Sukkah 21b — the Talmud in English

A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rava: Rabbi Yehuda says: They did not bring doors at all, because the child’s mind is haughty toward him, lest he stick out his head or one of his limbs and become impure through the grave of the depth; rather, they would bring oxen whose bellies were broad, and the children would sit upon them with stone cups in their hands. When they reached the Shiloah, they would descend and fill them, and ascend and sit upon their backs.

It might have entered our minds to explain the reason of Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna, which permits sleeping beneath the bed in a sukka, as being that the bed is not a tent made by human hands

; and therefore we raise a difficulty:

But a bed, which has several fistbreadths

from the ropes to the ground [Rashi

; and we learned: Rabbi Yehuda says: We used to practice that we would sleep beneath

the bed in the presence of the elders,

because it is not a tent made by human hands; but why? We have הרי proved that a tent whose width is a full fistbreadth, even when it is not made by human hands, is a tent?!

And we answer:

A bed is different, since it is made for its upper side

to sleep upon its upper side and not beneath it, and one “nullifies beneath it the status of a tent” [Ritva]; therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to sleep beneath it.

And we raise a difficulty: But

oxen too are made for their upper side,

and why are they a tent to protect against impurity?!

When Ravin came, Rabbi Elazar said: Oxen are different, since

although they are made for their upper side, they perform the act of a tent beneath them, for they

protect the shepherds

who put their heads beneath their bellies

in the sun, from the sun, and in the rain, from the rain.

If so, a bed too

let us say that it is a tent,

since it protects shoes and sandals beneath it?!

Rather, Rava said

another distinction between oxen and a bed:

Oxen are different, since they are made to protect their intestines

whose spine protects them,

as it is stated: “With skin and flesh You clothe me, and with bones and sinews”

“You shelter me,”

so it is a case of “sheltering”; therefore, although it is made for its upper side, it is considered a tent.

And if you wish, say: Oxen are a tent according to the fundamental law, even though they are made for their upper side, and likewise, a bed does not lose the designation of a tent because it is made for its upper side; but the reason of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits sleeping in a sukka, is a different reason—

Oxen are a tent by fundamental law, even though they are made for their upper surface, and in the case of a bed, too, its status as a tent is not canceled because it is made for its upper surface. The reason Rabbi Yehuda permits sleeping in a sukka is different: Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning, as he says: We require a sukka to be a permanent dwelling, and a bed is a temporary dwelling, while a sukka is

Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning, for he says: We require a sukka to be a permanent dwelling, and the bed is a temporary dwelling, while the sukka

is a permanent tent, and a temporary tent does not come and nullify a permanent tent

“to remove the name of sukka from here” [the wording of Rashi].

And we raise a difficulty:

But Rabbi Shimon, who also says: We require a sukka to be a permanent dwelling, and a temporary tent does come and nullify a permanent tent,

as he said in our Mishna: We have learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed in a sukka has not fulfilled his obligation?!

And the Gemara explains:

In this they disagree: One

Rabbi Shimon

holds: A temporary tent does come and nullify a permanent tent; and the other

Rabbi Yehuda

holds: A temporary tent does not come and nullify a permanent tent.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said: An incident involving Tavi, his slave

and so on:

A baraita was taught: Rabbi Shimon said: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel we learned two things:

We learned: That slaves are exempt from the sukka.

And we learned that one who sleeps beneath a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

And we challenge:

Let Rabbi Shimon say

“From the words”

of Rabban Gamliel

we learned two things?! And we explain:

He teaches us a matter incidentally

,

since Rabbi Shimon informed us of two things that we learned from the words of Rabban Gamliel, he used the expression “conversation,” in order to inform us

of that which Rav Aha bar Adda said—and some say, Rav Aha bar Adda said that Rav Hamnuna said that Rav said:

From where [do we know] that even the conversation of Torah scholars requires study,

that one must listen to them and give it attention,

as it is stated: “Fortunate is the man, etc., but whose desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night. He shall be like a tree planted beside streams of water, which gives its fruit in its season,”

and its leaf

—

a minor matter within it—

shall not wither—

But had he said “from his words,” we would have known only that “words of Torah,” which he intends to teach others, alone require study—and not “his conversation.”

Mishna:

One who supports his sukka with the legs of the bed

[the feet of the bed], meaning: with its walls—

For example, the walls of the bed surrounded it on three sides and the base of the bed was fixed in those walls; and one end of the walls stood on the ground while their other end rose upward, and he placed sekhakh atop the walls of the bed—the sukka is

valid.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If

the sekhakh stands upon the walls of the bed, and it turns out that

the sukka cannot

stand

on its own

without the bed, the sukka is

invalid.

One said: Because it has no permanence,

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagree about it:

Gemara:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

And one said: Because he supports it on the roofing of the sukka with something susceptible to ritual impurity [a bed is a utensil and is susceptible to ritual impurity]. Although we learned only that the roofing itself must not be susceptible to ritual impurity, nevertheless, since the primary support of the roofing is the bed, it is as though he had roofed the sukka with something susceptible to ritual impurity [Rashi]. What is the practical difference between them? The practical difference between them is in a case where one drove iron spits into the ground— a utensil susceptible to ritual impurity— and placed roofing over them: According to the one who says that the reason is that the sukka has no permanence, it does have permanence;

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagree concerning it:

One said: Because it has no permanence, since the sukka is carried along by the bed; and Rabbi Yehuda follows his own position, holding: We require a sukka to be a permanent dwelling.

And one said: Because he supports it

for the sekhakh of the sukka

with something susceptible to impurity

[the bed is a vessel and is susceptible to impurity]; and although we learned only that the actual sekhakh must not be susceptible to impurity, nevertheless, since the primary support of the sekhakh is its supports, it is as though he placed sekhakh with something susceptible to impurity [Rashi].

What is the practical difference between them? There is a difference between them:

For example, where he drove iron poles

—

a vessel susceptible to impurity—

and placed sekhakh upon them: According to the one who says: Because it has no permanence, it has permanence;

whereas according to

the one who says: Because he supports it with something susceptible to impurity, he supports it with something susceptible to impurity.

Abaye said: They taught this only where he supported

the sekhakh upon the walls of the bed itself—

But if he placed sekhakh atop the bed,

he set beds around the sukka as walls and placed the sekhakh in their midst upon pegs, the sukka is

valid.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

According to the one who says: Because it has no permanence, it has permanence; according to the one who says: Because he supports it with something susceptible to impurity, here he does not support it with something susceptible to impurity.