skhakh

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, if made for reclining upon is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for skhakh.

GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, if made for reclining upon is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for skhakh.

And then it is taught: if made for a covering it is valid as skhakh and is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. The reason then is because it was made specifically for a covering, but if it was made without specific purpose [it would be assumed that it was] made for reclining upon?

But read the latter portion [of the Mishnah]. R Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that he made it for reclining, but if made without a specific purpose it can be used as skhakh

But read the latter portion [of the Mishnah]. R Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that he made it for reclining, but if made without a specific purpose it can be used as skhakh

But [again] read the later portion [of the Mishnah] If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. The reason then is that it was made specifically for covering, but if made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for reclining upon?

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

Furthermore, is it not in fact with regard to a large mat that they are in dispute, and it is R. Eliezer who takes the stricter view, for it was taught: A large mat of reeds is valid for skhakh. R. Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, it is valid for skhakh.

Furthermore, is it not in fact with regard to a large mat that they are in dispute, and it is R. Eliezer who takes the stricter view, for it was taught: A large mat of reeds is valid for skhakh. R. Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, it is valid for skhakh.

Our rabbis taught: A mat of wicker or of straw: if large, is valid for skhakh, if small it is invalid for skhakh. One of reeds or of helat, if plaited, is valid for a skhakh, if woven, it is invalid.

Our rabbis taught: A mat of wicker or of straw: if large, is valid for skhakh, if small it is invalid for skhakh. One of reeds or of helat, if plaited, is valid for a skhakh, if woven, it is invalid.

Our rabbis taught: A mat of wicker or of straw: if large, is valid for skhakh, if small it is invalid for skhakh. One of reeds or of helat, if plaited, is valid for a skhakh, if woven, it is invalid.

R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said in the name of his father: Both the one and the other, are valid for skhakh; and R. Dosa also ruled according to his view.

It was taught: R. Hanina stated: When I went down to the Diaspora I came across an old man who said to me, A reed mat may be used as skhakh.” And when I came before R. Joshua, my father’s brother, he agreed with his words. R. Hisda said only if it has no rim.

Ulla said: Those mats of the people of Mahoza, were it not for their rim, would be valid as skhakh. So it has also been taught: Reed mats are valid as skhakh, but if they have rims they are invalid as skhakh.

Ulla said: Those mats of the people of Mahoza, were it not for their rim, would be valid as skhakh. So it has also been taught: Reed mats are valid as skhakh, but if they have rims they are invalid as skhakh.

Ulla said: Those mats of the people of Mahoza, were it not for their rim, would be valid as skhakh. So it has also been taught: Reed mats are valid as skhakh, but if they have rims they are invalid as skhakh.

What [case] differentiates between them? If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes [in the ground] and covered them with skhakh According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

Mishnah. A disarranged sukkah and one whose shade is more than its sun is valid. If [the skhakh] is thick like that of a house, it is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it.

But might it not lie down? [It refers to] where it was tied with cords from above. And according to him who says, Lest it die, is it not tied with cords from above? It might happen that it is made to stand within three [handbreadths] of the skhakh but when it dies,

1) Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. 2) A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah. 3) It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor.

It once happened that the daughter-in-law of [Shammai gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof and put skhakh above the child]. Did the mishnah cite the incident in order to contradict [the previous halakhah]? There is something missing, and thus it should be taught: But Shammai is strict, and [indeed] it once happened that the daughter-inlaw of Shammai the elder gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof, and put skhakh over the bed for the child.

It once happened that the daughter-in-law of [Shammai gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof and put skhakh above the child]. Did the mishnah cite the incident in order to contradict [the previous halakhah]? There is something missing, and thus it should be taught: But Shammai is strict, and [indeed] it once happened that the daughter-inlaw of Shammai the elder gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof, and put skhakh over the bed for the child.

And R. Judah holds that the other [species] were for the walls, while the ‘myrtle branches and palm-branches and branches of thick trees’ were for skhakh. And we have learned: Planks may be used as a skhakh, the words of R. Judah. Therefore sinews and roots of date-palms are a species of palm-tree. This is conclusive.

And R. Judah holds that the other [species] were for the walls, while the ‘myrtle branches and palm-branches and branches of thick trees’ were for skhakh. And we have learned: Planks may be used as a skhakh, the words of R. Judah. Therefore sinews and roots of date-palms are a species of palm-tree. This is conclusive.

But did R. Judah really say that the four species can be used but not anything else? Was it not taught: If he covered it with planks of cedar wood which are four handbreadths wide, everyone holds it is invalid. If they are not four handbreadths wide, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. And R. Meir agrees that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, he may place valid skhakh between them and the sukkah is valid.