## Sukkah Daf 24b

###### Sukkah 24b:1
[Sukkah 24b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:1)

הֲרֵי עֲשׂוּיָה בִּידֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
this partition **was established by a person** and is therefore fit.


###### Sukkah 24b:2
[Sukkah 24b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:2)

אָמַר מָר. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אָמְרוּ: אַף אֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? דְּתַנְיָא: ״סֵפֶר״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סֵפֶר. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת כָּל דָּבָר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the *baraita* that **in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they said: Nor** may **one write bills of divorce on it.** The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?** It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “When a man takes a wife, and marries her, and it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her **a scroll [*sefer*]** of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:1); from the word scroll, **I have** derived **only** that **a scroll** is fit. **From where** do I derive **to include all objects** as fit materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? **The verse states: “That he write her,” in any case,** i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written.


###### Sukkah 24b:3
[Sukkah 24b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:3)

אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״סֵפֶר״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה סֵפֶר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If so, what** is the meaning of that which **the verse states: Scroll?** It is **to tell you** that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: **Just as a scroll is neither alive nor is it food, so too,** a bill of divorce may be written on **any object that is neither alive nor food.** That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.


###### Sukkah 24b:4
[Sukkah 24b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:4)

וְרַבָּנַן? אִי כְּתַב ״בְּסֵפֶר״, כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ. הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״סֵפֶר״ — לִסְפִירַת דְּבָרִים בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis,** who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse? They contend: **If** the verse **had written:** That he write for her **in the scroll [*basefer*],** it would be **as you said,** that the bill of divorce may be written only on a scroll. **Now that it is written** simply: That he write her **a *sefer*, it comes to** teach that **a mere account of the matters [*sefirat devarim*]** is required. There are no restrictions with regard to the surface on which that account may be written.


###### Sukkah 24b:5
[Sukkah 24b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:5)

וְרַבָּנַן: הַאי ״וְכָתַב״ מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ, בִּכְתִיבָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בְּכֶסֶף. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ יְצִיאָה לַהֲוָיָה, מָה הֲוָיָה בַּכֶּסֶף — אַף יְצִיאָה בְּכֶסֶף, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And what do the Rabbis derive from** the phrase: **“That he write her”?** The Gemara answers: **That** phrase **is required** to teach the principle that a woman **is divorced** only **by means of writing,** i.e., a bill of divorce, **and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since** in the verse, **leaving** marriage, i.e., divorce, **is juxtaposed to becoming** married, i.e., betrothal, then **just as becoming** married **is** effected **with money, so too, leaving** marriage may be effected **with money.** Therefore, the Torah **teaches us:** “That he write her,” indicating that divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.


###### Sukkah 24b:6
[Sukkah 24b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:6)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הַאי סְבָרָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? מִ״סֵּפֶר כְּרִיתוּת״ נָפְקָא לֵיהּ. סֵפֶר כּוֹרְתָהּ, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר כּוֹרְתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he** derive **this reasoning** that a woman cannot be divorced with money? The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** the phrase: **“A scroll of severance,”** which teaches that **a scroll,** i.e., a written document, **severs her** from her husband, **and nothing else severs her** from him.


###### Sukkah 24b:7
[Sukkah 24b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:7)

וְאִידַּךְ? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְדָבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן, וְעַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ לְעוֹלָם — אֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת, כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And the other** *tanna*, i.e., the Rabbis, **requires that** verse **to** teach that a bill of divorce must be **a matter that severs** all connection **between him and her. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If a man says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will never drink wine, or on the condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not severance;** the divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition **for the duration of thirty days,** or any other limited period of time, **that is severance,** and the divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.


###### Sukkah 24b:8
[Sukkah 24b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:8)

וְאִידָּךְ? מִ״כָּרֵת״ ״כְּרִיתוּת״ נָפְקָא. וְאִידַּךְ? ״כָּרֵת״ ״כְּרִיתוּת״ לָא דָּרְשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, **derives** that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce **from** the fact that instead of using the term ***karet*,** the verse uses the more expanded term ***keritut*.** Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance. **And the other** *tanna*, the Rabbis, **does not derive** anything from the expansion of ***karet*** to ***keritut*,** because the Rabbis do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.


###### Sukkah 24b:9
[Sukkah 24b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ בֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת וְהָאִילָנוֹת דְּפָנוֹת לָהּ — כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who establishes his *sukka* between the trees, and the trees** serve as **walls for it,** the *sukka* **is fit.**


###### Sukkah 24b:10
[Sukkah 24b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:10)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: כׇּל מְחִיצָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה — אֵינָהּ מְחִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Any partition that is not able to stand in a typical wind,** but rather is blown to and fro, **is not a partition.**


###### Sukkah 24b:11
[Sukkah 24b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:11)

תְּנַן: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ בֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת וְהָאִילָנוֹת דְּפָנוֹת לָהּ — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהָא קָאָזֵיל וְאָתֵי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּקָשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks the following question based on that which **we learned** in the mishna: In the case of **one who establishes his *sukka* between the trees, and the trees** serve as **walls for it,** the *sukka* **is fit.** The Gemara asks: **But don’t** the trees **sway back and forth** in the wind? The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** The mishna is referring **to** older trees that are thick and **hard** and do not sway in the wind.


###### Sukkah 24b:12
[Sukkah 24b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:12)

וְהָאִיכָּא נוֹפוֹ! דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ בְּהוּצָא וְדַפְנָא. אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִיגְזַר דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּאִילָן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t there** the issue of **its foliage,** which certainly sways in the wind? If it constitutes part of the wall of the *sukka*, the *sukka* should be unfit. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where it is a fit wall due to the fact **that he established** the wall by tying it **with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves** to tighten it to prevent it from swaying in the wind. And the Gemara says: **If** it is **so** that the tree is tied and cannot sway, **what** purpose is there **to state** this *halakha*? It is obvious that it is a fit wall. The Gemara answers: It is **lest you say: Let us issue a decree** prohibiting its use **lest one come to use the tree** on Shabbat. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that this is not a concern.


###### Sukkah 24b:13
[Sukkah 24b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה שָׁם אִילָן אוֹ גָּדֵר אוֹ מְחִיצַת הַקָּנִים — נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד! הָתָם נָמֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ בְּהוּצָא וְדַפְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a different proof that a partition that is blown to and fro in the wind is a fit partition. The *halakha* is that double boards positioned in the four corners of an area surrounding a well render the area a private domain in which it is permitted to draw water from the well on Shabbat. If there **was a tree there,** one cubit thick on each side of one of the corners, **or** a square stone **fence** that measures one square cubit, **or a partition of reeds, its** legal status is **assessed like** that of **a double board** positioned at the corners of the area surrounding a well, and serve as a partition for two of the sides. Apparently, a partition that moves in the wind, like the partition of reeds, is considered a full-fledged partition. The Gemara refutes this proof: **There, too,** it is only considered a full-fledged partition **due to** the fact **that he established** the partition by tying it **with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.**


###### Sukkah 24b:14
[Sukkah 24b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אִילָן הַמֵּיסֵךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ, אִם אֵין נוֹפוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ מִן הָאָרֶץ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — מְטַלְטְלִין תַּחְתָּיו. אַמַּאי, הָא קָא אָזֵיל וְאָתֵי? הָתָם נָמֵי, דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ בְּהוּצָא וְדַפְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an additional proof. **Come** and **hear** that which is taught in a *baraita*: With regard to **a tree** whose foliage is broad and its branches reach down and **cover the ground, if its foliage is not three handbreadths high** off **the ground** it creates a space similar to a round room; therefore, **one** may **carry beneath it,** as it is a full-fledged private domain. **Why** is the foliage of the tree a fit partition? **Doesn’t it sway back and forth** in the wind? The Gemara answers: **There, too,** it is due to the fact **that he established** the partition by tying it **with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.**


###### Sukkah 24b:15
[Sukkah 24b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/24b:15)

אִי הָכִי, נִיטַּלְטֵל בְּכוּלֵּיהּ! אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so** that it is a case where one established the foliage as a complete partition, **let him move** objects **in the entire** area beneath the tree, since it is a private domain. **Why,** then, **did Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, say: One** may **carry** beneath this tree