Sukkah 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, say:

the entire matter follows one rule, and this was the intention of the baraita in saying: “And it is not unfit”

until its beginning is like its remnants,

its initial bundle must be like its remnants, namely,

one.

But if he initially bundled two, and one subsequently fell away, it is fit for sprinkling.

Marimar expounded: These bundles of reeds of Sura [bundles of reeds sold by number, with the bundles made in a specified quantity in order to sell them in the marketplace],

bundles of reeds sold by number, with a fixed number of reeds in each bundle so that they could be sold in the marketplace,

may be used for the roofing of a sukkah,

and they are not disqualified like other bundles, which the Sages disqualified due to the decree concerning a storehouse.

Because

although they were bundled [tied in a bundle],

into a bundle,

it was merely for counting

at the time of sale

that they were bundled.

That is, they were tied only for the time of sale, so that the number of reeds in the bundle would be known; as soon as the buyer brought them home, he would untie the bundle. Therefore, there was no reason to decree that perhaps one would take such bundles in order to dry them and then decide to use them for sukkah roofing, since it is not customary to put them aside to dry while they are still bundled. The Sages decreed this only with regard to bundles of straw and wood mentioned in the Mishna, which are customarily left to dry while still bundled.

Rabbi Abba said: These shelters of willow branches,

a sort of round hut made from willow branches interwoven with one another, broad at the bottom and narrow at the top; all the branches are tied together at the top with a single knot, and they serve as hiding places for bird hunters.

Once their upper fastenings have been untied

the upper knot

of them

alone, even though their interweaving has not been undone,

they are fit

for roofing, and they are not disqualified as bundles.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But they are bound at the bottom!

They are still tied at the bottom, since they were woven together below by means of a cord, like a mat; why, then, are they fit for roofing?!

He said [in answer]

in reply:

Rav Pappa: He unties them.

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

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

explained the matter differently:

You can even say that he does not untie them;

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

any tie that was not made for transport,

which is not suitable for transporting the item by means of it—like this shelter after the upper knot has been untied, since if one transports it, it will come apart on its own—

is not considered a binding.

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said:

Those

vegetables [lettuce, endive, charchavina, and the like]

such as lettuce, endives, horseradish, eryngo, and the like,

about which the Sages said that

that

a person fulfills his obligation with them

of the mitzva of eating maror

on Pesaḥ bring tumah.

That is, if one roofed a sukkah with them, and there was a corpse on one side, they convey tumah to the vessels, as does a tent.

When a corpse and vessels are located beneath a single “tent,” the tent conveys the impurity of the corpse 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 above it did not become impure, because the tent forms a barrier against the impurity. This applies provided that the tent is made of a substance that is not susceptible to tumah.

These vegetables, since they are not considered human food and are eaten only for the mitzva of eating maror, on account of their bitterness, are not susceptible to tumah. Therefore, if they spread over a corpse as a tent, and there are vessels above them, these vegetables can form a barrier between the impurity of the corpse and the vessels above them.

But

nevertheless, the Sages decreed that

the

vegetables

do not form a barrier against tumah.

If one made a tent from them while they were moist, and there was a corpse in the tent with vessels resting on top of it, the Sages decreed that these leaves should not be considered a tent that forms a barrier against tumah; rather, the impurity breaks through and rises, rendering the vessels impure. The reason for this will be explained below.

And

likewise, these vegetables

disqualify

the sukkah

as a sukkah

by rabbinic law

because of airspace.

There is a halakha concerning a sukkah that if one roofs his sukkah with unfit roofing four handbreadths wide, the sukkah is unfit. But if he leaves an area entirely unroofed, even if it is only three handbreadths wide, his sukkah is unfit. These leaves, according to the essential law, since they are fit for human consumption and are susceptible to the tumah of food, are unfit for roofing and disqualify the sukkah by Torah law when they measure four handbreadths. The Sages decreed that this roofing should be treated like airspace, which disqualifies a sukkah at three handbreadths. The reason for this will be explained below.

What is the reason

that they are unfit for roofing and do not form a barrier against tumah, even when they are moist?

The Gemara explains: It is a rabbinic decree,

since

these vegetables are thin, and it is their nature

that when they dry out, they crack and fall.

