Search

Sukkah 18

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

English
עברית
podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00



podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00



Summary

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jessica Jobaneck on the occasion of her marriage to Harold Kingsberg today and their joint siyum of Masekhet Yoma. “Here’s to being chevrutas for life.” And by Michael Gordon in honor of his wife Avigail and their 15th wedding anniversary. “Avigail, I am so proud of everything that you do. And your learning daf yomi on top of it all.” And by Ronit Shavit in honor of her son drafting into the IDF. “Wishing him much success. May God protect him. And in memory of her mother, Leah bat Masudi and Yaakov on her 16th yahrzeit. “My mother was my inspiration to learn the daf.”

And by Ronit Shavit in honor of her son Yair drafting into the IDF. And in memory of her mother, Leah bat Mesodi and Yaakov, on her 16th yartzeit. 

After the gemara brings a further attempt to prove whether disqualified s’chach ruins a sukkah at four handbreadths or four cubits, the gemara then brings a debate about whether laws of levud work only at the edge of a sukkah or even in the middle. Sources are brought to bring support to each opinion. In the case of a portico outside a house with a courtyard in the middle, can one use the edge of the portico to create the illusion of walls for the sukkah? Can the principle “the ceiling comes down and blocks it” be used here? Abaye and Rava disagree. Is it the same debate as between Rav and Shmuel regarding a portico in a valley as regards laws of Shabbat?

Sukkah 18

וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ בֵּין נֶסֶר לְנֶסֶר כִּמְלֹא נֶסֶר — שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ פְּסָל בֵּינֵיהֶם וּכְשֵׁרָה.

And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין מִן הַצַּד בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי כְּשֵׁרָה. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּאֶמְצַע בְּאַרְבָּעָה, אַמַּאי כְּשֵׁרָה?

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to the one who said: Both along the side and in the center a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that the sukka under discussion is fit, as none of the boards is four cubits wide. However, according to the one who said that a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, why is the sukka fit? Each board is capable on its own of rendering the sukka unfit.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָכָא בְּסוּכָּה דְּלָא הָוְיָא אֶלָּא שְׁמֹנֶה מְצוּמְצָמוֹת עָסְקִינַן, וְיָהֵיב נֶסֶר וּפְסָל וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא, וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא,

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that is exactly eight cubits, i.e., forty-eight handbreadths, wide, and one began placing the roofing from the side. And he places a four-handbreadth board and then four handbreadths of waste, and another board and waste, and a board and waste, from this side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths. And then a beam and waste, a beam and waste, and a beam and waste, from that side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths.

דְּהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי פְסָלִין בָּאֶמְצַע, וְאִיכָּא הֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה בָּאֶמְצַע.

The result is that the sukka has two four-handbreadth stretches of waste in the middle of the sukka, totaling eight handbreadths. In that case, there is the minimum measure of fit roofing required for fitness of a sukka in the middle, and everyone agrees that the unfit roofing in the rest of the sukka cannot render it unfit. Since the unfit roofing measures less than four cubits on either side, the sukka is fit both according to the principle of curved wall and according to the opinion that unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with four cubits.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲוִיר שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּסוּכָּה גְּדוֹלָה וּמִיעֲטוֹ, בֵּין בְּקָנִים בֵּין בְּשַׁפּוּדִין — הָוֵי מִיעוּט. בְּסוּכָּה קְטַנָּה, בְּקָנִים — הָוֵי מִיעוּט, בְּשַׁפּוּדִין — לָא הָוֵי מִיעוּט.

§ Abaye said: If there is space measuring three handbreadths in a large sukka, which is defined as one larger than seven by seven handbreadths, and one diminished the space, whether he did so with branches, fit for roofing, or whether he did so with metal skewers, unfit roofing, it is an effective diminution, as there is neither sufficient space nor sufficient unfit roofing to render the sukka unfit. However, in a small sukka, if one diminished the space with branches it is an effective diminution; if he diminished the space with skewers, it is not an effective diminution and the sukka is unfit. The three handbreadths of skewers, while insufficient to render the sukka unfit, diminish the fit area of the sukka to the point that the measure that remains does not constitute a fit sukka.

