Sukkah 13b — the Talmud in English

Rather, say:

Everything is one law, and this was the intention of the beraita to say: And it is not invalid

until its beginning is like its remainder,

its beginning when bound being like its remainder, namely

one.

But if he initially bound two, and one fell afterward, it is fit for sprinkling.

Marimar expounded: These bundles of reeds of Sura

[bundles of reeds sold by number, the bundles being made in a specific number in order to sell them in the marketplace],

may be used for roofing,

and they are not to be disqualified like other bundles that the Sages disqualified because of the decree concerning a storehouse.

Because

although they are bound

[he tied them in a bundle],

it is only for counting

at the time of the sale

that he bound them.

That is, they were bound only for the time of the sale, to know the number of reeds in the bundle, and as soon as he brings it to his house, he will undo its binding. Therefore, there is no reason to decree lest he take some of those bundles in order to dry them and then decide upon them for roofing, since it is not customary to put them away to dry while they are still bound. They decreed only concerning bundles of straw and wood mentioned in the Mishna, since it is customary to leave them to dry while they are still bound.

Rabbi Abba said: These willow shelters,

like a round hut made from willow branches woven into one another, wide below and narrow above, and above all the branches are tied in one knot, and they serve as hiding places for bird hunters.

Once their fastening knots were undone,

the upper knot

of them

alone, even though he did not undo their weaving,

they are fit

for roofing, and they are not disqualified as bundles.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But they are bound below!

They are still bound below, for they had woven them below by means of a cord, like a mat; why, then, are they fit for roofing?!

He said

[answering]

Rav Pappa: He undid them.

Indeed, it is speaking of a case in which he also undid the lower knot joining the two ends of the weaving. And the novelty is that although the cord still passes among the reeds and joins them to one another, this is not a bundle, since it is not tied.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

explained differently:

You may even say that he did not undo them;

they are fit even if he did not undo the lower knot. The reason is that

any binding that is not made in order to carry it,

that is, by means of which it is not suitable to carry the object, as with this shelter after the upper knot has been undone, for if he carries it, it will come apart by itself,

is not called a binding.

Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel:

Those

vegetables

[lettuce, endives, horseradish, carlina, and the like]

concerning which the Sages said

that

a person fulfills his obligation with them

of the mitzva of eating bitter herbs

on Passover, convey impurity.

That is, if he roofed with them and there was a corpse on one side, they convey impurity to the vessels, according to the law of a tent.

When a corpse and vessels are beneath one “tent,” the tent conveys corpse impurity to the vessels beside the corpse.

If a corpse was lying in a tent, and vessels were placed on top of the tent, the vessels upon it did not become impure, since the tent interposes before the impurity. This is provided that the tent is made of something that does not contract impurity.

And these vegetables, since they are not considered human food and are eaten only for the mitzva of eating bitter herbs on account of their bitterness, do not contract impurity. Therefore, if they form a tent over a corpse, and there are vessels above them, these vegetables can interpose between the corpse impurity and the vessels above them.

And

nevertheless, the Sages decreed that

the

these vegetables

do not interpose before impurity.

For if he made a tent from them while they were moist, and there was a corpse in the tent, with vessels placed on top of the tent, the Sages decreed that these leaves not be considered a tent to interpose before impurity; rather, the impurity breaks through and rises and renders the vessels impure. The reason for this will be explained below.

And

likewise, these vegetables

disqualify

the vegetables

in a sukka

by rabbinic law

because of air.

There is a law concerning a sukka: If one roofed his sukka with invalid roofing four handbreadths wide, the sukka is invalid. But if he left an area that he did not roof at all, even if its width was only three handbreadths, his sukka is invalid. And these leaves, in strict law, since they are fit for human food and contract food impurity, are unfit for roofing and disqualify the sukka by Torah law at four handbreadths. The Sages decreed that this roofing be treated like air, which disqualifies the sukka at three handbreadths. The reason for this will be explained below.

What is the reason

that they are unfit for roofing and do not interpose before impurity even when they are moist?

The Gemara explains: It is a decree of the Sages,

since

these vegetables are thin, and it is their nature

that when they dry, they break and fall;

when they dry, their leaves fall from them. There is concern lest, if he is permitted to roof with them while they are moist, he will rely upon them for roofing even when they dry, and the sun will be greater than the shade. Therefore, the Sages said that even before they dry they are

considered as though they are absent,

as though they do not exist. And for this reason they likewise decreed that they not interpose before impurity while they are moist, even though by Torah law they do interpose.

And Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: “Handles of foods,” which are the stalks attached to them, such as the straw by which one holds the ears when taking the sheaves, convey impurity to the foods and become impure together with the foods. If impurity touched the “handle” of the food, the food became impure; and if the impurity touched the food, the handle is like it.

But

one who harvests

grapes

to

press them in a

winepress,

to make wine from them,

has no handles.

For the wood attached to the grapes is not considered a handle with regard to impurity, since the harvester does not need a handle and does not want it. A handle was included as susceptible to impurity only when it is a handle needed for a vessel or for food.

And Rav Menashya bar Gadda said in the name of Rav Huna:

One who harvests

grain

for roofing

of a sukka, and there are straws and heads of ears in it, containing the grains, which are food,

has no handles.

The straws are not considered handles for the heads of the ears, since he does not want the straws to remain attached to the heads of the ears, because they are food, and food is unfit for roofing since it contracts impurity. Therefore, he would prefer that the straw not be attached to the ears at all. The roofing is fit only because the straws are more numerous than the ears, so that the food is nullified among them by the law of nullification through the majority.

And the Gemara explains:

According to the one who says that one who harvests

for roofing has no handles,

all the more so one who harvests

grapes for a winepress has no handles,

for

he

does not want

them,

so that his wine should not be absorbed,

so that the tendrils should not absorb the wine after the grapes have been pressed.

But

according to the one who says that one who harvests

for a winepress

has no handles,

he said this specifically there,

but one who harvests

for roofing

has handles,

since

he wants

the heads of the ears

so that he may roof with them, so that they not scatter.

That is, he wants the heads of the ears, which are food, to remain attached to them because they add weight to the straws, and if he separates the heads of the ears from the straws, perhaps the straws will scatter and be lost.

And now the Gemara discusses:

Let us say:

Do we have to say that what

that

said

Rav Menashya bar Gadda,

that one who harvests for roofing has no handles, is a dispute among

tannaim?

For it was taught: Fig

branches,

with figs on them,

and likewise

grape clusters

branches

with grapes on them,

and likewise

straws with ears on them,

and likewise

palm branches

branches

with dates on them,

the law of

all of them

with regard to roofing is:

If

there was

more refuse than food,

the sukka is

fit.

For the food is nullified by the majority of the fit roofing. And included in the refuse is also the measure of a handle.

But if not,

it is

invalid,

for the foods are something that contracts impurity and are unfit for roofing.

Others say:

It is not sufficient that the straws fit for roofing be more numerous than the ears, which are food; rather, the roofing is not fit

until the straws are more numerous

also

than the handles.

That is, also more numerous than the measure of a handle of straws,

and

also

than the food,

since the law of handles is like the law of foods.

Is it not that they disagree concerning this?

For one,

Others [who are Rabbi Meir]

holds

that all those species

have

the importance of

handles,

and it follows that even the handles are unfit for roofing, since they too contract impurity, and they too must be nullified by refuse that is more numerous than them.

And the other,

the first tanna,

holds: They have no handles,

and it is like the rest of the refuse, and all of it is fit for roofing.

And the Gemara explains:

According to Rabbi Abba,

who holds that only one who harvests for a winepress has no handles, but one who harvests for roofing has handles,

it is certainly a dispute among tannaim.

For his words can be upheld only according to Others, whereas the first tanna certainly disagrees with his words, and according to his view, one who harvests for roofing has no handles. But

according to Rav Menashya bar Gadda,

who holds that one who harvests for roofing has no handles,

can one say that it is a dispute among tannaim?

Or perhaps there is room to say that even Others agree with his words.

Rav Menashya can say to you: Everyone holds that one who harvests for roofing has no handles.

And

as for what Others said, that even the handles are unfit for roofing,

here,

in the beraita,

with what are we dealing? For example, when he cuts them for eating.

He has a need for the handles to remain attached to the food,

and

afterward

he reconsiders and designates them for roofing.

Therefore, Others hold that his intention alone is not sufficient to remove from them the status of handles, and they still contract impurity.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If

it is speaking of

cutting them for eating, what is the reason of the Rabbis,

namely, the first tanna, who holds that the handles do not require nullification?

And if you say

that the reason of the first tanna is that although at first they had the law of handles, nevertheless

the Rabbis hold: Once he reconsiders concerning them

now

for roofing,

and he no longer needs the food or the attachment of the handles to it,

his original intention is nullified

and the law of handles is removed from them.

It is impossible to interpret it thus!

For behold,

and who annulled it for him

the

thought

first, for eating, which lowered them to the status of receiving impurity,

by this,

through his thought to use them for roofing?