When they dry, their leaves fall away; there is concern that if one is permitted to roof with them while they are moist, he will rely on them for roofing even after they dry, at which point the sunlight will be greater than the shade. Therefore, the Sages said that even before they dry, they are

considered as though they do not exist,

as though they were absent. For this reason they likewise decreed that they do not form a barrier against tumah while still moist, even though by Torah law they do form a barrier.

And Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said: “Handles of foods”—the stalks attached to them, such as the straw by which one grasps the ears of grain when harvesting them—convey tumah to the foods and become impure along with the foods. If impurity touches the “handle” of a food, the food becomes impure; and if impurity touches the food, the handle becomes impure like it.

But

one who harvests

grapes

to

press them in

a winepress,

to make wine from them,

has no handles.

The stem attached to the grapes is not considered a handle with regard to tumah, since the grape harvester does not need a handle and does not want one. A handle is included in the laws of tumah only when it is needed for a vessel or for food.

And Rav Menashya bar Gadda said that Rav Huna said:

One who harvests

grain

for roofing

a sukkah, and it contains stalks and the heads of ears of grain containing the kernels, which are food,

has no handles.

The stalks are not considered handles for the heads of the ears, since he does not want the stalks to remain attached to the heads of the ears, which are food. Food is unfit for roofing because it is susceptible to tumah, and therefore he would prefer that the straw not be attached to the ears at all. The roofing is fit only because the stalks are more numerous than the ears, so that the food is nullified within them by the principle of nullification in the majority.

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 the winepress has no handles,

as

he

does not want

them,

because he does not want their wine to be absorbed,

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

But

according to the one who says that one who harvests

for the winepress

has no handles,

he stated this only there;

but one who harvests

for roofing

has handles,

since

he wants

the heads of the ears

to be used for roofing, so that they will not scatter.

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

The Gemara now discusses:

Let us say:

Should we say that what

Rav Menashya bar Gadda

said,

that

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

among tannaim?

As it was taught: Branches of

fig trees,

with figs on them,

and likewise

vine branches

with

grapes on them,

and likewise

stalks with ears of grain on them,

and likewise

date-palm branches

with

dates on them,

the law of

all of them

with regard to roofing is as follows:

If

the

unfit material was more plentiful than the foods,

the sukkah is

fit.

This is because the food is nullified within the majority of the fit roofing. The unfit material includes even the measure of a handle.

But if not,

it is

unfit,

since the foods are substances susceptible to tumah and are unfit for roofing.

Others say:

It is not sufficient that the stalks fit for roofing be more numerous than the ears, which are food. Rather, the roofing is not fit

until the stalks are more numerous

also

than the handles.

That is, they must be more numerous than the measure of a handle of stalks,

and

also

than the food,

since the law of handles is the same as the law of the foods.

Is it not with regard to this that they disagree?

For one master,

Others [who are Rabbi Meir]

holds

that all these species

have

the status of

handles,

and consequently the handles too are unfit for roofing, since they too are susceptible to tumah; they too must be nullified within the unfit material that is more numerous than they are.

And the other master,

the first tanna,

holds: They have no handles,

and their entire measure is like other unfit material, and all of it is fit for roofing.

The Gemara explains:

According to Rabbi Abba,

who holds that only one who harvests for the winepress has no handles, whereas one who harvests for roofing has handles,

it is certainly a dispute among tannaim.

For his words are consistent only with the opinion of Others, whereas the first tanna certainly disputes him, and according to the first tanna, 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 it is possible to say that even Others agree with him.

Rav Menashya can answer 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 this baraita

with what are we dealing? For example, he cut them for food

because he needed the handles to remain attached to the food,

and

afterward

he reconsidered and designated them for roofing.

Therefore, Others hold that his mere intention is not sufficient to remove their status as handles; they remain susceptible to tumah.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If

the case concerns one who

cut them for food, what is the rationale of the Rabbis,

namely, the first tanna, who holds that the handles do not need to be nullified?

And if you would say

that the rationale of the first tanna is that although initially the law of handles applied to them, nevertheless

the Rabbis hold: Once he reconsidered them

now

for roofing,

and he no longer needs the food or the handles to remain attached to it,

his initial intention is nullified,

and the law of handles is removed from them.

It is impossible to explain it this way!

For

who nullified

the

first thought

for eating, which rendered it subject to the laws of susceptibility to ritual impurity,

by this,

through his thought to use them as roofing?