Search

Sukkah 2

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

English
עברית
podcast placeholder
0:00
0:00



podcast placeholder
0:00
0:00



Summary

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

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in memory of the 18th Yartzeit that will be on Shabbat of her father Sam Baum, Chaim Simcha ben Aharon HaLevi and Liba. “My dad was a larger than life individual, full of joy and love for Judaism ,family and friends. He supported Jewish institutions throughout the world and would be so proud that I am learning the daf with Hadran. He is missed and remembered l’tov every day.” And anonymously in memory of Rashi whose yahrzeit is today.

What is the maximum and minimum height of a sukkah? How many walls are required? If the sunlight is greater than the shade from the sechach, the covering, the sukkah is disqualified. The gemara compares the language in this mishna to the language in the mishna in Eruvin discussed the height of a cross beam used by the entrance of an alleyway to permit carrying in the alleyway. Why is different language used for each case (in Sukkah it says it is disqualified and in Eruvin it says how to fix it)? Why do the rabbis think that a sukkah taller than twenty cubits is disqualified? Three opinions are brought and the gemara discusses why each doesn’t hold by the other. Rav narrows the case in which Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree about the height of a sukkah. Three opinions are brought regarding the case in which Rav held that they disagreed. The gemara tries to connect these opinions with the earlier opinions regarding the reason for the height disqualification. The gemara brings a braita to raise a question on two of the opinions regarding Rav about a proof Rabbi Yehuda tried to bring against the rabbis from the sukkah of Helene the queen.

Sukkah 2

סוּכָּה שֶׁהִיא גְּבוֹהָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — פְּסוּלָה. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.

MISHNA: A sukka, i.e., its roofing, which is the main and most crucial element of the mitzva, that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְשֶׁאֵין לָהּ (שְׁלֹשָׁה) דְּפָנוֹת, וְשֶׁחֲמָתָהּ מְרוּבָּה מְצִלָּתָהּ — פְּסוּלָה.

Similarly, a sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high, and one that does not have three walls, and one whose sunlight that passes through its roofing is greater than its shade are unfit.

גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: מָבוֹי שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — יְמַעֵט. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ.

GEMARA: We learned a similar halakha in a mishna there, in tractate Eiruvin (2a): In the case of an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, i.e., the beam that was placed across the end of an alleyway that opens into a public domain in order to permit carrying within the alleyway on Shabbat is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish the height of the beam in order to permit carrying within the alleyway. Rabbi Yehuda says he need not do so, and although the beam lies higher than twenty cubits, the alleyway is qualified to permit carrying within.

מַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי סוּכָּה דְּתָנֵי פְּסוּלָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי מָבוֹי דְּתָנֵי תַּקַּנְתָּא?

Given the seeming similarity between the two cases, that of the sukka and that of the alleyway, the Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a sukka where the mishna teaches that it is unfit, and what is different with regard to an alleyway where the mishna teaches the method of rectification, that one must diminish the height of the cross beam? Why was a solution not suggested in the case of a sukka?

סוּכָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, תָּנֵי פְּסוּלָה. מָבוֹי דְּרַבָּנַן, תָּנֵי תַּקַּנְתָּא.

The Gemara answers: With regard to sukka, since it is a mitzva by Torah law, the mishna teaches that it is unfit, as, if it is not constructed in the proper manner, no mitzva is fulfilled. However, with regard to an alleyway, where the entire prohibition of carrying is only by rabbinic law, the mishna teaches the method of rectification, as the cross beam comes only to rectify a rabbinic prohibition but does not involve a mitzva by Torah law.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי תָּנֵי תַּקַּנְתָּא, מִיהוּ סוּכָּה דִּנְפִישִׁי מִילָּתַהּ — פָּסֵיק וְתָנֵי פְּסוּלָה, מָבוֹי דְּלָא נְפִישׁ מִילֵּיהּ — תָּנֵי תַּקַּנְתָּא.

The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that even with regard to matters prohibited by Torah law, it would have been appropriate for the mishna to teach a method of rectification. However, with regard to sukka, whose matters are numerous, it categorically teaches that it is unfit. Merely diminishing the height of a sukka is insufficient to render it fit; the sukka must also satisfy requirements governing its size, its walls, and its roofing. Teaching the remedy for each disqualification would have required lengthy elaboration. With regard to an alleyway, however, whose matters are not numerous, the mishna teaches the method of rectification. Once the height is diminished, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

§ After clarifying its formulation, the Gemara addresses the halakha in the mishna and asks: From where are these matters, i.e., the halakha that a sukka may not exceed a height of twenty cubits, derived?

אָמַר רַבָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסּוּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, עַד עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא דָּר בַּסּוּכָּה, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — אֵין אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁדָּר בַּסּוּכָּה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שָׁלְטָא בַּהּ עֵינָא.

Rabba said that it is derived as the verse states: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot when I took them out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 23:43). In a sukka up to twenty cubits high, even without a concerted effort, a person is aware that he is residing in a sukka. His eye catches sight of the roofing, evoking the sukka and its associated mitzvot. However, in a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, a person is not aware that he is residing in a sukka because his eye does not involuntarily catch sight of the roof, as at that height, without a concerted effort one would not notice the roofing.

רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וְסוּכָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל יוֹמָם מֵחוֹרֶב״, עַד עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה אָדָם יוֹשֵׁב בְּצֵל סוּכָּה, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — אֵין אָדָם יוֹשֵׁב בְּצֵל סוּכָּה אֶלָּא בְּצֵל דְּפָנוֹת.

Rabbi Zeira said that it is derived from here: The verse states: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6). In a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a person is sitting in the shade of the sukka, i.e., the shade of the roofing; in a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, a person is not sitting in the shade of the roofing of the sukka but rather in the shade of the walls of the sukka, as their considerable height provides constant shade, rendering the shade of the roofing irrelevant.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ בְּעַשְׁתְּרוֹת קַרְנַיִם, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הָוֵי סוּכָּה?

Abaye said to him: But if it is so that one is required to sit in the shade of the roofing of the sukka, then in the case of one who makes his sukka in Ashterot Karnayim, which is located between two mountains that prevent sunlight from reaching there, so too, it is not a fit sukka, since he is not sitting in the shade of the roofing.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם, דַּל עַשְׁתְּרוֹת קַרְנַיִם — אִיכָּא צֵל סוּכָּה. הָכָא, דַּל דְּפָנוֹת — לֵיכָּא צֵל סוּכָּה.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: The two cases are not comparable; there, if one theoretically removes the Ashterot Karnayim mountains that obstruct the sunlight, there is still the shade of the roofing of the sukka. In that case, the sukka is properly constructed and there are only external factors that affect the sunlight. However, here, in the case of a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, if one theoretically removes the walls of the sukka, there is no shade provided by the roofing of the sukka, since throughout the day sunlight will enter the sukka beneath the roofing from where the walls used to be.

וְרָבָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״בַּסּוּכּוֹת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״. אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: כׇּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים צֵא מִדִּירַת קֶבַע וְשֵׁב בְּדִירַת עֲרַאי. עַד עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה דִּירָתוֹ דִּירַת עֲרַאי, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — אֵין אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה דִּירָתוֹ דִּירַת עֲרַאי אֶלָּא דִּירַת קֶבַע.

Rava said that the halakha is derived from here: “In sukkot shall you reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42). The Torah said: For the entire seven days, emerge from the permanent residence in which you reside year round and reside in a temporary residence, the sukka. In constructing a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a person can render his residence a temporary residence, as up to that height one can construct a structure that is not sturdy; however, in constructing a sukka above twenty cubits high, one cannot render his residence a temporary residence; rather, he must construct a sturdy permanent residence, which is unfit for use as a sukka.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, עָשָׂה מְחִיצוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבָּן, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הָוֵי סוּכָּה?

Abaye said to him: But if that is so, then if he constructed a sukka with steel partitions and placed roofing over them, so too, there, say that it would not be a fit sukka, as any sukka constructed as a permanent residence would be unfit. However, there is no opinion that deems a sukka of that sort unfit.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ: עַד עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה דְּאָדָם עוֹשֶׂה דִּירָתוֹ דִּירַת עֲרַאי, כִּי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ דִּירַת קֶבַע, נָמֵי נָפֵיק. לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, דְּאָדָם עוֹשֶׂה דִּירָתוֹ דִּירַת קֶבַע, כִּי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ דִּירַת עֲרַאי, נָמֵי לָא נָפֵיק.

Rava said to him in response that this is what I am saying to you: In a case where one constructs a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a height that a person typically constructs a temporary residence, when he constructs a structure of that height that is sturdy like a permanent residence, he also fulfills his obligation. However, in a case where one constructs a sukka more than twenty cubits high, a height that a person typically constructs a permanent residence, even when he constructs it in a less sturdy fashion like a temporary residence, he does not fulfill his obligation.

