permanent

MISHNAH: He does not write on a wooden plank, or on papyrus, or on διφθέρα, only on a scroll, as it is said: “In a book”. He does not write with gum or vitriol nor with anything leaving a permanent impression except with ink; it is written “he shall wipe off”, writing that can be wiped off.

One anoints kings only at a spring, as it was said: “Let Solomon, my son, ride on my mule and take him down to the Giḥon; there Ṣadoq the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him, etc.” One anoints kings only because of disputes. Why was Solomon anointed? Because of the dispute of Adoniahu; Joash because of Athaliah, Jehu because of Joram. Is it not written: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,” this one needs anointing, but the kings of Israel do not need anointing! But Joaḥaz because of his brother Joakim who was two years his elder. But did not Josiahu hide it? That means, they anointed with balsamum. One anoints kings only from a horn. Saul and Jehu were anointed from a can because their kingdom was temporary; David and Solomon were anointed from a horn because their kingdom was permanent. One does not anoint priests as kings. Rebbi Yudan Antordiyya said, because of “the scepter shall not be removed from Jehudah”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because “he shall have many days of his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel.” What is written after that? “The levitic Cohanim should not.”

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not [preliminarily] marry on a Friday. That means, to make an engagement feast. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Ab a preliminary marriage is permitted, lest another forestall him. The argument of Samuel seems inverted. There, he says, “God puts singles in a house, etc.,” “To rise on scales; they all are of vapor!” And there, he says so? That means, that he should not forestall him in prayer. Even so, it would not be permanent.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself] except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself] except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

MISHNAH: The High Priest and the nazir do not defile themselves for their relatives. If they were walking on a road and found a corpse of obligation, Rebbi Eliezer says, the High Priest shall defile himself but the nazir shall not defile himself. But the Sages say, the nazir shall defile himself but the High Priest shall not defile himself. Rebbi Eliezer said to them, the Priest shall defile himself, who does not bring a sacrifice for his defilement, but the nazir shall not defile himself, who has to bring a sacrifice for his defilement. They told him, the nazir shall defile himself, whose holiness is temporary, but the Priest shall not defile himself, whose holiness is permanent.

MISHNAH: One writes with anything, with ink, with vermilion, with gum, and with copper sulfate, and anything that leaves a record. One does not write with drinks, or fruit juice, or anything not permanent. One writes on anything, on a leaf of the olive tree, on a cow’s horn if one delivers the cow to her, on a slave’s hand if one delivers the slave to her. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, one does not write on anything living nor on food.

HALAKHAH: “If orphans rely on a property owner, etc.” (Num. 18:28) “you” excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his. Did we not state (Terumot 3:3): “Partners who gave heave one after the other?” But one must be for Great Heave, the other for heave of the tithe. Did we not infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe? But one is for practice, the other for action. “You” excludes guardians; but did we not state: “Orphans dependent on a home owner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rebbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell slaves but not real estate?” But here one deals with an adult orphan, there with an underage orphan.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Should not the Hebrew slave girl leave by definitive marriage, by an argument de minore ad majus? Since indications [of puberty] which do not emancipate her from her father’s power, free her from her master’s power, is it not logical that definitive marriage, which emancipates her from her father’s power, shall free her from her master’s power? He said to him, I have only the Mishnah: “The Hebrew slave girl in addition regains her autonomy by indicators of puberty.” Bar Pedaiah said, the Hebrew slave girl leaves at the death of her master. What is the reason? “Also your slave girl you shall treat in the same way;” and it is written: “He shall be for you a permanent slave.” He bracketed the Hebrew slave girl with the “pierced slave”. Since the “pierced slave” leaves at his master’s death, the Hebrew slave girl also leaves at her master’s death. It turns out that Bar Pedaiah parallels the following Tanna, as it was stated: The Hebrew slave serves the son but not the daughter; the Hebrew slave girl serves the daughter but not the son. Some Tannaїm state: The Hebrew slave girl as well as the Hebrew slave serve neither the son nor the daughter. How does the Tanna confirm “your slave girl you also shall treat in the same way”? He explains it about the allowance, as it was stated: The following are given allowances: The one who leaves after six years or in the Jubilee, and the Hebrew slave girl who becomes autonomous by indicators of puberty. But one does not give allowances to one who leaves by the reduction of the amount or following the master’s death.

