Sukkah 14a — the Talmud in English

And we learned

Keilim 25:9]:

All vessels

that require processing and completion of labor, and therefore are not considered a vessel with regard to receiving the ritual impurity of vessels as long as their labor has not been completed,

go down to

receiving

impurity through thought.

That is, a thought that one thinks regarding the vessel and designates it for any purpose determines the nature of the vessel. Therefore, as soon as the labor of the vessel has been completed for the purpose for which he designated it, it is fit to receive impurity.

For example, leather that he processed and decided to designate for a table: it is a vessel and receives impurity, since already now it is fit to serve as a table. But if he designated it for straps for sandals, for which the leather requires additional labor of cutting and fitting, it does not receive impurity until it is fit to serve as a strap for a sandal.

And they do not rise from their impurity,

that is, if he initially designated it for a particular purpose that requires no additional labor, and it was fit to receive impurity, and he came to change its designation to another purpose, which requires additional labor to make it fit for that purpose, the vessel does not rise from the status of receiving impurity through thought, and this is so even before it became impure,

except through a change in action.

For example, he began to cut it slightly, which is the beginning of the labor for the new purpose for which he has now designated it; through that action the previous designation is nullified. And the leather does not receive impurity until its labor for that purpose is completed.

For this is the general principle of the matter:

action removes

even

immediately from action.

That is, even if from the outset he performed an action on it proving that the vessel was designated for the first purpose—for example, he designated leather for a table and trimmed it around its edges to beautify it—he can remove it from the status of receiving impurity through an action proving that the designation of the vessel has changed.

And

all the more so, action removes

immediately from thought.

But

thought does not remove either immediately from action or immediately from thought.

And since this is so, why should thought alone to designate them for roofing be effective to remove the handles from the status of receiving impurity that descended upon them when he designated them for eating?!

And if you would say: These words

that we say that thought does not remove from thought apply specifically to

important vessels,

they are important, and since the name “vessel” was bestowed upon them through his first thought, their name does not depart from them through thought, but only through a change in action,

but handles, which are for the purpose of eating,

and are not so important, say

through thought it is made,

the status of receiving impurity descended upon them,

and through thought it rises

it departs from them.

The Gemara rejects this:

And we learned:

There is an explicit Mishna in tractate Uktzin that the handles of foods do not depart from receiving impurity through thought alone, for we learned [Uktzin 1:5]:

All handles of foods,

such as sheaves of grain

that they crushed [

below the amoraim disagree about the meaning of this expression]

on the threshing floor,

those handles [which are straw the width of a handle near the heads of the ears of grain]

are pure,

that is, the law of handles with regard to receiving impurity is nullified for them,

and Rabbi Yosei deems them impure.

And the Gemara explains:

Granted, according to the one who says, “that they crushed,”

this means

he untied their bindings

of the sheaves, and through this he revealed his view that he does not need the handle, since the principal purpose of the handle is so that it will be possible to bind the ears of grain,

it is well.

For one can say that handles are not as important as foods, and therefore thought alone removes them from the status of handles of foods and renders them pure even without an action, since it is apparent from this Mishna that through permitting the binding—which is merely a disclosure of דעת and thought—the previous thought is nullified.

But according to the one who says, what is “that they crushed”? They crushed them literally,

that he threshed the handles with the feet of an animal or with a utensil, which is an important action,

what can be said?

It is apparent that even handles do not depart from the status of receiving impurity through thought alone, but an actual action is required. And likewise, when he cut them for eating and they descended to the status of receiving impurity, and afterward he reconsidered regarding them for roofing, they did not depart from the status of receiving impurity through thought alone.

And again it is difficult: what is the reason of the First Tanna, who holds that the fig branches attached to figs are fit for roofing and do not have the law of handles, despite the fact that he cut them for eating?

The Gemara answers:

Here too,

in the earlier beraita concerning fig branches, it is speaking of a case

where they literally crushed

the handles through an action, and he did not merely reconsider regarding them for roofing; therefore the handles do not receive impurity, and it is not necessary for the straw to exceed the handles.

