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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 10, 2021 | 讗壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讗

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

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

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

Sukkah 3

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elizabeth Kirshner “in loving memory of my father, Rabbi Gabriel M. Kirshner (HaRav Gavriel Meir ben HaRav Shraga Feivel), on his 25th yahrtzeit. I continue to grow, his absence feels even more prominent and painful at times, I imagine and grieve all the learning we could have explored together; I deeply hope that every word of Torah I learn on my Daf Yomi journey and beyond brings his soul and spirit great comfort. May his memory be a blessing for all of us.” And by an anonymous donor in memory of Aharon HaCohen whose yahrzeit is today, according to tradition.

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. Rav Shmuel son of Yitzchak rules regarding the minimum size of a Sukkah. Could he be ruling like Beit Shamai? On what exactly do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about regarding sukkah that holds one’s head and body and not one’s table? The gemara brings a braita regarding the minimum size of a house needed for various laws. Is it the same measurement for a sukkah? The gemara analyzes the different rules in the braita.

诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讻讬 讚专讻讛 砖诇 诪诇讻讛 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转

due to the fresh air that circulates through the openings in the wall. However, according to the one who said that it is specifically in the case of a small sukka that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, in which case the baraita is referring to a case where Queen Helene resided in a small sukka, is it customary for a queen to reside in a small sukka whose area is less than four cubits squared? Rabba bar Rav Adda said: This ruling is necessary only in the case of a sukka that is constructed with several small rooms [kitoniyyot]. The sukka was large, but it was subdivided into many small rooms, each of which was smaller than four square cubits.

讜讻讬 讚专讻讛 砖诇 诪诇讻讛 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 砖讘讛

Again, the Gemara asks: Is it then customary for a queen to reside in a sukka constructed with several small rooms without leaving a large room in which she could assemble her family and servants? Rav Ashi said: This ruling is necessary only with regard to the compartments in the sukka. It was indeed a large sukka with a large central room; however, there were many small rooms adjacent to the main room. It is with regard to this type of sukka that there is a tannaitic dispute.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘谞讬讛 讘住讜讻讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讜讗讬讛讬 讬转讘讛 讘拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 诪砖讜诐 爪谞讬注讜转讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘谞讬讛 讙讘讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚讘专

The Rabbis hold: Her sons were residing in a full-fledged sukka with a large central room, which everyone agrees was fit. However, she often resided in the small rooms due to modesty, to avoid being in the public eye. And for that reason the Elders did not say anything to her, as even if the small rooms were too small relative to the height of the sukka, there was no problem since her sons did not sit in them. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Her sons would occasionally reside with her in the small room, and even so, the Elders did not say anything to her, indicating that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is fit even in a small sukka. Now that the Tosefta can be explained according to all the statements cited by the amora鈥檌m in the name of Rav, no proof can be cited with regard to the essence of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to a small sukka more than twenty cubits high.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛诇讻讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讛讗 诪讞讝拽转 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻诪讗谉

Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: The halakha is that one鈥檚 sukka must be large enough to hold his head, and most of his body, and his table. Rabbi Abba said to him, astonished: In accordance with whose opinion did you rule? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? This is the subject of a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and according to Beit Hillel it is sufficient for the sukka to be large enough to hold one鈥檚 head and most of his body; it need not be large enough to hold his table as well. The halakhic ruling that you issued is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, despite the fact that in disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said to him: Rather, in accordance with whose opinion should I rule? Yes, my ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai because in this case that is the halakha.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讱 诪谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 转讝讜讝 诪讬谞讛

Some say that the exchange between the amora鈥檌m was slightly different. Rabbi Abba said: Who stated that opinion to you? Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said to him: It was Beit Shammai, and nevertheless do not budge from it, as that is the established halakha. Based on either version of the exchange, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇诪讗 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讻讙讜谉 讚讬转讬讘 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诪讟讜诇转讗 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬诪砖讱 讗讞专 砖讜诇讞谞讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k strongly objects to this assumption: From where do you conclude that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka? Perhaps it is with regard to a large sukka that they disagree, and in a case where one is sitting at the entrance of the sukka and his table is inside the house. As Beit Shammai hold that we issue a decree to prohibit one from sitting that way lest he be drawn after his table while eating, to the extent that his head and most of his body will be inside the house and not inside the sukka. And Beit Hillel hold that we do not issue that decree.