There, we have stated: “The father bestows on his son beauty, strength, riches, wisdom, and years.” From where beauty? “May Your deeds appear on Your servants, and Your glory on their sons.” Strength, “strong on earth will be his descendants.” Riches, “I was young and became old, but never saw a just man abandoned and his descendants in need of bread.” Wisdom, “you shall teach your sons to argue about them.” Years, “that your and your sons’ days be many.” And just as he inherits five qualities, so he owes him the following five things. He feeds him, he gives him to drink, he clothes him, he puts on his shoes, he leads him. That is what is written: “This should fall on Joab’s head: sufferer from flux and from skin disease, holding the distaff, falling by the sword, and senseless.” Sufferer from flux, weak. From skin disease, abandoned. Holding the distaff, uneducated. Falling by the sword, short lived. Without bread, poor. When Solomon came to kill Joab, he said to him: Your father gave me five sentences; accept them and I can be killed. He accepted them and all of them came to pass on the House of David. Sufferer from flux was Rehabeam: “King Rehabeam with difficulty climbed on his chariot to flee to Jerusalem;” some say, he suffered from flux; some say, he was weak. Suffering from skin disease was Uziahu: “King Uziahu suffered from skin disease until the day of his death.” Holding the distaff was Joash: “They punished Joash.” Rebbi Ismael stated: This teaches that they gave him over to hardened hoodlums who had never known a woman and they raped him the way women are raped. That is what is written: “Israel’s pride will testify against it,” Israel’s pride will be raped in its face. Falling by the sword, this is Josiah, as is written: “The archers shot at king Josia,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, this teaches that they made his body like a sieve. Rebbi Ismael stated: 300 arrows were shot at the Eternal’s anointed. Without bread, that is Jehoiachin: “And his meal, a permanent meal was given to him,.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “This animal shall be an elevation sacrifice after thirty days.” If he sold it within the thirty days, it is sold; its dedication sanctifies. If he bought it back within the thirty days, the dedication as elevation sacrifice applies to it. After thirty days, the dedication as elevation sacrifice no longer applies. But an elevation sacrifice cannot be compared to a woman! Could an elevation sacrifice be compared to a woman? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, explain it that the second man died but he had a brother. Since she is a candidate for levirate, the preliminary marriage of the first cannot be valid. Could an elevation sacrifice be compared to a woman? Rebbi Mattania said, explain it that he dedicated an animal with a permanent defect. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: There you say, my promise to Heaven is like my delivery to a private person, and here, you say so? He answered him: there, immediately, but here if he says, after thirty days.

MISHNAH: If one found pigeon chicks bound together behind a temporary or permanent fence or on paths between fields, he should not touch them. If one found a vessel on garbage heaps, if it was covered he should not touch it, if in the open he should take it and make it public. What one found in a heap or an old wall belongs to him. At a new wall, from the middle to the outside belongs to him, from the middle to the inside belongs to its owner. If he was renting out to others, even what is inside the house belongs to him.

HALAKHAH: “A person should not put,” etc. It was stated: Nor a smithy. Rav Qarna stated: If he was like a metal worker, or it was built originally as a smithy, it is permitted. How is it in front of his dwelling? Rebbi Aḥa said, certainly not in front of his dwelling. Rebbi Jonathan said, a person causing damage has no claim of undisturbed posession. Rebbi Joshua said, the rabbis object to permanent smoke. As the following: A woman was burning sand below [the apartment of] Rebbi Ilfay. He wanted to object to her. The case came before Rebbi Nasa who said, they said it only about continuous smoke.

“Sharecroppers.” Rav Huna said, a permanent sharecropper, but a temporary sharecropper has a claim of undisturbed possession. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even a temporary sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he is satisfied with him and let him have it. There, they say that a sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession but a sharecropper’s son has a claim of undisturbed possession; Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, neither a sharecropper nor a sharecropper’s son have a claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he was satisfied with his father and let the son have it. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, a sharecropper who engaged another sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession since it is common for sharecroppers to engage sub-sharecroppers.

MISHNAH: If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others but reserved any real estate his gift is permanent; if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not permanent. If [in the document] it was not written “bedridden”; he says, I was bedridden, but they are saying, he was healthy, he must prove that he was bedridden, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, the burden of proof is on the claimants.

MISHNAH: If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others but reserved any real estate his gift is permanent; if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not permanent. If [in the document] it was not written “bedridden”; he says, I was bedridden, but they are saying, he was healthy, he must prove that he was bedridden, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, the burden of proof is on the claimants.

Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint [a replacement]? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they taught this about subsidiaries. Rebbi La said, what Rebbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place, from where to [Sepphoris] it is seven mil, but from there to [Tiberias] it is nine mil. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court.

Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint [a replacement]? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they taught this about subsidiaries. Rebbi La said, what Rebbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place, from where to [Sepphoris] it is seven mil, but from there to [Tiberias] it is nine mil. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court.

