A bed becomes ritually impure as a complete entity if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. And it becomes ritually pure as a single entity through immersion, and in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse, through sprinkling and immersion. However, it may be neither impurified nor purified when dismantled. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis say: It becomes ritually impure even when it is dismantled into its component parts, and, so too, it becomes ritually pure even when it is dismantled into its component parts. The Gemara asks: If the bed breaks into parts that serve no purpose, it is pure; what are these component parts mentioned by the Rabbis? Rabbi Ḥanan said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The component parts are a long board and two legs attached to it and a short board and two legs attached to it.

The Gemara asks: And for what purpose are these parts suited; what function qualifies their status as vessels? The Gemara answers: It is possible for one to lean them against the wall and to sit on them, after placing boards across the top and placing ropes across their length and width. The boards of the bed can thereby be used for the purpose of sitting or lying upon them; consequently, they are considered vessels.

§ The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself cited above. Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei said: If one roofed the sukka with worn, incomplete, vessels, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: What are these worn vessels? Abaye said: They are small cloths that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, which, due to their size, are not suited for use either by the poor or by the wealthy.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomei: In the case of a mat made of different types of vegetation, e.g., papyrus and reed grass, even though its remnants were reduced from the requisite measure for contracting ritual impurity, one may not roof the sukka with them. This precisely corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Ami.

The baraita continues: If a mat of reeds is large and not designated for sleeping, but is suited only for roofing, one may roof the sukka with it. However, the status of a small mat, which can be utilized for sleeping, is that of a vessel, and one may not roof the sukka with it. Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of even a large mat is that of a vessel. It is capable of contracting ritual impurity, and therefore one may not roof his sukka with it.

The mishna states: In the case of one who hollows out and creates a space inside a stack of grain, it is not a sukka. Rav Huna said: The Sages taught that it is not a sukka only in a case where there is not a space one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths upon which the grain was piled. However, if there is a space measuring one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths upon which the grain was piled, and now, by hollowing out the stack, one is raising the existing walls and not forming a new space, it is a fit sukka.

That is also taught in a baraita: One who hollows out a stack of grain to make himself a sukka, it is a sukka. The Gemara wonders: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that it is not a sukka? Rather, is it not correct to conclude from it, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, that in certain circumstances it is possible to hollow out a stack of grain and establish a fit sukka? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

Some raised this matter as a contradiction between the mishna and the baraita. We learned in the mishna: One who hollows out a stack of grain in order to make himself a sukka, it is not a sukka. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that this is a sukka? Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. Here, where it is a sukka, it is a case where there is a space measuring one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths, while there, where it is not a sukka, it is a case where there is not a space one handbreadth high along seven handbreadths.

MISHNA: One who lowers the walls of the sukka from up downward, if the lower edge of the wall is three handbreadths above the ground, the sukka is unfit. Since animals can enter through that space, it is not the wall of a fit sukka. However, if one constructs the wall from down upward, if the wall is ten handbreadths high, even if it does not reach the roofing, the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yosei says: Just as a wall built from down upward must be ten handbreadths, so too, in a case where one lowers the wall from up downward, it must be ten handbreadths in length. Regardless of its height off the ground, it is the wall of a fit sukka, as the legal status of a ten-handbreadth partition is that of a full-fledged partition in all areas of halakha.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that a suspended partition, even if it does not reach all the way down, renders it permitted to carry on Shabbat, like a full-fledged partition. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a suspended partition does not render it permitted to carry on Shabbat.

We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Eiruvin: In the case of a cistern that is located between two courtyards, situated partly in each courtyard, one may draw water from it on Shabbat only if a partition ten handbreadths high was erected specifically for the cistern to separate the water between the domains, lest the residents of one courtyard draw water from the domain of the other courtyard. This partition is effective whether it is above, and lowered toward the water; whether it is below, in the water; or whether it is within the airspace of the cistern below the rim, above the surface of the water. A partition situated in any of these places forms a boundary between the two courtyards, permitting one to draw water from the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that this is the subject of an early dispute of tanna’im.