讜讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诪讞讝拽转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

And the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And if it is so that the dispute is with regard to the minimum measure of the sukka, the formulation of the mishna is missing the essential point. The distinction between a sukka that holds and a sukka that does not hold his head and most of his body is what the mishna needed to say. Since the mishna does not make that distinction, apparently the dispute is not with regard to the minimum measure of a sukka.

讜讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讞讝拽转 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讻砖专讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara questions this conclusion: And in the case of a small sukka do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel not disagree? But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: A sukka that holds his head, and most of his body, and his table is fit. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is unfit until it measures at least four cubits by four cubits.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 住讜讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖讜诇讞谞讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇

And it is taught in yet another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any sukka that does not have an area of at least four cubits by four cubits is unfit. And the Rabbis say: Even if it holds only his head and most of his body, it is fit. However, the term: His table, is not taught in this baraita. If so, these two tannaitic sources contradict each other, as each attributes a different opinion to the Rabbis. Rather, must one not conclude from it that this baraita, in which: His table, is taught, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, while that baraita, in which: His table, is not taught, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? Apparently, they do dispute the minimum measure of a small sukka.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬爪讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Mar Zutra said: And the language of the mishna is also precise, and it indicates that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel indeed dispute the minimum measure of a small sukka from the fact that it teaches: Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And if it is so that the dispute is with regard to the conduct of one sitting at the entrance of a large sukka, then Beit Shammai say: He did not fulfill his obligation, and Beit Hillel say: He fulfilled his obligation, is what the mishna needed to say. However, the terms fit and unfit indicate that the dispute is with regard to the halakhic status of the sukka itself, not the individual鈥檚 behavior.

讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讬 砖讛讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, the formulation of the mishna: One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, is difficult, as it indicates that the dispute is with regard to where in the sukka he was sitting. The mishna does not say: A sukka that holds his head and most of his body, which would indicate that the dispute is with regard to the minimum measure of the sukka.

诇注讜诇诐 讘转专转讬 驻诇讬讙讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬爪讗 讜砖讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诇讘讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, they disagree with regard to two issues; they disagree with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka, and they disagree with regard to where one may sit in a large sukka. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai say that he did not fulfill his obligation and Beit Hillel say that he fulfilled his obligation. And with regard to a sukka that holds only his head and most of his body, Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. In this way, the dispute in the mishna is understood as relating to the measure of a small sukka and the manner in which one fulfills his obligation in a large sukka.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讜诪谉 讛诪注拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讞诇讟 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛

搂 Apropos the above discussion, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught: The halakhic status of a house in which there is not an area of four cubits by four cubits is not that of a house? Therefore, halakhot in the Torah or the mishna that are relevant to a house do not apply to a house that size. Consequently, it is exempt from the mitzva of placing a mezuza on its doorpost; and it is exempt from the obligation of establishing a parapet around its roof; and it does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the house. And its sale is not rendered final in the same manner as the sale of houses within walled cities. The owner of a house in a walled city who sells his house has the option to buy it back from the purchaser within one year of the sale. If he fails to do so, the sale is rendered final and the house does not return to the original owner during the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:29鈥31).

讜讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪注讜专讻讬 讛诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 注讬专讜讘

And one does not return from the ranks of soldiers waging war for a house that size, as would one who built a house with an area greater than four by four cubits (see Deuteronomy 20:5). And one need not join the houses in the courtyards for a house with that area. If there is more than one house in a courtyard, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry in that courtyard unless the residents of each of the houses contribute food that is placed in one of the houses, thereby rendering them joint-owners of the courtyard. The resident of a house with an area of less than four by four cubits need not participate in this joining of courtyards. And one need not merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway for a courtyard in which the area of its only house is less than four by four cubits. In this case, too, the resident of that courtyard need not participate in the merging of alleyways. And one does not place the food collected for the aforementioned joining [eiruv] of courtyards in this house but rather in a house with an area of at least four by four cubits.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 砖转讬 注讬讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讜

