Sukkah 24b — the Talmud in English

But it is made by human hands,

because he has the ability to blow air into it.

The Master said: They said in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: One may not even write bills of divorce for women on it.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yose the Galilean?

For it was taught:

It is written: “And he shall write for her”

“a scroll”

of severance, and he shall place it in her hand and send her from his house—

I have only

“a scroll”

a parchment;

from where [do I derive] to include every object,

such as a wooden tablet and an olive leaf, so that it is fit to write the bill of divorce upon it?

The verse says:

“And he shall write for her”

in any case,

for he could have said: “And he shall place in her hand a scroll of severance”—

And we expound: “And he shall write for her” is a general statement; “a scroll” is a specification; “and he shall place it in her hand” returns and makes a general statement. “A general statement, a specification, and a general statement”—you may derive only something similar to the specification. And as the Tosafot explain below [Tosafot]—

If so, what is the purpose of saying

“a scroll”,

that is, what does the specification of “a scroll” come to exclude?

To tell you: just as

“a scroll”

is

an object that has no living spirit and is not food, so every object that has no living spirit and is not food

is fit for writing the bill of divorce, excluding an object that has a living spirit or that is food.

And we explain:

And the Rabbis—

who do not expound in this manner, and hold that one may write a bill of divorce on an object that has a living spirit—what is their reason? Is this not a measure in the Torah: “a general statement, a specification, and a general statement”—you may derive only something similar to the specification, and you must therefore exclude what is not similar to a scroll?

Because:

if the Merciful One had written

the Torah

“in a scroll”,

indeed it could be interpreted

as you say,

that the verse comes to specify upon what one writes—

But

now that it is written

“a scroll”,

and it is not written “in a scroll,” it means that the words of the bill of divorce are called a scroll, and

for the recounting

of

mere words,

that he should write for her words of severance,

the verse comes,

and there is no specification here at all.

And we raise an objection:

And the Rabbis,

according to whose view “a scroll” does not mean parchment—since the Torah did not state at all upon what he should write, it consequently means on every object; and if so,

this

“and he shall write”

what do they expound from it?

That

“and he shall write”

they require

the Rabbis in order to teach:

by writing she is divorced, but she is not divorced by money,

for if he gave her money and said to her, “Be divorced through it,” she is not divorced [Rashi]—

For without the exclusion of the verse, it

might have entered your mind:

Since departure

divorce

was juxtaposed to becoming

betrothal, as it is written: “And she shall depart” from his house and go and “become” another man’s, we juxtapose them also with regard to money, and say:

Just as

becoming

is by money,

for if he gave her money and said, “Behold, you are betrothed through it,” she is betrothed,

so too departure

also

is by money—

And therefore

the verse teaches us

that she is not divorced by money.

And we explain:

And Rabbi Yose the Galilean,

who expounds “and he shall write for her” as a general statement, a specification, and a general statement—if so,

this reasoning—

that she is not divorced by money—

from where does he derive it?

From

“a scroll of severance”,

in which “severance” is written adjacent to “a scroll,”

he derives it,

for it means:

“A scroll

severs her, and no other thing severs her.”

And we explain:

And the other one,

the Rabbis, who did not learn that she is not divorced by money from “a scroll of severance,” but from “and he shall write for her”—what is their reason for not learning it from “a scroll of severance”?

Because

that

“scroll of severance”

is required by them

to teach that the recounting of the words should be

a matter that severs between him and her,

so that he should not impose a condition in the divorce in such a manner that it binds them together—and

as it was taught: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you do not drink wine, and on condition that you do not go to your father’s house.”

If he stipulated that she not do these things

“forever”,

then, since all her days she is bound to him, in that because of him she refrains from drinking wine, and this condition remains in force forever—

this is not severance,

for all her days she is bound to him, because of him required to refrain from going.

But if he stipulated that she not do these things only

“for thirty days”,

this is severance,

and she is immediately permitted to marry another, since separation can come about at the end of thirty days.

And the other one—

Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who expounds “a scroll of severance” for another matter—this law of “words of separation”

from

“he has cut off severance”

is derived,

that is, since the verse could have said “a scroll of severance” and said “severances,” this addition comes to teach that it must be a matter that severs between him and her.

And the other one—

the Rabbis, who do not learn this law from the addition “severances”—their reason is:

They do not expound “he has cut off severance”

for that exposition.

Mishna:

One who makes his sukka among the trees

and does not support the sukka upon them,

and the trees are walls for it,

for the sukka, the sukka is

fit.

Gemara:

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Any partition that cannot stand in an ordinary wind

which the wind moves back and forth [Rashi]

is not a partition.

И возражаем против этого:

And we raise an objection to this:

we learned

in our Mishna:

“One who makes his sukka among the trees, and the trees are walls for it,

the sukka is

fit”—

And

why is the sukka fit according to Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov,

since it moves back and forth

the walls of the sukka move back and forth in an ordinary wind, as trees do]?! And we answer:

With what are we dealing here? With

trees that are

rigid,

which are old and thick, and whose trunks do not move in the wind.

We are still astonished:

But there is its foliage,

of the tree, which certainly moves back and forth; and sometimes the foliage is also part of the wall—so how is it fit?!

And we answer:

He made it with palm branches and laurel branches,

that is, he weaves the foliage of the tree with branches of palm and laurel, and the foliage does not move in the wind.

And we raise an objection to this:

If so,

that the trees do not move in the wind,

what is the point of saying it,

what novelty is there in the fact that the trees are fit to be walls?! And we explain: the novelty is that

what might you have said? Let us decree

that one may not remain on a Festival day or Shabbat in a sukka whose walls are trees, as a decree

lest he come to use the tree,

to place his utensils on the trees, which is prohibited as shevut on a Festival day and on Shabbat.

It teaches us

that our Mishna does not issue such a decree.

Come and hear

from a beraita that we learned concerning the permission to draw water from wells in the public domain by means of deyomadin, which are corners having one cubit in each direction at the four corners of the well—

If

there was

in one of the corners of the well

a tree

that could be carved and divided in such a manner that it would have one cubit in each direction,

or a fence

of stones, square, one cubit by one cubit,

or a partition of reeds

it is explained in Eruvin, and the amoraim there disagree regarding its interpretation]—

then each one of these

is considered a deyomed—

we have learned that a tree is fit to be a partition even though it moves in the wind, and this is difficult for Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov?!

And we answer:

There too, it is because of

this that it is fit, since

he made it with palm branches and laurel branches.

Come and hear: “A tree that spreads over the ground”,

its foliage is very large, and the ends of the foliage bend around upon the ground, and there is a space ten handbreadths high from the ground to the foliage—

if its foliage

that is, the ends of its foliage

is not three handbreadths above the ground, one may carry beneath it

on Shabbat, because the ends of the foliage are considered a partition; but if it was three handbreadths high, one may not carry beneath it, since a partition that is three handbreadths above the ground is not a partition—

and according to Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov it is difficult:

why

are the ends of the foliage effective as a partition,

since

the foliage

moves back and forth

in an ordinary wind?!

And we reject this:

There too, he made it with palm branches and laurel branches.

And we are astonished:

If so,

that it is a proper partition,

let one carry throughout it,

that is, let him carry beneath it throughout the entire extent of the tree’s circumference—

for this works out well if we are speaking of a partition that does not stand in an ordinary wind: it can be said that since it is an inferior partition, it is effective only for an enclosure the size of a beit seataim. But if it stands in an ordinary wind, it is a complete partition and should be effective for any extent of enclosure.