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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 9, 2021 | 讻状讟 讘转诪讜讝 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 shiurim are sponsored by Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • 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 2

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

Today鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 住讜讻讛 砖讛讬讗 讙讘讜讛讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专

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.

讜砖讗讬谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛 (砖诇砖讛) 讚驻谞讜转 讜砖讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转讛 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 讚转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 讚转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

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?

住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪讘讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 诪讬讛讜 住讜讻讛 (讚谞驻讬砖讬 诪讬诇转讛) 驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪讘讜讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 诪讬诇讬讛 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪注谉 讬讚注讜 讚讜专讜转讬讻诐 讻讬 讘住讜讻讜转 讛讜砖讘转讬 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讚专 讘住讜讻讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讚专 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讛 注讬谞讗

Rabba said that it is derived as the verse states: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜住讜讻讛 转讛讬讛 诇爪诇 讬讜诪诐 诪讞讜专讘 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讘爪诇 住讜讻讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讘爪诇 住讜讻讛 讗诇讗 讘爪诇 讚驻谞讜转

Rabbi Zeira said that it is derived from here: The verse states: 鈥淎nd there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘注砖转专讜转 拽专谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 住讜讻讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讚诇 注砖转专讜转 拽专谞讬诐 讗讬讻讗 爪诇 住讜讻讛 讛讻讗 讚诇 讚驻谞讜转 诇讬讻讗 爪诇 住讜讻讛

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.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讘住讜讻讜转 转砖讘讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇 砖讘注转 讛讬诪讬诐 爪讗 诪讚讬专转 拽讘注 讜砖讘 讘讚讬专转 注专讗讬 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讚讬专转讜 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讚讬专转讜 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讗诇讗 讚讬专转 拽讘注

Rava said that the halakha is derived from here: 鈥淚n sukkot shall you reside seven days鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 住讜讻讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讚讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讚讬专转讜 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讻讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 谞诪讬 谞驻讬拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讚讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讚讬专转讜 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讻讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞驻讬拽

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.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讛讛讜讗 讬讚讬注讛 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讬讗

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: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (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.

讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讛讛讜讗 诇讬诪讜转 讛诪砖讬讞 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

Similarly, they, Rabba and Rava, also did not say that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讞讜驻讛 转讛讬讛 诇爪诇 讬讜诪诐 讜诪讗讬 讜住讜讻讛 转讛讬讛 诇爪诇 讬讜诪诐 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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: 鈥淎nd there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat鈥? 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.

讻专讘讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讗讘讬讬

They, Rabba and Rabbi Zeira, also did not say that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淚n sukkot shall you reside seven days鈥 (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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谉 讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱 讗讘诇 讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讻砖专讛 讻诪讗谉

搂 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?

讻专讘讛 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讛 注讬谞讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱 诪砖诇讟 砖诇讟讗 讘讛 注讬谞讗

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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛 讬讜转专 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讻砖专讛 讻诪讗谉

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?

讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪诇 讛讜讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讬讞讗 讗讬讻讗 爪诇 住讜讻讛

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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讗讘诇 诪讞讝拽转 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讻砖专讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞讚

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav 岣nan 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 讚讗讬谞讛讜 拽讗 讬讛讘讬 砖注讜专讗 讘诪砖讻讗 讜讗讬讛讜 诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 砖注讜专讗 讘诪砖讻讗

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 岣nan bar Rabba, as they are providing the measure of the extent of the sukka while he is not providing a measure. In Rabbi Yoshiya鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 谞讬诪讗 讘讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讘诪讞讝拽转 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜

However, in terms of Rav Huna and Rav 岣nan 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 岣nan bar Rabba, holds: The minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one鈥檚 head, and most of his body, and his table.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讘诪讞讝拽转 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛

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 岣nan bar Rabba, agrees that the minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one鈥檚 head, and most of his body, and his table. And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rav 岣nan 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鈥檚 head, and most of his body, and his table. However, in a case where it is larger than one that holds one鈥檚 head, and most of his body, and his table, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit regardless of its height.

讜诪专 住讘专 诪专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛

And one Sage, Rav Huna, holds that it is with regard to a sukka that ranges in size from one that holds one鈥檚 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 住讜讻讛 砖讛讬讗 讙讘讜讛讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讛讬诇谞讬 讛诪诇讻讛 讘诇讜讚 砖讛讬转讛 住讜讻转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讛讬讜 讝拽谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇砖诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛 讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讬讛 讗砖讛 讛讬转讛 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讜讛诇讗 砖讘注讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讜讜 诇讛 讜注讜讚 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 诇讗 注砖转讛 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐

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鈥檛 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.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讜注讜讚 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 诇讗 注砖转讛 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐

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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 转讗诪专讜 讘谞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讛讬讜 讜拽讟谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘注讛 讛讜讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讛讜 讞讚 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗诪讜

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying to them: If you say that Helene鈥檚 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 拽讟谉 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗诪讜 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬讛讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪砖讙讞讛 转讗 砖诪注 讜注讜讚 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 诇讗 注砖转讛 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖讗讬谉 讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讻讛 砖诇 诪诇讻讛 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱

The Gemara explores the statements of the amora鈥檌m 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,

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

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • 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 2 – 6 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

In this Tractate we will learn about the main mitzvot, commandments, of the Festival of Sukkot. The first chapter will...
short sukkah

Remember Me

Welcome to Sukkah, another tractate that is great for the spatially minded and a little harder for the rest of...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 2: More Shade Than Sunlight

An introduction to the tractate: Sukkah. Plus, the historical component, as compared to the ritual aspect. Note that the Talmud...
Introduction to Sukka Sukkah by Gitta Neufeld

Introduction to Masechet Sukkah by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Compiled by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld In loving memory of her father 专' 讬讜住祝 讘谉 诪谞讞诐 诪注谞讚诇 讜驻注砖讬 注" 讛 who exemplified...

Sukkah 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 2

诪转谞讬壮 住讜讻讛 砖讛讬讗 讙讘讜讛讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专

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.

讜砖讗讬谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛 (砖诇砖讛) 讚驻谞讜转 讜砖讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转讛 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 讚转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 讚转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

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?

住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪讘讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 诪讬讛讜 住讜讻讛 (讚谞驻讬砖讬 诪讬诇转讛) 驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪讘讜讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 诪讬诇讬讛 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪注谉 讬讚注讜 讚讜专讜转讬讻诐 讻讬 讘住讜讻讜转 讛讜砖讘转讬 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讚专 讘住讜讻讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讚专 讘住讜讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讛 注讬谞讗

Rabba said that it is derived as the verse states: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜住讜讻讛 转讛讬讛 诇爪诇 讬讜诪诐 诪讞讜专讘 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讘爪诇 住讜讻讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讘爪诇 住讜讻讛 讗诇讗 讘爪诇 讚驻谞讜转

Rabbi Zeira said that it is derived from here: The verse states: 鈥淎nd there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘注砖转专讜转 拽专谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 住讜讻讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讚诇 注砖转专讜转 拽专谞讬诐 讗讬讻讗 爪诇 住讜讻讛 讛讻讗 讚诇 讚驻谞讜转 诇讬讻讗 爪诇 住讜讻讛

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.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讘住讜讻讜转 转砖讘讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇 砖讘注转 讛讬诪讬诐 爪讗 诪讚讬专转 拽讘注 讜砖讘 讘讚讬专转 注专讗讬 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讚讬专转讜 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讚讬专转讜 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讗诇讗 讚讬专转 拽讘注

Rava said that the halakha is derived from here: 鈥淚n sukkot shall you reside seven days鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 住讜讻讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讚讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讚讬专转讜 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讻讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 谞诪讬 谞驻讬拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讚讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 讚讬专转讜 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讻讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞驻讬拽

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.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讛讛讜讗 讬讚讬注讛 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讬讗

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: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (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.

讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讛讛讜讗 诇讬诪讜转 讛诪砖讬讞 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

Similarly, they, Rabba and Rava, also did not say that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讞讜驻讛 转讛讬讛 诇爪诇 讬讜诪诐 讜诪讗讬 讜住讜讻讛 转讛讬讛 诇爪诇 讬讜诪诐 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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: 鈥淎nd there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat鈥? 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.

讻专讘讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讗讘讬讬

They, Rabba and Rabbi Zeira, also did not say that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淚n sukkot shall you reside seven days鈥 (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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谉 讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱 讗讘诇 讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讻砖专讛 讻诪讗谉

搂 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?

讻专讘讛 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讛 注讬谞讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱 诪砖诇讟 砖诇讟讗 讘讛 注讬谞讗

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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛 讬讜转专 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讻砖专讛 讻诪讗谉

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?

讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪诇 讛讜讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讬讞讗 讗讬讻讗 爪诇 住讜讻讛

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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讗讘诇 诪讞讝拽转 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讻砖专讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞讚

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav 岣nan 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 讚讗讬谞讛讜 拽讗 讬讛讘讬 砖注讜专讗 讘诪砖讻讗 讜讗讬讛讜 诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 砖注讜专讗 讘诪砖讻讗

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 岣nan bar Rabba, as they are providing the measure of the extent of the sukka while he is not providing a measure. In Rabbi Yoshiya鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 谞讬诪讗 讘讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讘诪讞讝拽转 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜

However, in terms of Rav Huna and Rav 岣nan 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 岣nan bar Rabba, holds: The minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one鈥檚 head, and most of his body, and his table.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讘诪讞讝拽转 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛

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 岣nan bar Rabba, agrees that the minimum size required for fitness of a sukka is one that holds one鈥檚 head, and most of his body, and his table. And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rav 岣nan 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鈥檚 head, and most of his body, and his table. However, in a case where it is larger than one that holds one鈥檚 head, and most of his body, and his table, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit regardless of its height.

讜诪专 住讘专 诪专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛

And one Sage, Rav Huna, holds that it is with regard to a sukka that ranges in size from one that holds one鈥檚 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 住讜讻讛 砖讛讬讗 讙讘讜讛讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讛讬诇谞讬 讛诪诇讻讛 讘诇讜讚 砖讛讬转讛 住讜讻转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讛讬讜 讝拽谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇砖诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛 讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讬讛 讗砖讛 讛讬转讛 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讜讛诇讗 砖讘注讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讜讜 诇讛 讜注讜讚 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 诇讗 注砖转讛 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐

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鈥檛 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.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讜注讜讚 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 诇讗 注砖转讛 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐

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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 转讗诪专讜 讘谞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讛讬讜 讜拽讟谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘注讛 讛讜讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讛讜 讞讚 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗诪讜

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying to them: If you say that Helene鈥檚 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 拽讟谉 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗诪讜 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬讛讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪砖讙讞讛 转讗 砖诪注 讜注讜讚 讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 诇讗 注砖转讛 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖讗讬谉 讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讻讛 砖诇 诪诇讻讛 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讚驻谞讜转 诪讙讬注讜转 诇住讻讱

The Gemara explores the statements of the amora鈥檌m 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,

Scroll To Top