Sukkah 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

There—

with regard to the stopper of the window, it is for this reason that one may not use it to stop the window—

because he nullifies

the stopper to the window, thereby making the stopper significant as an integral part of the wall itself; and consequently, it is considered adding to the temporary roofing.

But here—

with regard to a sheet spread over a sukka, it is certain

that he does not nullify

the sheet to the sukka, and he will eventually remove it from there; therefore,

it

was not obvious to Rabbi Yohanan that it should be prohibited.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who spent Shabbat in Upper Galilee, and they asked him

there

thirty laws concerning the laws of sukka.

Regarding

twelve

laws,

he said to them

Rabbi Eliezer:

I have heard

from my teachers what the law is in these matters; whereas regarding

eighteen

laws,

he said to them

Rabbi Eliezer:

I have not heard

from my teachers, and he did not resolve the questions for them.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

It was not so; rather,

the matters were reversed:

regarding

eighteen

laws,

he said to them

Rabbi Eliezer:

I have heard!

Whereas regarding

twelve

laws,

he said to them

Rabbi Eliezer:

I have not heard.

They said to

Rabbi Eliezer: Is it the case that

all your statements are based solely on what you have heard?!

He said to them

Rabbi Eliezer:

You have compelled me to state something that I did not hear from my teachers,

meaning: I must answer your question by describing my practices, and I did not hear from my teachers that one must conduct oneself in these ways; and this is my answer:

A.

Never did anyone precede me in the study hall,

but I was the one who arrived first, and I did not miss any of what was said there.

B.

Nor did I sleep in the study hall, neither a regular sleep nor a temporary sleep,

and therefore I heard everything that they would say in the study hall.

C.

Nor did I leave anyone in the study hall and depart,

but I was the last to leave the study hall, and I did not miss anything of all that they discussed there.

D.

Nor did I engage in idle conversation

—frivolous and jocular speech.

E.

Nor did I ever state something that I had not heard from my teacher.

In other words: The reason I do not issue a halakhic ruling for you concerning these laws is that this is my practice: I do not state something that I have not heard from my teacher. And do not say that I did not trouble myself to hear what my teachers said, for I came first to the study hall and left last, and I neither slept nor engaged in idle conversation; and had my teachers said anything concerning these laws, I certainly would have heard it.

They said concerning Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai:

A.

In all his days he never engaged in idle conversation.

B.

Nor did he walk four cubits without Torah

—for he was always walking and studying—

or without tefillin.

C.

Nor did anyone precede him in the study hall.

D.

Nor did he sleep in the study hall, neither a regular sleep nor a temporary sleep.

E.

Nor did he contemplate

words of Torah

in filthy alleyways.

F.

Nor did he leave anyone in the study hall and depart.

G.

Nor did they find him sitting silently

—remaining quiet—

but rather sitting and studying.

H.

Nor did anyone open the door for his students; rather, he himself

would draw himself close to the entrance, because among his students there would be rivalry and a neglect of Torah study over which of them would open the door for his fellow students who were arriving [Maharsha].

I.

Nor did

Rabbi Yohanan

ever state a matter that he had not heard from his teacher.

J.

Nor did

Rabbi Yohanan

say, “The time has come to leave the study hall,”

except on the eves of Passover,

because of preparing their Paschal offerings and because of the children, so that they would not fall asleep.

And

except on

the eve of Yom Kippur,

when one must eat while it is still day.

And so Rabbi Eliezer, his student,

of Rabbi Yohanan,

conducted himself after him.

The Sages taught:

Hillel the Elder had eighty students.

Thirty

students

among them were worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them, as it did upon Moses our teacher.

And thirty

students

among them were worthy that the sun should stand still for them,

rather than continue along its fixed course,

as

it stood still for

Joshua son of Nun.

And

twenty

students were

of intermediate level,

intermediate between the first group and the last group.

The

greatest of them all

was

Jonathan ben Uzziel.

And the

least of them all

was

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.

They said concerning Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, that he did not neglect

studying:

Scripture,

which is the Written Torah.

Mishna,

such as the Mishna and the beraita of the six orders.

Gemara,

which is reasoning: The later tannaim would examine the words of the earlier tannaim carefully, explaining them and providing reasons for them, just as the amoraim, after the tannaim, explained the words of the tannaim who preceded them and established Gemara concerning them. That careful analysis in the era of the tannaim was called Gemara [Rashash].

Laws

given to Moses at Sinai, such as gud asik, lavud, and a crooked wall; measures, interpositions, partitions ten [handbreadths high], the law of the ten saplings, the willow, and the pouring of the water.

And aggadot,

interpretations of verses, such as Midrash Tanhuma, Genesis Rabba, and Leviticus Rabba [Rashbam, Bava Batra].

The precise inferences of the Torah,

the extra letters from which amplifications and exclusions are expounded, such as “the native-born,” which excludes women from the obligation of sukka; the Torah was precise in its wording and wrote an extra letter in order to teach this.

