Sukkah

can be rendered susceptible to uncleanliness by intention,1 but cannot be rendered insusceptible except by an act of change,2 since3 an act can disannul a [prior] act or intention, while an intention cannot disannul either a [previous] act or a [previous] intention? And if you will say that this4 refers only to vessels which are of importance but that ‘handles’ which are needed only as aids for the eating of the food,5 are made [susceptible to uncleanness] by intention and are also unmade by intention [it may be objected], Have we not learnt: The stalks of all foodstuffs that are threshed6 in the threshing-floor7 are insusceptible to ritual uncleanliness,8 and R. Jose declares them susceptible?9 It is explicable according to the authority who says that ‘threshing’ here means loosening [the sheaves],10 but according to the authority who says that ‘threshing’ here really means ‘threshing’,11 what can one answer?12 — That in the previous case also,13 he actually threshed them.14 If so,15 what is the reason of the ‘others’?16 They hold the same opinion as R. Jose, as we have learnt, R. Jose declares them susceptible to uncleanness. How can you compare them?17 One can understand there18 the reason of R. Jose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, as R. Simeon b. Lakish said, Since one can [the more easily] turn them19 with the pitchfork,20 but in this case,21 what use have they?22 --To seize hold of them by their haulms when he takes it23 to pieces. [Reverting to] the main text, ‘The stalks of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are unsusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Jose declares them susceptible’. What is the meaning of ‘threshed’ here? — R. Johanan says, Actual threshing. R. Eleazar24 says, Untying the bundle. One can understand according to R. Eleazar,24 who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this25 is the reason why R. Jose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, but according to R. Johanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why26 does R. Jose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? — R. Simeon b. Lakish answered, Since he can [the more easily] turn them with a pitch fork. R. Eleazar24 said, Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork?27 To teach thee that just as the pitchfork turns the corn from place to place in the barn, so the prayers of the righteous turn the mind of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the attribute of harshness to that of mercy. MISHNAH. PLANKS MAY BE USED FOR THE SUKKAH-COVERING. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. MEIR FORBIDS THEM. IF ONE PLACES OVER IT28 A PLANK FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE, IT IS VALID PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT SLEEP UNDER IT.29 GEMARA. Rab said, The dispute30 concerns planks which are four [handbreadths wide],31 in which case R. Meir holds the preventive measure against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing,32 while R. Judah disregards this preventive measure against [the use of] an ordinary roofing, but in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid.33 Samuel however says that the dispute34 concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide],35 but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.36 If they are ‘less than four’ [you say, does this then imply,] even less than three? But [in this case] are they not mere sticks?37 — R. Papa answered, He38 means thus, If they are four [handbreadths wide] the Sukkah is invalid according to all;36 if they are less than three, it is valid according to all.39 What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks. In what do they40 dispute? In [planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide]. One Master41 holds the opinion that since there is not in them the minimum extent of a ‘place’42 we do not make a restrictive enactment,43 and the other Master44 holds the opinion that since the law of labud45 can no longer apply to them46 we make a restrictive enactment. We learned: IF ONE PLACES OVER IT A PLANK WHICH IS FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE, IT IS VALID, PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT SLEEP UNDER IT. Now it is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths] but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid; for this reason he must NOT SLEEP UNDER IT. But according to Rab who says that the dispute is where there are four [handbreadths] but where there are less than four all agree that it is valid, why, according to R. Judah, may he NOT SLEEP UNDER IT? — Do you then think that this statement47 is according to all? The concluding statement agrees in fact with R. Meir [only]. Come and hear: Two sheets combine,48 fully suitable. The fact that for any other purposes they could not be regarded as finished products cannot affect the owner's intention. intention disannuls their previous susceptibility to uncleanliness. uncleanliness. regard an ordinary roof also as valid for the purpose. handbreadths in width.