle was called “female.”

If one roofed with male arrow-handles [

arrow-handles into which the arrows had not yet been placed]

male ones,

which have no receptacle and are only “plain wooden vessels” [wooden vessels without a receptacle], which are not susceptible to impurity, the sukka

is valid.

But if he roofed

with

handles

female ones,

which have a receptacle and are susceptible to impurity, [as is the law of a wooden vessel that has an interior], the sukka

is invalid.

Since one does not roof with something susceptible to impurity, as explained in the Mishna.

And the Gemara asks: Did Rav come to teach us that if one roofed with

male arrows, it is valid?

Since they are not susceptible to impurity,

it is obvious

that they are fit for roofing, and why did Rav need to teach us this law?!

And the Gemara answers:

Lest you say: Let us decree

that one may not roof with

male arrows, lest

he come to roof with

female ones, it teaches us

that there is no concern for this, and the sukka is valid.

The Gemara further asks: Did Rav come to teach us that if one roofed

with female ones, it is invalid?

For this too

is obvious,

is it not?!

And the Gemara answers:

Lest you say:

Only a receptacle made for frequent filling and emptying is susceptible to impurity, but

a receptacle made to be filled

with a permanent filling, such as arrow-handles, where he does not intend ever to empty them,

is not called “

a

receptacle,”

and they are not in the category of vessels that have a receptacle and are susceptible to impurity.

It teaches us

that even a receptacle that is not intended for frequent filling and emptying has the status of a receptacle for purposes of susceptibility to impurity.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The method of processing flax is as follows: First it is soaked in water, and afterward it is beaten in a mortar in order to soften it so that it will be possible to comb it. Afterward it is combed with a comb to smooth and clean it, and it is whitened in an oven. [This is what is called the unatz of flax, and at this stage it is already fit to become susceptible to the impurity of garment afflictions, and it is invalid for roofing. For we learned: Something that is susceptible to impurity, one does not roof with it].

If one roofed with flax fibers

combed with a comb and whitened in an oven and became fit to become susceptible to the impurity of afflictions, the sukka

is invalid.

But if he roofed

with flax stalks,

when it is still in its stalks, according to the manner of its growth, and it has not yet been soaked in water or beaten in a mortar, the sukka

is valid,

since the flax is still not fit to become susceptible to impurity.

And

if he roofed with

the hoshanei of flax,

Rabbi Yohanan said concerning it,

“I do not know what is

the status of the sukka.”

And Rabba bar bar Hana added to his report:

“And as for the hoshanei themselves, I do not know.”

That is, I do not know what was called “hoshanei” in Rabbi Yohanan’s usage, and I do not know how to explain his doubt.

For

either way,

that is, his words must be explained in two ways:

If

they are flax fibers that were soaked in water, and he even

thoroughly

beat them in a mortar,

but did not comb them

with a comb,

Rabbi Yohanan called them “hoshanei,”

and he was in doubt concerning their status,

but two—

flax fibers that were soaked in water

and

still had not

been thoroughly

beaten in a mortar—Rabbi Yohanan did not call them “hoshanei,” but

called them “hutzanei,”

and they are fit for roofing.

Or perhaps: two but not thoroughly beaten,

flax fibers that were soaked in water and had not been beaten in a mortar,

also

even they

Rabbi Yohanan called “hoshanei,”

and they too are included in his doubt, and Rabbi Yohanan declared fit for roofing only flax fibers that had not yet been soaked in water.

Rav Yehuda said: These shushei and shuvtzarei, [

they are types of vegetables],

one may roof with them,

since they are not human food and are not susceptible to impurity.

Abaye said:

They must be distinguished from one another:

with shushei one may roof,

but

with shuvtzarei one may not roof.

And

for what reason

does one not roof with them, even though they are not susceptible to impurity?