כּוּלְּהוּ כְּרַבָּה לָא אָמְרִי, הָהוּא יְדִיעָה לְדוֹרוֹת הִיא.

The Gemara explains why each of the Sages cited his own source and did not accept the sources cited by the others. All of them, Rabbi Zeira and Rava, did not say that the fact that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit is derived from the verse: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot when I took them out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 23:43), as did Rabba, because in their opinion that verse does not mandate one to be aware that he is sitting in a sukka; rather, it mandates knowledge for future generations of the exodus from Egypt.

כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי, הָהוּא לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

Similarly, they, Rabba and Rava, also did not say that it is derived from the verse: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat” (Isaiah 4:6), as did Rabbi Zeira, because in their opinion it is with regard to the messianic era that this verse is written. It means that God will be a shield and a shelter for the Jewish people; it is not referring to the structure of a sukka.

וְרַבִּי זֵירָא — אִם כֵּן לֵימָא קְרָא: ״וְחוּפָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל יוֹמָם״, וּמַאי ״וְסוּכָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל יוֹמָם״ — שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Zeira, how would he respond to this objection? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira could say: If it is so that the verse is merely a metaphor, let the verse say: And there shall be a canopy for shade in the daytime from the heat, which is the term used in the previous verse. And what is the meaning of: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat”? Learn from it two matters: One is the plain meaning of the verse, that God will be a canopy of glory for the Jewish people, and the second is that the essence of a sukka is to have the roofing provide shade.

כְּרָבָא נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי, מִשּׁוּם קוּשְׁיָא דְאַבָּיֵי.

They, Rabba and Rabbi Zeira, also did not say that it is derived from the verse: “In sukkot shall you reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), as did Rava, due to the difficulty raised by Abaye with regard to a sukka with steel partitions. Since there is a weakness in each of the sources, it is understandable why the other Sages did not accept it.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵין דְּפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ, אֲבָל דְּפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ — אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה כְּשֵׁרָה. כְּמַאן?

§ The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Yoshiya said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits high is specifically in a case where the walls of the sukka do not reach up to the roofing; however, in a case where the walls of the sukka reach up to the roofing, the Rabbis concede that even if the roofing is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it?

כְּרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שָׁלְטָא בַּהּ עֵינָא, וְכֵיוָן דִּדְפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ, מִשְׁלָט שָׁלְטָא בַּהּ עֵינָא.

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, who says that the reason that a sukka that high is unfit is because the eye does not automatically catch sight of the roofing. And since the walls of the sukka reach the roofing, the eye catches sight of the roofing, as the person will follow the walls all the way up to the roofing despite their considerable height. However, if the roofing is not contiguous with the top of the walls, a person does not notice it without a concerted effort.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהּ יוֹתֵר מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה כְּשֵׁרָה. כְּמַאן?

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits high is specifically in a case where there is not an area of four cubits by four cubits in the sukka; however, in a case where there is an area of more than four cubits by four cubits in the sukka, the Rabbis concede that even if the roofing is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it?

כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּאָמַר: מִשּׁוּם צֵל הוּא, וְכֵיוָן דִּרְוִיחָא — אִיכָּא צֵל סוּכָּה.

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, who says that a sukka that high is unfit due to the shade that is provided by the walls and not by the roofing; and since the sukka in this case is spacious and has a large area, there is shade from the roofing of the sukka and not only from the walls.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת אֶלָּא כְּדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ, אֲבָל מַחְזֶקֶת יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ — אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה כְּשֵׁרָה. כְּמַאן — דְּלָא כְּחַד.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits high is specifically in a case where the sukka is only large enough to hold one’s head, most of his body, and his table, as, if the sukka were smaller, it would not qualify as a sukka; however, in a case where it is sufficiently large to hold more than one’s head, most of his body, and his table, even if it is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is not in accordance with the opinion of any one of them. This statement cannot be explained according to any of the rationales for the fact that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit.

בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב הוּנָא וְרַב חָנָן בַּר רַבָּה, דְּאִינְהוּ קָא יָהֲבִי שִׁעוּרָא בִּמְשָׁכָא, וְאִיהוּ לָא קָא יָהֵיב שִׁעוּרָא בִּמְשָׁכָא.

With regard to the three aforementioned halakhot, the Gemara notes: Granted, the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya differs from the statements of Rav Huna and Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, as they are providing the measure of the extent of the sukka while he is not providing a measure. In Rabbi Yoshiya’s opinion, the halakha is based on whether the top of the walls reach the roofing, which indicates a fundamentally different understanding of the issue of a sukka more than twenty cubits high.

אֶלָּא רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חָנָן בַּר רַבָּה, נֵימָא בְּהֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר הֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וּמָר סָבַר הֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה בְּמַחְזֶקֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ?

However, in terms of Rav Huna and Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, let us say that it is with regard to the minimum size required for fitness of a sukka that they disagree; as one Sage, Rav Huna, holds: The minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is four by four cubits, and the other Sage, Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, holds: The minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר בְּמַחְזֶקֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ פְּלִיגִי, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה,

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, there is no need to explain their dispute that way, as it could be explained that everyone, i.e., Rav Huna and Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, agrees that the minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table. And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, holds that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a sukka more than twenty cubits high in a case where it holds the person’s head, and most of his body, and his table. However, in a case where it is larger than one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit regardless of its height.

וּמָר סָבַר מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת פְּלִיגִי, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה.

And one Sage, Rav Huna, holds that it is with regard to a sukka that ranges in size from one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table up to one that is four by four cubits that they disagree; however, if the sukka is more than four by four cubits, everyone agrees that it is fit.

מֵיתִיבִי: סוּכָּה שֶׁהִיא גְּבוֹהָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר עַד אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems a sukka fit even if it is up to forty or fifty cubits high.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּהֵילֶנִי הַמַּלְכָּה בְּלוֹד שֶׁהָיְתָה סוּכָּתָהּ גְּבוֹהָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, וְהָיוּ זְקֵנִים נִכְנָסִין וְיוֹצְאִין לְשָׁם וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לָהּ דָּבָר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָיה? אִשָּׁה הָיְתָה וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַסּוּכָּה. אָמַר לָהֶן: וַהֲלֹא שִׁבְעָה בָּנִים הֲווֹ לָהּ, וְעוֹד: כׇּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לֹא עָשְׂתָה אֶלָּא עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים.

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Queen Helene in Lod where her sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and the Elders were entering and exiting the sukka and did not say anything to her about the sukka not being fit.
The Rabbis said to him: Is there proof from there? She was, after all, a woman and therefore exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Consequently, the fact that her sukka was not fit did not warrant a comment from the Elders.
Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: Didn’t she have seven sons and therefore require a fit sukka? And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.

לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי ״וְעוֹד כׇּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לֹא עָשְׂתָה אֶלָּא עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים״?

Before analyzing the objection being raised from the baraita, the Gemara seeks to understand its content. Why do I need Rabbi Yehuda to teach: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages? His first contention was sufficient.

הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: כִּי תֹּאמְרוּ בָּנִים קְטַנִּים הָיוּ, וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה — כֵּיוָן דְּשִׁבְעָה הֲווֹ, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא הָוֵי בְּהוּ חַד שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ.

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying to them: If you say that Helene’s sons were minor sons and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and that is why the Elders said nothing; since they were seven sons, then it is not possible that there was not at least one among them who no longer needed his mother to look after him. The halakha is that a minor who no longer needs his mother has reached the age of training and is required to fulfill the mitzva of sukka by rabbinic law. Even if she gave birth to them in consecutive years, the oldest would be seven years old, and at that age a child does not need his mother to constantly look after him.

וְכִי תֵּימְרוּ קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא דְּמִיחַיַּיב, וְאִיהִי בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא מַשְׁגְּחָה, תָּא שְׁמַע: וְעוֹד, כׇּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לֹא עָשְׂתָה אֶלָּא עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים.

And if you say that a child who no longer needs his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka only by rabbinic law, and Queen Helene did not observe rabbinic law, come and hear that which Rabbi Yehuda said: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין דְּפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת, דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל מַלְכָּה לֵישֵׁב בְּסוּכָּה שֶׁאֵין דְּפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ,

The Gemara explores the statements of the amora’im who quoted Rav in light of this baraita. Granted, according to the one, Rabbi Yoshiya, who said that it is specifically in a case where the walls of the sukka do not reach up to the roofing that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, the baraita can be explained as dealing with a sukka of that type, as it is customary for a queen to reside in a sukka in which the walls do not reach up to the roofing,

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.

Susan Handelman
Susan Handelman

Jerusalem, Israel

I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.

Patti Evans
Patti Evans

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.

