Sukkah 16a — the Talmud in English

A bed renders impure

[receives impurity] only when it is

a bundle,

when it is assembled and entirely joined together, with all its parts.

And

likewise, if it became impure when it was joined together, it is not

purified

by immersion in a ritual bath unless it is

a bundle.

But if it had been disassembled, immersion is of no avail for its disassembled parts; rather, he first repairs it and afterward immerses it,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say:

a bed

renders impure

[receives impurity] also when it is disassembled into

parts,

into separate pieces,

and

likewise it

is purified

even when it is disassembled into

parts.

Provided that the designation of a utensil still applies to those disassembled parts.

And the Gemara explains:

what are they

—those parts? How can the bed be disassembled and nevertheless still retain its designation, both with regard to receiving impurity and with regard to its purification, according to the Sages?

And

Rabbi Hanan said that Rabbi said:

in a case where there remains in each of the parts

a lengthwise beam,

the bed-beam made along its length,

and two legs,

two of the bed’s legs. Or

a crosswise beam,

a beam made across the width of the bed,

and two legs

attached to it.

And the Gemara explains:

for what is it fit,

for what use are the lengthwise beam and the two legs fit when they are not attached to the rest of the bed’s beams, and therefore are considered a utensil in themselves with regard to receiving impurity?

To support them against a wall, and to sit upon them.

To lean them against a wall and sit upon them. That is, he places the lengthwise beam and the two legs parallel to the wall, at a distance equal to the width of a bed, and places pieces of wood from the legs to the wall, at its head and its foot, in place of the missing crosswise beam,

and he stretches ropes,

and stretches ropes between those pieces of wood, and places pillows and cushions upon them for sleeping. And in this manner he can also make use of the crosswise beam: he places it at a distance from the wall equal to the distance between the foot and the head of the bed.

The essential text: Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomi said: If one roofed

his sukka

with worn-out utensils

[worn-out garments], it is

invalid.

What are worn-out utensils?

With what worn-out items is Rabbi Ami discussing, which, although they are no longer fit for use and do not receive impurity, are nevertheless invalid for roofing, since they came from a garment fit to receive impurity?

Abaye said: Scraps

—pieces of cloth—

that do not have

now

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths,

which are not fit

—they are not fit for use because of their smallness—

neither for the poor nor for the wealthy,

and therefore they do not receive impurity. Nevertheless, they are invalid for roofing, since they came from complete garments that receive impurity.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomi:

as it was taught:

A mat of rushes and of reeds

[types of grasses], whose measure for receiving impurity is six handbreadths by six handbreadths, [as explained in the Mishna in tractate Kelim, chapter 27, mishna 2], and these mats receive impurity because they are designated for lying upon,

then

its remnants

—the remnants of the mat, after it was reduced below the measure of six handbreadths—

even though they were reduced below its measure

for receiving impurity,

one may not roof with them,

since before it was reduced it was fit to receive the impurity of the lying-place of a zav or a menstruating woman.

And the beraita continues:

A large mat of reeds,

as a rule, is made for roofing and not for lying upon, and is not a utensil with regard to receiving impurity; therefore

one may roof with it.

But a

small mat

as a rule is made for lying upon, and therefore

one may not roof with it.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

A large mat

also

as a rule is made for lying upon, and its status is that of a “utensil”; therefore it

receives impurity, and one may not roof with it.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who hollows out a haystack

to make a sukka for himself, it is not a sukka; and the reason is that the roofing comes about by itself, and it is invalid because of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made.”

Rav Huna said: They taught

that the sukka is not rendered fit through hollowing

only when there is not there,

when initially there was not beneath the haystack

a hollow space

of sufficient height

extending seven

handbreadths by seven handbreadths, the measure of the valid area of a sukka, and therefore hollowing does not help.

But

if

there is there

beneath the haystack

a hollow space

of a height of

one handbreadth

extending seven

by seven handbreadths before they hollowed it out, although initially it had only a height of one handbreadth,

it is a sukka.

Provided that when he piled those sheaves and created this hollow space, he did so for the sake of a sukka or for the sake of shade. For then the roofing that roofs over the hollow space is considered valid roofing. And when he hollows out the sheaves from below upward, until he raises the hollow space to a height of ten handbreadths, the sukka becomes valid. And although that roofing did not initially roof over a hollow space ten handbreadths high, the measure of the valid height of a sukka, there is no invalidity here of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made,” since this invalidity was stated only with regard to roofing and not with regard to walls. And since at the time of its making there was a hollow space of one handbreadth, the measure of a tent, the designation “roofing” applied to it, and it was made validly. It follows that it lacks only valid walls whose height is ten handbreadths, and walls are valid even if they came about by themselves through hollowing.