And one does not render it an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities. Two cities between which there is a distance of more than 141鈪 cubits cannot be joined and considered as a single city for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit for one city from the edge of the second city. However if there is a house equidistant between the two cities, i.e., a bit more than seventy cubits from each town, the house joins the two cities together for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit. A house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits cannot serve this function; and brothers and partners do not divide it, as it is too small to be divided.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 住讜讻讛 讚讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 诇讙讘讬 讘讬转 讚讚讬专转 拽讘注 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚讗讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬讬专讬 讘讬讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讚讬讬专讬 讘讬讛 讗讬谞砖讬

In answer to the question with regard to the identity of the tanna of the baraita, the Gemara says: Let us say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not the Rabbis, as it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who holds that a sukka with an area of less than four by four cubits is unfit. The Gemara rejects this contention: Even if you say that the tanna of the baraita is the Rabbis, the Rabbis say that a structure with an area smaller than four by four cubits is fit only there, with regard to a sukka, which is a temporary residence, because in a temporary residence one is willing to confine himself to a small area. However, with regard to halakhot relating to a house, which is a permanent residence, even the Rabbis concede that if it has an area of four cubits by four cubits, people reside in it, as it is a functional house, and if not, people do not reside in it, and its legal status is not that of a house at all.

讗诪专 诪专 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讜诪谉 讛诪注拽讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讞诇讟 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪注讜专讻讬 讛诪诇讞诪讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘讻讜诇讛讜

搂 The Gemara briefly discusses the halakhot listed in the baraita: The Master said that a house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits it is exempt from the mitzva of placing a mezuza on its doorpost, and it is exempt from the obligation of establishing a parapet around its roof, and it does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the house. And its sale is not rendered final in the same manner as the sale of houses within walled cities, and one does not return from the ranks of soldiers waging war for a house that size. What is the reason for these halakhot? It is due to the fact that 鈥渉ouse鈥 is written in the Torah with regard to all these halakhot. The legal status of a structure with an area of less than four by four cubits is not that of a house.

讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讚讬专讛 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 讗讘诇 砖讬转讜祝 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜

And by rabbinic law, one need not join the houses in the courtyards for a house with that area, and one need not merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway for a courtyard in which the area of its only house is less than four by four cubits. And one does not place the food collected for the joining of courtyards in this house. What is the reason for these halakhot? It is due to the fact that it is not fit for residence. The point of the joining of courtyards is to transform the courtyard into a residence shared by the residents of all its member households, and this can be accomplished only by placing the joint food in a place whose legal status is that of a house. The Gemara infers this from the fact that it is taught in the baraita: And one does not place the food of the joining of courtyards in this house, but the food of the merging of alleyways, one places in it.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讙专注 诪讞爪专 砖讘诪讘讜讬 讚转谞谉 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讘讞爪专 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讬 讘诪讘讜讬

What is the reason for this distinction? It is due to the fact that it is no less a residence than a courtyard in the alleyway. An unroofed courtyard is not fit for residence, and nevertheless the food for the merging of alleyways may be placed there, as we learned in a baraita in tractate Eiruvin (85b): The joining of courtyards may be placed in the courtyard and the merging of alleyways may be placed in the alleyway.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讘讞爪专 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讘讬转 砖注专 讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讚专 砖诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专

And we discussed this halakha: How can the joining of courtyards be placed in the courtyard? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: With regard to one who placed his joining of courtyards in a gatehouse or in a portico [akhsadra], a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, or on a balcony, it is not a fit eiruv. And one who resides there, in any of these structures, does not render it prohibited for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry, even if he did not contribute to the eiruv, as the legal status of these places is not that of a house.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讘讘讬转 砖讘讞爪专 讜砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 讘讞爪专 砖讘诪讘讜讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讙专注 诪讞爪专 砖讘诪讘讜讬

Rather, emend the mishna and say: The joining of courtyards is placed in one of the full-fledged houses that is in the courtyard, and the merging of alleyways is placed even in one of the courtyards that opens into the alleyway. And this house whose area is less than four by four cubits is no less a residence than one of the courtyards that open into the alleyway.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 砖转讬 注讬讬专讜转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讻讘讜专讙谞讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讜讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讜专讙谞讬谉 讞讝讜 诇诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇诪讬诇转讬讛

It is taught in the baraita: And one does not render it an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities. The Gemara explains: This means that we do not even render its halakhic status like that of huts [burganin] used by grain watchmen in the fields, which join the two cities between which they are located for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit. What is the reason that it is considered less a residence than a watchman鈥檚 hut? The Gemara answers: Watchmen鈥檚 huts, even though they are not sturdy, are suited for their matters, while this house with an area less than four by four cubits is not suited for its matter, as it is not fit for residence.

