Sukkah — Daf 13b

אלא אימא עד שתהא תחלתו כשיריו אחד

דרש מרימר הני איסורייתא דסורא מסככין בהו אע"ג דאגדן למנינא בעלמא הוא דאגדן

א"ר אבא הני צריפי דאורבני כיון שהותרה ראשי מעדנים שלהן כשרין והא אגידי מתתאי אמר רב פפא דשרי להו

(ואמר) רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אפילו תימא דלא שרי להו כל אגד שאינו עשוי לטלטלו לא שמיה אגד

א"ר אבא אמר שמואל ירקות שאמרו חכמים אדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח מביאין את הטומאה ואין חוצצין בפני הטומאה ופוסלין בסוכה משום אויר מ"ט כיון דלכי יבשי פרכי ונפלי כמאן דליתנהו דמי

ואמר רבי אבא אמר רב הונא הבוצר לגת אין לו ידות

ורב מנשיא בר גדא אמר רב הונא הקוצר לסכך אין לו ידות

מאן דאמר קוצר כל שכן בוצר דלא ניחא ליה דלא נימצייה לחמריה מאן דאמר בוצר שאין לו ידות אבל קוצר יש לו ידות דניחא ליה דליסכך בהו כי היכי דלא ליבדרן

נימא דרב מנשיא בר גדא תנאי היא דתניא סוכי תאנים ובהן תאנים פרכילין ובהן ענבים קשין ובהן שבלים מכבדות ובהן תמרים כולן אם פסולת מרובה על האוכלין כשרה ואם לאו פסולה אחרים אומרים עד שיהו קשין מרובין על הידות ועל האוכלין

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר יש להן ידות ומר סבר אין להן ידות

לרבי אבא ודאי תנאי היא לרב מנשיא בר גדא מי לימא תנאי היא אמר לך רב מנשיא דכולי עלמא סברי הקוצר לסכך אין לו ידות והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקוצצן לאכילה ונמלך עליהן לסיכוך

אי קוצצן לאכילה מאי טעמייהו דרבנן וכי תימא קסברי רבנן כיון דנמלך עליהן לסיכוך בטלה ליה מחשבתו ומי בטלה ליה מחשבה בהכי והתנן כל הכלים

— Say rather, Unless at the outset, [it contains] no more than the permitted number for its remnant, viz., one.1 Meremar expounded, The bundles of Sura2 are valid as a Sukkah-covering.3 Although [the seller] binds them together he does so merely to facilitate their counting.4 R. Abba said, As for cone-shaped bundles of bulrushes, as soon as the top-knots are untied they are valid [as a Sukkah-covering]. But are they not still tied at the bottom?5 — R. Papa answered, [This is a case] where he loosens them.6 R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, one can even ‘say that [it is valid though] he does not loosen them, since a binding which is not made to facilitate transport7 is not considered a binding. R. Abba said in the name of Samuel, Herbs concerning which the Sages said that a man fulfils with them his obligation on Passover,8 carry9 ritual defilement,10 do not11 act as an interposition to ritual defilement12 and cause invalidity in a Sukkah-covering in the same manner as an air space.13 What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there. R. Abba further said in the name of R. Huna, He who cuts grapes for the vat, does not render their ‘handles’ [stalks] susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness;14 while R. Menashia b. Gada said in the name of R. Huna, He who cuts [ears of corn] for a Sukkah-covering15 does not render their handles susceptible to uncleanliness. He who holds this opinion with regard to the cutting [of ears], certainly holds it with regard to the cutting of grapes,16 since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one's wine; he who holds the opinion that the cutting of grapes16 does not render their stalks susceptible to the uncleanliness, holds that the cutting [of ears]15 does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the Sukkah-covering in order that [the grains] be not scattered. 17 Must we say that the [ruling of] R. Menashia b. Gada18 is a point at issue between Tannas? For it has been taught, Boughs of fig-trees on which there are figs, branches of vines on which there are grapes, or straws on which there are ears of corn or palm-branches on which there are dates, all these, if the inedible part is greater than the edible are valid [for a Sukkah-covering], otherwise, they are invalid. ‘Others’19 say, [They are not valid] unless the straw20 is more than both the ‘handle’21 and the food. Now do they not differ on this principle, that one Master22 holds the opinion they23 render the handles24 susceptible to uncleanliness,25 while the other Master holds the opinion that they do not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness? — According to R. Abba,26 there is certainly27 a dispute of the Tannas,28 but according to R. Menashia b. Gada,29 must we say that [his ruling is] in agreement only with one of the Tannas?30 — R. Menashia can answer you, All31 agree that he who cuts ears for a Sukkah-covering does not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness, but here we are dealing with a particular case where he cuts them for food,32 and then changed his mind [and used them] for a Sukkah-covering. But if he cut them for food, what is the reason [for the view] of the Rabbis?33 And if you will answer that the Rabbis34 are of the opinion that since he changed his mind about them [to use them] for a Sukkah-covering, his original intention35 becomes annulled, [it may be objected], does then one's intention become annulled in such a case?36 Have we not learnt:37 All vessels is expected for the most proper observance of the commandment. If the number is to be insisted upon as indispensable this last cited Baraitha, could agree neither with R. Jose nor with the Rabbis. them out to dry. Hence their validity for the Sukkah even before they are unbound. Sukkah invalidates it, so does a covering of these herbs. vessels or stalks of fruit are susceptible to ritual uncleanliness only where they are needed for the purpose of lifting the object with their aid. portion exceeds both them and the edible portion. susceptible. uncleanliness. corn’ are rendered susceptible to uncleanness, in complete contradiction of it. Menashia's ruling, or is it possible to explain the view of the ‘others’ as applying to a particular case only?