It was also taught so

[we learned in a beraita in accordance with Rav Huna]:

One who hollows out a haystack to make a sukka for himself, it is

a sukka.

And

it is difficult, for

did we not learn:

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

it is not a sukka?!

Rather, is it not to be inferred from this in accordance with Rav Huna,

that when there is a hollow space of one handbreadth it is a sukka, and our Mishna is speaking when there was no hollow space of one handbreadth extending seven, whereas the beraita is speaking when there was beneath the haystack a hollow space of one handbreadth extending seven, and therefore it rendered this sukka valid?

And the Gemara concludes: Indeed,

infer from this in accordance with Rav Huna!

There are those who raise it as a difficulty;

there were those who recited Rav Huna’s statement as a resolution to a difficulty raised in the beit-midrash concerning the contradiction between the words of the Mishna and the beraita:

For in our Mishna

we learned: One who hollows out a haystack to make

for himself a sukka, it is not a sukka; but was it not taught,

and yet in the beraita we learned: One who hollows out a haystack to make a sukka for himself

it is a sukka?!

And to resolve this difficulty

Rav Huna said: It is not difficult;

here

the beraita is speaking,

when there is a hollow space of one handbreadth extending seven,

and therefore the sukka is valid. Whereas

here

our Mishna is speaking,

when there is no hollow space of one handbreadth extending seven,

and therefore the sukka is invalid.

Mishna:

One who lowers the walls from above downward,

who began weaving the partition close to the roofing, and weaves and proceeds with the wall downward,

If

he did not finish making it all the way to the ground itself, and it is now

higher

than

the ground by three handbreadths—

a measure through which a kid can easily enter the sukka with its head erect—it is

invalid,

since a suspended partition is not considered a wall for a sukka.

And if he was weaving the partition

from below upward,

and did not finish making it until it reached the roofing,

if the partition is higher

than

ten handbreadths,

the measure of a partition everywhere, it is

valid,

even though the partition does not reach the roofing.

Rabbi Yosei disagrees with the law explained in the first clause of the Mishna, concerning a partition made from above downward, and

disagrees with the law stated in the first clause of the Mishna, concerning a partition made from above downward, and

says: Just as

a partition made

from below upward,

if it was

ten handbreadths

high, it is valid,

so

if it was made

from above downward,

provided that it was

ten

handbreadths high, it is valid, even though a large open space remains between it and the ground. And below it will be explained in what they disagree.

high, it is valid, even though a large open space remains between it and the ground. The Gemara will explain below the basis of their disagreement.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

In what do they disagree,

the first Tanna and Rabbi Yosei?

One master,

Rabbi Yosei,

holds: A suspended partition

has the status of a partition, and therefore it

permits

the place for carrying on Shabbat as a private domain, and likewise it is considered a partition with regard to a sukka.

And one master,

the first Tanna,

holds: A suspended partition does not permit.

a. Two private domains that are adjacent to one another and separated according to their residents: it is forbidden on Shabbat to carry from one person’s domain to his fellow’s domain, whether he carries from this house to his fellow’s house, or whether he carries from his fellow’s courtyard in front of his house to his own house, unless they established an eruv of courtyards between them.

b. One may establish an eruv of courtyards to permit carrying from one domain to another only if there was an opening or a window between them. Then, by means of an eruv of courtyards, all the residents can be considered as though they live in one domain, in the domain where the shared eruv was placed.

We learned there: A pit

of water

between two courtyards,

with the wall between the two courtyards suspended over the mouth of the pit, and there is no opening between them through which they could establish an eruv of courtyards between them,

one may not draw from it

water from that pit

on Shabbat

in order to bring it into his house. This law applies even if he is careful to lower the vessel specifically into his portion of the pit, because the water mixes at every moment, and it follows that he has brought his fellow’s water into his courtyard and brings it into his house.

Unless he made for it,

for the pit, in its middle,

a partition

of a height of

ten handbreadths,

in which case it is permitted for each of the courtyard’s residents to carry within the partition adjacent to him,

whether

the partition extended

from above,

above the water at the edge of the pit,

or whether

it was

from below,

at the bottom of the pit, ממש סמוך למים,

whether within its rim.

That is, provided that the partition is within its “rim”—the edge of the pit—so that it is evident that the partition was made for the sake of the water and not as part of the courtyard’s partition.

And the reason for the matter is explained in tractate Eruvin [87b]: although it is a “suspended partition,” the Sages were lenient in permitting carrying within it if it was made in order to permit carrying the water.

But a courtyard partition that was not made for the purpose of carrying the water, and extends along the edge of the pit rather than within it: since it is a suspended partition, it does not permit drawing from the pit. And all the more so, a suspended partition does not permit carrying where there is no water; there it is certainly not a partition at all, since young goats stretch up beneath it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning the location of that partition: