MISHNAH: One who sleeps under the bed did not fulfill his duty [The duty to dwell in the sukkah for 7 days, since he does not sleep under the thatched roof.] . Rebbi Jehudah said, we used to sleep under the beds in the presence of the Elders and they did not say a word. Rebbi Simeon said, it happened that Tabi [It seems that in Rabban Gamliel’s house all male slaves were called Tabi“boy”, and all female ones Tabita“girl”.] , Rabban Gamliel’s slave, slept under the bed. Rabban Gamliel said to the Elders, did you see my slave Tabi, who is learned and knows that slaves are free from the obligation of sukkah, and is sleeping under the bed [Since the obligation of sukkah is a positive commandment restricted in time it does not apply to women (Mishnah Qiddušin1:7) and therefore not to slaves since the obligations of male slaves cannot be greater that those of free women.] . According to our method we infer that one who sleeps under the bed did not fulfill his duty [Since R. Simeon and Rabban Gamliel form a majority against R. Jehudah.] .
HALAKHAH: “One who sleeps under the bed,” etc. There, we have stated: [Mishnah 1:4.] “But one may spread it over single posts of the bed.” And here he says so [What is the difference between sleepimg under a mosquito net and sleeping under a bed?] ? Rebbi Eliezer said, there he and his toga are under the sukkah, but here he and his (bed) [toga] are under the (sukkah) [bed] [For R. Eliezer read R. Eleazar. There are two versions here. The scribe's sentence is: but here he and his bed are under the sukkah, the corrector’s sentence is: but here he and his toga are under the bed. The scribe’s version notes that the mosquito net is no different from a nightgown, but the bed represents a flat roof of the space under it and therefore the person sleeping under the bed is under the bed which is under the sukkah, not under the sukkah. The corrector’s version expresses the same idea in a more complicated way.] . The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There [We do not know where R. Jehudah said this explicitly but it is generally accepted as doctrine of R. Tarphon (Pesaḥim3:7, Note 142, Ḥagigah1:7; Babli Qiddušin40b, Bava Qamma17a; Sifry Deut. 41, Cant. rabba2:14, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai19:17 p. 100), a teacher of R. Jehudah.] he said, action has precedence over study, and here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah thinks that one sleeping under the bed is like the one sleeping under the sukkah [The question presupposes that R. Jehudah agreed that one may not sleep under a bed, only he was taught that listening to the Elders in order to learn from them was so meritorious that it overrides the biblical obligation. This is wrong; R. Jehudah holds that one satisfies the obligation to live in the sukkah by staying there, even under the bed.] . So much more is Rebbi Jehudah’s argument inverted, as we have stated there [Mishnah 1:3. The people sleeping on the bed are compared to those occupying the upper sukkah.] , “[Rebbi Jehudah says,] if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.” Therefore if there are dwellers in the upper one the lower is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, there is another space, but here there is no other space [Since there is only one roofing, the argument of the preceding Note is invalid.] .
The argument of Rabban Gamliel is inverted. As it was stated [Eruvin Chapter 10, Note 59.] , Tabi [It seems that in Rabban Gamliel’s house all male slaves were called Tabi“boy”, and all female ones Tabita“girl”.] , Rabban Gamliel’s slave, put on tefillin and the Sages did not object to him. And here they objected? In order not to push aside the Sages [The reason that R. Jehudah declares a sukkah disqualified if made from a couch with 4 poles and a thatched roof as canopy is that usually the canopy is not 10 hand-breadths higher than the couch on which one rests. Therefore, if this distance is clearly larger than 10 hand-breadths, also R. Jehudah accepts it as qualified.] . If in order not to push aside the Sages, he could sit outside the sukkah. Tabi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave, wanted to hear the words of the Sages.
