Sukkah 011

1:
Our mishnah continues the discussion concerning valid roofing for a sukkah, a discussion which has occupied us for several mishnahs. Our mishnah consists of two clauses.

2:
The reisha (first clause) of our present mishnah is more concerned with the supports for the s^ekhakh than with the s^ekhakh itself. Two items are singled out for discussion; either because they are typical or because they illustrate a ruling from which others may be deduced.

3:
When an animal is prepared for a meal by roasting over an open fire (what moderns call a barbecue) the carcass of the animal is hoisted onto a spit. This is a metal rod that is reminiscent of a spear. Of course, one cannot use such spits to support the s^ekhakh of the sukkah because being made of metal they are not in themselves valid s^ekhakh.

4:
The "bed-longies" seems to be a colloquial name for removable bars that ran along the length of the bed (hence their name) on both sides. Their purpose was to prevent the sleepers from falling out of the bed. While this might seem rather strange to us we should bear in mind the rather unique form that these items of bedroom furniture had in mishnaic and talmudic times. These beds were very high off the ground; so high that often a ladder had to be used to climb into bed! Underneath the bed was a large storage area. This area was so large that one could hide in it! When we studied Tractate Yadayyim I had occasion to mention a rather salacious account which illustrates for us the height of these beds:

The study of a student of the sages was long and arduous. The study was not book study as we are used to today but information was passed from teacher to student orally and the traditions that the teacher passed on had to be memorized exactly by constant repetition. If the student wanted to have a varied education he would have to be the student of several sages, and this meant living with them in their homes. The students learned everything from their teacher not only formally but also informally by watching their every move quite literally for 24 hours a day. Lest this be seen as an exaggeration let us quote from the Gemara [Berakhot 62a]:

So, these "bed-longies" were an essential safety precaution! Since they were detachable they could be used during the festival as supports for the s^ekhakh (assuming that they were made of wood and were no more than four handbreadths wide).

5:
Our mishnah states that both the spit and the "bed-longie" could be used as supports for the s^ekhakh provided that they were not the s^ekhakh itself. There had to be between then an open space equal to or larger than their own width (which would be covered with s^ekhakh).

6:
The seifa (last clause) of our mishnah is concerned with the nature of the sukkah itself. We have already mentioned [Sukkah 009] the use of haystacks as panels (walls) for the sukkah. However, our present mishnah is concerned with turning the haystack itself into a sukkah by burrowing into it. Although all the materials are valid for a sukkah the haystack itself does not create a sukkah. Note that our mishnah does not say that such a sukkah is invalid; it says that it is not a sukkah at all! Apart from any other considerations, it contravenes the general rule which we have already encountered in Sukkah 009:

The sages understood the command as requiring the s^ekhakh of the sukkah as being made from something especially for the purpose: "'You shall make' — and not from what is already made" [Sukkah 11b]

In Sukkah 006 we learned that the mishnah states that

if someone erects his sukkah under a tree it is as if he had erected it inside his house.

Mark Lehrman writes:

Is it not possible to interpret the first part of the mishnah as addressing a situation where a sukkah (i) is erected with valid s'kach but (ii) is positioned beneath a tree, so that the branches of the tree provide an additional source of shade? In that case, the question would be does the augmented shade provided by the tree invalidate a sukkah, which, had it been positioned away from the tree, would otherwise have been valid.

I respond:

This is an intriguing suggestion, but certainly none of the classic commentators have understood it in this manner. Furthermore, the discussion in the Gemara makes it clear that the tree itself is invalid as s^ekhakh because its foliage is still attached to the soil (through the trunk of the tree) so it would not be just a question of over-shading. Certainly, the latter part of Mark's suggestion is correct: a sukkah that has valid s^ekhakh will be a valid sukkah if it is removed from under the shade of the tree.