Sukkah 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

The verse equated a woman with a man with regard to all punishments stated in the Torah,

from here it follows that women are liable for every prohibition in the Torah, since their punishment is lashes [Rashi, Pesaḥim].

If so, why do we need a source to obligate a woman in sukka, and to obligate a woman in the affliction of Yom Kippur?!

He said

in answer,

Abaye:

The answer to what we asked— which is a verse and which is a halakha—is:

Actually, sukka,

from which a woman is exempt,

is a halakha, and the verse “the homeborn” that excludes women is merely an asmachta [for, on the contrary, “homeborn” implies men and not women, whereas “the homeborn” implies including women; and this is the reason that a woman is liable for the affliction of Yom Kippur].

is; and the verse “the native” excluding women is merely an asmachta [for, on the contrary, “native” implies men and not women, while “the native” implies including women; and this is the reason that a woman is liable for the affliction of Yom Kippur].

And regarding what we challenged: Why do we need a halakha concerning sukka to exempt women, when it is a time-bound positive mitzva? The answer is:

And it was necessary

to have a halakha. For

it might enter your mind to say, “

You shall dwell” means “as you dwell,”—

just as a dwelling is occupied by a man and his wife, so too a sukka is occupied by a man and his wife,

and women would therefore be obligated in sukka.

Therefore,

it teaches us

the halakha given to Moses at Sinai that women are exempt from sukka.

Rava said

in response to the question of why we need a halakha concerning sukka to exempt women, when it is a time-bound positive mitzva:

Therefore,

it was necessary

to have a halakha, for

it might enter your mind to say: Derive the “

fifteenth”

stated with regard to the Festival of Sukkot from the “

fifteenth”

stated with regard to the Festival of Matzot: Just as there,

with regard to matza,

women are obligated,

even though it is a time-bound positive mitzva,

so too here,

with regard to sukka,

women are obligated,

even though it is a time-bound positive mitzva. Therefore,

it teaches us

the halakha given to Moses at Sinai that women are exempt from sukka.

And we explain:

And now that you have said

that women are exempt from

sukka by halakha, and that the principal exposition of “the homeborn” is understood to include, as with Yom Kippur [and only as an asmachta do we say that “the homeborn” comes to exclude women], then

and the primary interpretation of “the native-born” is to include, as it does with regard to Yom Kippur [and only as a supporting inference do we say that “the native-born” comes to exclude women], if so,

the verse

“the homeborn” written with regard to sukka—

why do we need it?

What does it come to include?

It comes to include converts,

so that they will be obligated in sukka. For

it might enter your mind to say

that they should be exempt, since

“the homeborn”

“in Israel”

the Merciful One stated,

which implies Israel

but not converts.

Therefore,

it teaches us that the letter heh in “the homeborn” teaches that converts too are obligated in sukka.

“the native-born” teaches us that converts too are obligated in the sukka.

And now the Gemara returns to the second part of the question: Why do we need the verse “the homeborn” to include women with regard to the affliction of

Yom Kippur,

when it follows

from the statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

that the verse “the homeborn,” which we learned in the beraita comes to include women with regard to the affliction,

only to

obligate women as well in

the additional affliction

of Yom Kippur, to begin fasting while it is still day [Rashi].

For

it might enter your mind to say: Since the Merciful One excluded the additional affliction from punishment and from a warning,

and it is merely a positive mitzva , if so,

women are not obligated

in the additional affliction

at all.

Therefore,

it teaches us the verse “the homeborn” that women too are obligated in the additional affliction of Yom Kippur.

“the native-born” teaches us that women too are obligated in the additional affliction of Yom Kippur.

The Master said,

in the beraita mentioned above: “

Every

homeborn”—

to include minors,

who are obligated in sukka:

And we question this:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna:

Women, slaves, “

and minors”

are exempt from sukka?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Here,

the beraita is speaking

of a minor who has reached the age of training,

such as one who does not require his mother, and therefore he is obligated.

Whereas

here,

our Mishna is speaking

of a minor who has not reached the age of training,

who is exempt from sukka.

And we question this:

A minor who has reached the age of training

is obligated only

by rabbinic ordinance,

so how did we derive his obligation from the verse?!

And we explain: In fact, the minor is obligated only

by rabbinic ordinance;

the minor is obligated,

and the verse

“Every homeborn”

is merely an asmachta

and not the actual source of the obligation.

We learned in the Mishna:

A minor who does not require his mother

is obligated in sukka:

And we explain:

What are the circumstances of a minor who does not require his mother?

The scholars of the academy of Rabbi Yannai said: Anyone who relieves himself

to attend to his needs

and his mother does not clean him.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Anyone who awakens from his sleep and does not call

“Mother.”

And we question Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

“

Mother”—

adults also call her when they awaken from their sleep?!

That is, do you call one who does not call his mother “one who does not require his mother,” while one who calls his mother is called “one who requires his mother”? But even an adult who does not require his mother is accustomed to call her when he awakens from his sleep?!

And we answer:

Rather, say: Anyone who awakens

from his sleep

and does not call

“Mother, Mother,”

as one who is attached to her, calling and calling until she comes to him. Adults do not do this; rather, they call once and remain silent.

We learned in the Mishna:

It happened that the daughter-in-law

of the elder Shammai gave birth, and he removed the plastering of the ceiling and placed roofing over the bed for the sake of the minor:

And we question this:

This incident

comes

to contradict

what is stated in the Mishna, that minors are exempt from sukka. Is it the practice of those who state a ruling to bring, immediately afterward, an incident that contradicts their words?!

And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from sukka.

And Shammai is stringent

with regard to a minor even when he requires his mother.

And there was also an incident in which the daughter-in-law of the elder Shammai gave birth, and he removed the plastering of the ceiling and placed roofing over the bed for the sake of the minor.

Mishna:

a.

Throughout all seven days

of the Festival of Sukkot,

a person makes his sukka permanent,

so that it is the principal place of his dwelling,

and

his

house

he makes

temporary.

b. If

rains fall

into the sukka,

from when is he permitted to remove

his utensils from the sukka? That is, from when is he considered to be suffering and exempt from sitting in the sukka?

When the

stew called

mekafe becomes spoiled. [A dish of a thick consistency, neither soft nor hard, is called mekafe.]

Any thick dish that is neither runny nor firm is called a dish of thick porridge].

c. Rain is a sign of misfortune during the Festival, and

the Sages compared it

to

what is this matter comparable? To a slave who came to pour a cup for his master, and he poured a pitcher over his face [in the Gemara it is explained who poured upon whom].

The Gemara explains who poured on whom].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Throughout all seven days a person makes his sukka permanent and his house temporary. How so? If he had fine utensils, he brings them up to the sukka;

if he had

fine bedding, he brings it up to the sukka; he eats, drinks, and strolls in the sukka.

And we explain:

From where are these matters

derived?

For the Sages taught:

It is written, “You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days,” teaching you:

“You shall dwell” means as you dwell; from here they said: Throughout all seven days a person makes his sukka permanent and his house temporary.

How so?

If

he had fine utensils, he brings them up to the sukka;

and if he had

fine bedding, he brings it up to the sukka.

He eats, drinks, and strolls in the sukka.

And he reviews his learning in the sukka

[He analyzes his learning and clarifies it thoroughly so that he can stand firmly upon it; this refers to the teachings of the amoraim and the reasoning behind the Mishna and beraita: why this one is liable and that one exempt, this one prohibited and that one permitted, Rashi].

And we question what we learned in the beraita: “And he reviews his learning in the sukka”:

Is that so? But Rava said: For reading

the Written Torah,

and for reviewing

well-arranged Mishnayot that are familiar by heart, one must do so

in the matlalta

[in the sukka].

But

for

study

[it was initially assumed that this refers to “reviewing his learning” in the beraita], namely, studying the Talmud, which involves reasoning and for which one may exert himself to review, as well as the teachings of the amoraim, which are accessible only through inferences derived from precision in the language, learned from the words of the Mishna by analogy from one matter to another [Rashi]—if he wishes, he may study them

outside the matlalta

[outside the sukka], since he suffers and is exempt from the sukka; it is preferable for him to study outside the sukka because the air is better for him and broadens his mind.

We have thus learned that he reviews his learning outside the sukka, whereas the beraita states: “And he reviews his learning in the sukka”?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult,

for there are two types of review:

This

—the beraita, which says, “And he reviews his learning in the sukka”—

concerns recitation,

the study of Gemara that is already clear to him, so that he does not suffer by doing it in the sukka.

This

—Rava’s statement, “And study outside the matlalta”—

concerns analytical study,

when he is examining it now and it is not yet clear to him. Since this requires a broadening of the mind, it is deficient for him in the sukka, and he is permitted to study it outside the sukka.