MISHNAH: If one supports his sukkah by the frame of the couch it is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it cannot stand by itself it is disqualified.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi said, because [The reason that R. Jehudah declares a sukkah disqualified if made from a couch with 4 poles and a thatched roof as canopy is that usually the canopy is not 10 hand-breadths higher than the couch on which one rests. Therefore, if this distance is clearly larger than 10 hand-breadths, also R. Jehudah accepts it as qualified.] from the middle of the couch it is less than ten hand-breadths. Rebbi Abba said, because one does not base it on what is impure [“Is impure” as always means “is susceptible to impurity”; in the case of a couch the severe impurity induced by people whose body is the source of their impurity.] . But was it not stated, it happened that the people of Jerusalem were lowering their couches through their windows and putting thatching over them [Tosephta 2:3, Babli 21b. The Tosephta states explicitly that the roofing was fastened to the windows which were 10 hand-breadths high. In the last sentence the difference between (scribe) and [corrector] is between Galilean and Babylonian styles.] ? If you are saying, because one does not base it on what is impure, here it is put on what is impure. Therefore the reason only is because from the middle of the couch it is less than ten hand-breadths.
MISHNAH: A wilted sukkah whose shade is more than its sunshine is qualified [Cf. Chapter 1, Notes 117–119.] . A stiff one like a house [The thatched roof is waterproof as one of a house is supposed to be; as long as it is from vegetal material impervious to impurity, it is qualified.] , even though the stars are not visible from inside, is qualified.
HALAKHAH: Rav and Samuel, one said “thinned out”, and one said “wilted”. He who said “thinned out”, if i6t had much shade [If a thick thatched roof is thinned out, one has to be careful that shade should still be more than sunlight; it is not enough that sunlight should not be more than shade.] ; but he who said “wilted,” if it does not have much shade [If from the start one has to worry that the roof will not stay for 8 days but will wilt before that time, one has to add enough material that in all situations there is more shade than sunlight. Cf. Babli 22a,b.] .
This implies [The statement in the Mishnah that a thatched roof is qualified even if the stars are not visible implies that usually they should be visible; a requirement for the House of Shammai, Babli 22b.] , that the stars should be seen from inside. Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina, they stated this about the sun star [But in the night no stars need be seen for the most pious interpretation.] .
MISHNAH: One who made his sukkah on top of a cart or a ship [Even while these are movable there is no problem on the holiday.] is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday; on top of a tree [Since biblically one is forbidden to cut or pluck anything from a tree on a holiday, rabbinically one is forbidden to climb on it. The Mishnah permits the use of the trunks as walls on the intermediate days of Tabernacles but not on the holiday.] or on a camel [To ride on a camel is biblically forbidden on the Sabbath and rabbinically on the holiday.] is qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Two human-made {walls}and one a tree, or two by trees and one human-made are qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Three human-made and one a tree is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday [Since a sukkah is qualified by three walls, the man-made walls make it qualified in all circumstances.] . This is the principle: In any case where it can stand by itself when the tree is removed, it is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday.
HALAKHAH: Where do we hold [When may a sukkah on a ship be qualified?] ? If put on the ground, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If it sails, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba. But we must hold when it is in port [Greek λιμήν.] .
[This paragraph also is in Eruvin Chapter 1.] Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, [as we have stated:] [Corrector’s addition, not in Eruvin.] “it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure. [Mishnah Eruvin1:7. R. Meïr does not accept the use of an animal in place of a stone in any way, including as a gravestone, since an animal may run away and therefore is not possibly under the rules of a stone.] ” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity [Mishnah Ahilut8:2. Since the house on a ship is moving all the time it does not qualify as “tent” and the rules of “tent impurity” do not apply to it.] .” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah [R. Eleazar ben Azariah did not make a sukkah on the ship since he holds that since such a sukkah is not guaranteed to stay for the 8 days of Tabernacles it is not qualified even if the wind does not blow it away. Babli 23a.] ?
[This paragraph and the next also are in Eruvin Chapter 2 (Notes 91–101).] “If he deposited it in a tree higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadths it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. [The topic here is eruv teḥumim. Since there is a biblical prohibition, nobody shall leave his place on the Seventh Day(Ex. 16:29), “place” is rabbinically defined as a rectangle, oriented EW,NS, extending 2’000 cubits from the built-up area one is in on Friday evening. It is possible to move this boundary by depositing food at the limits reachable on the Sabbath as eruv, symbolic dwelling place, before the Sabbath; then one may walk 2’000 cubits from this place but loses the same amount in the opposite direction. The prohibitions to use a tree on the Sabbath here are rabbinic (“forbidden” but not “liable”); similarly those regarding the sukkah in the next paragraph.] ” This is difficult. If his eruv is a {valid} eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a {valid}eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten {hand-breadths} [If one entertains the possibility that people would disregard rabbinic prohibitions, why would an eruv placed higher than 10 hand-breadths be invalid since one could climb the tree in violation of the rabbinic prohibition.] ? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four {hand-breadths} [Then the top of the tree is a private domain and biblically one may not eat the eruv while standing in the public domain.] . Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it [Not all eruvim placed 10 hand-breadths high are invalid; only if the tree is in the public domain, the place of the eruv forms a separate private domain of 4-by-4 hand-breadths, and the person making the eruv does not intend to climb the tree at sundown (which would be permitted).] . It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadths it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a {valid} eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a {valid} eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it [Since the basket can be turned and emptied while hanging on the tree it is not moved from its place, the food is accessible, and the eruv valid. Babli Eruvin33a,b.] . Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four {hand-breadths}, since one may tilt it and annul the public [With the text in Eruvin read: “private”.] domain of it, it implies that his eruv is a {valid}eruv and it is permitted to move it.
[There, we have stated] [Corrector’s addition from Eruvin; senseless here since the quote is from Sukkah.] : “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday but there you are saying his eruv is a {valid} eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one from the top, the other from the bottom [With the text of Eruvin read: “from the side” (in the case of the sukkah.)] . This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he put it on the side of a tree his eruv is a {valid} eruv and it is (prohibited) [permitted] [With the scribe and the text of Eruvin read: “prohibited.”] to move it. That learns from this, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday [Since the roof must be on top of the walls, in the case of the Mishnah it must rest on the top of the trees (or top of branches) which is rabbinically forbidden. But the basket is on the side of the trunk and the statement follows the opinion that the sides of tree trunks may be used on Sabbaths and holidays.] . Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree [Šabbat Chapter 5 Notes 39–43. Cf. Babli Šabbat154b.] .
MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah between trees it is qualified [One may use the tree trunks as walls of the sukkah but the roofing must lie on a frame supported by separate poles, not on the trees.] . Agents for meritorious deeds [However, it is forbidden to leave one’s family on a holiday even for religious reasons, Tosephta 2:1.] are not liable in matters of sukkah. Sick persons and their caregivers are not liable in matters of sukkah. One eats and drinks casually outside the sukkah.
HALAKHAH: Rav [Read “Rebbi”.] Ḥuna went to Eintab for the indication [The indication is the proclamation of the New Moon, held at Eintab (Ḥammat Gader) when the Academies were in Galilee.] . While coming he became thirsty but did not accept tasting anything before he went to the sukkah of Rebbi Joḥanan the scribe of Gufta [While he was going to fulfill a religious obligation, and drinking water falls under the exemption of casual consumption, he did not want to take advantage of either dispensation. Since the text is formulated in Galilean Aramaic, it is a popular tradition about holy men and not practice to be obligatory.] .
Rebbi Mana said, not only persons dangerously sick [The sick persons referred to in the Mishnah. Babli 26a.] but even sick persons not dangerously sick. It was stated: [Tosephta 2:2, Babli 26a.] “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, it happened that my eye was hurting in Caesarea and the great Rebbi Yose [He seems to by R. Yose ben Ḥalafta.] permitted me and all my caregivers to sleep outside the sukkah.” Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, the best men at a wedding and all participants in the wedding are not liable for sukkah [Disputed in the Halakhah and the Babli, 26a.] .
It was stated: [Tosephta 2:3.] “Daytime watchmen of a city are not liable for the sukkah during daytime but are liable during nighttime. Nighttime watchmen of a city are not liable for the sukkah during nighttime but are liable during daytime. Watchmen during day and night are not liable for sukkah day and night.” This you are saying, about watchmen about troops [Gangs of robbers. Regular police who watch against nonviolent thieves are not freed.] . But watchmen about money they treated like watchmen of gardens and orchards.
Eudaimon the salt-dealer slept in front of his store. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba passed by and told him, go and sleep in your sukkah. Rebbi Mana was best man for Rebbi Jacob bar Yafliti. He went and asked Rebbi Yose, who told him, go and sleep in your sukkah. Rebbi Isaac bar Marion was best man for somebody. He asked Rebbi Eleazar who told him, go and sleep in your sukkah [Disputed in the Halakhah and the Babli, 26a.] .
