Talmud - Beitza 30b ביצה ל׳ ב׳

MISHNA: One may not take wood from a sukka on any Festival, not only on the festival of Sukkot, because this is considered dismantling, but one may take from near it.

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question with regard to the mishna: In what way is this case different? Why did the mishna teach that from the sukka itself one may not remove wood? It is because one thereby dismantles a tent, which is a prohibited labor. But if so, if one takes wood from near it, too, doesn’t he thereby dismantle a tent? Why, then, does the mishna permit him to do so?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: What is the meaning of: Near it? It means near the walls. Wood placed near the walls may be removed because it is not part of the sukka itself; the walls themselves may not be removed. Rav Menashya said: Even if you say that it is referring to a case where the wood is not near the walls but is part of the roof of the sukka itself, when that baraita was taught, it was with regard to bundles of reeds that are not considered part of the roof of the sukka, as they have not been untied. Therefore, one may remove them.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: One may not take wood from the sukka itself but only from the nearby wood. And Rabbi Shimon permits one to take wood from the sukka as well. And all agree, even Rabbi Shimon, that with regard to the sukka that was built for the festival of Sukkot, during the Festival it is prohibited to remove wood from it. But if at the outset one stipulated a condition with regard to it allowing him to use it for other purposes, it is all according to his stipulation.

The Gemara questions this baraita: And does Rabbi Shimon permit one to take wood from the sukka itself? But isn’t one dismantling a tent, which is a prohibited labor? The Gemara answers that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that has already collapsed. Therefore, the only potential concern is muktze, not dismantling. And Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of muktze, as it is taught in a baraita: If a wick in oil was lit before Shabbat, and it went out on Shabbat, the remainder of the oil in a lamp or in a bowl is prohibited for use, as it is muktze. And Rabbi Shimon permits one to use it. Consequently, Rabbi Shimon also permits one to take wood from the sukka.

The Gemara rejects this claim: Is it comparable? There, in the case of oil in a lamp, a person sits and anticipates when his lamp will be extinguished. It is clear to him that it will be extinguished, and he can safely assume that a certain amount of oil will remain in the lamp or the bowl. Here, however, can it be said that a person sits and anticipates when his sukka will fall? He cannot know ahead of time that his sukka will collapse.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that is not sturdy, as from yesterday, the Festival eve, one already had his mind on it. He thought it might collapse, and therefore he did not remove the possibility of using its wood from his mind.

§ The above baraita states: All agree with regard to the sukka that was built for the festival of Sukkot, that during the Festival it is prohibited to remove wood from it, but if one stipulated a condition with regard to it, it is all according to his condition. The Gemara asks: And is a condition effective with regard to it?

But didn’t Rav Sheshet say in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From where is it derived that the wood of a sukka is prohibited to be used for any other use all seven days of the Festival? It is as it is stated: “The festival of Sukkot to the Lord, seven days” (Leviticus 23:34). And it is taught in a different baraita in explanation of this that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that just as the name of Heaven takes effect upon the Festival peace-offering, so too, does the name of Heaven take effect upon the sukka? The verse states: “The festival of Sukkot to the Lord, seven days” (Leviticus 23:34), from which it is learned: Just as the Festival offering is consecrated to the Lord, so too, the sukka is consecrated to the Lord. Since the wood of the sukka is compared to consecrated objects, how may one stipulate a condition with regard to it?

Rav Menashya, son of Rava, said: In the latter clause, where the stipulation is mentioned, we have arrived at the case of a regular sukka, a hut used throughout the year, not specifically for the Festival. With regard to such a sukka, one may stipulate to use the wood as he wishes; but as for a sukka of mitzva, used for the Festival, a condition is not effective with regard to it.

The Gemara asks a question from a different angle: And is a condition not effective for a sukka of mitzva? But isn’t it taught in the Tosefta: In the case of a sukka that one roofed in accordance with its halakha, and decorated it with embroidered clothes and with patterned sheets, and hung on it nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, and vines [parkilei], of grapes and glass containers filled with wine, oil, and flour, and wreaths of ears of corn for decoration, it is prohibited to derive benefit from any of these until the conclusion of the last Festival day. But if one stipulated a condition with regard to them whereby he allows himself to use them, it is all according to his condition. This shows that conditions are effective even with regard to a sukka of mitzva.

The Gemara answers based on the opinion of Abaye and Rava, who both say that this is referring to a case where one says: I am not removing myself from them throughout twilight. In other words, he announces from the outset that he will not set them aside as sukka decorations, but rather he will use them for other purposes as well. In that case, no sanctity devolves upon them at all, and he may therefore use them throughout the Festival. However, as for the actual wood of a sukka, sanctity devolves upon it through the very construction of the sukka, and it has therefore been set aside from use for the entire seven days.

The Gemara asks: And in what way is it different from that which was stated with regard to a different halakha: In the case of one who separated seven etrogim for each of the seven Festival days, one for each day, Rav said: He fulfills his obligation through each and every one of them when he recites the blessing over the lulav and etrog, and if he so desires he may eat it immediately after the blessing. And Rav Asi said: He fulfills his obligation through each one, and he may eat it the following day, as it retains its sanctity for the duration of that entire day. In any case, all agree that the sanctity of each etrog does not extend to the following day. If so, why does the sanctity of the sukka extend through all seven days?

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between an etrog and a sukka. There, with regard to an etrog, the nights are divided from the days, as the mitzva of etrog applies only during the day and not at night. This means that each and every day is its own mitzva, and therefore an item that is sanctified for one day is not necessarily sanctified for the following day. However, here, with regard to a sukka, where the nights are not divided from the days, as the mitzva of sukka applies at night as well, all seven days are considered as one long day. Throughout the Festival, there is no moment during which the sanctity of sukka leaves the wood; it leaves only at the conclusion of the Festival.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Beitza 30b examines the prohibition against dismantling a sukka on a Festival by removing its wood, and debates the boundary between the structure and nearby materials.