Vitti Kones
Vitti Kones

מיתר, ישראל

When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.

Ruth Leah Kahan
Ruth Leah Kahan

Ra’anana, Israel

Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!

Rhona Fink
Rhona Fink

San Diego, United States

A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.

Sheila Hauser
Sheila Hauser

Jerusalem, Israel

Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.

Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.

Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal

Merion Station,  USA

Beit Shemesh, Israel

I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.

Linda Brownstein
Linda Brownstein

Mitspe, Israel

When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.

Laura Shechter
Laura Shechter

Lexington, MA, United States

I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.

Jenifer Nech
Jenifer Nech

Houston, United States

I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Yael Merlini

Berlin, Germany

I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!

Mona Fishbane
Mona Fishbane

Teaneck NJ, United States

I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Wendy Rozov

Phoenix, AZ, United States

My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Tina Lamm

Jerusalem, Israel

I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!

Lori Stark
Lori Stark

Highland Park, United States

I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.

Yafit Fishbach
Yafit Fishbach

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!

Judith Weil
Judith Weil

Raanana, Israel

I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!

Khaya Eisenberg
Khaya Eisenberg

Jerusalem, Israel

I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.

Dianne Kuchar
Dianne Kuchar

Dover Heights, Australia

3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!

Lisa Kolodny
Lisa Kolodny

Raanana, Israel

Sukkah 2

סוּכָּה שֶׁהִיא גְּבוֹהָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — פְּסוּלָה. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.

MISHNA: A sukka, i.e., its roofing, which is the main and most crucial element of the mitzva, that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְשֶׁאֵין לָהּ (שְׁלֹשָׁה) דְּפָנוֹת, וְשֶׁחֲמָתָהּ מְרוּבָּה מְצִלָּתָהּ — פְּסוּלָה.

Similarly, a sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high, and one that does not have three walls, and one whose sunlight that passes through its roofing is greater than its shade are unfit.

גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: מָבוֹי שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — יְמַעֵט. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ.

GEMARA: We learned a similar halakha in a mishna there, in tractate Eiruvin (2a): In the case of an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, i.e., the beam that was placed across the end of an alleyway that opens into a public domain in order to permit carrying within the alleyway on Shabbat is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish the height of the beam in order to permit carrying within the alleyway. Rabbi Yehuda says he need not do so, and although the beam lies higher than twenty cubits, the alleyway is qualified to permit carrying within.

מַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי סוּכָּה דְּתָנֵי פְּסוּלָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי מָבוֹי דְּתָנֵי תַּקַּנְתָּא?

Given the seeming similarity between the two cases, that of the sukka and that of the alleyway, the Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a sukka where the mishna teaches that it is unfit, and what is different with regard to an alleyway where the mishna teaches the method of rectification, that one must diminish the height of the cross beam? Why was a solution not suggested in the case of a sukka?

סוּכָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, תָּנֵי פְּסוּלָה. מָבוֹי דְּרַבָּנַן, תָּנֵי תַּקַּנְתָּא.

The Gemara answers: With regard to sukka, since it is a mitzva by Torah law, the mishna teaches that it is unfit, as, if it is not constructed in the proper manner, no mitzva is fulfilled. However, with regard to an alleyway, where the entire prohibition of carrying is only by rabbinic law, the mishna teaches the method of rectification, as the cross beam comes only to rectify a rabbinic prohibition but does not involve a mitzva by Torah law.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי תָּנֵי תַּקַּנְתָּא, מִיהוּ סוּכָּה דִּנְפִישִׁי מִילָּתַהּ — פָּסֵיק וְתָנֵי פְּסוּלָה, מָבוֹי דְּלָא נְפִישׁ מִילֵּיהּ — תָּנֵי תַּקַּנְתָּא.

The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that even with regard to matters prohibited by Torah law, it would have been appropriate for the mishna to teach a method of rectification. However, with regard to sukka, whose matters are numerous, it categorically teaches that it is unfit. Merely diminishing the height of a sukka is insufficient to render it fit; the sukka must also satisfy requirements governing its size, its walls, and its roofing. Teaching the remedy for each disqualification would have required lengthy elaboration. With regard to an alleyway, however, whose matters are not numerous, the mishna teaches the method of rectification. Once the height is diminished, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

§ After clarifying its formulation, the Gemara addresses the halakha in the mishna and asks: From where are these matters, i.e., the halakha that a sukka may not exceed a height of twenty cubits, derived?