[Tosephta 2:1.] “It happened that Rebbi Ilai went to Rebbi Eliezer in Lydda. He said to him, are you not one of those who rest on the holiday? Did they not say that it is not praiseworthy for a scholar to abandon his house [His wife.] on the holiday and go somewhere else.” As the following: Rebbi Ze`ira went to a circumcision of Rebbi Ila [The circumcision of a son of R. Ilai.] and did not accept any food. If it was because he never ate anything before the end of musaf prayers [This remark is the source of the common usage that a circumcision on a holiday is performed after the Torah reading but before the musaf prayers. Then R. Ze`ira went home and ate with his wife. The Babli Berakhot28b rejects the rule not to eat before musaf.] , or we do not know whether it was because it is not praiseworthy for a scholar to abandon his house on the holiday [and go somewhere else; this] [Corrector’s addition, problematic since R. Ze`ira did not leave town and therefore could not be said to have “gone somewhere else.”] we do not know.
Rebbi Eleazar said, eating may be casual, sleep cannot be casual [On Tabernacles, even a short nap has to be done in the sukkah.] . The colleagues say, because a person is enveloped in his sleep [Once a person sleeps he lost control over the length of his sleep.] . Rebbi Ila said, because a person may sleep a little and it is enough. What is the difference between them? If he let another person control his sleep. In the opinion of the (rabbis) [colleagues] [The texts of the (scribe) and the [corrector] mean the same.] it is permitted, in Rebbi Ila’s opinion forbidden [Even if another person is charged with waking the sleeper after a short time, it may have been enough for the whole day.] .
MISHNAH: It happened that one brought Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai a dish to taste, and Rabban Gamliel two dates and a pail of water and they said, bring them to the sukkah [They did not want to avail themselves of the leniency of Mishnah 5.] . But when one gave Rebbi Ṣadoq food [Including bread.] in the volume of less than an egg he took it with a napkin [He covered his hands with the towel so he did not have to wash them before touching the bread.] , ate it outside of the sukkah, and did not recite a benediction [He did not say Grace for volumes less than a chicken egg.] afterwards.
HALAKHAH: We were thinking to say that he did not say three benedictions but one benediction he did say [Three benedictions are the full text of Grace, used after the consumption of bread. A single benediction is the short form of Grace, after consumption of cereal in forms other than bread.] . It was found stated, neither one benediction nor three benedictions [Since he holds that these benedictions are appropriate only after a satisfying meal, of a volume greater than a chicken egg.] . [This text is from Berakhot6:1, Notes 61–62.] It was stated [The first half of this statement is Tosephta Berakhot4:7.] : “On everything that needs three benedictions at the end one says ‘Who produces bread from the earth’ at the start, but on everything that does not need three benedictions at the end one does not say ‘Who produces bread from the earth’ at the start.” They objected: But if it is less than the size of an olive, one does not say three benedictions at the end. Does this mean that one should not say “Who produces bread from the earth” at the start? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is needed for other kinds [The statement does not refer to volume, but to kinds of food; if it is not bread it does not receive the benediction for bread. Hence, no conclusion as to the correct practice can be drawn.] .
MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, a person is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one during daytime and one in the night. But the Sages are saying, there is no fixed amount except only for the night of the first day of the holiday [The start of the holiday of Tabernacles, when the benedictions for the sukkah have to be recited. At all other times one may not eat a meal outside the sukkah, but no meals are prescribed.] . In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, one who did not eat on the first day of the holiday makes it up in the night of the last day of the holiday [The holiday is seven days, with a full holiday at the beginning; also the obligation of sukkah is seven days (Lev. 23:34,42). The eighth day is a separate holiday (Lev. 23:36, Num. 29:35). R. Eliezer counts the meal in the evening of the Eighth Day as making up for the missed one on the First day even though it cannot be valid in the sukkah.] . But the Sages are saying, this cannot be made up, and on this it was said [Eccl1:15.] , what is distorted cannot be fixed, and a deficiency cannot be filled.
HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here [Lev. 23:42.] , you shall sit, and it says there [Lev. 8:35, misquoted.] , at the door of the Tent of Meeting they shall sit day and night. Since for the sitting mentioned there He made nights like days [“Day and night” is interpreted as “some time during the day and some time during the night” (Yoma 1:1, Note 81); the same applies here.] , so also for the sitting mentioned here we shall make nights like days. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael [In the Babli 27a: in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoṣadaq (R. Joḥanan’s teacher); in the Munich ms. of the Babli R. Ṣadoq.] : It is said fifteenth for Passover and it is said fifteenth for Tabernacles. Since for fifteenth said for Passover the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional [This is an application of one of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules. It is written (Ex. 13:6) seven days you shall eat mazzot, and (Deut. 16:8) six days you shall eat mazzot. R. Ismael’s rule reads: Anything that was in a set and was taken out from the set implies the same for the whole set.” Since the last mentioned verse implies that on the seventh day one need not eat unleavened bread (one may not eat leavened bread, however), the same is true for all seven days of Passover with the only exception of the first night of which it is said explicitly (Ex. 12:18): In the evening you shall eat mazzot.] , so also for fifteenth said for Tabernacles the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional. The colleagues asked, since there only that one comes to eat mazzah with an appetite [Mishnah Pesaḥim10:1: “On Passover eve, starting close to afternoon prayers, a person may not eat until nightfall” (so he shall eat the first mazzah with a good appetite.) There is no similar rule spelled out for Tabernacles; R. Joḥanan’s argument is homiletic but cannot be legal.] , so also here only they come to eat in the sukkah with appetite? Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Since there only one has to eat mazzah in the volume of an olive [The biblical obligation contained in Ex. 12:18 can only be fulfilled by eating a mazzah in an amount that triggers a biblical obligation to say Grace. But for the sukkah, sitting is prescribed but not eating; the same standards cannot apply.] , so also here only one has to eat grain [in the sukkah] in the volume of an olive? Rebbi Hoshaia said, the sukkah is obligatory all seven days. Rebbi Berekhiah said, they [R. Joḥanan, who requires a meal only the first night, and R. Hoshaia, who requires it for 7 days.] disagree. Rebbi Abuna said, they do not disagree. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he put his mind to it; what Rebbi Hoshaia said, if he did not put his mind to it [R. Hoshaia really does not require to eat in the sukkah for 7 days; he is more lenient than R. Joḥanan and requires that once one must come to the sukkah to recite the appropriate benedictions (Halakhah 1:1, Notes 123–126) but this does not necessarily be the first night.] .
It was stated in Rebbi Eliezer’s name: He who did not make his sukkah before the holiday may not make it on the holiday [Babli 27a/b.] . But did not Bar Qappara state, if his sukkah collapsed on the holiday, he shall rebuild it on the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Eliezer punished him because he did not make his sukkah before the holiday [But he agrees with Bar Qappara to rebuild a sukkah on the intermediary days of the holiday week.] . Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion seems inverted. There, he says, a person is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, and here he says so [He seems to contradict himself in the Mishnah since he requires a make-up only for the meal in the first night but not for the remaining 13 meals.] ? Rebbi Aḥa said, they were compared as commandments [In the sukkah and at the consecration of Tent of Meeting the commandment is to sit; while in both cases eating there is implied, it is not spelled out as biblical commandment.] .
MISHNAH: If a person’s head and most of his body was in the sukkah but his table inside the house, the House of Shammai declare it disqualified but the House of Hillel qualified. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran and found him with his head and most of his body in the sukkah but his table inside the house. The House of Shammai answered them, is this a proof? They said to him, if you are used to do this, you never in your life did fulfill the obligation of sukkah.
HALAKHAH: Not only his table, but even a place for his table [It is implied by the Mishnah that the House of Shammai require a sukkah which accommodates most of a person’s body and a table. This does not imply that a table must actually be put into the sukkah; all that is needed is space for a table.] . How much is a place for his table? A hand-breadth [A hand-breadth square. It is one of the peculiarities of the idioms of both Talmudim that linear and volume measures are clearly named, but area measures (other than agricultural ones determined by the amount of seeds used for a unit) are subsumed under the names of the corresponding linear measures.] .
[This paragraph, introductory to the discussion why practice in this case follows the Hose of Shammai, essentially is from Terumot5:4 (Notes 65–71). Mishnah Terumot5:1 states that impure heave which was mixed with other produce must be destroyed (burned) as long as the impure heave constitutes at least 1% of the total. If the amount of impure heave is < 1%, an amount equal to that of the impure heave can be removed from the total, “lifted”, with the impurity transferred to the lifted amount, and the remainder used for its original purpose. Mishnah 4 reports a dispute between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai about impure heave which fell into 100 times its volume of pure heave, where the House of Shammai forbid everything but the House of Hillel permit. At the conclusion of the argument, R. Eliezer holds that 1 part of 101 has to be lifted and burned, but the Sages say that the impure was lost in its minority, i. e., since everything is heave all 101 parts may be eaten by a Cohen as pure heave.] Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah [Mishnah Ṭevul Yom2:7. A Ṭevul Yom is a person who had been impure, is no longer impure after immersion in a miqweh, but is prevented from touching or consuming sancta until be becomes pure at the following nightfall (Lev.22:7). If in the period between his immersion and sundown he touches heave, it becomes unusable; this is classified as “impure in the third degree”. If the ṭevul yom touches a stream of heave fluid (wine or oil) poured from one vessel to the other, in the opinion of the Sadducees the entire fluid in both vessels becomes unusable (MMT lines 55–58). In rabbinic tradition, only the part touched by the ṭevul yom becomes unusable; the fluid cannot be used because unusable heave is contained in it, but it can be repaired by the usual lifting of one out of 101.] says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so [Mishnah Terumot5:4.] : “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer [Which the House of Hillel could have given to the House of Shammai, in addition to the argument presented in the Mishnah.] , following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment [Which is classified as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.] for Cohanim.
From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words [Babli Eruvin13b. Historically one has to note that no renowned scholar of the House of Shammai is known born after the destruction of the Temple.] . Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders [The formulation “elders of the House of Shammai and elders of the House of Hillel” is original, not a formulation of the editor of the Mishnah.] . Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai [In the case of Mishnah 2:8. Babli 3a.] . Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel [No answer from the House of Hillel is noted.] , this implies that practice follows their words.
MISHNAH: Women, slaves, and minors are not obligated for the sukkah. Any minor who does not need his mother is obligated [As a minor he cannot be responsible for anything. His parents are obligated to bring him to the sukkah as part of his religious training.] for the sukkah. It happened that the Elder Shammai’s daughter-in-law gave birth and he removed the roof insulation and thatched the roof over the bed for the minor.
HALAKHAH: What is a minor [Whose parents do not have to bring him to the sukkah.] ? In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, any who needs his mother to cleanse him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any who awakes from his sleep and cries “Mamma” [Babli 28b.] . Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Any minor who does not need his mother is obligated for the sukkah but goes out with his mother’s eruv [If his mother made an eruv to move her Sabbath boundary on a Sabbath or holiday, it is not necessary to make a separate eruv for the child. Since the mother is not obligated in matters of sukkah, her status there cannot influence his status in matters of eruv teḥumim.] .
MISHNAH: All seven days a person makes his sukkah permanent and his house casual. If it started to rain when is one permitted to leave? When the cereal becomes smelly. One has for this a parable, to what does this compare? To a slave who comes to mix a cup for his owner and the latter throws the pitcher in his face.
HALAKHAH: It is written [Lev. 23:42.] , in sukkot you shall sit. But sitting means dwelling [Babli 28b.] , as you are saying, you shall inherit it and sit in it [Deut. 11:31.] ; that he eats in the sukkah, and rests in the sukkah, and brings his utensils to the sukkah.
[“If it started to rain when is one permitted to leave,: etc,] Not only if it gets smelly but even if it could get smelly. Not only a cereal of groats but any dish [Babli 29a.] . Just as one evacuates because of rain one evacuates because of a hot wind and because of mosquitoes. Rabban Gamliel entered and left the entire night; Rebbi Eliezer entered and left the entire night. One of Rebbi Mana’s students instructed a relative of the Patriarch: If he left, one does not importune him to return [Babli 29a.] . He had not heard that Rabban Gamliel entered and left the entire night; Rebbi Eliezer entered and left the entire night.