HALAKHAH: “An idol which was abandoned by its worshippers,” etc. It was stated: The war of Joshua is forbidden, similar to the war of Joshua is permitted. The war of David is permitted, like the war of David is forbidden. The war of Joshua is forbidden, as it is written, for certainly you should ban them. Similar to the war of Joshua is permitted, for it is a short time. The war of David is permitted, what Itai from Gat annulled. Like the war of David is forbidden, for it is permanent.

One anoints kings only at a spring, as it was said: Let Solomon, my son, ride on my mule and take him down to the Giḥon; there Ṣadoq the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him as king over Israel. One anoints kings only because of disputes. Why was Solomon anointed? Because of the dispute of Adoniahu, Joash because of Athaliah, Jehu because of Joram. Is it not written, do anoint him, for this one is it, this one needs anointing, but the kings of Israel do not need anointing? But did not Josiah hide it? That means that they anointed with balsamum. Joaḥaz because of his brother Joakin who was two years his elder. One anoints kings only from a horn. Saul and Jehu were anointed from a can because their kingdom was temporary; David and Solomon were anointed from a horn because their kingdom was permanent. One does not anoint priests as kings. Rebbi Jehudah Antordiya said, because of the scepter shall not be removed from Jehudah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of he shall have many days of his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel. What is written after that? The levitic Cohanim should not.

HALAKHAH: “Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. [“If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull”,] for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside. He only said “since their blood enters inside;” this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram, the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. How is this done? Rebbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.] Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective: After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.”

HALAKHAH: “Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. [“If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull”,] for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside. He only said “since their blood enters inside;” this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram, the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. How is this done? Rebbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.] Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective: After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.”

Rava replied: From the following verse, "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days" (Leviticus 23:42) the Torah declared: For seven days leave your permanent dwelling place and dwell in a temporary dwelling place. Up to twenty cubits [high] one makes his home a temporary one; higher than twenty cubits, one does not make his home temporary, but permanent.

Rava replied: From the following verse, "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days" (Leviticus 23:42) the Torah declared: For seven days leave your permanent dwelling place and dwell in a temporary dwelling place. Up to twenty cubits [high] one makes his home a temporary one; higher than twenty cubits, one does not make his home temporary, but permanent.

He answered him: This is what I mean to tell you: Up to twenty cubits, which a man makes his temporary home, even if he makes it permanent,he has fulfilled his mitzvah; [but in one] higher than twenty cubits, such as a man makes his permanent home, even if he makes it temporary, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

He answered him: This is what I mean to tell you: Up to twenty cubits, which a man makes his temporary home, even if he makes it permanent,he has fulfilled his mitzvah; [but in one] higher than twenty cubits, such as a man makes his permanent home, even if he makes it temporary, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Must we say that it agrees with Rabi, and not with the Rabbis? No! One can even say that it agrees with the Rabbis. The Rabbis say it only with regard to a Sukkah which is a temporary dwelling, but with regard to a house which is a permanent dwelling, even the Rabbis admit that if it has an area of four amos, people live in it, otherwise, they do not dwell within.

Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Josiah, R. Judah, R. Shimon, R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer and ‘others’ -all hold the opinion that the Sukkah must be constructed like a permanent abode.

But why should this be so? Why shouldn't the outer one be regarded as the gate-house of the inner one, and therefore be obliged to have a mezuzah? Because neither [booth] is of a permanent nature.

The tanna of ganbak regards these sukkot as possessing greater validity because they are permanent, and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include rakbash which are not permanent.

The tanna of ganbak regards these sukkot as possessing greater validity because they are permanent, and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include rakbash which are not permanent.

Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Shmuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? They said: In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent.

Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Shmuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? They said: In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent.

But as to a house, even though it is not ten [handbreadths] high, since it is permanent it constitutes a valid tent, for it is no worse than the frame of a four-post bed.

Naklitin are different, since they are permanent. If they are permanent, why are they not [subject to the same law as] kinofoth? As compared to kinofot they are not [considered] permanent, but compared to the bridal-bed they are [considered] permanent.

Naklitin are different, since they are permanent. If they are permanent, why are they not [subject to the same law as] kinofoth? As compared to kinofot they are not [considered] permanent, but compared to the bridal-bed they are [considered] permanent.

Naklitin are different, since they are permanent. If they are permanent, why are they not [subject to the same law as] kinofoth? As compared to kinofot they are not [considered] permanent, but compared to the bridal-bed they are [considered] permanent.

Naklitin are different, since they are permanent. If they are permanent, why are they not [subject to the same law as] kinofoth? As compared to kinofot they are not [considered] permanent, but compared to the bridal-bed they are [considered] permanent.

Rabbah bar R. Huna expounded, It is permitted to sleep in a canopied bed [in a Sukkah] even though it has a roof and even though it is ten [handbreadths] high According to whom [does he hold]? According to R. Judah who said that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent, tent as we have learned: R. Judah said, We were accustomed to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders.

If he had said, "the halachah is according to R. Judah," I might have presumed that this applies only to a bed which is made [to be slept] upon, but not to a canopied bed which, is made [to be slept] within, hence he teaches us that the reason of R. Judah is that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent one, no matter whether it be an ordinary bed or a canopied bed.

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.

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.

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. Shimon 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 that a temporary tent can come and annul a permanent tent, while the other Master holds that a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent tent.

But does not R. Shimon 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 that a temporary tent can come and annul a permanent tent, while the other Master holds that a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent tent.

But does not R. Shimon 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 that a temporary tent can come and annul a permanent tent, while the other Master holds that a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent tent.

But does not R. Shimon 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 that a temporary tent can come and annul a permanent tent, while the other Master holds that a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent tent.

Abaye said: All agree that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze it is nothing; If it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all agree that it is valid. Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not a normal sea breeze; R. Gamaliel holds that the Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing, While R. Akiva is of the opinion that the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a normal land breeze, it is valid.

They said to him, "All of your words are nothing except from rumors." He said to them, "You have bound me to say something that I did not hear from my teachers [by asking me these questions.] In all my days, a person never came before me to the House of Study, And neither did I sleep in the House of Study, neither a permanent sleep nor a temporary sleep, and never did I leave a man in the House of Study and exit, and never did I converse in everyday conversation, and I never said anything which I did not hear from my teacher at any time."

It was said about Rabbi Yochanan the son of Zakai: In all his days, he never conversed in everyday conversation, and he never walked four cubits without Torah and without phylacteries, and person never came before him to the House of Study, and neither did he sleep in the House of Study, neither a permanent sleep nor a temporary sleep, and neither did he think in dirty entrances, and he never left a person in the House of Study and exited, and a person never found him sitting still, but rather he would sit and learn, and a person never opened the door for his students, but rather he himself [opened it for them], and he never said anything which he did not hear from his teachers at any time, and he never said, 'The time has come to stand [and exit] from the House of Study,' except for the eve of Passover and the eve of the Day of Atonement. And so would Rabbi Eliezer, his student, act after him.

the verse [thereby] makes man and woman equal as regards all punishable acts in the Torah? Abaye answered: Indeed Sukkah is a tradition, but [the midrash] is still necessary, Lest I would have said, since "You shall dwell" implies that you should dwell in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell; just as one's permanent home is for husband and wife, so too the Sukkah must be for husband and wife, therefore he informs us that it is not so.

All seven days [of the festival] a man must make the sukkah his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. If rain fell, when is one permitted to leave it? When the porridge becomes spoiled. They made a parable. To what can this be compared? To a slave who comes to fill the cup for his master, and he poured a pitcher over his face.

GEMARA. Our rabbis taught, All seven days, one should make the Sukkah his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he had beautiful vessels, he brings them up into the Sukkah, beautiful coverings, he brings them up into the Sukkah. He eats and drinks and spends his leisure time in the Sukkah. From where do we know this? As our rabbis have taught: You shall dwell" in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell. From here they said, "All seven days one should make his Sukkah his permanent dwelling, and his house his temporary dwelling." How so? If he had beautiful vessels, he brings them up into the Sukkah, beautiful coverings, he brings them up into the Sukkah. He eats and drinks and spends his leisure time in the Sukkah.; he should study in the Sukkah.

GEMARA. Our rabbis taught, All seven days, one should make the Sukkah his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he had beautiful vessels, he brings them up into the Sukkah, beautiful coverings, he brings them up into the Sukkah. He eats and drinks and spends his leisure time in the Sukkah. From where do we know this? As our rabbis have taught: You shall dwell" in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell. From here they said, "All seven days one should make his Sukkah his permanent dwelling, and his house his temporary dwelling." How so? If he had beautiful vessels, he brings them up into the Sukkah, beautiful coverings, he brings them up into the Sukkah. He eats and drinks and spends his leisure time in the Sukkah.; he should study in the Sukkah.

Joseph said: What has he told us? We have already learned it: R. Judah says: it may be sold for use as a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes in it; and even the rabbis did not forbid except for in the synagogue itself, since its sanctity is permanent, but for the four adjoining cubits, the sanctity of which is not permanent, they did not make such a rule.

Joseph said: What has he told us? We have already learned it: R. Judah says: it may be sold for use as a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes in it; and even the rabbis did not forbid except for in the synagogue itself, since its sanctity is permanent, but for the four adjoining cubits, the sanctity of which is not permanent, they did not make such a rule.