讜讗讬谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛讗 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讜诇拽讬谉

It is taught in the baraita: And brothers and partners do not divide a house that does not measure at least four by four cubits, as it is too small to be divided. The Gemara infers: The reason that a house that size is not divided is due to the fact that there is not an area of four by four cubits in it; however, if there is an area of four by four cubits in it, they divide it.

讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗转 讛讞爪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讝讛 讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讝讛

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One divides the courtyard at the request of one of the heirs or partners only if its area is sufficient so that there will be in it four by four cubits for this partner or heir and four by four cubits for that partner or heir? Apparently, in order to divide a courtyard it must be at least four by eight cubits.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讻讞爪专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞爪专 诇驻讬 驻转讞讬讛 诪转讞诇拽转 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讻诇 驻转讞 讜驻转讞 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛砖讗专 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜讛

Rather, emend the baraita and say that the halakha of division like that of a courtyard does not apply to it. As Rav Huna said: A courtyard is divided according to the number of its entrances. When the residents of the houses in a courtyard divide the courtyard between them, the division is not based on the number of houses in the courtyard, nor is it based on the size of the houses. Instead, it is divided based on the number of entrances that open into the courtyard. Rav 岣sda said: One gives the homeowner for each and every entrance four cubits, and the rest of the courtyard is divided equally among the residents of the courtyard.

讚讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬转 讚诇诪讛讜讬 拽讗讬 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讞爪专 讛讗讬 讚诇诪讬住转专 拽讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讞爪专

The principle that entrances are factored into the division of a courtyard applies only with regard to a house that stands to endure, as the owner needs use of the yard to ease access to his house, so we provide him with four cubits according to Rav 岣sda, or part of the courtyard according to Rav Huna. However, in the case of this small house, which stands to be leveled, its owner has no need for the adjacent courtyard, so we do not provide him with any part of the courtyard, as if it were not even there.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘讗 诇诪注讟讛 讘讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟

搂 With regard to the halakha in the mishna that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit, the Gemara states: If the sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one comes to diminish its height by placing cushions and blankets on the floor, it is not a decrease of halakhic significance. It does not render the sukka fit, because in that case one is concerned that the bedding will be ruined and therefore does not intend to leave it there very long.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 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...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 3: The House That Is Not a House

Who's Who: Helene HaMalkah - Queen Helene - and her very high sukkah. Was it too tall to be a...
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 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 3

诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讻讬 讚专讻讛 砖诇 诪诇讻讛 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转

due to the fresh air that circulates through the openings in the wall. However, according to the one who said that it is specifically in the case of a small sukka that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, in which case the baraita is referring to a case where Queen Helene resided in a small sukka, is it customary for a queen to reside in a small sukka whose area is less than four cubits squared? Rabba bar Rav Adda said: This ruling is necessary only in the case of a sukka that is constructed with several small rooms [kitoniyyot]. The sukka was large, but it was subdivided into many small rooms, each of which was smaller than four square cubits.

讜讻讬 讚专讻讛 砖诇 诪诇讻讛 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 砖讘讛

Again, the Gemara asks: Is it then customary for a queen to reside in a sukka constructed with several small rooms without leaving a large room in which she could assemble her family and servants? Rav Ashi said: This ruling is necessary only with regard to the compartments in the sukka. It was indeed a large sukka with a large central room; however, there were many small rooms adjacent to the main room. It is with regard to this type of sukka that there is a tannaitic dispute.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘谞讬讛 讘住讜讻讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讜讗讬讛讬 讬转讘讛 讘拽讬讟讜谞讬讜转 诪砖讜诐 爪谞讬注讜转讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘谞讬讛 讙讘讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚讘专

The Rabbis hold: Her sons were residing in a full-fledged sukka with a large central room, which everyone agrees was fit. However, she often resided in the small rooms due to modesty, to avoid being in the public eye. And for that reason the Elders did not say anything to her, as even if the small rooms were too small relative to the height of the sukka, there was no problem since her sons did not sit in them. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Her sons would occasionally reside with her in the small room, and even so, the Elders did not say anything to her, indicating that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is fit even in a small sukka. Now that the Tosefta can be explained according to all the statements cited by the amora鈥檌m in the name of Rav, no proof can be cited with regard to the essence of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to a small sukka more than twenty cubits high.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛诇讻讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讛讗 诪讞讝拽转 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻诪讗谉

Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: The halakha is that one鈥檚 sukka must be large enough to hold his head, and most of his body, and his table. Rabbi Abba said to him, astonished: In accordance with whose opinion did you rule? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? This is the subject of a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and according to Beit Hillel it is sufficient for the sukka to be large enough to hold one鈥檚 head and most of his body; it need not be large enough to hold his table as well. The halakhic ruling that you issued is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, despite the fact that in disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said to him: Rather, in accordance with whose opinion should I rule? Yes, my ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai because in this case that is the halakha.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讱 诪谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 转讝讜讝 诪讬谞讛

Some say that the exchange between the amora鈥檌m was slightly different. Rabbi Abba said: Who stated that opinion to you? Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said to him: It was Beit Shammai, and nevertheless do not budge from it, as that is the established halakha. Based on either version of the exchange, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇诪讗 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讻讙讜谉 讚讬转讬讘 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诪讟讜诇转讗 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬诪砖讱 讗讞专 砖讜诇讞谞讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k strongly objects to this assumption: From where do you conclude that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka? Perhaps it is with regard to a large sukka that they disagree, and in a case where one is sitting at the entrance of the sukka and his table is inside the house. As Beit Shammai hold that we issue a decree to prohibit one from sitting that way lest he be drawn after his table while eating, to the extent that his head and most of his body will be inside the house and not inside the sukka. And Beit Hillel hold that we do not issue that decree.

讜讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诪讞讝拽转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

And the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And if it is so that the dispute is with regard to the minimum measure of the sukka, the formulation of the mishna is missing the essential point. The distinction between a sukka that holds and a sukka that does not hold his head and most of his body is what the mishna needed to say. Since the mishna does not make that distinction, apparently the dispute is not with regard to the minimum measure of a sukka.

讜讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讞讝拽转 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讻砖专讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara questions this conclusion: And in the case of a small sukka do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel not disagree? But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: A sukka that holds his head, and most of his body, and his table is fit. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is unfit until it measures at least four cubits by four cubits.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 住讜讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖讜诇讞谞讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇

And it is taught in yet another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any sukka that does not have an area of at least four cubits by four cubits is unfit. And the Rabbis say: Even if it holds only his head and most of his body, it is fit. However, the term: His table, is not taught in this baraita. If so, these two tannaitic sources contradict each other, as each attributes a different opinion to the Rabbis. Rather, must one not conclude from it that this baraita, in which: His table, is taught, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, while that baraita, in which: His table, is not taught, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? Apparently, they do dispute the minimum measure of a small sukka.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬爪讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Mar Zutra said: And the language of the mishna is also precise, and it indicates that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel indeed dispute the minimum measure of a small sukka from the fact that it teaches: Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And if it is so that the dispute is with regard to the conduct of one sitting at the entrance of a large sukka, then Beit Shammai say: He did not fulfill his obligation, and Beit Hillel say: He fulfilled his obligation, is what the mishna needed to say. However, the terms fit and unfit indicate that the dispute is with regard to the halakhic status of the sukka itself, not the individual鈥檚 behavior.

讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讬 砖讛讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, the formulation of the mishna: One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, is difficult, as it indicates that the dispute is with regard to where in the sukka he was sitting. The mishna does not say: A sukka that holds his head and most of his body, which would indicate that the dispute is with regard to the minimum measure of the sukka.

