that they can become ritually impure, even with impurity imparted by treading, as those mats are produced for the purpose of lying upon them. And they also agreed concerning the coarse mats of Tiberias, that they are ritually pure, as these are produced exclusively for use in partitions and for roofing. Concerning what mats do they disagree? It is concerning the mats produced in the rest of the places. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Since there is no one who sits on these mats regularly, they are comparable to the mats of Tiberias and are pure. And one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, holds that since it happens and one sits on them on occasion, they are comparable to the mats of Usha and are impure.

The Gemara analyzes the mishna cited above. The Master said: All types of ḥotzalot can become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. Apparently, they are all considered vessels, which is why they are susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof the sukka with them. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in the baraita: And likewise, Rabbi Dosa would say in accordance with his statement, i.e., in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the name of his father, that all types of mats are ritually pure, and one may roof a sukka with them? Don’t these two sources contradict each other?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a mat that has an upturned edge, which renders the mat a vessel susceptible to ritual impurity. That baraita is referring to a mat that does not have an upturned edge [gedanpa]; therefore, it is not a vessel and is not susceptible to impurity.

The Gemara raises an objection: Ḥotzalot made of papyrus, or of bulrushes, or of sackcloth produced out of goat hair, or of horsehair, all of which are woven and comfortable, can become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse but not with the impurity imparted by treading, because while they are considered vessels, they are not designated for sitting; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis say: They do become ritually impure, even with the impurity imparted by treading.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that ḥotzalot are sacks called marzovelei, there is no problem. The reasoning of the one who holds that they do not become impure with impurity imparted by treading is that they are not designated for sitting. However, since they are vessels, they become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And for what are these vessels used? The vessels made of papyrus and of bulrushes are fit to be used as a fruit basket, and the ones made of sackcloth and of horsehair are fit to be used as small sacks [gulkei] and baskets for legumes and small fruits, because their weave is finer. However, according to the one who said that ḥotzalot are actual mats without upturned edges, what is the basis for the dispute? These mats are fit only for the purpose of lying upon them. Granted, the mats made of sackcloth, of goat hair, or of horsehair are fit for use as screens and flour sifters. However, the mats of papyrus and of bulrushes, for what use are they fit? The Gemara answers: They are fit for use as covers for vats of ale.

Some say a different version of this exchange: Granted, according to the one who said that ḥotzalot are actual mats, then the mats of papyrus and of bulrushes are fit to be used as covers for vats of ale, while those of sackcloth, i.e., goat hair, and of horsehair may be used as screens or sifters. However, according to the one who said that the ḥotzalot are sacks called marzovelei, what is the basis of their dispute? Granted, sacks made of sackcloth and of horsehair are fit to be used as small baskets and sacks; but for what are mats of papyrus or of bulrushes fit; why are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: They are fit to be used as a fruit basket.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥananya said: When I descended to the exile of Babylonia, I found one Elder, who said to me: One may roof the sukka with a mat. When I returned to Eretz Yisrael and came to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, the brother of my father, and related to him what the Elder said, he agreed with his statement. Rav Ḥisda said: That applies only to a mat that does not have an upturned edge and is not fit for any use other than for roofing.

Ulla said: These mats of the residents of Meḥoza, if not for their wall, i.e., upturned edge, one would be permitted to roof a sukka with them. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One may roof the sukka with a mat; and if they have a wall, one may not roof a sukka with them because the upturned edge renders it a receptacle susceptible to ritual impurity.

May we return to you chapter “Sukkah.”

MISHNA: One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukka did not fulfill his obligation, because the bed constitutes a tent that serves as a barrier between him and the roofing of the sukka. Rabbi Yehuda said: It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bed before the Elders and they did not say anything to us to the effect that we are not fulfilling our obligation. Apparently, the halakhic status of the bed is not like that of a tent and it does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva.

§ Rabbi Shimon said, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving Tavi, the Canaanite slave of Rabban Gamliel, who was sleeping beneath the bed, and Rabbi Gamliel lightheartedly said to the Elders: Did you see my slave Tavi, who is a Torah scholar and knows that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? Since it is a positive, time-bound mitzva, Canaanite slaves, whose status with regard to this halakhic category is like that of women, are exempt from the obligation to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. Therefore, he sleeps under the bed. Rabbi Shimon continued: And by the way, as Rabban Gamliel was not issuing a halakhic ruling, we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

GEMARA: The mishna states that one who is sleeping beneath a bed did not fulfill his obligation because a bed, like a tent, acts as a barrier between the person and the roofing. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the height of the space beneath the bed lacking ten handbreadths, and a space less than ten handbreadths high does not constitute a tent? Shmuel interpreted the mishna: It is referring to the case of a bed ten handbreadths high.

The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there with regard to the impurity of a tent: Both a hole that was perforated in a rock by water or by creeping animals, or a hole in a rock that was perforated because it was eaten away by salt, and likewise a space in a course of stones, and likewise a space in a pile of beams all have the legal status of a tent over impurity. A source of impurity imparted by a corpse transmits impurity to other objects in those spaces, as they constitute a tent over a corpse.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The legal status of any tent that is not established by a person is not that of a tent and does not transmit impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where did he derive that halakha?