And the Gemara asks:

If so, what is the reason of the Others,

who hold that the handles of figs are unfit for roofing, and it is necessary for the straw to exceed the handles as well? The handles do not receive impurity since he crushed them, and a change in action certainly removes from thought?!

The Gemara answers:

They say [

they hold]

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

For we learned [

there]:

Rabbi Yosei deems

the handles impure even though he crushed them.

But the Gemara asks:

What is this?

What is the meaning of this answer?

Granted, there

with regard to the handles of foods that he crushed,

the reason of Rabbi Yosei

who deems the handles impure even though he crushed them is because

they are fit for what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says.

That is, there is a use for the handles even after he crushed them, and it is convenient for him that they remain attached to the food; when he crushed them, he did not intend to nullify them and detach them from the food, but to soften them. And so Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Since they are fit

the ears of grain through the handles

to turn them

from place to place

with a pitchfork,

and without the handles it is not convenient to turn the ears of grain, since they are small and thin and fall between the teeth of the pitchfork; for this reason the name of handles was not nullified from them, and they are fit to receive impurity.

But here,

when he needs them only for roofing,

for what are they fit?

For what are the handles fit after he crushed them? And since this is so, the crushing constitutes a complete nullification of the handles and removes them from their impurity.

And the Gemara answers: The reason of the Others, who did not distinguish between the handles of foods and one who cuts for roofing, is that even when he reconsidered regarding them for roofing,

they are fit

the handles for use

when he dismantles it, to grasp them by their straw.

When he dismantles his sukka, he will grasp them by their straw and remove the heads of the ears of grain together with the handles. And since they hold in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, that even after he crushed them they retain the name of handles, whenever the handles are still useful for some purpose, therefore even when one cuts for roofing the status of handles was not removed from them.

The substance itself: All handles of foods that he crushed on the threshing floor are pure. And Rabbi Yosei deems them impure.

What is “that they crushed”?

Rabbi Yohanan said: They crushed them literally,

Rabbi Elazar says: He untied their bindings.

And the Gemara explains:

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who says “that they crushed”

this means

he untied their bindings, this is

the reason

that Rabbi Yosei deems them impure,

since loosening their bindings is not sufficiently important an action to nullify the status of handles from them.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says “that they crushed them literally,”

that he threshed them with the feet of an animal,

why does Rabbi Yosei deem them impure?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Since they are fit

the ears of grain

to turn them

through the handles

with a pitchfork,

a pitchfork.

And in passing, since he said “since they are fit to turn them with a pitchfork,” the Gemara also brought this statement:

Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous compared to a pitchfork?

As we find [Genesis 25]: “And Isaac entreated the Lord opposite his wife, because she was barren,” “and He was entreated by him.”

In order

to tell you: Just as this pitchfork turns the grain on the threshing floor from place to place, so the prayers of the righteous turn the דעת of the Holy One, blessed is He, from the attribute of harshness to the attribute of mercy.

Mishna:

In the previous mishnayot it was explained which species are unfit for roofing by Torah law. Now the Mishna deals with species that are fit for roofing and are disqualified only because of their form, for the reason that will be explained below:

They may roof with boards,

[in the Gemara it will be explained what is the width of the boards about which the Mishna is speaking],

the words of Rabbi Judah.

And Rabbi Meir prohibits.

The Gemara will explain the reason for their dispute.

If he placed upon it

on the roof of the sukka at its side, near one of the walls,

a board that is four handbreadths wide

with which one does not roof, [as will be explained below in the Gemara], and the end of the board ends within four cubits of the wall, it is

fit.

And although this board is unfit for roofing, it does not interrupt between the wall adjacent to it and the area of the sukka, since invalid roofing disqualifies from the side only with four cubits; but with less than this measure we say “a crooked wall.” That is, the invalid roofing is also considered part of the wall, as though the wall had bent and reached the valid roofing.

Provided that he does not sleep beneath it

under the board, for it is invalid roofing.

Gemara:

Rav said

to explain the dispute of the tannaim in our Mishna:

The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah is

with boards that have

a width of

four

handbreadths, which is the width with which most roofs of houses are made.