诇注讜诇诐 讘转专转讬 驻诇讬讙讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘住讜讻讛 拽讟谞讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讘住讜讻讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬爪讗 讜砖讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诇讘讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, they disagree with regard to two issues; they disagree with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka, and they disagree with regard to where one may sit in a large sukka. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai say that he did not fulfill his obligation and Beit Hillel say that he fulfilled his obligation. And with regard to a sukka that holds only his head and most of his body, Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. In this way, the dispute in the mishna is understood as relating to the measure of a small sukka and the manner in which one fulfills his obligation in a large sukka.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讜诪谉 讛诪注拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讞诇讟 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛

搂 Apropos the above discussion, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught: The halakhic status of a house in which there is not an area of four cubits by four cubits is not that of a house? Therefore, halakhot in the Torah or the mishna that are relevant to a house do not apply to a house that size. Consequently, it is exempt from the mitzva of placing a mezuza on its doorpost; and it is exempt from the obligation of establishing a parapet around its roof; and it does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the house. And its sale is not rendered final in the same manner as the sale of houses within walled cities. The owner of a house in a walled city who sells his house has the option to buy it back from the purchaser within one year of the sale. If he fails to do so, the sale is rendered final and the house does not return to the original owner during the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:29鈥31).

讜讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪注讜专讻讬 讛诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 注讬专讜讘

And one does not return from the ranks of soldiers waging war for a house that size, as would one who built a house with an area greater than four by four cubits (see Deuteronomy 20:5). And one need not join the houses in the courtyards for a house with that area. If there is more than one house in a courtyard, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry in that courtyard unless the residents of each of the houses contribute food that is placed in one of the houses, thereby rendering them joint-owners of the courtyard. The resident of a house with an area of less than four by four cubits need not participate in this joining of courtyards. And one need not merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway for a courtyard in which the area of its only house is less than four by four cubits. In this case, too, the resident of that courtyard need not participate in the merging of alleyways. And one does not place the food collected for the aforementioned joining [eiruv] of courtyards in this house but rather in a house with an area of at least four by four cubits.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 砖转讬 注讬讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讜

And one does not render it an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities. Two cities between which there is a distance of more than 141鈪 cubits cannot be joined and considered as a single city for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit for one city from the edge of the second city. However if there is a house equidistant between the two cities, i.e., a bit more than seventy cubits from each town, the house joins the two cities together for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit. A house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits cannot serve this function; and brothers and partners do not divide it, as it is too small to be divided.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 住讜讻讛 讚讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 诇讙讘讬 讘讬转 讚讚讬专转 拽讘注 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚讗讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬讬专讬 讘讬讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讚讬讬专讬 讘讬讛 讗讬谞砖讬

In answer to the question with regard to the identity of the tanna of the baraita, the Gemara says: Let us say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not the Rabbis, as it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who holds that a sukka with an area of less than four by four cubits is unfit. The Gemara rejects this contention: Even if you say that the tanna of the baraita is the Rabbis, the Rabbis say that a structure with an area smaller than four by four cubits is fit only there, with regard to a sukka, which is a temporary residence, because in a temporary residence one is willing to confine himself to a small area. However, with regard to halakhot relating to a house, which is a permanent residence, even the Rabbis concede that if it has an area of four cubits by four cubits, people reside in it, as it is a functional house, and if not, people do not reside in it, and its legal status is not that of a house at all.

讗诪专 诪专 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讜诪谉 讛诪注拽讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讞诇讟 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪注讜专讻讬 讛诪诇讞诪讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘讻讜诇讛讜

搂 The Gemara briefly discusses the halakhot listed in the baraita: The Master said that a house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits it is exempt from the mitzva of placing a mezuza on its doorpost, and it is exempt from the obligation of establishing a parapet around its roof, and it does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the house. And its sale is not rendered final in the same manner as the sale of houses within walled cities, and one does not return from the ranks of soldiers waging war for a house that size. What is the reason for these halakhot? It is due to the fact that 鈥渉ouse鈥 is written in the Torah with regard to all these halakhot. The legal status of a structure with an area of less than four by four cubits is not that of a house.

讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讚讬专讛 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 讗讘诇 砖讬转讜祝 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜

And by rabbinic law, one need not join the houses in the courtyards for a house with that area, and one need not merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway for a courtyard in which the area of its only house is less than four by four cubits. And one does not place the food collected for the joining of courtyards in this house. What is the reason for these halakhot? It is due to the fact that it is not fit for residence. The point of the joining of courtyards is to transform the courtyard into a residence shared by the residents of all its member households, and this can be accomplished only by placing the joint food in a place whose legal status is that of a house. The Gemara infers this from the fact that it is taught in the baraita: And one does not place the food of the joining of courtyards in this house, but the food of the merging of alleyways, one places in it.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讙专注 诪讞爪专 砖讘诪讘讜讬 讚转谞谉 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讘讞爪专 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讬 讘诪讘讜讬