And the precise inferences of the Scribes,

for the Sages added careful scrutiny of people’s conduct, imposed stringencies, and made safeguards and supports for the Torah, enacting decrees to distance a person from transgression.

Kal va-chomers,

matters learned by means of a kal va-chomer, which were given to be inferred independently by every person and were not explicitly transmitted at Sinai.

And verbal analogies,

matters learned by means of a gzera shava.

Astronomical calculations,

the calculation of the courses of the sun and the moon.

And gematriot,

matters learned through the language of gematria, such as by means of the at bash system or through the numerical value of the letters. For example, concerning the verse stated with regard to a nazirite, “holy shall he be,” they said that “shall he be” has the numerical value of thirty, teaching that the unspecified nazirite term is thirty days.

The speech of the ministering angels, the speech of demons, and the speech of palm trees.

[This segment is not present in the source text.]

Parables of launderers

and

parables of foxes,

parables composed by the ancients to provide a pretext for their admonitions, attributing them to launderers and foxes; see the note .

A great matter and a small matter.

And we explain: “

A great matter”

is

the Account of the Chariot; “

a small matter” is

the discussions of Abaye and Rava,

everything about which Abaye and Rava raised a question, he too had raised the question and resolved it; however, it was forgotten in the time of the amoraim.

To fulfill what is stated,

that is: The verse was said concerning these Sages [Ritva]:

“To endow those who love Me with substance, and I will fill their treasuries.”

And since the least of them all

—Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, the least of Hillel the Elder’s students—

was so great, the greatest of them all

—Jonathan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel the Elder’s students—

was certainly all the more so!

They said concerning Jonathan ben Uzziel: When he would sit and engage in Torah study, any bird that flew over him was immediately burned,

because the ministering angels would gather around him to hear words of Torah from his mouth [Rashi].

Mishna:

A.

One whose head and most of his body are in the sukka, but whose table is inside the house:

Beit Shammai invalidate

his fulfillment of his obligation, as a decree lest he follow his table and eat outside the sukka.

And Beit Hillel deem it valid.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

But is it not the case that

there was such an incident, when the elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, while his table was inside the house, and they said nothing to him?!

Beit Shammai said to them:

But

is that proof?!

For

they too

—the elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel—

said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan ben HaḤoranit:

If this is how you conducted yourself,

always sitting with your head and most of your body in the sukka while your table was inside the house, then

you never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka!

B.

Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the sukka.

C.

A minor who no longer requires his mother is obligated in the sukka,

by rabbinic law, because of education.

There was an incident in which the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth, and he removed part of the plaster flooring

—the floor of the upper story above the infant’s bed—

and placed roofing over the bed for the sake of the minor.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the sukka:

And we explain:

From where are these matters derived?

For the Sages taught:

It is written: “Every native-born Israelite shall dwell in sukkot,” and we expound: “

Native-born.”

Had it been written only “native-born,”

this native-born person, it would have implied all native-born people, even women. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “

the native-born,”

which implies the skilled [or distinguished] among the native-born, namely, a man. The verse thereby came

to exclude women

from the obligation to dwell in a sukka.

And the Merciful One wrote “

every

native-born” in order

to include minors

in the obligation of sukka [and later the Gemara challenges this].

The Master said: “

The native-born”

to exclude women:

And we raise an objection:

Does this mean that “

native-born”

—

without the definite article—

implies

both women

and

men, as stated in the beraita, which says that the verse had to state “the native-born” in order to exclude women?!

But it was taught in a beraita:

It is written concerning the affliction on Yom Kippur: “You shall afflict your souls, and you shall not perform any labor, the native-born and the stranger,” and we expound: “

The native-born”

to include native-born women, who are obligated in the affliction.

Evidently, “

native-born”

means men

only, as it

implies; therefore, the verse had to state “the native-born” in order to include women. Yet concerning sukka we say that “native-born” implies both women and men?!

only, and therefore the verse had to write “the native-born” in order to include women. Yet with regard to sukka we say that “native-born” means both women and men. How can this be?

Rabba said: They are halakhot, and the Sages anchored them in verses.

That is: one may not derive these two laws from the verses, since you cannot say that sometimes the letter he comes to include and sometimes to exclude [Rashi],

but one of these laws is a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, and the second law is derived through exposition of the verse; and the law whose source is the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, the Sages associated with the verse and expounded it contrary to its plain meaning.

And we ask: a.

Which is the verse and which is the halakha,

which law is derived through exposition of the verse, and which has its basis in the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai?

b.

Furthermore, why do I need the verse,

and also

why do I need the halakha,

when even without them you can derive that a woman is exempt from the sukka and obligated in affliction?

d

The sukka is a time-bound positive mitzva

and

women are exempt from every time-bound positive mitzva,

and from this you know that a woman is exempt from the sukka.

And

even the woman's obligation in affliction on

Yom Kippur,

which is a prohibition and carries karet [Rashi], whether or not it is time-bound,

follows from Rav Yehuda's statement in the name of Rav,

for the woman is prohibited from it?!

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and likewise it was taught in the academy of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse says, “

a man or a woman

when they commit any of the sins of a person,”