with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rabbi Yehuda says: They would not bring doors at all, because a child has an exaggerated sense of self-confidence and perhaps he will extend his head or one of his limbs beyond the edge of the door and will become impure with impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. Rather, they would bring Egyptian oxen whose bellies are broad, and the children would sit upon them and they would hold cups of stone in their hands. When they reached the Siloam pool they descended and filled them, and ascended and sat themselves on the backs of the oxen.

The Gemara asks: But with regard to a bed, which measures several fistbreadths, didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It was our custom that we would sleep beneath the bed before the Elders? Apparently, despite the fact that a bed measures several handbreadths, its legal status is not that of a tent. The Gemara answers: A bed is different, since it is designed specifically for use upon it; therefore, the status of the space beneath it is not that of a tent. The Gemara asks: Aren’t oxen like those used to transport the children to bring water for the red heifer also designated specifically for use upon them and nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda deems their spinal column and bellies a tent.

When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Elazar said: Oxen are different since they protect the shepherds in the sun from the sun, and in the rain from the rain. Shepherds would lie beneath the bellies of the oxen as protection from the elements. The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if an ox is rendered a tent because it provides protection, even if its primary designation is for use upon it, then the status of a bed too should be that of a tent, since it protects shoes and sandals that are placed beneath it.

Rather, Rava rejected that explanation and said: Oxen are different and their status is that of a tent since their bellies and backs are made to protect their innards, as it is stated: “With skin and flesh You have clothed me, and with bones and sinews You have knitted me together” (Job 10:11). Since flesh and skin are mentioned in the verse as providing shelter, the status of the oxen is that of a tent.

And if you wish, say instead: In this case Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his reasoning, as he stated elsewhere: We require a sukka that is a permanent residence. The bed in a sukka is a temporary residence, and the sukka is a permanent tent; and a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent. The permanent sukka is significant and that significance supersedes any temporary structure within it. Therefore, in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the status of the bed is not that of a tent.

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who also stated that we require a sukka that is a permanent residence, nevertheless, a temporary tent comes and negates a permanent tent. The Gemara answers: Yes, and that is the point over which they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: A temporary tent comes and negates a permanent tent, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: A temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent.

The mishna relates that 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 Rabban Gamliel claimed that Tavi did so because he was a Torah scholar and knew that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel we learned two matters. We learned that Canaanite slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And let Rabbi Shimon say: From the statement of Rabban Gamliel. Why did he use the atypical expression: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Through this expression he teaches us another matter in passing, like that which Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda said, and some say that Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Hamnuna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that even the conversation of Torah scholars require analysis, even when the intention of the speaker was apparently not to issue a halakhic ruling? It is as it is stated with regard to the righteous: “Which brings forth its fruit in its season and whose leaf does not wither” (Psalms 1:3). This teaches that with regard to a Torah scholar, not only is his primary product, his fruit, significant but even ancillary matters that stem from his conversation, his leaves, are significant.

MISHNA: One who supports his sukka on the legs of the bed, i.e., he leans the sukka roofing on a bed, the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sukka cannot stand in and of itself without support of the bed, it is unfit.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda deeming this sukka unfit? Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagree with regard to the rationale. One said: It is unfit because it lacks permanence. The sukka is not stable enough, as if the bed is moved the sukka will collapse. And one said: It is unfit because he is supporting the roofing with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, as the bedframe is a vessel. Not only the roofing, but that which supports the roofing as well may not be susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara explains: The difference is in a case where one wedged iron skewers into the ground and roofed the sukka upon them. According to the one who said that the reason the sukka is unfit is because it lacks permanence, this sukka has permanence, and it is fit. However, the one who said the reason the sukka is unfit is because he is supporting the roofing with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, he is supporting it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, so it is unfit.

Abaye said: The Sages taught this dispute only in a case where one leaned the roofing on the bed. However, if one placed the roofing atop the bed, i.e., he affixed poles to the bed and the roofing is supported by those poles, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason that it is fit? According to the one who said that the sukka is unfit because it lacks permanence, this sukka has permanence as even if the bed is moved, the roofing will move with it and will not collapse. And according to the one who said the sukka is unfit because he supports it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, in this case he is not supporting it with an object that is susceptible to ritual impurity, as the roofing is not supported by the bed.