For Rabbi Meir

prohibits roofing with them because

he holds the decree of a ceiling,

for if we deem these boards fit for roofing, he will say: Why should I trouble myself to roof with these boards? The ceiling of my house is also made of those same boards, and I can sit beneath it. And if he does so, it is found that he nullifies the mitzva of sukka, for his house throughout the year is unfit for dwelling in a sukka, and as the Sages expounded: “Sukka,” the Merciful One said, and not his house throughout the year.

And Rabbi Judah does not hold the decree of a ceiling,

and he was not concerned lest, if we permit him to roof with these boards, he come to sit beneath the ceiling of his house.

But with boards that do not have

a width of

four

handbreadths,

according to everyone it is fit,

since most roofs of houses are not made of boards so narrow, and there is no concern lest he come to sit beneath the ceiling of his house.

And Shmuel said: With those that do not have

a width of

four

handbreadths,

there is a dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah, and it is with regard to these that Rabbi Judah permitted, since most roofs of houses are not made from them. But Rabbi Meir is stringent and prohibits even with these, since a minority of people make the roofs of their houses from them, and there is still concern lest he err and sit beneath the ceiling of his house throughout the year.

But

if

they have

a width of

four

handbreadths, since most roofs of houses are made from them,

according to everyone

this sukka is

unfit.

And the Gemara challenges Shmuel, who holds that their dispute is with regard to boards

that do not have four,

and it follows that Rabbi Meir is stringent even with extremely thin boards:

And

is it so that

even

with broad boards

less than three

handbreadths Rabbi Meir prohibited? But

they are merely reeds,

and if they are unfit for roofing, we find no valid roofing at all?!

Rav Pappa said: This is what

Shmuel said:

If they have

a width of

four

handbreadths,

according to everyone it is unfit,

but if their width was

less than three

handbreadths,

according to everyone it is fit. What is the reason? They are merely reeds.

When they disagree

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah, it is

from

a width of

three

handbreadths

until

a width of

four

handbreadths. And this is the explanation of their dispute:

One master,

Rabbi Judah,

holds: Since they do not have

the boards, in their width,

the measure of an area

[a domain], which is four handbreadths, as we find with regard to domains on Shabbat, therefore

we do not decree

to disqualify them for roofing because of the decree of a ceiling, since they are not important enough to make a ceiling from them.

And the other master,

Rabbi Meir,

holds: Since they have departed from the status of lavud,

for if they were removed from their place, we would not regard the air of their place as nonexistent, as though the valid roofing were adjacent to one another by the law of “lavud,” since this law was stated only up to three handbreadths. Therefore, the board that covers that air is important and resembles a ceiling, and therefore

we decree

that one may not roof with them, lest he err and sit beneath the beams of his house.

We learned

in the conclusion of our Mishna [and the Gemara has now assumed that this halakha is according to everyone]:

he placed upon it

on the roof of the sukka, at its side, adjacent to the wall,

a board four handbreadths wide,

it is

valid, provided that he does not sleep beneath it

of the board.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Granted, according to Shmuel, who says that when they do not have four

handbreadths it is

the dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda,

but when they have four

handbreadths,

according to everyone it is invalid

the sukka beneath it,

for that reason he should not sleep beneath it,

since this board has four handbreadths.

But according to Rav, who says that when they have four is the dispute,

and according to Rabbi Yehuda even boards four handbreadths wide are valid for roofing,

but when they do not have four, according to everyone it is valid,

if so,

according to Rabbi Yehuda

it should be difficult:

why should he not sleep beneath it?

For it is valid roofing, even though it is four handbreadths wide?!

The Gemara answers:

Do you think

that this halakha

is according to everyone,

and even Rabbi Yehuda agrees to it?!

It is not so, rather

the conclusion, we arrive at Rabbi Meir

alone, who invalidates a board that is four handbreadths wide, and therefore he should not sleep beneath it.

Ta shma

from that which we learned there: he placed atop his sukka

two sheets,

which each one by itself does not have the measure that invalidates the sukka by the law of invalid roofing, and these sheets, since they are fit to receive the ritual impurity of garments, are invalid for roofing with them; they

combine,

if they were adjacent to one another, to the measure of four handbreadths that invalidate the sukka in its middle [but at the side it is not invalid until four cubits, since they are like a "crooked wall," as explained above].