Sukkah 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

And this is what he is saying:

the first tanna:

With regard to a large mat made of reeds, if one made it for reclining—

it is susceptible to ritual impurity, and one may not use it for sakhakh.

That is to say,

the reason is that he made it for reclining; but

if he made it without specifying, it is considered as though he had made it

as one who made it

explicitly

for sakhakh,

and

one may use it for sakhakh.

And all this applies specifically to a large mat.

But

in the case of a small one, if he made it for sakhakh, one may use it for sakhakh.

That is to say,

the reason is that he made it

explicitly

for sakhakh; but

if he made it without specifying, it is considered as though he had made it

for reclining.

Since an ordinary small mat is intended for reclining,

one may not use it for sakhakh.

And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: Both a small one and a large one,

if he made it

without specification, are fit for sakhakh.

Abaye said

to Rava:

If so,

since Rabbi Eliezer came to say that the distinction stated with regard to a large mat also applies to a small one, how can we have learned:

“Rabbi Eliezer says: Both a small one and a large one”?

This implies that the large one too has the same law as the small one. But

he should have needed to say: “Both a large one and a small one”

for Rabbi Eliezer to say!? That would mean the opposite: that the small one too has the same law as the large one!

Furthermore,

on the contrary, it is evident that

when they disagree, they disagree with regard to the large one. And Rabbi Eliezer is stating a stringency

and not, as you said, that Rabbi Eliezer came to be lenient and say that even a small mat is disqualified only if one explicitly made it for reclining.

The proof for this is from

as it was taught

in a beraita:

A large mat made of reeds

that one made without specification—

one may use it for sakhakh.

Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to ritual impurity,

for example, if he explicitly made it for the purpose of sakhakh,

one may use it for sakhakh,

but if he made it without specification, one may not use it for sakhakh.

It follows that Rabbi Eliezer did not come to be lenient with regard to a small mat; rather, he was stringent with regard to a large one, for even if he made it without specification, it is disqualified.

Rather, Rav Pappa said,

this is the explanation of their dispute:

With regard to a small one—

everyone agrees that an unspecified one is for reclining,

and therefore, if he did not explicitly designate it for sakhakh, it is disqualified.

They disagree

the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer

with regard to a large one.

The first tanna holds: An ordinary

mat

large one is for sakhakh,

and there is no need to make it explicitly for sakhakh. The apparent contradiction between his statements at the beginning and at the end is to be explained as we initially explained it: The first clause concerns a large mat whose ordinary designation makes it fit, and therefore it is disqualified specifically if one made it for reclining; and the latter clause concerns a small one, which is disqualified when made without specification and is fit only if one made it explicitly for sakhakh.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds: An ordinary large one too is for reclining,

and therefore “both a small one and a large one” are not fit until one makes them explicitly for sakhakh.

And what is

“both a small one and a large one,

if he made it

for reclining

it is susceptible to ritual impurity, and one may not use it for sakhakh,”

that

Rabbi Eliezer says in the latter clause? This implies that only if he made it for reclining may one not use it for sakhakh, but if he made it without specification, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity?

This is what he is saying:

Both a small one and a large one,

their ordinary manufacture too is for reclining,

and one may not use them for sakhakh

until he makes

the mat explicitly

for

the purpose of

sakhakh.

And this is what Rabbi Eliezer concluded by saying: “For sakhakh, one may use it for sakhakh, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity”—that is, if he made it explicitly for sakhakh, one may use it for sakhakh.

The Sages taught: A mat made of shifa and gome

[types of soft grasses]:

if it is large, one may use it for sakhakh,

since its ordinary designation is for sakhakh. But

if it is small, one may not use it for sakhakh

since its ordinary designation is for reclining. There is no distinction between whether it was made by weaving, in which case it is smooth and comfortable for lying, and whether it was made by plaiting, in which case it is thick and not smooth; since it is soft and was made in the dimensions of a person’s bedding, it was presumably made for reclining.

But a mat made

of reeds and hilat

[reed stalks], which are hard and not comfortable for reclining, the manner in which that small mat was made makes a difference: if it was

large

[with a shuruk vowel beneath the dalet], meaning that it was made by plaiting, even though the mat is small, its ordinary designation is not for reclining and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity; therefore

one may use it for sakhakh.

But if it was

woven,

it is susceptible to ritual impurity, because they would weave it only for the purpose of reclining, so that it would be smooth and comfortable; therefore

one may not use it for sakhakh.

Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei says in the name of his father: This one

[a plaited mat of reeds or hilat], and

this one

[a woven mat],

one may use it for sakhakh,

because a mat made of reeds and hilat is never made for reclining, since they are hard.

And Rabbi Dosa likewise would say in accordance with his words.

Ritba’s introduction: It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 15:9]: “And every riding-object upon which the man with the discharge rides shall become impure.” That is, anything fit for midras, if one designated it for that purpose or its ordinary manufacture is for sitting, becomes impure with the impurity of midras, even though it is an ordinary wooden vessel, which generally is not susceptible to ritual impurity. [And since such objects become impure with the impurity of midras, the Sages derived by means of a

kal va-chomer that they likewise become impure through contact with a corpse, as explained in Shabbat 84a ].

And if they are not fit for midras, or if one explicitly designated them for another purpose, they do not become impure with the impurity of midras. [However, if they have an interior cavity and are fit to contain something, they become impure with the impurity of vessels, but not with that of midras.] We learned there

[in tractate Eduyot]:

All hutzlot

[what they are will be explained below]

become impure through contact with a corpse.

This means that ordinarily they are vessels, and if they touch a corpse they become a primary source of ritual impurity. But they do not become impure with the impurity of midras, since they are not made for reclining,

the words of Rabbi Dosa.

And the Sages say:

The hutzlot too become impure with the impurity of

midras,

since they are made for reclining.

The Gemara objects: Did they intend to say that

midras—

yes,

but

impurity from a corpse—

no?!

[That is, that it becomes impure with the impurity of midras but not with impurity from a corpse?!]

But

and yet

we learned: Anything that renders impure through midras renders impure through contact with a corpse?!

[The reason is that since they made it for reclining, its law is that of a vessel capable of becoming impure, even though ordinary wooden vessels are not susceptible to ritual impurity.]

The Gemara explains: Rather,

say:

And the Sages say:

They too

become impure with the impurity of

midras.

What are hutzlot?

Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri said: Marzuvlei.

What are marzuvlei? Rabbi Abba said: mazbilei

[shepherds’ knapsacks], which shepherds customarily place beneath their heads and sleep.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:

The term hutzlot means

actual mats.

And Resh Lakish followed

these words of his

his own approach

—that is, his view elsewhere.

For Resh Lakish said: “I am an atonement

[for the sufferings that come upon me; may they be for the atonement of]

Rabbi Hiyya and his sons.”

At first, when the Torah was forgotten from Israel,

Ezra ascended from Babylonia and reestablished it. It was again forgotten, Hillel the Babylonian ascended and reestablished it. It was again forgotten, Rabbi Hiyya and his sons ascended,

and reestablished it.

And likewise [and so]

and reestablished it.”

Rabbi Hiyya and his sons said: Rabbi Dosa and the Sages did not disagree with regard to the mats of Usha,

[so]

Rabbi Hiyya and his sons said: Rabbi Dosa and the Sages did not disagree concerning the mats of Usha,