אָמַר רַבָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסּוּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, עַד עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא דָּר בַּסּוּכָּה, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — אֵין אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁדָּר בַּסּוּכָּה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שָׁלְטָא בַּהּ עֵינָא.

Rabba said that it is derived as the verse states: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot when I took them out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 23:43). In a sukka up to twenty cubits high, even without a concerted effort, a person is aware that he is residing in a sukka. His eye catches sight of the roofing, evoking the sukka and its associated mitzvot. However, in a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, a person is not aware that he is residing in a sukka because his eye does not involuntarily catch sight of the roof, as at that height, without a concerted effort one would not notice the roofing.

רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וְסוּכָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל יוֹמָם מֵחוֹרֶב״, עַד עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה אָדָם יוֹשֵׁב בְּצֵל סוּכָּה, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — אֵין אָדָם יוֹשֵׁב בְּצֵל סוּכָּה אֶלָּא בְּצֵל דְּפָנוֹת.

Rabbi Zeira said that it is derived from here: The verse states: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6). In a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a person is sitting in the shade of the sukka, i.e., the shade of the roofing; in a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, a person is not sitting in the shade of the roofing of the sukka but rather in the shade of the walls of the sukka, as their considerable height provides constant shade, rendering the shade of the roofing irrelevant.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ בְּעַשְׁתְּרוֹת קַרְנַיִם, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הָוֵי סוּכָּה?

Abaye said to him: But if it is so that one is required to sit in the shade of the roofing of the sukka, then in the case of one who makes his sukka in Ashterot Karnayim, which is located between two mountains that prevent sunlight from reaching there, so too, it is not a fit sukka, since he is not sitting in the shade of the roofing.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם, דַּל עַשְׁתְּרוֹת קַרְנַיִם — אִיכָּא צֵל סוּכָּה. הָכָא, דַּל דְּפָנוֹת — לֵיכָּא צֵל סוּכָּה.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: The two cases are not comparable; there, if one theoretically removes the Ashterot Karnayim mountains that obstruct the sunlight, there is still the shade of the roofing of the sukka. In that case, the sukka is properly constructed and there are only external factors that affect the sunlight. However, here, in the case of a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, if one theoretically removes the walls of the sukka, there is no shade provided by the roofing of the sukka, since throughout the day sunlight will enter the sukka beneath the roofing from where the walls used to be.

וְרָבָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״בַּסּוּכּוֹת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״. אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: כׇּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים צֵא מִדִּירַת קֶבַע וְשֵׁב בְּדִירַת עֲרַאי. עַד עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה דִּירָתוֹ דִּירַת עֲרַאי, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — אֵין אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה דִּירָתוֹ דִּירַת עֲרַאי אֶלָּא דִּירַת קֶבַע.

Rava said that the halakha is derived from here: “In sukkot shall you reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42). The Torah said: For the entire seven days, emerge from the permanent residence in which you reside year round and reside in a temporary residence, the sukka. In constructing a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a person can render his residence a temporary residence, as up to that height one can construct a structure that is not sturdy; however, in constructing a sukka above twenty cubits high, one cannot render his residence a temporary residence; rather, he must construct a sturdy permanent residence, which is unfit for use as a sukka.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, עָשָׂה מְחִיצוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבָּן, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הָוֵי סוּכָּה?

Abaye said to him: But if that is so, then if he constructed a sukka with steel partitions and placed roofing over them, so too, there, say that it would not be a fit sukka, as any sukka constructed as a permanent residence would be unfit. However, there is no opinion that deems a sukka of that sort unfit.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ: עַד עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה דְּאָדָם עוֹשֶׂה דִּירָתוֹ דִּירַת עֲרַאי, כִּי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ דִּירַת קֶבַע, נָמֵי נָפֵיק. לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, דְּאָדָם עוֹשֶׂה דִּירָתוֹ דִּירַת קֶבַע, כִּי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ דִּירַת עֲרַאי, נָמֵי לָא נָפֵיק.

Rava said to him in response that this is what I am saying to you: In a case where one constructs a sukka up to twenty cubits high, a height that a person typically constructs a temporary residence, when he constructs a structure of that height that is sturdy like a permanent residence, he also fulfills his obligation. However, in a case where one constructs a sukka more than twenty cubits high, a height that a person typically constructs a permanent residence, even when he constructs it in a less sturdy fashion like a temporary residence, he does not fulfill his obligation.