What is the reason for this distinction? It is due to the fact that it is no less a residence than a courtyard in the alleyway. An unroofed courtyard is not fit for residence, and nevertheless the food for the merging of alleyways may be placed there, as we learned in a baraita in tractate Eiruvin (85b): The joining of courtyards may be placed in the courtyard and the merging of alleyways may be placed in the alleyway.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讘讞爪专 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讘讬转 砖注专 讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讚专 砖诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专

And we discussed this halakha: How can the joining of courtyards be placed in the courtyard? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: With regard to one who placed his joining of courtyards in a gatehouse or in a portico [akhsadra], a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, or on a balcony, it is not a fit eiruv. And one who resides there, in any of these structures, does not render it prohibited for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry, even if he did not contribute to the eiruv, as the legal status of these places is not that of a house.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讘讘讬转 砖讘讞爪专 讜砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 讘讞爪专 砖讘诪讘讜讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讙专注 诪讞爪专 砖讘诪讘讜讬

Rather, emend the mishna and say: The joining of courtyards is placed in one of the full-fledged houses that is in the courtyard, and the merging of alleyways is placed even in one of the courtyards that opens into the alleyway. And this house whose area is less than four by four cubits is no less a residence than one of the courtyards that open into the alleyway.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 砖转讬 注讬讬专讜转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讻讘讜专讙谞讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讜讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讜专讙谞讬谉 讞讝讜 诇诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇诪讬诇转讬讛

It is taught in the baraita: And one does not render it an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities. The Gemara explains: This means that we do not even render its halakhic status like that of huts [burganin] used by grain watchmen in the fields, which join the two cities between which they are located for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit. What is the reason that it is considered less a residence than a watchman鈥檚 hut? The Gemara answers: Watchmen鈥檚 huts, even though they are not sturdy, are suited for their matters, while this house with an area less than four by four cubits is not suited for its matter, as it is not fit for residence.

讜讗讬谉 讛讗讞讬谉 讜讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛讗 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讜诇拽讬谉

It is taught in the baraita: And brothers and partners do not divide a house that does not measure at least four by four cubits, as it is too small to be divided. The Gemara infers: The reason that a house that size is not divided is due to the fact that there is not an area of four by four cubits in it; however, if there is an area of four by four cubits in it, they divide it.

讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗转 讛讞爪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讝讛 讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讝讛

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One divides the courtyard at the request of one of the heirs or partners only if its area is sufficient so that there will be in it four by four cubits for this partner or heir and four by four cubits for that partner or heir? Apparently, in order to divide a courtyard it must be at least four by eight cubits.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讻讞爪专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞爪专 诇驻讬 驻转讞讬讛 诪转讞诇拽转 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讻诇 驻转讞 讜驻转讞 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛砖讗专 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘砖讜讛

Rather, emend the baraita and say that the halakha of division like that of a courtyard does not apply to it. As Rav Huna said: A courtyard is divided according to the number of its entrances. When the residents of the houses in a courtyard divide the courtyard between them, the division is not based on the number of houses in the courtyard, nor is it based on the size of the houses. Instead, it is divided based on the number of entrances that open into the courtyard. Rav 岣sda said: One gives the homeowner for each and every entrance four cubits, and the rest of the courtyard is divided equally among the residents of the courtyard.

讚讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬转 讚诇诪讛讜讬 拽讗讬 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讞爪专 讛讗讬 讚诇诪讬住转专 拽讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讞爪专

The principle that entrances are factored into the division of a courtyard applies only with regard to a house that stands to endure, as the owner needs use of the yard to ease access to his house, so we provide him with four cubits according to Rav 岣sda, or part of the courtyard according to Rav Huna. However, in the case of this small house, which stands to be leveled, its owner has no need for the adjacent courtyard, so we do not provide him with any part of the courtyard, as if it were not even there.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘讗 诇诪注讟讛 讘讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟

搂 With regard to the halakha in the mishna that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit, the Gemara states: If the sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one comes to diminish its height by placing cushions and blankets on the floor, it is not a decrease of halakhic significance. It does not render the sukka fit, because in that case one is concerned that the bedding will be ruined and therefore does not intend to leave it there very long.

Scroll To Top