Sukka 14 a, b

We ended yesterday's daf with a new question: can we invoke change in an item's status simply through thought, or is it necessary to take some sort of action to demonstrate that change?  Today's daf begins with further discussion about that issue. The Gemara clarifies how thought and action affect ritual impurity.   If a vessel is in a state of ritual impurity, it can change status when one takes action toward changing its status. Thus an unfinished vessel becomes ritually pure as its artisan lifts it to finish it.  A principle: action can negate an item's status based on action or thought; thought can never negate an item's status.  

The rabbis go on to discuss the ritual purity and status of handles left on the threshing  floor.  In particular they look at the word besasan, translated as either trampled or 'untying its binding'.  They also look at the pitchfork, eter, as an example of a untensil.   We're told that Rabbi Eleazar shares an aggadic teaching on why a pitchfork is like a prayer: "And Isaac entreated (vayetar) the Lord for his wife because she was barren" (Genesis 25:21).  From this we learn that  G-d will turn G-d's mind from cruelty to mercy just as a pitchfork will move hay from one place to another.  Did they actually use the word cruelty?  The rabbis understand that this word is used to contrast with and thus emphasize G-d's attribute of mercy.

A new Mishna tells us that Rabbi Yehuda sanctions boards for use as roofing on the sukka.  Rabbi Meir does not.  The Mishna continues: a board four handbreadths wide may be used to roof the sukka as long as a person does not sleep under that board.  The remainder of our daf looks at these statements.

The rabbis question whether or not these wide boards are kosher for use on a sukka.  Could they be considered connected to each other based on the principle of lavud?  What about boards between three and four handbreadths wide?  How are boards less than four cubits different from reeds, which all agree are fit to use as roofing?  What about turning these boards on their sides?  And what about other placements of these boards?

One of the more interesting questions (according to me) asks whether some of these things might deem a sukka fit in times of danger.  So if the authorities do not want Jews to practice their religion and thus sukkot are not allowed by law, can people use four-handbreadth wide boards?  Wouldn't this look like one was building a regular house?  

First off, this teaches us about home building in ancient times.  It would seem that four-handbreadth boards (ie. wide boards) were used regularly as roofing.  What was used to cover those board to protect people from rain, wind and/or sand?  Or was roofing often replaced?  Did roofing always touch the walls of a home?  Where would a person find a four-handbreadth board?  Were they expensive?

By the way, Rabbi Yehuda tells us that he does not believe that we should use four-handbreadth boards to roof our sukkot even in times of danger.  He asserts that people could find three-handbreadth boards just as easily.  And anyway, non-Jewish authorities would not know the difference, anyhow.

Rabbi Yehuda voices the opinion of many of my friends.  When we behave according to a paranoid view of the world (ie. they're going to notice this imperfection and then their anti-semitism will be sparked), we do not further our Jewish practice.  To create stringencies based on fear makes little sense, particularly in North American Jewish communities.