כּוּלְּהוּ כְּרַבָּה לָא אָמְרִי, הָהוּא יְדִיעָה לְדוֹרוֹת הִיא.

The Gemara explains why each of the Sages cited his own source and did not accept the sources cited by the others. All of them, Rabbi Zeira and Rava, did not say that the fact that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit is derived from the verse: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot when I took them out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 23:43), as did Rabba, because in their opinion that verse does not mandate one to be aware that he is sitting in a sukka; rather, it mandates knowledge for future generations of the exodus from Egypt.

כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי, הָהוּא לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

Similarly, they, Rabba and Rava, also did not say that it is derived from the verse: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat” (Isaiah 4:6), as did Rabbi Zeira, because in their opinion it is with regard to the messianic era that this verse is written. It means that God will be a shield and a shelter for the Jewish people; it is not referring to the structure of a sukka.

וְרַבִּי זֵירָא — אִם כֵּן לֵימָא קְרָא: ״וְחוּפָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל יוֹמָם״, וּמַאי ״וְסוּכָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל יוֹמָם״ — שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Zeira, how would he respond to this objection? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira could say: If it is so that the verse is merely a metaphor, let the verse say: And there shall be a canopy for shade in the daytime from the heat, which is the term used in the previous verse. And what is the meaning of: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat”? Learn from it two matters: One is the plain meaning of the verse, that God will be a canopy of glory for the Jewish people, and the second is that the essence of a sukka is to have the roofing provide shade.

כְּרָבָא נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי, מִשּׁוּם קוּשְׁיָא דְאַבָּיֵי.

They, Rabba and Rabbi Zeira, also did not say that it is derived from the verse: “In sukkot shall you reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), as did Rava, due to the difficulty raised by Abaye with regard to a sukka with steel partitions. Since there is a weakness in each of the sources, it is understandable why the other Sages did not accept it.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵין דְּפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ, אֲבָל דְּפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ — אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה כְּשֵׁרָה. כְּמַאן?

§ The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Yoshiya said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits high is specifically in a case where the walls of the sukka do not reach up to the roofing; however, in a case where the walls of the sukka reach up to the roofing, the Rabbis concede that even if the roofing is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it?

כְּרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שָׁלְטָא בַּהּ עֵינָא, וְכֵיוָן דִּדְפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ, מִשְׁלָט שָׁלְטָא בַּהּ עֵינָא.

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, who says that the reason that a sukka that high is unfit is because the eye does not automatically catch sight of the roofing. And since the walls of the sukka reach the roofing, the eye catches sight of the roofing, as the person will follow the walls all the way up to the roofing despite their considerable height. However, if the roofing is not contiguous with the top of the walls, a person does not notice it without a concerted effort.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהּ יוֹתֵר מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה כְּשֵׁרָה. כְּמַאן?

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits high is specifically in a case where there is not an area of four cubits by four cubits in the sukka; however, in a case where there is an area of more than four cubits by four cubits in the sukka, the Rabbis concede that even if the roofing is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it?

כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּאָמַר: מִשּׁוּם צֵל הוּא, וְכֵיוָן דִּרְוִיחָא — אִיכָּא צֵל סוּכָּה.

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, who says that a sukka that high is unfit due to the shade that is provided by the walls and not by the roofing; and since the sukka in this case is spacious and has a large area, there is shade from the roofing of the sukka and not only from the walls.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת אֶלָּא כְּדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ, אֲבָל מַחְזֶקֶת יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ — אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה כְּשֵׁרָה. כְּמַאן — דְּלָא כְּחַד.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba said that Rav said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a sukka more than twenty cubits high is specifically in a case where the sukka is only large enough to hold one’s head, most of his body, and his table, as, if the sukka were smaller, it would not qualify as a sukka; however, in a case where it is sufficiently large to hold more than one’s head, most of his body, and his table, even if it is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is not in accordance with the opinion of any one of them. This statement cannot be explained according to any of the rationales for the fact that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit.

בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב הוּנָא וְרַב חָנָן בַּר רַבָּה, דְּאִינְהוּ קָא יָהֲבִי שִׁעוּרָא בִּמְשָׁכָא, וְאִיהוּ לָא קָא יָהֵיב שִׁעוּרָא בִּמְשָׁכָא.

With regard to the three aforementioned halakhot, the Gemara notes: Granted, the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya differs from the statements of Rav Huna and Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, as they are providing the measure of the extent of the sukka while he is not providing a measure. In Rabbi Yoshiya’s opinion, the halakha is based on whether the top of the walls reach the roofing, which indicates a fundamentally different understanding of the issue of a sukka more than twenty cubits high.