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי מִן הַצַּד. אֲבָל בָּאֶמְצַע — פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: יֵשׁ לָבוּד בָּאֶמְצַע, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין לָבוּד בָּאֶמְצַע.

The Gemara notes: And this applies only if the space is along the side of the sukka, in which case the principle of lavud applies. However, if the space is in the center of the sukka, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling. One said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka. And one said: The principle of lavud is not applied in the center of the sukka. Even if one diminished the space, the two sides of the roofing are not considered joined.

מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לָבוּד בָּאֶמְצַע — דְּתַנְיָא: קוֹרָה הַיּוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל זֶה וְאֵינָהּ נוֹגַעַת בְּכוֹתֶל אַחֵר, וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי קוֹרוֹת, אַחַת יוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל זֶה וְאַחַת יוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל אַחֵר וְאֵינָן נוֹגְעוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ — פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת. שְׁלֹשָׁה — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת.

The Gemara explains: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka? It is as it is taught in the Tosefta: With regard to a cross beam of the merging of alleyways that projects from this wall of an alleyway but does not touch the other opposite wall, and similarly, with regard to two cross beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from the other opposite wall and they do not touch each other, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam. Apparently, the principle of lavud is applied even in the center.

וְאִידַּךְ — שָׁאנֵי קוֹרוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud does not apply in the center, how would he explain the Tosefta? The Gemara clarifies that he would say that beams are different because the prohibition against carrying in an alleyway is a decree by rabbinic law, and it is a rabbinic ordinance that beams may be placed at the entrance to the alleyway to permit carrying therein, the Sages were lenient. Therefore, proof cannot be cited from the case of the beams with regard to other situations.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין לָבוּד בָּאֶמְצַע — דִּתְנַן: אֲרוּבָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת וּבָהּ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, טוּמְאָה בַּבַּיִת — כּוּלּוֹ טָמֵא, מַה שֶּׁכְּנֶגֶד אֲרוּבָּה — טָהוֹר. טוּמְאָה כְּנֶגֶד אֲרוּבָּה — כָּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ טָהוֹר.

What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud does not apply in the center? It is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a skylight in the roof of a house whose opening is one square handbreadth, if there is a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse inside the house, all the objects in the entire house become ritually impure, as the legal status of the roof is that of a tent over a corpse. However, the objects that are directly opposite the skylight are ritually pure, as the roof does not cover that part of the house. If the source of ritual impurity is itself situated aligned with the skylight, all the objects in the entire house are ritually pure, as there is no roof over the source of impurity.

אֵין בָּאֲרוּבָּה פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, טוּמְאָה בַּבַּיִת — כְּנֶגֶד אֲרוּבָּה, טָהוֹר. טוּמְאָה כְּנֶגֶד אֲרוּבָּה — כָּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ טָהוֹר.

If the skylight does not have an opening of a square handbreadth and there is ritual impurity in the house, the objects opposite the skylight remain ritually pure. If the source of ritual impurity is aligned with the skylight, the objects in the entire house are ritually pure. Apparently, the principle of lavud is not applied in the center; if it were, all the objects in the house would become ritually impure regardless of the location of the source of impurity. The opening of the skylight should be considered closed, as the distance between the two sides of its opening is less than three handbreadths.

וְאִידַּךְ? שָׁאנֵי הִלְכוֹת טוּמְאָה דְּהָכִי גְּמִירִי לְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud applies in the center, how would he explain the mishna? The Gemara answers: The halakhot of ritual impurity are different, as that is the way they learned them through tradition. The halakhot of tents and ritual impurity are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Therefore, their details are unique, and other areas of halakha cannot be derived from them.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִלְעַאי: בַּיִת שֶׁנִּפְחַת וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבָּיו — כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רַבִּי, פָּרֵישׁ, כָּךְ פֵּירַשׁ אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת פְּסוּלָה, פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת כְּשֵׁרָה.

§ Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: A house that was breached and one roofed over it is a fit sukka. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: If the ceiling between the wall and the breach is four cubits long, the sukka is unfit. If it is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִלְעַאי: אַבְרוּמָא שַׁרְיָא. אֲמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רַבִּי, פָּרֵישׁ, כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: שֶׁל מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי — אֲסוּרָה, שֶׁל מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי — מוּתֶּרֶת.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: With regard to the abramis [avroma], it is permitted to eat it, despite the fact that it is a very small fish that is typically caught in a net with many similar, non-kosher, fish, and it is difficult to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: The abramis found in the rivers of place so-and-so, where there are also non-kosher fish, is prohibited; however, the abramis of a different place so-and-so, where there are no non-kosher fish, is permitted.

כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי צַחַנְתָּא דְּבָב נַהֲרָא שַׁרְיָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּרְדִיפִי מַיָּא, וְהַאי דָּג טָמֵא כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה לָא מָצֵי קָאֵים — וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּקָאֵי!

The Gemara notes that this is similar to that which Abaye said: These small fish [tzaḥanta] of the Bav River are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? If we say that it is due to the fact that the water flows rapidly, and these non-kosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist in that water, as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case. Don’t we see that non-kosher fish exist in rivers with strong currents?

אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּמְלִיחִי מַיָּא, וְהַאי דָּג טָמֵא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ קִילְפֵי לָא מָצֵי קָאֵי — וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּקָאֵי! אֶלָּא: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְרַבֵּה טִינַיְיהוּ דָּג טָמֵא. אֲמַר רָבִינָא: וְהָאִידָּנָא, דְּשָׁפְכִי נְהַר אֵיתָן וּנְהַר גַּמְדָּא לְהָתָם, אֲסִירָא.

Rather, perhaps Abaye permitted it because the water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist in that water because they do not have scales. This, too, is not the case, as don’t we see that non-kosher fish exist in salty water? Rather, Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River because the mud in that river is not suited for non-kosher fish to reproduce. The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for non-kosher fish. Ravina said: And today, since the government built canals between the rivers, and the Eitan River and the Gamda River spill into the Bav, it is prohibited to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.

אִתְּמַר: סִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי אַכְסַדְרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ פַּצִּימִין — כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁאֵין לָהּ פַּצִּימִין, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרָבָא אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר כְּשֵׁרָה —

§ It was stated that the amora’im disagree: If one roofed a portico that has posts on its open side, the sukka is fit. If one roofed a portico that does not have posts on its open side, Abaye said: The sukka is fit, and Rava said: The sukka is unfit. The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said: The sukka is fit,

אָמְרִינַן פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם. רָבָא אָמַר פְּסוּלָה — לָא אָמְרִינַן פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם.

as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. The edge of the roof itself is considered as though it were a small partition that extends downward and forms a wall. Rava said: This sukka is unfit, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַבָּיֵי, לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם, אֲפִילּוּ הִפְחִית דּוֹפֶן אֶמְצָעִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ בְּהָהִיא, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמָבוֹי הַמְפוּלָּשׁ.

Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said: The edge of the roof descends and seals the opening like a wall, then in a case where the roofing of the sukka consists of straight beams, even if one removed the middle wall, leaving the sukka with only two parallel walls, the sukka would nevertheless be fit. Since the edge of the roof descends and seals, the legal status of that sukka is the same as one that has walls on all sides. Abaye said to him: I concede to you that in that particular case the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, does not apply, as it is considered like an open alleyway, through which the multitudes pass on two opposite sides. In other cases, the principle applies.

לֵימָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאִתְּמַר: אַכְסַדְרָה בְּבִקְעָה, רַב אָמַר: מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלּוֹ, דְּאָמְרִינַן פִּי תִּקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בָּהּ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to the same issue that was the subject in the dispute of Rav and Shmuel; they are merely elaborating on a fundamental dispute between other amora’im. As it was stated: Amora’im disagree with regard to a portico, which has a roof and no walls or incomplete walls, located in a field, which is a karmelit. Rav said: It is permitted to move an object throughout the entire portico, as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening, rendering the portico a private domain, as it is effectively surrounded by partitions. And Shmuel said: One may move an object in the portico only within four cubits, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. Therefore, the portico’s legal status is that of the surrounding field. Ostensibly, the basis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava is identical to the basis of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

אַלִּיבָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.

The Gemara rejects this comparison and says: According to the opinion of Shmuel, everyone, even Abaye, agrees that one does not apply the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, to the case of a sukka.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!

Caroline Levison
Caroline Levison

Borehamwood, United Kingdom

As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.

Sue Parker Gerson
Sue Parker Gerson

Denver, United States

My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.

Diana Bloom
Diana Bloom

Tampa, United States

I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.

Julie Mendelsohn
Julie Mendelsohn

Zichron Yakov, Israel

I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.

Gila Loike
Gila Loike

Ashdod, Israel

My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Tina Lamm

Jerusalem, Israel

I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Dora Chana Haar

Oceanside NY, United States

Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.

Susan Handelman
Susan Handelman

Jerusalem, Israel

I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!

Roslyn Jaffe
Roslyn Jaffe

Florida, United States

I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Sarene Shanus

Mamaroneck, NY, United States

I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.

Talia Haykin
Talia Haykin

Denver, United States

My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others.  Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life.  Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.

Rina Goldberg
Rina Goldberg

Englewood NJ, United States

When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.

Laura Shechter
Laura Shechter

Lexington, MA, United States

I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!

Keren Carter
Keren Carter

Brentwood, California, United States

The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Judi Felber

Raanana, Israel

I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.

Julie Mendelsohn
Julie Mendelsohn

Zichron Yakov, Israel

I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.

Anne Rubin
Anne Rubin

Elkins Park, United States

I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.

Julie-Landau-Photo
Julie Landau

Karmiel, Israel

Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.

Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.

Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal

Merion Station,  USA

Beit Shemesh, Israel

A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!

Cindy Dolgin
Cindy Dolgin

HUNTINGTON, United States

Sukkah 18

וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ בֵּין נֶסֶר לְנֶסֶר כִּמְלֹא נֶסֶר — שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ פְּסָל בֵּינֵיהֶם וּכְשֵׁרָה.

And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין מִן הַצַּד בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי כְּשֵׁרָה. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּאֶמְצַע בְּאַרְבָּעָה, אַמַּאי כְּשֵׁרָה?

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to the one who said: Both along the side and in the center a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that the sukka under discussion is fit, as none of the boards is four cubits wide. However, according to the one who said that a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, why is the sukka fit? Each board is capable on its own of rendering the sukka unfit.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָכָא בְּסוּכָּה דְּלָא הָוְיָא אֶלָּא שְׁמֹנֶה מְצוּמְצָמוֹת עָסְקִינַן, וְיָהֵיב נֶסֶר וּפְסָל וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא, וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל וְנֶסֶר וּפְסָל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא,

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that is exactly eight cubits, i.e., forty-eight handbreadths, wide, and one began placing the roofing from the side. And he places a four-handbreadth board and then four handbreadths of waste, and another board and waste, and a board and waste, from this side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths. And then a beam and waste, a beam and waste, and a beam and waste, from that side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths.

דְּהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי פְסָלִין בָּאֶמְצַע, וְאִיכָּא הֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה בָּאֶמְצַע.

The result is that the sukka has two four-handbreadth stretches of waste in the middle of the sukka, totaling eight handbreadths. In that case, there is the minimum measure of fit roofing required for fitness of a sukka in the middle, and everyone agrees that the unfit roofing in the rest of the sukka cannot render it unfit. Since the unfit roofing measures less than four cubits on either side, the sukka is fit both according to the principle of curved wall and according to the opinion that unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with four cubits.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֲוִיר שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּסוּכָּה גְּדוֹלָה וּמִיעֲטוֹ, בֵּין בְּקָנִים בֵּין בְּשַׁפּוּדִין — הָוֵי מִיעוּט. בְּסוּכָּה קְטַנָּה, בְּקָנִים — הָוֵי מִיעוּט, בְּשַׁפּוּדִין — לָא הָוֵי מִיעוּט.

§ Abaye said: If there is space measuring three handbreadths in a large sukka, which is defined as one larger than seven by seven handbreadths, and one diminished the space, whether he did so with branches, fit for roofing, or whether he did so with metal skewers, unfit roofing, it is an effective diminution, as there is neither sufficient space nor sufficient unfit roofing to render the sukka unfit. However, in a small sukka, if one diminished the space with branches it is an effective diminution; if he diminished the space with skewers, it is not an effective diminution and the sukka is unfit. The three handbreadths of skewers, while insufficient to render the sukka unfit, diminish the fit area of the sukka to the point that the measure that remains does not constitute a fit sukka.

