Sukka 21 a, b

A fantastical story illustrates the rabbis' concern regarding similarities between tents and sukkot regarding ritual impurity.  The story involves the rituals surrounding the red heifer, which required the utmost strictness regarding ritual purity.  Apparently, some women and children - we are not told whom these people are - resided in courtyards atop of rocks.  We learn that children had no opportunities to come into contact with ritual impurity (however, we know that women menstruated and even gave birth in this place; beneath the rocks there could be "graves in the depths").  Children aged seven and eight are said to have been responsible for collecting and delivering cups of water critical to the red heifer rituals.  The courtyards were made by people, and the rabbis agree that the legal status of a naturally existing tent is the same as that of a human-made tent.  I am not clear on how they reach this conclusion based on their story.

After wondering whether these children sat on doors or oxen, the rabbis wonder about creative understandings of 'tents'.   Do animals act as tents?  They protect shoes and other items place beneath them, right?  Oxen also protect shepherds from the sun, "and the rain from the rain".  A quote from Job (10:11) reminds us that the backs/skin of oxen and other animals, including humans, are created to protect our innards.  Thus oxen are not like tents.

The rabbis continue to argue.  Are sukkot temporary or permanent residences?  Are tents temporary or permanent residences?  They digress and discuss a verse from Psalms 1:3: "...Which brings forth fruit in its season and whose leaves do not wither."  The rabbis take this to mean that the conversations of the rabbis are of great importance - the fruit, the leaves and the stems.  This justifies their conversations today regarding oxen.  All parts of their discussions are of value.

We end the daf with a new Mishna: the Rabbis say that a sukka is fit if supported by two legs of a bed. Rabbi Yeduda teaches that the sukka is fit only if it can stand on its own. The rabbis argue about this possibility, wishing to avoid situations where the sukka is truly supported by the bed, where the bed frame could impart ritual impurity, and where the bed might render the sukka a temporary or permanent residence.

Today it struck me that the rabbis are spending much time and effort on beds in sukkot.  Were they used there for structural purposes?  It seems more likely that people were moving their beds into their sukkot so that they could truly dwell there over the Festival.  But how big were these sukkot to house beds, eating areas, living spaces, etc.?  We know that there is no limitation on the size of a sukka.  Perhaps they were huge!  But what about the poor, who could not afford such space?  And what about those who were making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem - did they also move their beds into the sukka?  Much easier today, with cushions and sleeping bags.