Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 24, 2021 | 讟状讜 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sukkah 17

The mishna and gemara raise more cases of dofen akuma, when the disqualified s’chach is within four cubits of the walls, we view the wall as if it continues onto the s’chach and it does not disqualify the sukkah. Air space in the s’chach disqualifies the sukkah is it covers a space of three handbreadths. There are two different versions regarding a debate about whether non-kosher s’chach disqualifies a sukkah at four handbreadths or at four cubits.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛住讬讻讜讱 诪谉 讛讚驻谞讜转 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛

MISHNA: If one distanced the roofing from the walls of the sukka at a distance of three handbreadths the sukka is unfit, because three handbreadths of open space, even adjacent to the walls, render the sukka unfit.

讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诐 讬砖 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 诇住讬讻讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛

In the case of a house that was breached, creating a hole in the middle of the roof, and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there are four or more cubits of the remaining original roof, it is an unfit sukka. If the roofing is less than four cubits from the wall, the sukka is fit, based on the principle of curved wall; the remaining intact ceiling is considered an extension of the vertical wall.

讜讻谉 讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 诪讜拽驻转 讗讻住讚专讛 住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖讛拽讬驻讜讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讜 讗诐 讬砖 转讞转讬讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛

And likewise, in the case of a courtyard that is surrounded on three sides by a portico, which has a roof but no walls, if one placed roofing over the courtyard between the different sides of the portico and the roof of the portico is four cubits wide, the sukka is unfit. Similarly, a large sukka that was surrounded at the edge of its roofing with material with which one may not roof a sukka, e.g., vessels susceptible to ritual impurity, if there are four cubits beneath the unfit roofing, the sukka is unfit. The principle of curved wall does not apply to unfit roofing that measures four cubits or more.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 诪砖讜诐 讚讛谞讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讘讬转 注讘讬讚谉 讗讘诇 讞爪专 讛诪讜拽驻转 讗讻住讚专讛 讚诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讗讻住讚专讛 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these cases based on the identical principle of curved wall? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to cite all the cases, as, if the mishna had taught us only the case of the house that was breached, I would have said that the principle of curved wall applies there because those walls were established for the house. Therefore, when the house is transformed into a sukka, the walls continue to serve their original function as walls of the sukka. However, with regard to a courtyard surrounded on each of the three sides by a portico, where its walls were established not for the portico but for the house that opens into the portico, and they happen to serve as the interior walls of the portico, I could say no, they are not considered as connected to the roofing at all. Consequently, it is necessary for the mishna to cite that case as well.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪砖讜诐 讚住讻讻谉 住讻讱 讻砖专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖讛拽讬驻讜讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讜 讚住讻讻讛 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna taught us only these two cases, one would have said that the principle of curved wall can apply because all of their roofing is fit roofing, and the preexisting roof of the house and the portico is unfit only due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. However, here, in the case of a large sukka that was surrounded at the edge of its roofing with material with which one may not roof a sukka, where some its roofing is unfit and the fit roofing does not actually reach the wall, one could say no, the roofing is unfit. Therefore, it is necessary to state that case as well.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讗讜讬专 驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注讛

Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav, who were sitting and saying in the name of Rav: Space without roofing renders the sukka unfit with a measure of three handbreadths of space. However, unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four handbreadths.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讗讜讬专 讚驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 诪谞讗 诇讻讜 讚转谞谉 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛住讬讻讜讱 诪谉 讛讚驻谞讜转 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬驻住讬诇 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 讛住讬讻讜讱 诇讻讜转诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛

And I said to them: From where do you derive that space renders the sukka unfit when it amount to three handbreadths? It is as we learned in the mishna: If one distanced the roofing from the walls of the sukka at a distance of three handbreadths, the sukka is unfit. If, indeed, this mishna is the source of the halakha, also in the case of unfit roofing, let it render the sukka unfit only if the roofing measures four cubits, as we learned in the same mishna: With regard to a house that was breached and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there is four or more cubits of the remaining original roof, the sukka is unfit.

讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛 谞讙注讜 讘讛

And they said to me: Cite proof from the mishna, apart from this case, as both Rav and Shmuel said that in this case, the Sages in the mishna touched upon the principle of curved wall. In other words, the fact that this house is a fit sukka is unrelated to the minimum measure of unfit roofing. It is fit due to the principle of curved wall.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬讻讗 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讜讗讜讬专 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 诪诇讬讬讛 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讗讜讬专 讛驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 讻住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讛驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注讛

And I said to them: What if there is a sukka with less than four handbreadths of unfit roofing and an adjacent space of less than three handbreadths; what would be the status of the sukka? The sukka would be fit, since it lacks the minimum measure of both space and unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit. If one then filled the space with skewers, what would be the status of the sukka? It would be unfit, as there would be more than four handbreadths of unfit roofing. But shouldn鈥檛 space, which is more stringent, as it renders the sukka unfit with only three handbreadths, be as stringent as unfit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit only with four handbreadths of unfit roofing?

讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讚讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专转 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬讻讗 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讗讜讬专 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 诪诇讬讬讛 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗讜讬专 讛驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 讻住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讛驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And they said to me: If so, according to you, who said that unfit roofing renders a sukka unfit only with four cubits of unfit roofing, the same question arises. Just as, if there were a sukka with less than four cubits of unfit roofing and an adjacent space measuring less than three handbreadths, what would be its status? It would be fit. If one then filled the space with skewers, what would be its status? It would be unfit. Here too, the question arises: Shouldn鈥檛 space, which is more stringent, as it renders the sukka unfit with only three handbreadths of space, be as stringent as unfit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit with only four cubits of unfit roofing?

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And I said to them: What is this comparison? Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit is four cubits,

诪砖讜诐 砖讬注讜专讗 讜诇讗讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

the status of the sukka is determined on the basis of whether it is the requisite measure or it is not the requisite measure. In other words, the difference between unfit roofing that is four cubits and unfit roofing that is less is a unique halakha, completely unrelated to the principle of curved wall. Similarly, it is a unique halakha that three handbreadths of space in a roof render a sukka unfit. In this case, there is not the requisite measure according to either halakha; and since their measures are not equal to each other, they do not combine to render the sukka unfit. The sukka is rendered unfit only when the measure of unfit roofing reaches four cubits.

讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 砖讬注讜专 诪砖讜诐 讛驻诇讙讛 诪讛 诇讬 讗讬转驻诇讙 讘住讻讱 驻住讜诇 诪讛 诇讬 讗转驻诇讙 讘住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讜讗讜讬专

However, according to you, who say that the measure of four handbreadths for unfit roofing is due to the distance between the wall and the fit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit, what is the difference to me if it was distanced due to unfit roofing, and what is the difference to me if it was distanced due to a combination of unfit roofing and space? In either case, the distance between the roofing and the wall should prevent connecting the roofing to the wall. This concludes Rabba鈥檚 account of his exchange with the Sages of the school of Rav.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇诪专 谞诪讬 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讬 诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜

Abaye said to Rabba: And according to the Master, too, although their measures are not equal in a large sukka, which is larger than four cubits, in a small sukka aren鈥檛 their measures equal? In a minimally sized sukka, seven by seven handbreadths, three handbreadths of unfit roofing must render the sukka unfit. If the measure of fitness were to remain up to four handbreadths, that would mean that a sukka with a majority of unfit roofing is fit, which is unreasonable. Therefore, Rabba鈥檚 contention that the measures of unfit roofing and space are totally different is not precise.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇砖讬注讜专讗 讚住讜讻讛 讛讜讗

Rabba said to him: There, in the case of the minimally-sized sukka, the fact that the sukka is unfit is not due to the fact that their measures are equal. Rather, it is due to the fact that in a case where the unfit roofing is three handbreadths, the sukka lacks the minimum required measure of fit roofing. In other words, it is not the amount of unfit roofing that creates the problem; rather, it is that the fit area of the sukka is too small.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讛讘讙讚 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讛砖拽 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讛注讜专 讞诪砖讛 注诇 讞诪砖讛 诪驻抓 砖砖讛 注诇 砖砖讛

Rabba maintains that since the two requisite measures of unfitness are not equal, they do not join together. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that their measures are not equal, do they not combine to constitute the requisite measure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The garment must be at least three by three handbreadths in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity by means of ritual impurity imparted by treading of a zav; and the sackcloth made from goats鈥 hair must be at least four by four handbreadths; and the animal hide must be five by five; and a mat must be six by six?