אֶלָּא רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חָנָן בַּר רַבָּה, נֵימָא בְּהֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר הֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וּמָר סָבַר הֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה בְּמַחְזֶקֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ?

However, in terms of Rav Huna and Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, let us say that it is with regard to the minimum size required for fitness of a sukka that they disagree; as one Sage, Rav Huna, holds: The minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is four by four cubits, and the other Sage, Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, holds: The minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הֶכְשֵׁר סוּכָּה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר בְּמַחְזֶקֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ פְּלִיגִי, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה,

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, there is no need to explain their dispute that way, as it could be explained that everyone, i.e., Rav Huna and Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, agrees that the minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table. And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rav Ḥanan bar Rabba, holds that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a sukka more than twenty cubits high in a case where it holds the person’s head, and most of his body, and his table. However, in a case where it is larger than one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit regardless of its height.

וּמָר סָבַר מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת פְּלִיגִי, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה.

And one Sage, Rav Huna, holds that it is with regard to a sukka that ranges in size from one that holds one’s head, and most of his body, and his table up to one that is four by four cubits that they disagree; however, if the sukka is more than four by four cubits, everyone agrees that it is fit.

מֵיתִיבִי: סוּכָּה שֶׁהִיא גְּבוֹהָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה — פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר עַד אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems a sukka fit even if it is up to forty or fifty cubits high.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּהֵילֶנִי הַמַּלְכָּה בְּלוֹד שֶׁהָיְתָה סוּכָּתָהּ גְּבוֹהָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, וְהָיוּ זְקֵנִים נִכְנָסִין וְיוֹצְאִין לְשָׁם וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לָהּ דָּבָר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָיה? אִשָּׁה הָיְתָה וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַסּוּכָּה. אָמַר לָהֶן: וַהֲלֹא שִׁבְעָה בָּנִים הֲווֹ לָהּ, וְעוֹד: כׇּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לֹא עָשְׂתָה אֶלָּא עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים.

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Queen Helene in Lod where her sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and the Elders were entering and exiting the sukka and did not say anything to her about the sukka not being fit.
The Rabbis said to him: Is there proof from there? She was, after all, a woman and therefore exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Consequently, the fact that her sukka was not fit did not warrant a comment from the Elders.
Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: Didn’t she have seven sons and therefore require a fit sukka? And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.

לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי ״וְעוֹד כׇּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לֹא עָשְׂתָה אֶלָּא עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים״?

Before analyzing the objection being raised from the baraita, the Gemara seeks to understand its content. Why do I need Rabbi Yehuda to teach: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages? His first contention was sufficient.

הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: כִּי תֹּאמְרוּ בָּנִים קְטַנִּים הָיוּ, וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה — כֵּיוָן דְּשִׁבְעָה הֲווֹ, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא הָוֵי בְּהוּ חַד שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ.

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying to them: If you say that Helene’s sons were minor sons and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and that is why the Elders said nothing; since they were seven sons, then it is not possible that there was not at least one among them who no longer needed his mother to look after him. The halakha is that a minor who no longer needs his mother has reached the age of training and is required to fulfill the mitzva of sukka by rabbinic law. Even if she gave birth to them in consecutive years, the oldest would be seven years old, and at that age a child does not need his mother to constantly look after him.

וְכִי תֵּימְרוּ קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא דְּמִיחַיַּיב, וְאִיהִי בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא מַשְׁגְּחָה, תָּא שְׁמַע: וְעוֹד, כׇּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לֹא עָשְׂתָה אֶלָּא עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים.

And if you say that a child who no longer needs his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka only by rabbinic law, and Queen Helene did not observe rabbinic law, come and hear that which Rabbi Yehuda said: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין דְּפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת, דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל מַלְכָּה לֵישֵׁב בְּסוּכָּה שֶׁאֵין דְּפָנוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַסְּכָךְ,

The Gemara explores the statements of the amora’im who quoted Rav in light of this baraita. Granted, according to the one, Rabbi Yoshiya, who said that it is specifically in a case where the walls of the sukka do not reach up to the roofing that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, the baraita can be explained as dealing with a sukka of that type, as it is customary for a queen to reside in a sukka in which the walls do not reach up to the roofing,

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete