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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 25, 2021 | 讟状讝 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 18

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jessica Jobaneck on the occasion of her marriage to Harold Kingsberg today and their joint siyum of Masekhet Yoma. “Here鈥檚 to being chevrutas for life.” And by Michael Gordon in honor of his wife Avigail and their 15th wedding anniversary. “Avigail, I am so proud of everything that you do. And your learning daf yomi on top of it all.” And by Ronit Shavit in honor of her son drafting into the IDF. “Wishing him much success. May God protect him. And in memory of her mother, Leah bat Masudi and Yaakov on her 16th yahrzeit. “My mother was my inspiration to learn the daf.”

And by Ronit Shavit in honor of her son Yair drafting into the IDF. And in memory of her mother, Leah bat Mesodi and Yaakov, on her 16th yartzeit.聽

After the gemara brings a further attempt to prove whether disqualified s’chach ruins a sukkah at four handbreadths or four cubits, the gemara then brings a debate about whether laws of levud work only at the edge of a sukkah or even in the middle. Sources are brought to bring support to each opinion. In the case of a portico outside a house with a courtyard in the middle, can one use the edge of the portico to create the illusion of walls for the sukkah? Can the principle “the ceiling comes down and blocks it” be used here? Abaye and Rava disagree. Is it the same debate as between Rav and Shmuel regarding a portico in a valley as regards laws of Shabbat?

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 谞住专 诇谞住专 讻诪诇讗 谞住专 砖诪谞讬讞 驻住诇 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讻砖专讛

And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 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 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗诪爪注 讘讗专讘注讛 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专讛

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to the one who said: 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 under discussion is fit, as none of the boards is four cubits wide. However, according to the one who said that a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, why is the sukka fit? Each board is capable on its own of rendering the sukka unfit.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讻讗 讘住讜讻讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诪谞讛 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讬讛讬讘 谞住专 讜驻住诇 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that is exactly eight cubits, i.e., forty-eight handbreadths, wide, and one began placing the roofing from the side. And he places a four-handbreadth board and then four handbreadths of waste, and another board and waste, and a board and waste, from this side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths. And then a beam and waste, a beam and waste, and a beam and waste, from that side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths.

讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 驻住诇讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讜讗讬讻讗 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讘讗诪爪注

The result is that the sukka has two four-handbreadth stretches of waste in the middle of the sukka, totaling eight handbreadths. In that case, there is the minimum measure of fit roofing required for fitness of a sukka in the middle, and everyone agrees that the unfit roofing in the rest of the sukka cannot render it unfit. Since the unfit roofing measures less than four cubits on either side, the sukka is fit both according to the principle of curved wall and according to the opinion that unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with four cubits.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讜讬专 砖诇砖讛 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪讬注讟讜 讘讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 讘拽谞讬诐 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟

Abaye said: If there is space measuring three handbreadths in a large sukka, which is defined as one larger than seven by seven handbreadths, and one diminished the space, whether he did so with branches, fit for roofing, or whether he did so with metal skewers, unfit roofing, it is an effective diminution, as there is neither sufficient space nor sufficient unfit roofing to render the sukka unfit. However, in a small sukka, if one diminished the space with branches it is an effective diminution; if he diminished the space with skewers, it is not an effective diminution and the sukka is unfit. The three handbreadths of skewers, while insufficient to render the sukka unfit, diminish the fit area of the sukka to the point that the measure that remains does not constitute a fit sukka.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪谉 讛爪讚 讗讘诇 讘讗诪爪注 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讘讜讚 讘讗诪爪注 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讘讜讚 讘讗诪爪注

The Gemara notes: And this applies only if the space is along the side of the sukka, in which case the principle of lavud applies. However, if the space is in the center of the sukka, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling. One said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka. And one said: The principle of lavud is not applied in the center of the sukka. Even if one diminished the space, the two sides of the roofing are not considered joined.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讘讜讚 讘讗诪爪注 讚转谞讬讗 拽讜专讛 讛讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讜讙注转 讘讻讜转诇 讗讞专 讜讻谉 砖转讬 拽讜专讜转 讗讞转 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讗讞专 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讜讙注讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara explains: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka? It is as it is taught in the Tosefta: With regard to a cross beam of the merging of alleyways that projects from this wall of an alleyway but does not touch the other opposite wall, and similarly, with regard to two cross beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from the other opposite wall and they do not touch each other, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam. Apparently, the principle of lavud is applied even in the center.

讜讗讬讚讱 砖讗谞讬 拽讜专讜转 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud does not apply in the center, how would he explain the Tosefta? The Gemara clarifies that he would say that beams are different because the prohibition against carrying in an alleyway is a decree by rabbinic law, and it is a rabbinic ordinance that beams may be placed at the entrance to the alleyway to permit carrying therein, the Sages were lenient. Therefore, proof cannot be cited from the case of the beams with regard to other situations.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讘讜讚 讘讗诪爪注 讚转谞谉 讗专讜讘讛 砖讘讘讬转 讜讘讛 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗 诪讛 砖讻谞讙讚 讗专讜讘讛 讟讛讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟讛讜专

What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud does not apply in the center? It is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a skylight in the roof of a house whose opening is one square handbreadth, if there is a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse inside the house, all the objects in the entire house become ritually impure, as the legal status of the roof is that of a tent over a corpse. However, the objects that are directly opposite the skylight are ritually pure, as the roof does not cover that part of the house. If the source of ritual impurity is itself situated aligned with the skylight, all the objects in the entire house are ritually pure, as there is no roof over the source of impurity.

讗讬谉 讘讗专讜讘讛 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讘讬转 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜讘讛 讟讛讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟讛讜专

If the skylight does not have an opening of a square handbreadth and there is ritual impurity in the house, the objects opposite the skylight remain ritually pure. If the source of ritual impurity is aligned with the skylight, the objects in the entire house are ritually pure. Apparently, the principle of lavud is not applied in the center; if it were, all the objects in the house would become ritually impure regardless of the location of the source of impurity. The opening of the skylight should be considered closed, as the distance between the two sides of its opening is less than three handbreadths.

讜讗讬讚讱 砖讗谞讬 讛诇讻讜转 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讛讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud applies in the center, how would he explain the mishna? The Gemara answers: The halakhot of ritual impurity are different, as that is the way they learned them through tradition. The halakhot of tents and ritual impurity are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Therefore, their details are unique, and other areas of halakha cannot be derived from them.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诇注讗讬 讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 驻专讬砖 讻讱 驻讬专砖 讗讘讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讻砖专讛

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: A house that was breached and one roofed over it is a fit sukka. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: If the ceiling between the wall and the breach is four cubits long, the sukka is unfit. If it is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诇注讗讬 讗讘专讜诪讗 砖专讬讗 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 驻专讬砖 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讗住讜专讛 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讜转专转

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: With regard to the abramis [avroma], it is permitted to eat it, despite the fact that it is a very small fish that is typically caught in a net with many similar, non-kosher, fish, and it is difficult to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: The abramis found in the rivers of place so-and-so, where there are also non-kosher fish, is prohibited; however, the abramis of a different place so-and-so, where there are no non-kosher fish, is permitted.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 爪讞谞转讗 讚讘讘 谞讛专讗 砖专讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讚讬驻讬 诪讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讚讙 讟诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 拽讗讬诐 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚拽讗讬

The Gemara notes that this is similar to that which Abaye said: These small fish [tza岣nta] of the Bav River are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? If we say that it is due to the fact that the water flows rapidly, and these non-kosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist in that water, as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case. Don鈥檛 we see that non-kosher fish exist in rivers with strong currents?

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诇讬讞讬 诪讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讚讙 讟诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽讬诇驻讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 拽讗讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚拽讗讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪专讘讛 讟讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讙 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚砖驻讻讬 谞讛专 讗讬转谉 讜谞讛专 讙诪讚讗 诇讛转诐 讗住讬专讗

Rather, perhaps Abaye permitted it because the water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist in that water because they do not have scales. This, too, is not the case, as don鈥檛 we see that non-kosher fish exist in salty water? Rather, Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River because the mud in that river is not suited for non-kosher fish to reproduce. The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for non-kosher fish. Ravina said: And today, since the government built canals between the rivers, and the Eitan River and the Gamda River spill into the Bav, it is prohibited to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.

讗转诪专 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讻住讚专讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讻砖专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree: If one roofed a portico that has posts on its open side, the sukka is fit. If one roofed a portico that does not have posts on its open side, Abaye said: The sukka is fit, and Rava said: The sukka is unfit. The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said: The sukka is fit,

讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. The edge of the roof itself is considered as though it were a small partition that extends downward and forms a wall. Rava said: This sukka is unfit, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛驻讞讬转 讚讜驻谉 讗诪爪注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘讛讛讬讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讘讜讬 讛诪驻讜诇砖

Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said: The edge of the roof descends and seals the opening like a wall, then in a case where the roofing of the sukka consists of straight beams, even if one removed the middle wall, leaving the sukka with only two parallel walls, the sukka would nevertheless be fit. Since the edge of the roof descends and seals, the legal status of that sukka is the same as one that has walls on all sides. Abaye said to him: I concede to you that in that particular case the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, does not apply, as it is considered like an open alleyway, through which the multitudes pass on two opposite sides. In other cases, the principle applies.

诇讬诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗转诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 讘讘拽注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to the same issue that was the subject in the dispute of Rav and Shmuel; they are merely elaborating on a fundamental dispute between other amora鈥檌m. As it was stated: Amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to a portico, which has a roof and no walls or incomplete walls, located in a field, which is a karmelit. Rav said: It is permitted to move an object throughout the entire portico, as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening, rendering the portico a private domain, as it is effectively surrounded by partitions. And Shmuel said: One may move an object in the portico only within four cubits, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. Therefore, the portico鈥檚 legal status is that of the surrounding field. Ostensibly, the basis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava is identical to the basis of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara rejects this comparison and says: According to the opinion of Shmuel, everyone, even Abaye, agrees that one does not apply the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, to the case of a sukka.

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 18: The Little Fish

Lavud... What if you have a gap of less than 3 tefachim in the middle of the schach? Specifically, if...
alon shvut women

The Edge of the Roof

Daf 18 Sukkah Susan Suna On today鈥檚 daf we discuss the Halacha of Moshe from Sinai of 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 11: God’s Rain Cloud

Climbing plants on a sukkah - ivy? Grapes? Etc. When they are attached to the ground, they can't really be...

Sukkah 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 18

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 谞住专 诇谞住专 讻诪诇讗 谞住专 砖诪谞讬讞 驻住诇 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讻砖专讛

And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 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 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗诪爪注 讘讗专讘注讛 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专讛

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to the one who said: 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 under discussion is fit, as none of the boards is four cubits wide. However, according to the one who said that a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, why is the sukka fit? Each board is capable on its own of rendering the sukka unfit.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讻讗 讘住讜讻讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诪谞讛 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讬讛讬讘 谞住专 讜驻住诇 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 讜谞住专 讜驻住诇 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here, we are dealing with a sukka that is exactly eight cubits, i.e., forty-eight handbreadths, wide, and one began placing the roofing from the side. And he places a four-handbreadth board and then four handbreadths of waste, and another board and waste, and a board and waste, from this side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths. And then a beam and waste, a beam and waste, and a beam and waste, from that side, so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths.

讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 驻住诇讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讜讗讬讻讗 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讘讗诪爪注

The result is that the sukka has two four-handbreadth stretches of waste in the middle of the sukka, totaling eight handbreadths. In that case, there is the minimum measure of fit roofing required for fitness of a sukka in the middle, and everyone agrees that the unfit roofing in the rest of the sukka cannot render it unfit. Since the unfit roofing measures less than four cubits on either side, the sukka is fit both according to the principle of curved wall and according to the opinion that unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with four cubits.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讜讬专 砖诇砖讛 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪讬注讟讜 讘讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 讘拽谞讬诐 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟

Abaye said: If there is space measuring three handbreadths in a large sukka, which is defined as one larger than seven by seven handbreadths, and one diminished the space, whether he did so with branches, fit for roofing, or whether he did so with metal skewers, unfit roofing, it is an effective diminution, as there is neither sufficient space nor sufficient unfit roofing to render the sukka unfit. However, in a small sukka, if one diminished the space with branches it is an effective diminution; if he diminished the space with skewers, it is not an effective diminution and the sukka is unfit. The three handbreadths of skewers, while insufficient to render the sukka unfit, diminish the fit area of the sukka to the point that the measure that remains does not constitute a fit sukka.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪谉 讛爪讚 讗讘诇 讘讗诪爪注 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讘讜讚 讘讗诪爪注 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讘讜讚 讘讗诪爪注

The Gemara notes: And this applies only if the space is along the side of the sukka, in which case the principle of lavud applies. However, if the space is in the center of the sukka, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to the ruling. One said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka. And one said: The principle of lavud is not applied in the center of the sukka. Even if one diminished the space, the two sides of the roofing are not considered joined.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讘讜讚 讘讗诪爪注 讚转谞讬讗 拽讜专讛 讛讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讜讙注转 讘讻讜转诇 讗讞专 讜讻谉 砖转讬 拽讜专讜转 讗讞转 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讗讞专 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讜讙注讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara explains: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud is applied even in the center of the sukka? It is as it is taught in the Tosefta: With regard to a cross beam of the merging of alleyways that projects from this wall of an alleyway but does not touch the other opposite wall, and similarly, with regard to two cross beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from the other opposite wall and they do not touch each other, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam. Apparently, the principle of lavud is applied even in the center.

讜讗讬讚讱 砖讗谞讬 拽讜专讜转 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud does not apply in the center, how would he explain the Tosefta? The Gemara clarifies that he would say that beams are different because the prohibition against carrying in an alleyway is a decree by rabbinic law, and it is a rabbinic ordinance that beams may be placed at the entrance to the alleyway to permit carrying therein, the Sages were lenient. Therefore, proof cannot be cited from the case of the beams with regard to other situations.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讘讜讚 讘讗诪爪注 讚转谞谉 讗专讜讘讛 砖讘讘讬转 讜讘讛 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗 诪讛 砖讻谞讙讚 讗专讜讘讛 讟讛讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟讛讜专

What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said: The principle of lavud does not apply in the center? It is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a skylight in the roof of a house whose opening is one square handbreadth, if there is a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse inside the house, all the objects in the entire house become ritually impure, as the legal status of the roof is that of a tent over a corpse. However, the objects that are directly opposite the skylight are ritually pure, as the roof does not cover that part of the house. If the source of ritual impurity is itself situated aligned with the skylight, all the objects in the entire house are ritually pure, as there is no roof over the source of impurity.

讗讬谉 讘讗专讜讘讛 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讘讬转 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜讘讛 讟讛讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟讛讜专

If the skylight does not have an opening of a square handbreadth and there is ritual impurity in the house, the objects opposite the skylight remain ritually pure. If the source of ritual impurity is aligned with the skylight, the objects in the entire house are ritually pure. Apparently, the principle of lavud is not applied in the center; if it were, all the objects in the house would become ritually impure regardless of the location of the source of impurity. The opening of the skylight should be considered closed, as the distance between the two sides of its opening is less than three handbreadths.

讜讗讬讚讱 砖讗谞讬 讛诇讻讜转 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讛讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who holds that lavud applies in the center, how would he explain the mishna? The Gemara answers: The halakhot of ritual impurity are different, as that is the way they learned them through tradition. The halakhot of tents and ritual impurity are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Therefore, their details are unique, and other areas of halakha cannot be derived from them.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诇注讗讬 讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 驻专讬砖 讻讱 驻讬专砖 讗讘讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讻砖专讛

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: A house that was breached and one roofed over it is a fit sukka. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: If the ceiling between the wall and the breach is four cubits long, the sukka is unfit. If it is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诇注讗讬 讗讘专讜诪讗 砖专讬讗 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 驻专讬砖 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讗住讜专讛 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讜转专转

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: With regard to the abramis [avroma], it is permitted to eat it, despite the fact that it is a very small fish that is typically caught in a net with many similar, non-kosher, fish, and it is difficult to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: The abramis found in the rivers of place so-and-so, where there are also non-kosher fish, is prohibited; however, the abramis of a different place so-and-so, where there are no non-kosher fish, is permitted.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 爪讞谞转讗 讚讘讘 谞讛专讗 砖专讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讚讬驻讬 诪讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讚讙 讟诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 拽讗讬诐 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚拽讗讬

The Gemara notes that this is similar to that which Abaye said: These small fish [tza岣nta] of the Bav River are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? If we say that it is due to the fact that the water flows rapidly, and these non-kosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist in that water, as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case. Don鈥檛 we see that non-kosher fish exist in rivers with strong currents?

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诇讬讞讬 诪讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讚讙 讟诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽讬诇驻讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 拽讗讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚拽讗讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪专讘讛 讟讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讙 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚砖驻讻讬 谞讛专 讗讬转谉 讜谞讛专 讙诪讚讗 诇讛转诐 讗住讬专讗

Rather, perhaps Abaye permitted it because the water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist in that water because they do not have scales. This, too, is not the case, as don鈥檛 we see that non-kosher fish exist in salty water? Rather, Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River because the mud in that river is not suited for non-kosher fish to reproduce. The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for non-kosher fish. Ravina said: And today, since the government built canals between the rivers, and the Eitan River and the Gamda River spill into the Bav, it is prohibited to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.

讗转诪专 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讻住讚专讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讻砖专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree: If one roofed a portico that has posts on its open side, the sukka is fit. If one roofed a portico that does not have posts on its open side, Abaye said: The sukka is fit, and Rava said: The sukka is unfit. The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said: The sukka is fit,

讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. The edge of the roof itself is considered as though it were a small partition that extends downward and forms a wall. Rava said: This sukka is unfit, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛驻讞讬转 讚讜驻谉 讗诪爪注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘讛讛讬讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讘讜讬 讛诪驻讜诇砖

Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said: The edge of the roof descends and seals the opening like a wall, then in a case where the roofing of the sukka consists of straight beams, even if one removed the middle wall, leaving the sukka with only two parallel walls, the sukka would nevertheless be fit. Since the edge of the roof descends and seals, the legal status of that sukka is the same as one that has walls on all sides. Abaye said to him: I concede to you that in that particular case the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, does not apply, as it is considered like an open alleyway, through which the multitudes pass on two opposite sides. In other cases, the principle applies.

诇讬诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗转诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 讘讘拽注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to the same issue that was the subject in the dispute of Rav and Shmuel; they are merely elaborating on a fundamental dispute between other amora鈥檌m. As it was stated: Amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to a portico, which has a roof and no walls or incomplete walls, located in a field, which is a karmelit. Rav said: It is permitted to move an object throughout the entire portico, as we say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening, rendering the portico a private domain, as it is effectively surrounded by partitions. And Shmuel said: One may move an object in the portico only within four cubits, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals the opening. Therefore, the portico鈥檚 legal status is that of the surrounding field. Ostensibly, the basis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava is identical to the basis of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara rejects this comparison and says: According to the opinion of Shmuel, everyone, even Abaye, agrees that one does not apply the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, to the case of a sukka.

Scroll To Top