סוכה 21 — parallel

21:1

— He deduces it from the word ‘tent’ [common to this and to] the Tabernacle. It is written here, This is the law, when a man dieth in the tent, and it is written there, And he spread the tent over the tabernacle. As there [‘tent’ means one] made by the hands of man, so here [it means one made] by the hands of man. And the Rabbis? — The word ‘tent’ occurs many times, to include [all tents]. Is then R. Judah of the opinion that a tent which is not made by the hand of man is no valid tent? Let us point out an incongruity: [We have learnt] Courtyards were built in Jerusalem over a rock, and beneath them was a hollow [made] because of [the fear of] a grave in the depths, and they used to bring there pregnant women, and there they gave birth to their children and there they reared them for [the service of the Red] Heifer. And they brought oxen, upon whose back were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands. When they reached Siloam they went down into the water and filled them, then ascended and sat again [on the doors]. R. Jose said, [Each child] used to let [his cup] down and fill it from his place because of [the fear of] a grave in the depths; and it has been taught, R. Judah said, They did not bring doors, but oxen. Now oxen, surely, are a ‘tent’ which is not made by the hands of man, and does it not nevertheless teach, R. Judah said, They did not bring doors, but oxen?-When R. Dimi came, he said in the name of R. Eleazar, R. Judah agrees in, the case [of a ‘tent’ that is as large as] a fistful. So it has also been taught: R. Judah admits in the case of overhanging crags and clefts of rocks. But a door, surely, has an altitude of many fistfuls and yet R. Judah teaches, does he not, ‘They did not bring doors but oxen’? — Abaye replied, [It means that] they did not need to bring doors. Raba said, [It means that] they did not bring doors at all because the child, feeling confident, might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanliness

—

21:2

on account of a grave in the depths. It has been taught in agreement with Raba: R. Judah said, They did not bring doors at all, because the child, feeling confident, might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanness on account of a grave in the depths, but they brought Egyptian oxen with wide bellies, and the children sat on their backs with stone cups in their hands. When they came to Siloam they descended, filled them, and ascended and sat again on their backs. But has not a bed an altitude of many fistfuls, and yet we have learnt, R. JUDAH SAID, WE WERE ACCUSTOMED TO SLEEP UNDER A BED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ELDERS? — A bed is different, since it is made [to be slept] upon? But are not oxen also made [to be sat] upon? — When Rabin came he explained in the name of R. Eleazar, Oxen are different, since they afford shelter for shepherds in summer from the sun, and in the rainy season from the rain. If so, should not a bed [also be so regarded] since it affords shelter to the shoes and sandals under it? — The fact is, said Raba, that oxen are different since they naturally shelter their entrails, as it is written, Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and covered me with bones and sinews. And if you like [you may say that] R. Judah follows his own view that a Sukkah must be a permanent abode; and since a bed is but a temporary abode, while a Sukkah is a permanent ‘tent’, a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent one. But does not R. Simeon also say that a Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and yet [he holds that] a temporary tent does annul a permanent tent? — It is in this that they differ. One Master holds the opinion that a temporary tent can come and annul a permanent tent, while the other Master holds the opinion that a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent tent. R. SIMEON SAID, IT HAPPENED THAT TABI, THE SLAVE etc. It has been taught: R. Simeon said, From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learnt two things. We have learnt that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we have learnt that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation. But why does he not say, From the words of R. Gamaliel’? -He informs us of something [else] by the way in agreement with that which R Aha b. Adda, [or as some say, R. Aha b. Adda in the name of R. Hamnuna] said in the name of Rab: Whence do we know that even the casual conversation of scholars demands study? From Scripture where it is said, And whose leaf does not wither. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SUPPORTS HIS SUKKAH WITH THE LEGS OF A BED, IT IS VALID. R. JUDAH SAID, IF IT CANNOT STAND BY ITSELF, IT IS INVALID. GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Judah? — R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree. One says, It is because the Sukkah has no permanence, and the other says, It is because he keeps it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. What essentially differentiates them? — If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes [in the ground] and covered them with a Sukkah-covering. According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he keeps it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. Abaye said, They taught this only if he supported it, but if he placed a Sukkoth-covering above a bed, it is valid. What is the reason? — According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he sets it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, here he does not set it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. [

—