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讛讘讙讚 讜讛砖拽 讛砖拽 讜讛注讜专 讛注讜专 讜讛诪驻抓 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

And a baraita is taught concerning the mishna: The garment and the sackcloth, the sackcloth and the hide, and the hide and the mat join together with one another. If one attaches a piece of material that has a smaller, more stringent measure for ritual impurity to a piece of material that has a larger, more lenient measure, the combined cloth is susceptible to contract ritual impurity if together they compose the larger measure. Apparently, two items whose measures are not equal combine to compose the more lenient measure.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬 诇讟诪讗 诪讜砖讘 讻讚转谞谉 讛诪拽爪注 诪讻讜诇谉 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 讟诪讗

The Gemara rejects this. There, it is as the reason is taught that Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that these different fabrics combine? They combine since all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits, as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since they are all suitable for the same use, they join together with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.As we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who trims and processes a piece of any of the above-mentioned materials measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth, that piece is capable of becoming ritually impure. There is a certain halakha for which each of the different materials has the same measure; they therefore join together in other areas as well.

讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬 (诇讬讟诇讜) 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讞诪讜专

The Gemara asks: For what use is a cloth that is one handbreadth by one handbreadth fit? After all, a rag that has no use does not contract ritual impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Since it is suitable for use as a patch on a donkey鈥檚 saddlecloth, it is capable of contracting ritual impurity. This ends the discussion of the exchange between Rabba and the Sages of the school of Rav.

讘住讜专讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 诪转谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讘讗诪爪注 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注讛 诪谉 讛爪讚 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜专讘 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara notes: In Sura, they stated this halakha in that language cited above. In Neharde鈥檃, however, they taught it as follows: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Unfit roofing in the center of the sukka renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing. Along the side of the sukka, it renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing. And Rav said: Both along the side and in the center, it renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing.

转谞谉 谞转谉 注诇讬讛 谞住专 砖讛讜讗 专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻砖专讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讻砖专讛 讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘讗诪爪注 讘讗专讘注讛 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诪谉 讛爪讚

We learned in a mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. And the Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav, who said that both along the side and in the center, a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that the sukka is fit. However, according to Shmuel, who said that in the center of the sukka, the sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing, why is the sukka fit? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he placed the beam along the side; but had he placed it in the center, then according to Shmuel the sukka would indeed be unfit.

转讗 砖诪注 砖谞讬 住讚讬谞讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 砖谞讬 谞住专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞住专讬诐 讻住讚讬谞讬谉

The Gemara cites a proof with regard to Rav鈥檚 opinion. Come and hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together to render the sukka unfit. However, two boards placed on the sukka do not combine to render the sukka unfit. Rabbi Meir says: Even boards have the same legal status as sheets, and they combine to render the sukka unfit.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讗诪爪注 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讗专讘注讛 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讗爪讟专讜驻讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 讗专讘注讛 拽谞讬讗 讘注诇诪讗 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to that version from Neharde鈥檃 that Rav said: Both along the side and in the center, a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, what is the meaning of join together? It means that the two unfit objects join together to comprise four cubits. However, according to this version from Sura, in which Rav said: A sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, what are the circumstances? If each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, why must they join together to render the sukka unfit? If each board is four handbreadths wide, each is capable of rendering the sukka unfit on its own, and if each of the boards does not have four handbreadths in its width, why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use; they are merely reeds?

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讗专讘注讛 讜诪讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪谉 讛爪讚

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a case where each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, and what is the meaning of join together? It means they join together to constitute four cubits along the side. This understanding fits both versions of Rav鈥檚 opinion.

转讗 砖诪注 住讻讻讛 讘谞住专讬谉 砖诇 讗专讝 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专

Come and hear proof from another baraita: If one roofed the entire sukka with cedar beams that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If they do not have four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems the sukka unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 14 – 20 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what materials are valid to cover the Sukka and what materials make the Sukka invalid....
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 17: In the Process of Learning

A mishnah with 3 cases of non-kosher sukkahs. And then the Gemara needs to figure out why all 3 cases...

Sukkah 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 17

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛住讬讻讜讱 诪谉 讛讚驻谞讜转 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛

MISHNA: If one distanced the roofing from the walls of the sukka at a distance of three handbreadths the sukka is unfit, because three handbreadths of open space, even adjacent to the walls, render the sukka unfit.

讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诐 讬砖 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 诇住讬讻讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛

In the case of a house that was breached, creating a hole in the middle of the roof, and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there are four or more cubits of the remaining original roof, it is an unfit sukka. If the roofing is less than four cubits from the wall, the sukka is fit, based on the principle of curved wall; the remaining intact ceiling is considered an extension of the vertical wall.

讜讻谉 讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 诪讜拽驻转 讗讻住讚专讛 住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖讛拽讬驻讜讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讜 讗诐 讬砖 转讞转讬讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛

And likewise, in the case of a courtyard that is surrounded on three sides by a portico, which has a roof but no walls, if one placed roofing over the courtyard between the different sides of the portico and the roof of the portico is four cubits wide, the sukka is unfit. Similarly, a large sukka that was surrounded at the edge of its roofing with material with which one may not roof a sukka, e.g., vessels susceptible to ritual impurity, if there are four cubits beneath the unfit roofing, the sukka is unfit. The principle of curved wall does not apply to unfit roofing that measures four cubits or more.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 诪砖讜诐 讚讛谞讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讘讬转 注讘讬讚谉 讗讘诇 讞爪专 讛诪讜拽驻转 讗讻住讚专讛 讚诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讗讻住讚专讛 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these cases based on the identical principle of curved wall? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to cite all the cases, as, if the mishna had taught us only the case of the house that was breached, I would have said that the principle of curved wall applies there because those walls were established for the house. Therefore, when the house is transformed into a sukka, the walls continue to serve their original function as walls of the sukka. However, with regard to a courtyard surrounded on each of the three sides by a portico, where its walls were established not for the portico but for the house that opens into the portico, and they happen to serve as the interior walls of the portico, I could say no, they are not considered as connected to the roofing at all. Consequently, it is necessary for the mishna to cite that case as well.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪砖讜诐 讚住讻讻谉 住讻讱 讻砖专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖讛拽讬驻讜讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘讜 讚住讻讻讛 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna taught us only these two cases, one would have said that the principle of curved wall can apply because all of their roofing is fit roofing, and the preexisting roof of the house and the portico is unfit only due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. However, here, in the case of a large sukka that was surrounded at the edge of its roofing with material with which one may not roof a sukka, where some its roofing is unfit and the fit roofing does not actually reach the wall, one could say no, the roofing is unfit. Therefore, it is necessary to state that case as well.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讗讜讬专 驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注讛

Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav, who were sitting and saying in the name of Rav: Space without roofing renders the sukka unfit with a measure of three handbreadths of space. However, unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four handbreadths.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讗讜讬专 讚驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 诪谞讗 诇讻讜 讚转谞谉 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛住讬讻讜讱 诪谉 讛讚驻谞讜转 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬驻住讬诇 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 讛住讬讻讜讱 诇讻讜转诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛

And I said to them: From where do you derive that space renders the sukka unfit when it amount to three handbreadths? It is as we learned in the mishna: If one distanced the roofing from the walls of the sukka at a distance of three handbreadths, the sukka is unfit. If, indeed, this mishna is the source of the halakha, also in the case of unfit roofing, let it render the sukka unfit only if the roofing measures four cubits, as we learned in the same mishna: With regard to a house that was breached and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there is four or more cubits of the remaining original roof, the sukka is unfit.

讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛 谞讙注讜 讘讛

And they said to me: Cite proof from the mishna, apart from this case, as both Rav and Shmuel said that in this case, the Sages in the mishna touched upon the principle of curved wall. In other words, the fact that this house is a fit sukka is unrelated to the minimum measure of unfit roofing. It is fit due to the principle of curved wall.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬讻讗 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讜讗讜讬专 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 诪诇讬讬讛 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讗讜讬专 讛驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 讻住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讛驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注讛

And I said to them: What if there is a sukka with less than four handbreadths of unfit roofing and an adjacent space of less than three handbreadths; what would be the status of the sukka? The sukka would be fit, since it lacks the minimum measure of both space and unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit. If one then filled the space with skewers, what would be the status of the sukka? It would be unfit, as there would be more than four handbreadths of unfit roofing. But shouldn鈥檛 space, which is more stringent, as it renders the sukka unfit with only three handbreadths, be as stringent as unfit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit only with four handbreadths of unfit roofing?

讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讚讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专转 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬讻讗 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讗讜讬专 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 诪诇讬讬讛 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗讜讬专 讛驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 讻住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讛驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And they said to me: If so, according to you, who said that unfit roofing renders a sukka unfit only with four cubits of unfit roofing, the same question arises. Just as, if there were a sukka with less than four cubits of unfit roofing and an adjacent space measuring less than three handbreadths, what would be its status? It would be fit. If one then filled the space with skewers, what would be its status? It would be unfit. Here too, the question arises: Shouldn鈥檛 space, which is more stringent, as it renders the sukka unfit with only three handbreadths of space, be as stringent as unfit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit with only four cubits of unfit roofing?

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And I said to them: What is this comparison? Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit is four cubits,

诪砖讜诐 砖讬注讜专讗 讜诇讗讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

the status of the sukka is determined on the basis of whether it is the requisite measure or it is not the requisite measure. In other words, the difference between unfit roofing that is four cubits and unfit roofing that is less is a unique halakha, completely unrelated to the principle of curved wall. Similarly, it is a unique halakha that three handbreadths of space in a roof render a sukka unfit. In this case, there is not the requisite measure according to either halakha; and since their measures are not equal to each other, they do not combine to render the sukka unfit. The sukka is rendered unfit only when the measure of unfit roofing reaches four cubits.

讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 砖讬注讜专 诪砖讜诐 讛驻诇讙讛 诪讛 诇讬 讗讬转驻诇讙 讘住讻讱 驻住讜诇 诪讛 诇讬 讗转驻诇讙 讘住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讜讗讜讬专

However, according to you, who say that the measure of four handbreadths for unfit roofing is due to the distance between the wall and the fit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit, what is the difference to me if it was distanced due to unfit roofing, and what is the difference to me if it was distanced due to a combination of unfit roofing and space? In either case, the distance between the roofing and the wall should prevent connecting the roofing to the wall. This concludes Rabba鈥檚 account of his exchange with the Sages of the school of Rav.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇诪专 谞诪讬 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讬 诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜

Abaye said to Rabba: And according to the Master, too, although their measures are not equal in a large sukka, which is larger than four cubits, in a small sukka aren鈥檛 their measures equal? In a minimally sized sukka, seven by seven handbreadths, three handbreadths of unfit roofing must render the sukka unfit. If the measure of fitness were to remain up to four handbreadths, that would mean that a sukka with a majority of unfit roofing is fit, which is unreasonable. Therefore, Rabba鈥檚 contention that the measures of unfit roofing and space are totally different is not precise.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇砖讬注讜专讗 讚住讜讻讛 讛讜讗

Rabba said to him: There, in the case of the minimally-sized sukka, the fact that the sukka is unfit is not due to the fact that their measures are equal. Rather, it is due to the fact that in a case where the unfit roofing is three handbreadths, the sukka lacks the minimum required measure of fit roofing. In other words, it is not the amount of unfit roofing that creates the problem; rather, it is that the fit area of the sukka is too small.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讛讘讙讚 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讛砖拽 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讛注讜专 讞诪砖讛 注诇 讞诪砖讛 诪驻抓 砖砖讛 注诇 砖砖讛

Rabba maintains that since the two requisite measures of unfitness are not equal, they do not join together. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that their measures are not equal, do they not combine to constitute the requisite measure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The garment must be at least three by three handbreadths in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity by means of ritual impurity imparted by treading of a zav; and the sackcloth made from goats鈥 hair must be at least four by four handbreadths; and the animal hide must be five by five; and a mat must be six by six?

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讛讘讙讚 讜讛砖拽 讛砖拽 讜讛注讜专 讛注讜专 讜讛诪驻抓 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

And a baraita is taught concerning the mishna: The garment and the sackcloth, the sackcloth and the hide, and the hide and the mat join together with one another. If one attaches a piece of material that has a smaller, more stringent measure for ritual impurity to a piece of material that has a larger, more lenient measure, the combined cloth is susceptible to contract ritual impurity if together they compose the larger measure. Apparently, two items whose measures are not equal combine to compose the more lenient measure.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬 诇讟诪讗 诪讜砖讘 讻讚转谞谉 讛诪拽爪注 诪讻讜诇谉 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 讟诪讗

The Gemara rejects this. There, it is as the reason is taught that Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that these different fabrics combine? They combine since all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits, as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since they are all suitable for the same use, they join together with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.As we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who trims and processes a piece of any of the above-mentioned materials measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth, that piece is capable of becoming ritually impure. There is a certain halakha for which each of the different materials has the same measure; they therefore join together in other areas as well.

讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬 (诇讬讟诇讜) 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讞诪讜专

The Gemara asks: For what use is a cloth that is one handbreadth by one handbreadth fit? After all, a rag that has no use does not contract ritual impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Since it is suitable for use as a patch on a donkey鈥檚 saddlecloth, it is capable of contracting ritual impurity. This ends the discussion of the exchange between Rabba and the Sages of the school of Rav.

讘住讜专讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 诪转谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 讘讗诪爪注 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注讛 诪谉 讛爪讚 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜专讘 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara notes: In Sura, they stated this halakha in that language cited above. In Neharde鈥檃, however, they taught it as follows: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Unfit roofing in the center of the sukka renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing. Along the side of the sukka, it renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing. And Rav said: Both along the side and in the center, it renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing.

转谞谉 谞转谉 注诇讬讛 谞住专 砖讛讜讗 专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻砖专讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讻砖专讛 讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘讗诪爪注 讘讗专讘注讛 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诪谉 讛爪讚

We learned in a mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. And the Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav, who said that both along the side and in the center, a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that the sukka is fit. However, according to Shmuel, who said that in the center of the sukka, the sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing, why is the sukka fit? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he placed the beam along the side; but had he placed it in the center, then according to Shmuel the sukka would indeed be unfit.

转讗 砖诪注 砖谞讬 住讚讬谞讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 砖谞讬 谞住专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞住专讬诐 讻住讚讬谞讬谉

The Gemara cites a proof with regard to Rav鈥檚 opinion. Come and hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together to render the sukka unfit. However, two boards placed on the sukka do not combine to render the sukka unfit. Rabbi Meir says: Even boards have the same legal status as sheets, and they combine to render the sukka unfit.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讗诪爪注 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讗专讘注讛 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讗爪讟专讜驻讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 讗专讘注讛 拽谞讬讗 讘注诇诪讗 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to that version from Neharde鈥檃 that Rav said: Both along the side and in the center, a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, what is the meaning of join together? It means that the two unfit objects join together to comprise four cubits. However, according to this version from Sura, in which Rav said: A sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, what are the circumstances? If each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, why must they join together to render the sukka unfit? If each board is four handbreadths wide, each is capable of rendering the sukka unfit on its own, and if each of the boards does not have four handbreadths in its width, why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use; they are merely reeds?

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讗专讘注讛 讜诪讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪谉 讛爪讚

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a case where each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, and what is the meaning of join together? It means they join together to constitute four cubits along the side. This understanding fits both versions of Rav鈥檚 opinion.

转讗 砖诪注 住讻讻讛 讘谞住专讬谉 砖诇 讗专讝 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专

Come and hear proof from another baraita: If one roofed the entire sukka with cedar beams that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If they do not have four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems the sukka unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

Scroll To Top