סוכה 24 — Soncino English Talmud

¹. R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon forbid it? -Transpose [the statement:] R. Meir takes the possibility of death into consideration, while R. Judah disregards the possibility of death, as it was taught, If he used an animal as a wall for a Sukkah, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. [But then there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Meir? — R. Meir can answer you: Death is of frequent occurrence, but the splitting of a wineskin is infrequent, since one might give it in charge of a guardian. [But there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Judah? The reason of R. Judah is not lest the wineskin split, but because he does not accept the principle of bererah. But does R. Judah consider the possibility of the wineskin splitting? Surely since the latter part [of the Baraitha] continues: They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retrospectively?’ And he answered them, ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not], that R. Judah does consider the possibility of the wineskin splitting? — [No!] There it is R. Judah who says to R. Meir in effect, ‘As regards myself I do not accept the principle of bererah, but according to you who do accept the principle of bererah, do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split?’ And the latter answered, ‘When the wineskin splits’. But does not R. Judah regard the possibility of death? Have we not in fact learnt: R. Judah says, Even another wife was prepared for him, lest his wife die? — On this surely it was stated: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, They adopted a higher standard with regard to Atonement. Now whether according to him who says, Lest it die, or according to him who says, Lest it escape, [the animal] according to the Pentateuchal law is a valid partition, and it is only the Rabbis who made a restrictive enactment concerning it. But if this is so, it ought according to R. Meir, to convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learnt: R. Judah says it is subject to the laws of uncleanliness that are applicable to the covering stone of a grave, while R. Meir declares it unsusceptible to such uncleanliness? -The fact is, said R. Aha b. Jacob, that R. Meir is of the opinion that any partition which is upheld by wind is no valid partition. Some there are who say that R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir is of the opinion that any partition which is not made by the hands of man is no partition. What [practical difference] is there between [the two versions]? — The practical difference between them is where he set up a Sukkah wall with an inflated skin. According to the version which says a partition which is upheld by wind is no valid partition, [this one is invalid] since it is upheld by wind; according to the version which says ‘not made by the hands of man’^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:Tosef. Dem. VII, 4, B.K. 69b; since the wineskin may split open and the contents be lost before he is able to make his intended separation an actual one, with the result that what he has already drunk is untithed. Thus R. Judah who takes this possibility into consideration certainly considers the possibility of death, while R. Meir who disregards this possibility equally disregards that of death. Now, since Abaye there distinctly attributes these views to R. Judah and R. Meir respectively how could he attribute to them here the reversed views?
^ᵇnote:Of Abaye in the passage last cited.
^ᶜnote:In the case of the skin he does not take its possible splitting into consideration while in the case of the animal he does take into consideration the possibility of its dying.
^ᵈnote:Cf. supra n. 8, mut. mut.
^ᵉnote:In the case of the wine.
^ᶠnote:The principle that the later selection is considered as having been applied retrospectively. The later separation of the wine has no retrospective application. Hence even if the skin did not split the terumah is invalid.
^ᵍnote:‘Er. 37b. Sc. one does not anticipate the wineskin splitting.
^ʰnote:From whom R. Meir differs.
^ⁱnote:For further notes v. ‘Er., Sonc. ed., p. 259.
^ʲnote:Yoma I, 1. The High Priest on the Day of Atonement had to be married in accordance with Lev. XVI, 7, where ‘his house’ is interpreted as his wife. In case his wife died on the eve of the day, another was held in readiness.
^ᵏnote:Where even very remote possibilities were considered and provided for.
^ˡnote:In giving R. Meir's reason supra.
^ᵐnote:Since according to Pentateuchal law it is a valid partition, it ought to contract uncleanliness, even if the Rabbis decreed later that it is no valid partition. With regard to Sukkah and the alley the Rabbinical decree might well be upheld since it restricts the law but in the case of uncleanliness where it leads to a relaxation of the Pentateuchal law the Rabbinical decree must obviously be disregarded.
^ⁿnote:Wanting in the separate edd. of the Mishnah and ‘Er. 15a.
^ᵒnote:An animate object that was used to cover a coffin.
^ᵖnote:‘Er. 15a and supra fol.23a.
^ᵠnote:In ruling an animate object to be an invalid partition.
^ʳnote:Or ‘air’.
^ˢnote:It is not in human power to impart the breath of life.

²it is valid, since it is made by the hands of man. The Master said: ‘In the name of R. Jose the Galilean they said, Nor may a bill of divorcement be written upon it’. What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — As it has been taught: [Scripture says], A bill [hence] I know only [that] a bill [is valid], how do we know to include any other material? Scripture expressly states, Thus he writeth her implying, on whatever material it may be. If so, why does Scripture state, ‘bill’? To teach you that just as a bill is a thing which has no breath of life, and cannot eat, so is everything valid which has not the breath of life and does not eat. And the Rabbis? — If Scripture had written ‘in a bill’, [it would be] as you say, but now that it is written ‘a bill’ the expression refers merely to the recital of the words. And how do the Rabbis expound the words, ‘That he writeth’? — They need that [text for the exposition that] with the writing she becomes divorced, but she does not become divorced with money. As I might have said that, since her exit [from the married state] is compared to her entry into it just as her entry is with money, so is her exit, therefore it teaches us [this]. And whence does R. Jose the Galilean deduce this? -He deduces it from [the words], ‘a bill of divorcement’; the bill divorces and nothing else. And the others? — They need [this terminology to teach that the bill of divorcement must be] one which severs them [completely], as it has been taught. [If a man say,] Herewith is your get [to take effect] on condition that you do not drink wine, or go to your father's house ever, it is no severance. [If he say, The condition shall apply] for thirty days, it is a severance. And the other? — He deduces it from [the use of the form] kerithuth [instead of that of] kareth. And the others? — They do not expound [the difference between] kerithuth and kareth. MISHNAH. IF HE MAKES HIS SUKKAH BETWEEN TREES, SO THAT THE TREES FORM ITS WALLS, IT IS VALID. GEMARA. R. Aha b. Jacob said, A partition which is unable to withstand a normal wind is no valid partition. We have learnt, IF HE MAKES HIS SUKKAH BETWEEN TREES, SO THAT THE TREES FORM ITS WALLS, IT IS VALID. But do they not sway to and fro? — We are dealing here with solid [trees]. But are there not the swaying branches? — [It refers to] where he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees. If so, why [need he] mention it? — One would have thought that it should be forbidden as a preventive measure lest he come to make use of the tree, therefore he informs us [that it is valid]. Come and hear: If there was there a tree, or a fence, or a partition of reeds, it is regarded as a valid corner-piece! — This also refers to where he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees. Come and hear: If a tree throws a shadow on the ground, it is permitted to move objects under it if the ends of its branches are not three handbreadths high above the ground. But why? Does not the tree sway to and fro? — Here also it is a case where one plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees. But if so, it should be permitted to carry objects over its whole area whatever its size; why then did R. Huna the son of R. Joshua say, One may not carry any objects there^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ

^ᵗnote:A man inflated it.
^ᵘnote:An animate object. Supra 23a.
^ᵛnote:In dealing with divorce.
^ʷnote:Deut. XXIV, 1, he writeth her a bill of divorcement.
^ˣnote:Sefer, i.e., parchment.
^ʸnote:As a writing material.
^ᶻnote:A wooden tablet or an olive leaf, for instance.
^ᵃᵃnote:Deut. XXIV, 1, emphasis on writeth.
^ᵃᵇnote:How, in view of R. Jose's exposition can they maintain their view?
^ᵃᶜnote:That the reference is to the material on which the divorce formula is written.
^ᵃᵈnote:rpx.
^ᵃᵉnote:,rhpx.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., the contents of the document, not the material on which it is written.
^ᵃᵍnote:Who do not take ‘bill’ to imply parchment.
^ᵃʰnote:Which R. Jose used to include other materials. Since according to their view ‘bill’ does not exclude anything, what need was there for a text to include other materials?
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e.,a woman cannot be divorced, as she is betrothed by giving her some money.
^ᵃʲnote:Divorce.
^ᵃᵏnote:Marriage. Deut. XXIV, 2 reads, And when she is departed from his house, and go and be another man's wife. The Talmud on the basis of this juxtaposition compares divorce (‘departure’) to marriage (‘being’).
^ᵃˡnote:Betrothal may be effected by the man's giving to the woman money and saying, ‘Behold thou art betrothed unto me by this money’.
^ᵃᵐnote:The deduction just made.
^ᵃⁿnote:The juxtaposition of ‘bill’ and ‘divorcement’.
^ᵃᵒnote:The Rabbis. To what do they apply this text?
^ᵃᵖnote:Since the condition is timeless, and at any time in the future she might break the condition and the divorce would become void, it is of no effect.
^ᵃᵠnote:Since at the end of the specified period the get would be definitely effective it is regarded as Pentateuchally valid forthwith.
^ᵃʳnote:R. Jose. Whence does he deduce this ruling?
^ᵃˢnote:Since Scripture could have written ,rf and writes ,u,hrc the extra letters are regarded as teaching an added lesson.
^ᵃᵗnote:The Rabbis disregard such fine distinctions. On the whole passage v. Git. 21b.
^ᵃᵘnote:But its roof does not rest upon them (Rashi). [Otherwise it would be invalid as a Sukkah kept up by an object that is attached to the ground. V. supra 21b, Strashun.]
^ᵃᵛnote:I.e., to stand firm without swaying.
^ᵃʷnote:Old and strongly built trees which do not sway in the wind.
^ᵃˣnote:Which sometimes form part of the wall.
^ᵃʸnote:So that the branches also form a solid part of the wall.
^ᵃᶻnote:By putting his things on it on the festival day.
^ᵇᵃnote:At one of the corners of a watering station round which corner-pieces are placed to enable the carrying of the water from the well to the enclosure on the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵇnote:Whose thickness was of the dimensions of one cubit by one cubit prescribed for a corner-piece.
^ᵇᶜnote:Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
^ᵇᵈnote:‘Er. 19b. Now does not this prove that trees though swaying to an fro are regarded as a valid wall?
^ᵇᵉnote:Whose branches bend downwards.
^ᵇᶠnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵍnote:‘Er. 15a; since by the law of labud they are deemed to be touching the ground and, since at their other ends at which they are attached to the tree they are ten handbreadths above the ground, they form a valid partition.
^ᵇʰnote:Sc. why should the branches be regarded as a valid partition to constitute an enclosure within which the movement of objects on the Sabbath is permitted?
^ᵇⁱnote:That the branches were plaited for the express purpose of serving as an enclosure in which one might dwell while engaged in watching the fields around.
^ᵇʲnote:As in the case of all similar enclosures (cf. prev. n.).