Sukkah 28b — the Talmud in English

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

from here that women are liable for every negative commandment in the Torah, for their punishment is lashes [Rashi, Pesaḥim].

And if so, why do we need a source to make a woman liable in the sukkah, and to make a woman liable for the affliction of Yom Kippur?!

He said

in answer,

Abaye:

What we asked— which is the verse and which is the halakha—the answer is:

Actually, sukkah,

from which the woman is exempt,

the halakha

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 concerning what we raised: Why do we need a halakha in sukkah to exempt them, since it is a positive commandment whose time determines it? The answer is:

And it was necessary

the halakha. For

it might enter your mind to say:

“You shall dwell”—

just as a dwelling is a man and his wife, so too a sukkah is a man and his wife,

and women would be liable in sukkah.

Therefore,

it informs us

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

Rava said

to answer the question: Why do we need a halakha in sukkah to exempt women, since it is a positive commandment whose time determines it:

Therefore,

it was necessary

the halakha, for

it might enter your mind to say: derive

“the fifteenth”

stated concerning the festival of Sukkot from

“the fifteenth”

from the festival of Matzot: just as there

with matza

women are liable,

even though it is a positive commandment whose time determines it,

so here too,

in sukkah,

women are liable,

even though it is a positive commandment whose time determines it. Therefore,

it informs us

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

And we explain:

And now that you have said

that women are exempt from

sukkah—the halakha

is, and the essential exposition of “the native” implies inclusion, as on Yom Kippur [and only as an asmachta do we say that “the native” comes to exclude women], therefore

the verse

of “the native” written concerning sukkah—

why do we need it,

what does it come to include?

To include converts,

so that they will be liable in sukkah. For

it might enter your mind to say

to exempt them, since

“the native”

“in Israel”

the Merciful One said,

which implies Israel

but not converts.

Therefore,

it informs us

the hei of “the native,” that converts too are liable in sukkah.

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

Yom Kippur,

since

does it not follow from Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav?!

And we answer:

The verse

of “the native,” which we learned in the beraita to come to include women with regard to the affliction,

is needed only to

make women liable also for

the additional affliction

on Yom Kippur, to begin and fast 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 warning,

and it is merely a positive commandment , if so,

women were not made liable

for the additional affliction

at all.

Therefore,

it informs us

the verse “the native,” that women too are liable for the additional affliction on Yom Kippur.

The Master said

in the beraita mentioned above:

“Every

native”

to include minors,

who are liable in sukkah:

And we raise an objection:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

“Women and slaves

and minors

are exempt from sukkah”?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Here,

the beraita is speaking

of a minor who has reached education,

such as one who does not need his mother, and therefore he is liable.

Whereas

here,

our Mishna is speaking

of a minor who has not reached education,

who is exempt from sukkah.

And we raise an objection: But

a minor who has reached education,

only

by rabbinic ordinance is he

liable, so how did we learn his obligation from the verse?!

And we explain: In fact, only

by rabbinic ordinance

is the minor liable,

and the verse

“every native”

is merely an asmachta

and not the actual source of the obligation.

. We learned in the Mishna:

A minor who does not need his mother

is liable in sukkah:

And we explain:

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

The school 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 raise an objection against Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

“Mother”—

adults too call out

when they awaken from their sleep?!

That is to say: Is it only one who does not call his mother whom you call “one who does not need his mother,” but one who calls his mother you call “one who needs his mother”? Yet even an adult who does not need 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,”

for he clings to her, calling and repeating until she comes to him; adults do not do this, but call 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 plaster ceiling and roofed over the bed for the sake of the minor:

And we raise an objection: This

incident

comes

to contradict

what is stated in the Mishna, that minors are exempt from sukkah; is it the way of those speaking to bring after their words an incident that contradicts their words?!

And we answer:

Something is missing, and this is what it teaches:

Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from sukkah.

And Shammai is stringent

with a minor even when he needs his mother.

And there was also an incident: the daughter-in-law of the elder Shammai gave birth, and he removed the plaster ceiling and roofed over the bed for the sake of the minor.

Mishna:

a.

All seven days

of the festival of Sukkot,

a person makes his sukkah permanent,

so that all the main part of his dwelling is in it,

and

he makes his

house

he makes

temporary.

b. If

rains fell

into the sukkah,

from when is it permitted to remove

his utensils from the sukkah? That is to say: from when is he called one who suffers and exempt from sitting in the sukkah:

When it becomes spoiled,

when the

stew becomes ruined. [A0190]Every thickened cooked dish, which is neither soft nor thick, is called mikpa.

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

c. The rains are a sign of misfortune during the festival, and

they compared

the Sages

it to what is this similar? To a servant who came to mix a cup for his master, and he poured a jug over his face [A0195][in the Gemara it explains who poured on whom].

The Gemara explains who poured on whom].

Gemara:

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

if he had

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

And we explain:

From where are these words,

from where do we learn all this?

For the Sages taught:

It is written, “In sukkot you shall dwell seven days,” teaching you:

“You shall dwell” just as you dwell; from here they said: All seven days a person makes his sukkah permanent and his house temporary.

How so?

If

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

and if he had

fine bedding, he brings it up to the sukkah.

He eats, drinks, and strolls in the sukkah.

And he reviews his learning in the sukkah [A0213][he considers his learning and cuts it into a clear form in order to stand upon it; that is, the sayings of the amoraim and the reasoning behind the explanations of a Mishna and beraita: why this one is liable and this one exempt, this one forbidden and this one permitted, Rashi].

he studies his learning and clarifies it thoroughly so that he understands it firmly; this refers to the teachings of the amoraim—sages of the Gemara—and the reasoning behind the rulings of the Mishna and the beraita: why one matter is obligatory and another exempt, one forbidden and another permitted, Rashi].

And we raise an objection concerning what we learned in the beraita, “And he reviews his learning in the sukkah”:

Is that so? For Rava said: One who reads,

to read the Written Torah,

and one who studies,

to review arranged Mishnayot that are fluent in the mouth, must do them

in the matlalta [A0220][in the sukkah].

in the sukka].

And

as for

one who studies [A0224][we might have thought that this is what “and he reviews his learning” in the beraita refers to], namely, the study of the Talmud, which is reasoning and requires exertion to review, and likewise the sayings of the amoraim, which come only through deductions and are learned from the words of the Mishna by comparing one matter with another [Rashi]—if he wishes, he may study them

we initially understand this to be what “reviewing his learning” in the beraita means], and this refers to studying the Talmud, which requires effort and review, as well as the teachings of the amoraim, which are reached only through detailed analysis and by deriving one matter from another in the words of the Mishna [Rashi]—if he wishes, he may study them

outside the matlalta [A0226][outside the sukkah], since he suffers and is exempt from the sukkah, for it is preferable for him to study outside the sukkah, because the air is good for him to broaden his mind.

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

Thus we learned that he reviews his learning outside the sukkah, whereas in the beraita it states, “And he reviews his learning in the sukkah”?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult,

for there are two types of review:

This—

the beraita that says, “And he reviews his learning in the sukkah”— -

in recitation,

in the study of Gemara that is already clear to him, so that he does not suffer if he does it in the sukkah.

This—

that Rava said, “And one who studies outside the matlalta”— -

in analysis,

he examines it now, and it is not yet clear to him; and since this requires breadth of mind, it is lacking for him in the sukkah, it is permitted to study it outside the sukkah.