Sukkah 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rava: Rabbi Yehuda says: They would 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 a grave of the deep; rather, they would bring oxen whose bellies were broad below, 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 that the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling in our Mishna, which permits sleeping beneath a bed in a sukka, is that a bed is not a tent made by human hands,

and therefore we ask:

But a bed has several handbreadths

from the ropes to the ground [Rashi],

and we learned: Rabbi Yehuda says: We would customarily sleep beneath

the bed in the presence of the Elders,

because it is not a tent made by human hands; but why? We have demonstrated that a tent whose width is a full handbreadth is considered a tent even when it is not made by human hands?!

And we answer:

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

to sleep upon and not beneath it, and this “nullifies the area beneath it as a tent” [Ritva]; therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to sleep beneath it.

And we ask: But

oxen too are made for their upper surface,

so why are they considered a tent to shield against impurity?!

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

although they are made for their upper surface, they perform the function of a tent beneath them, for they

protect the shepherds

who place 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 placed beneath it?!

Rather, Rava said

there is another distinction between oxen and a bed:

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

as their spine protects them,

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

“You shelter me,”

so this is considered “sheltering”; therefore, although the ox is made for its upper surface, it is considered a tent.

Alternatively, if you wish, say:

oxen are a tent according to the fundamental law, although they are made for their upper surface, and a bed too does not lose its status as a tent because it is made for its upper surface; but the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s permitting one to sleep in a sukka is a different one— 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, whereas a 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 ask:

But Rabbi Shimon 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 learn that one who sleeps beneath a bed in a sukka has not fulfilled his obligation?!

And the Gemara explains:

They disagree about this: One master

Rabbi Shimon

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

Rabbi Yehuda

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said: There was an incident involving Tavi, his slave

and so on:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon said: From Rabban Gamliel’s conversation 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 this: Let Rabbi Shimon say

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: From a conversation of Rabban Gamliel we learned two things:

We learned that slaves are exempt from the sukka.

Rabbi Shimon:

“

From the words”

of Rabban Gamliel

we learned two things?! And we explain:

He teaches us something incidentally

Since Rabbi Shimon told us two things that we learned from Rabban Gamliel’s words, he used the expression “conversation” to teach us

the same as that which Rav Aḥa bar Adda said—and some say that Rav Aḥa bar Adda said that Rav Hamnuna said that Rav:

From where is it derived that even the conversation of Torah scholars requires study,

for one must listen to them and take their words to heart,

as it is stated: “Fortunate is the man” and so on, “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”—

Had he said “from his words,” we would have known only that the “words of Torah” that he intends to teach others alone require study, but not his “conversation.”

Mishna:

One who supports his sukka with the legs of a bed

[the feet of the bed], that is, with its walls—

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

fit.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If

the sekhakh rests upon the walls of the bed, so that

it cannot

the sukka

stand independently

without the bed, the sukka is

unfit.

Gemara:

What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagree about this:

One said: Because it has no permanence,

since the sukka is moved by means of the bed; and Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning, holding that we require a sukka to be a permanent dwelling.

And one said: Because he supports it the sekhakh of the sukka with something susceptible to ritual impurity [the bed is a utensil and is susceptible to ritual impurity]; although we learned only that the sekhakh itself must not be susceptible to ritual impurity, nevertheless, since its primary support consists of things that support it, it is as though he made the sekhakh with something susceptible to ritual impurity [Rashi]. What is the practical difference between them? There is a practical difference between them: For example, one drove iron spits —a utensil susceptible to ritual impurity— and placed sekhakh over them: According to the one who says that the reason is that it has no permanence, here it does have permanence;

since the sukka is moved together with the bed; and Rabbi Yehuda follows his own view that we require a sukka to be a permanent dwelling.

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].

whereas according to

the one who says that the reason is that he supports it with something susceptible to ritual impurity, here he supports it with something susceptible to ritual impurity.

Abaye said: They taught this only when he rested

the sekhakh on the walls of the bed itself—

But if he placed sekhakh over the bed,

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

fit.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

According to the one who says that the reason is that it has no permanence, here it does have permanence; according to the one who says that the reason is that he supports it with something susceptible to ritual impurity, here he does not support it with something susceptible to ritual impurity.

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.