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי מִן הַצַּד. אֲבָל בָּאֶמְצַע — פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: יֵשׁ לָבוּד בָּאֶמְצַע, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין לָבוּד בָּאֶמְצַע.

The Gemara notes: And this applies only if the space is along the side of the sukka, in which case the principle of lavud applies. However, if the space is in the center of the sukka, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling. One said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka. And one said: The principle of lavud is not applied in the center of the sukka. Even if one diminished the space, the two sides of the roofing are not considered joined.

מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לָבוּד בָּאֶמְצַע — דְּתַנְיָא: קוֹרָה הַיּוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל זֶה וְאֵינָהּ נוֹגַעַת בְּכוֹתֶל אַחֵר, וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי קוֹרוֹת, אַחַת יוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל זֶה וְאַחַת יוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל אַחֵר וְאֵינָן נוֹגְעוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ — פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת. שְׁלֹשָׁה — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת.

The Gemara explains: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka? It is as it is taught in the Tosefta: With regard to a cross beam of the merging of alleyways that projects from this wall of an alleyway but does not touch the other opposite wall, and similarly, with regard to two cross beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from the other opposite wall and they do not touch each other, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam. Apparently, the principle of lavud is applied even in the center.

וְאִידַּךְ — שָׁאנֵי קוֹרוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud does not apply in the center, how would he explain the Tosefta? The Gemara clarifies that he would say that beams are different because the prohibition against carrying in an alleyway is a decree by rabbinic law, and it is a rabbinic ordinance that beams may be placed at the entrance to the alleyway to permit carrying therein, the Sages were lenient. Therefore, proof cannot be cited from the case of the beams with regard to other situations.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין לָבוּד בָּאֶמְצַע — דִּתְנַן: אֲרוּבָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת וּבָהּ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, טוּמְאָה בַּבַּיִת — כּוּלּוֹ טָמֵא, מַה שֶּׁכְּנֶגֶד אֲרוּבָּה — טָהוֹר. טוּמְאָה כְּנֶגֶד אֲרוּבָּה — כָּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ טָהוֹר.

What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud does not apply in the center? It is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a skylight in the roof of a house whose opening is one square handbreadth, if there is a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse inside the house, all the objects in the entire house become ritually impure, as the legal status of the roof is that of a tent over a corpse. However, the objects that are directly opposite the skylight are ritually pure, as the roof does not cover that part of the house. If the source of ritual impurity is itself situated aligned with the skylight, all the objects in the entire house are ritually pure, as there is no roof over the source of impurity.

אֵין בָּאֲרוּבָּה פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, טוּמְאָה בַּבַּיִת — כְּנֶגֶד אֲרוּבָּה, טָהוֹר. טוּמְאָה כְּנֶגֶד אֲרוּבָּה — כָּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ טָהוֹר.

If the skylight does not have an opening of a square handbreadth and there is ritual impurity in the house, the objects opposite the skylight remain ritually pure. If the source of ritual impurity is aligned with the skylight, the objects in the entire house are ritually pure. Apparently, the principle of lavud is not applied in the center; if it were, all the objects in the house would become ritually impure regardless of the location of the source of impurity. The opening of the skylight should be considered closed, as the distance between the two sides of its opening is less than three handbreadths.

וְאִידַּךְ? שָׁאנֵי הִלְכוֹת טוּמְאָה דְּהָכִי גְּמִירִי לְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud applies in the center, how would he explain the mishna? The Gemara answers: The halakhot of ritual impurity are different, as that is the way they learned them through tradition. The halakhot of tents and ritual impurity are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Therefore, their details are unique, and other areas of halakha cannot be derived from them.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִלְעַאי: בַּיִת שֶׁנִּפְחַת וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבָּיו — כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רַבִּי, פָּרֵישׁ, כָּךְ פֵּירַשׁ אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת פְּסוּלָה, פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת כְּשֵׁרָה.

§ Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: A house that was breached and one roofed over it is a fit sukka. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: If the ceiling between the wall and the breach is four cubits long, the sukka is unfit. If it is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִלְעַאי: אַבְרוּמָא שַׁרְיָא. אֲמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רַבִּי, פָּרֵישׁ, כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: שֶׁל מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי — אֲסוּרָה, שֶׁל מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי — מוּתֶּרֶת.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: With regard to the abramis [avroma], it is permitted to eat it, despite the fact that it is a very small fish that is typically caught in a net with many similar, non-kosher, fish, and it is difficult to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: The abramis found in the rivers of place so-and-so, where there are also non-kosher fish, is prohibited; however, the abramis of a different place so-and-so, where there are no non-kosher fish, is permitted.

כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי צַחַנְתָּא דְּבָב נַהֲרָא שַׁרְיָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּרְדִיפִי מַיָּא, וְהַאי דָּג טָמֵא כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה לָא מָצֵי קָאֵים — וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּקָאֵי!

The Gemara notes that this is similar to that which Abaye said: These small fish [tzaḥanta] of the Bav River are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? If we say that it is due to the fact that the water flows rapidly, and these non-kosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist in that water, as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case. Don’t we see that non-kosher fish exist in rivers with strong currents?

אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּמְלִיחִי מַיָּא, וְהַאי דָּג טָמֵא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ קִילְפֵי לָא מָצֵי קָאֵי — וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּקָאֵי! אֶלָּא: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְרַבֵּה טִינַיְיהוּ דָּג טָמֵא. אֲמַר רָבִינָא: וְהָאִידָּנָא, דְּשָׁפְכִי נְהַר אֵיתָן וּנְהַר גַּמְדָּא לְהָתָם, אֲסִירָא.

Rather, perhaps Abaye permitted it because the water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist in that water because they do not have scales. This, too, is not the case, as don’t we see that non-kosher fish exist in salty water? Rather, Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River because the mud in that river is not suited for non-kosher fish to reproduce. The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for non-kosher fish. Ravina said: And today, since the government built canals between the rivers, and the Eitan River and the Gamda River spill into the Bav, it is prohibited to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.

אִתְּמַר: סִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי אַכְסַדְרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ פַּצִּימִין — כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁאֵין לָהּ פַּצִּימִין, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרָבָא אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר כְּשֵׁרָה —

§ It was stated that the amora’im disagree: If one roofed a portico that has posts on its open side, the sukka is fit. If one roofed a portico that does not have posts on its open side, Abaye said: The sukka is fit, and Rava said: The sukka is unfit. The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said: The sukka is fit,

אָמְרִינַן פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם. רָבָא אָמַר פְּסוּלָה — לָא אָמְרִינַן פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם.

as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. The edge of the roof itself is considered as though it were a small partition that extends downward and forms a wall. Rava said: This sukka is unfit, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַבָּיֵי, לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם, אֲפִילּוּ הִפְחִית דּוֹפֶן אֶמְצָעִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ בְּהָהִיא, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמָבוֹי הַמְפוּלָּשׁ.

Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said: The edge of the roof descends and seals the opening like a wall, then in a case where the roofing of the sukka consists of straight beams, even if one removed the middle wall, leaving the sukka with only two parallel walls, the sukka would nevertheless be fit. Since the edge of the roof descends and seals, the legal status of that sukka is the same as one that has walls on all sides. Abaye said to him: I concede to you that in that particular case the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, does not apply, as it is considered like an open alleyway, through which the multitudes pass on two opposite sides. In other cases, the principle applies.

לֵימָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאִתְּמַר: אַכְסַדְרָה בְּבִקְעָה, רַב אָמַר: מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלּוֹ, דְּאָמְרִינַן פִּי תִּקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בָּהּ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to the same issue that was the subject in the dispute of Rav and Shmuel; they are merely elaborating on a fundamental dispute between other amora’im. As it was stated: Amora’im disagree with regard to a portico, which has a roof and no walls or incomplete walls, located in a field, which is a karmelit. Rav said: It is permitted to move an object throughout the entire portico, as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening, rendering the portico a private domain, as it is effectively surrounded by partitions. And Shmuel said: One may move an object in the portico only within four cubits, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. Therefore, the portico’s legal status is that of the surrounding field. Ostensibly, the basis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava is identical to the basis of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

אַלִּיבָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.

The Gemara rejects this comparison and says: According to the opinion of Shmuel, everyone, even Abaye, agrees that one does not apply the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, to the case of a sukka.

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete