Sukkah 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

that they are impure:

with susceptibility to midras impurity, since they are designated for lying upon and not for any other use.

And

they did not disagree concerning the mats

of Tiberias, which are pure

from midras impurity, since they are hard and it is not customary to lie upon them.

With regard to what did they disagree? —

Concerning

mats of

other places.

One Master holds: Since no one sits upon them,

that is, since most people are not accustomed to designate these mats for lying upon, therefore

like

mats of

Tiberias they are considered.

And one Master holds: Since it sometimes happens that people sit upon them,

as there is a minority of people who sit upon them,

like

mats

of Usha they are considered,

which are made for lying upon.

The Master said: All the mats contract corpse impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

was it not

taught:

We learned in the beraita cited above:

And Rabbi Dosa would likewise say in accordance with his statement

of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that a mat of reeds and ḥalit does not contract impurity and one may use it for roofing, because it is not customary to lie upon it. If so, it is proven that a mat not designated for lying upon does not have the status of a vessel capable of contracting impurity, even though some people lie upon it.

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult:

This

statement, that Rabbi Dosa said that all the mats contract corpse impurity, is referring to a mat

that has a rim.

It has a slightly raised border around it and is made like a receptacle intended to hold produce; therefore, it has the status of a complete vessel with regard to susceptibility to impurity.

And

this

statement, that Rabbi Dosa said that one may use a mat for roofing, is referring to one

that does not have a rim,

and therefore it is not considered a vessel capable of contracting impurity unless it is actually made for lying upon, in which case it is considered a vessel even with regard to corpse impurity.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Meitiv i

to the interpretation of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who explains that ḥutzalot means mats, from what we learned:

Mats of bulrush

a type of reed,

and of rush and sackcloth

goat hair,

and of sapira

horsehair cut from its neck and tail,

contract corpse impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa.

And the Sages say: They also have midras susceptibility.

Granted, according to the one who says that

ḥutzalot means

shepherds’ packs,

which are made as receptacles, and when the shepherds are not lying upon them they actually serve as receptacles; therefore,

those of bulrush and rush

contract corpse impurity, because although they are not finely woven and there is space between one reed and the next, nevertheless

they are fit for large produce,

as they are suitable for holding large fruits.

Likewise, it is understandable that a mat

of sackcloth and of sapira

contracts corpse impurity, since

they are fit for sacks and baskets.

They are suitable for serving as sacks for legumes and small fruits.

But according to the one who says

that ḥutzalot means

actual mats,

if so,

granted

the mats

of sackcloth and of sapira are fit for spreading out

as a curtain opposite the entrance, as it is explained in tractate Beitza 14b that a curtain is deemed a vessel capable of contracting impurity and is not considered part of the walls of the house,

and

they are likewise fit to serve as

sieves

for sifting flour.

But

the mats

of bulrush and rush—for what are they fit?

The Gemara answers:

They are fit for nezaita.

They are suitable for covering the vat in which beer is made.

There are those who state

that the difficulty should be raised in the reverse manner:

Granted, according to the one who says

that ḥutzalot means

actual mats,

those of bulrush and rush—

they are fit for nezaita. Those of sackcloth and of sapira—

they are fit for spreading out and for sieves.

But according to the one who says

what are ḥutzalot?

Shepherds’ packs, granted, those of sackcloth and of sapira—

they are fit for sacks and baskets. But those of bulrush and rush—for what are they fit?

The Gemara answers:

They are fit for large produce.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Ḥananya said: When I went down to the Diaspora

Babylonia,

I found an old man, and he said to me: One may use

a budya

a mat, because it is ordinarily intended for roofing and not for lying upon, and it is not considered a vessel capable of contracting impurity.

And when I came before Rabbi Yehoshua, my father’s brother, he acknowledged his statement.

Rav Ḥisda said: This is provided that it does not have

that mat

a rim,

for if it has a border around it, it is like other vessels made to hold produce and the like, which contract impurity from a corpse.

Ulla said: These budyaita

mats

of the people of Meḥoza, were it not for the wall

rim

that they have—

one could use them for roofing.

It was likewise taught in a beraita: One may use a budya for roofing, but if they have a wall—

one may not use them for roofing.

We have returned to you, chapter “Sukka.”

Mishna:

One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation,

since a tent intervenes between him and the sukkah, and it is therefore found that he is not sitting in the sukkah [Rashi and Ritva ].

Rabbi Yehuda said: We would customarily sleep beneath the bed in the presence of the elders, and they did not say anything to us,

and the Gemara will explain Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning.

Rabbi Shimon said: There was an incident involving Tavi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave, who was sleeping beneath the bed

in the sukkah,

and Rabban Gamliel said to the elders: Have you seen Tavi, my slave, who is a Torah scholar and knows that slaves are exempt from the sukkah

like women, since it is a positive, time-bound mitzva,

and therefore he sleeps beneath the bed.

And from our discussion we learn,

meaning: Even though he did not tell us this for the sake of teaching, but merely as idle conversation, boasting about his slave solely as a joke, we learned from the manner of his joking:

that one who sleeps beneath the bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation:

And we raise an objection:

But

an ordinary bed

does not have ten

handbreadths beneath it, so why is it forbidden to sleep beneath it ?!

Shmuel interpreted

our Mishna:

With a bed

that is high

ten

We learned there

with regard to a tent that conveys ritual impurity:

Whether a hole hollowed out by water,

for example, where there was a high bank along a river, and the water entered and made a long opening—

or

a hole hollowed out by

creeping animals [

such as rats and owls]—

or one eaten away by salt,

where the ground is saline and cracks on its own—

and likewise a tier

of

stones,

large stones arranged one on top of another, and sometimes one stone is arranged upon two stones separated from each other, creating an empty space—

and likewise a pile of beams,

beams arranged on the ground, one upon another, intended for construction, with many openings between them—

if in any one of these there is a handbreadth by a handbreadth with a height of a handbreadth, or more, the measure of a tent with regard to ritual impurity, and there is an olive-bulk of a corpse and vessels on the other side beneath it, then it

serves as a tent over the impurity

to render the vessels impure by the law of a tent [Ritva].

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any tent that was not made by human hands

with the intention of making it a tent

is not a tent;

it does not serve as a tent over the vessels at all, and the impurity breaks through and rises opposite it all the way to the sky [Ritva].

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason?