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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 11, 2021 | 讘壮 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 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 4

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) NYC in honor of the recent graduation of Racheli Weiss Bergfeld from Bar Ilan University. “Mazal Tov, Racheli. Dad and I are very proud of you!” And by Goldie Gilad on the yahrzeit of her mother’s family, 注”讛, who were killed in the holocaust: Yaacov and Sarah Cukerman and their sons: Fishel, Aharon, Leib, and Faige. And by an anonymous sponsor for a refuah shleima to Ariyah Rachel Miriam bat Malka.

In what ways can one fix a sukkah whose height is twenty cubits without having to actually lower the roof? The gemara brings several possibilities. Does the principle of gud asik mechitzta –聽one can view it as if there are walls in certain cases when there aren’t – work by sukkah as it does in Shabbat?

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 [诇讻讜诇讛讜] 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讟诇讛 讚注转讜 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐

And even though he nullified them all, intending that for the duration of the Festival the halakhic status of these cushions and blankets is nothing more than that of dirt, it is not deemed a fit nullification because his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. People do not typically do so, so the action of one who does so is discounted.

转讘谉 讜讘讟诇讜 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 注驻专 讜讘讟诇讜

If one placed straw on the floor of his sukka in order to diminish its height, and verbally nullified it by saying that he will not use it for another purpose, it is a decrease of halakhic significance, as the halakhic status of adding straw is like that of adding dirt to the sukka floor and diminishing its height. The same is true, all the more so, if he placed dirt on the sukka floor and nullified it.

转讘谉 讜讗讬谉 注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讜注驻专 住转诐 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讬诇讗讛讜 转讘谉 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 讜讘讬讟诇讜 诪讘讜讟诇

A case where one placed straw on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it from there, although he did not nullify it, and a case where one placed undesignated dirt that was not nullified, are the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis with regard to whether the actions alone are effective as nullification. As we learned in a mishna: In a house in which there is a corpse or an olive-bulk of a corpse, the halakha is that if there is a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof, the roof serves as a barrier that prevents the ritual impurity from spreading beyond the roof. However, if there is less than a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof, the roof does not serve as a barrier, and the ritual impurity spreads upward. In a house of that sort where one filled the space between the corpse and the roof with straw or pebbles mixed with clods of dirt, and then nullified the straw or dirt, it is effectively nullified, and the ritual impurity spreads upward.

讘讬讟诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 诇讗 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转讘谉 讜讗讬谉 注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻注驻专 住转诐 讜讘讟诇 注驻专 讜注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住转诐 转讘谉 讜诇讗 讘讟讬诇

By inference, if he explicitly nullified it, yes, it is nullified; if he did not nullify it, no, it is not nullified. And it is taught concerning this mishna in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yosei says: If one placed straw on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it, its halakhic status is like that of undesignated dirt and it is nullified. If he placed dirt on the sukka floor and he does intend to evacuate it, its halakhic status is like that of undesignated straw, and it is not nullified. Apparently, the tanna鈥檌m already discussed this matter.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讛讜爪讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诐 爪诇转诐 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转诐 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讛

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high, but the ends of the palm leaves [hutzin] fall within twenty cubits, then the following distinction applies: If the shade provided solely by the leaves within twenty cubits of the ground is greater than the sunlight in the sukka, it is fit. If not, it is unfit.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇转讜讱 注砖专讛 住讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗诐 讞诪转诐 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转诐 讻砖讬专讛

The Gemara applies the same principle to the opposite case. In a case where the sukka was only ten handbreadths high, the minimum height for a fit sukka, but the ends of the palm leaves fall within ten handbreadths, Abaye thought to say that the same calculation applies here: If the sunlight in the sukka is greater than the shade provided by the leaves within ten handbreadths of the ground, meaning that those leaves do not constitute a fit sukka on their own, the sukka is fit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讬专讛 住专讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 讘讚讬专讛 住专讜讞讛

Rava said to him: That calculation does not apply in this particular case, as, if the branches fall within ten handbreadths of the ground, that is considered a sagging [seru岣] residence, and a person does not reside in a sagging residence. Therefore, it cannot even be considered a temporary residence.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘谞讛 讘讛 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讻谞讙讚 讚讜驻谉 讛讗诪爪注讬 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讻砖专讛

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one built a raised platform in it opposite the entire middle wall, as typically a sukka has three walls and the fourth side is open as an entrance, and the platform has an area of at least a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the minimum area required for fitness of a sukka, the sukka is fit. Since the seven-by-seven-handbreadth section from the platform to the roof has three walls and it is less than twenty cubits high, that section is a fit sukka in and of itself, and the rest of the sukka beyond the platform is fit as far as the roofing continues.

讜诪谉 讛爪讚 讗诐 讬砖 诪砖驻转 讗讬爪讟讘讗 诇讻讜转诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讻砖专讛

And if one built the platform along the side wall of the sukka, then the following distinction applies: If there are four or more cubits from the edge of the platform to the opposite wall, the sukka is unfit, as the area of the platform has only two walls. However, if the distance to the opposite wall is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit, as the halakhic status of the roofing that covers the distance to the wall is that of a curved extension of the opposite wall.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诐 讬砖 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 诇住讬讻讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: What is this halakha teaching us? Is it that we say that the halakha of a curved wall applies to the halakhot of sukka? We already learned this halakha in a mishna (17a): In the case of a house that was breached by a hole in the middle of the roof, and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there are four or more cubits of the remaining original roof it is an unfit sukka. By inference, if the distance is less than that, it is a fit sukka. That is due to the halakha of a curved wall. The intact portion of the roof is considered an extension of the wall. As this halakha was already taught with regard to sukka, what is novel in the halakha of the platform?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讚讜驻谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讚讜驻谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that there is indeed a novel element to the halakha of the platform. Lest you say that that one applies the halakha of a curved wall specifically there, in the case of a house that was breached, as the wall of the house is suited to be the wall of a sukka since it is less than twenty cubits high; however, here, in the case of the platform, where the opposite wall is not suited to be the wall of a sukka due to its excessive height, say no, the halakha of a curved wall does not apply. Therefore, it teaches us that in the case of the platform too, the roof is considered an extension of the wall.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘谞讛 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讘讗诪爪注讬转讛 讗诐 讬砖 诪砖驻转 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讜诇讚讜驻谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜专讜讞 驻住讜诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讻砖专讛

If the sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one built a platform in the center of the sukka if there is from the edge of the platform to the wall in each and every direction a distance of four cubits, it is unfit, as the platform has no walls. If the distance is less than four cubits, then it is fit.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

The Gemara asks: What is this halakha teaching us? Is it that we say that the halakha of curved wall applies to the halakhot of sukka? Then this halakha is identical to that halakha, as we already learned that the halakha of a curved wall applies.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讻诇 专讜讞 讜专讜讞 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that there is indeed a novel element to the halakha. Lest you say that we say that the halakha of a curved wall applies only in one direction, with regard to one wall of the sukka; but in each and every direction with regard to all the walls of the sukka, no, the halakha does not apply; therefore, it teaches us that this halakha may be applied to consider the roof as an extension of all four walls.

讛讬转讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讞拽拽 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讛 讗诐 讬砖 诪砖驻转 讞拽拽 讜诇讻讜转诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛

If the sukka was less than ten handbreadths high and he dug out an area inside the sukka in order to complete the requisite height of the sukka to ten handbreadths, if from the edge of the dug-out area to the wall there is a distance of three handbreadths, it is unfit, as in that case the edge of the dug-out area is not joined to the wall of the sukka. Therefore, even though the interior space is ten handbreadths high, its walls are not the requisite height to be considered a fit sukka.

驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻砖专讛

If the distance from the edge of the dug-out area to the wall was less than three handbreadths then it is fit, as the edge of the dug-out area is joined to the wall of the sukka based on the principle of lavud.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讗诪专转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the case of a sukka with a platform in its center, that you said that it is a fit sukka if the wall is at a distance of less than four cubits from the edge of the platform, and what is different here that you said the wall must be at a distance of less than three handbreadths for the sukka to be fit?

讛转诐 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讚讜驻谉 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 住讙讬讗 讛讻讗 诇砖讜讜讬讬 诇讚讜驻谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the sukka more than twenty cubits high, where there already is a wall, but it is removed from the platform, as long as the wall is at a distance of less than four cubits, it is sufficient to render the sukka fit. Here, where the sukka is less than ten handbreadths high, its wall is not a fit wall. In order to render it a wall by adding the height of the dug-out area, if the distance between them is less than three handbreadths, yes, the dug-out area is considered joined to the wall, as based on the principle of lavud two objects are considered joined if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths; and if not, no, they are not considered joined.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘谞讛 讘讛 注诪讜讚 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讬砖 讘讜 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 住讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and one built a pillar in the sukka, far from the walls, that is ten handbreadths high, and the distance from the top of the column to the roofing was less than twenty cubits, and on the horizontal surface of the column there is a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the minimum area required for fitness of a sukka, Abaye thought to say that this is a fit sukka because of the principle: Extend and raise the partitions of this pillar. Given that the column is at least ten handbreadths high, its four sides are therefore considered partitions, and the halakha is that the legal status of a partition is as if it extends and continues upwards indefinitely. Based on that perspective, the surface of the column is supported by four partitions at least ten handbreadths high that extend upward indefinitely, and from the top of the pillar to the roof is less than twenty cubits; therefore, this squared column forms a fit sukka.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛谞讬讻专讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

Rava said to Abaye: That is not so, since in order to have a fit sukka we require conspicuous partitions, and there are none, as the sides of the column do not actually project above the surface.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞注抓 讗专讘注讛 拽讜谞讚讬住讬谉 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘谉 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

The Sages taught: If one inserted four posts [kundeisin] into the floor and placed roofing over them but no walls, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov deems it a fit sukka and the Rabbis deem it unfit.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 注诇 砖驻转 讛讙讙 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗 讗讘诇 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rav Huna said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov is in a case where the four posts are aligned on the edge of the roof, directly above the exterior walls of a house, as Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that we say the principle: Extend and raise the partitions. Since the exterior walls of the house are full-fledged partitions, they are considered as extending upward indefinitely, constituting the walls of the sukka. And the Rabbis hold that we do not say the principle: Extend and raise the partitions. However, if the posts are placed in the center of the roof, then the walls of the house are irrelevant and everyone agrees that it is an unfit sukka. And Rav Na岣an said: The dispute is in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof, as according to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, if the posts themselves are one handbreadth wide, they serve as the partitions, while the Rabbis hold that it is not a fit sukka until it has two complete walls and a partial third wall.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 注诇 砖驻转 讛讙讙 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rav Na岣an saying that only if the sukka is in the center of the roof there is a dispute between Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis, but if it is at the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit? Or perhaps he is saying that there is a dispute both in this case and in that case? No resolution was found, so the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞注抓 讗专讘注讛 拽讜谞讚讬住讬谉 讘讗专抓 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘谉 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: If one drove four posts into the ground and placed roofing over them, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit.

讜讛讗 讗专抓 讚讻讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 讚诪讬 讜拽讗 诪讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗

But isn鈥檛 the legal status of the ground like that of the center of the roof, as it is not surrounded by partitions that extend upward, and nevertheless Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov deems it fit? This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that everyone agrees that a sukka in the center of the roof is unfit. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion.

讜注讜讚 讘讗诪爪注 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 注诇 砖驻转 讛讙讙 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘转专转讬

And furthermore, there is an additional refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna. It is apparent from this baraita that they disagree with regard to the case of posts inserted in the center of the roof; however, in the case of the posts inserted on the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit. Let us say, then, that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna on two counts. First, with regard to his statement that everyone agrees in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof that it is unfit, while the baraita cites a dispute on the matter; second, with regard to his statement that there is a dispute in the case of a sukka on the edge of the roof, while the baraita indicates that everyone agrees that it is fit.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 注诇 砖驻转 讛讙讙 讜讛讗讬 讚拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 谞诪讬 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna could have said to you that there is no proof from the baraita with regard to the second matter, as it is possible that they disagree in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof and that the same is true in the case of a sukka on the edge of the roof. And the fact that they specifically dispute the case of a sukka in the center of the roof is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who deems the sukka fit even in the center of the roof.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞注抓 讗专讘注讛 拽讜谞讚讬住讬谉 讘讗专抓 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘谉 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬讞拽拽讜 讜讬讞诇拽讜 讜讬砖 讘讛谉 讟驻讞 诇讻讗谉 讜讟驻讞 诇讻讗谉 谞讬讚讜谞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 谞讬讚讜谞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讚讬讜诪讚讬 住讜讻讛 讟驻讞 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞

The Sages taught: If one inserted four posts into the ground and placed a roof over them, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: One considers whether the posts are wide enough that if they were grooved and split, forming a piece of wood with two segments at a right angle, and they have a handbreadth to here, in this direction, and a handbreadth to there, in that direction, then they are considered a double post [deyumad]. With regard to certain halakhot, the status of a double post positioned at a corner is that of two full-fledged partitions. And if not, if after splitting them they are narrower than that, they are not considered a double post, as Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov would say: The minimum measure of double posts of a sukka to be considered full-fledged partitions is one handbreadth. And the Rabbis say: The sukka is fit only if it has two full-fledged partitions in the standard sense, completely closing each of those two sides, and a third wall, which, based on a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, measures even a handbreadth.

讜砖讗讬谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪谞诇谉

搂 The mishna continues: A sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high is unfit. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha?

讗转诪专 专讘 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诪转谞讜

It was stated that Rav, and Rabbi 岣nina, and Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rav 岣viva taught the matter below.

讘讻讜诇讛 住讚专 诪讜注讚 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讞诇讜驻讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪注讬讬诇讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

As an aside, the Gemara notes: Throughout the entire order of Moed, wherever this second pair of Sages is mentioned, there are some amora鈥檌m who replace Rabbi Yo岣nan and do so by inserting Rabbi Yonatan in his place.

讗专讜谉 转砖注讛 讜讻驻讜专转 讟驻讞 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜谞讜注讚转讬 诇讱 砖诐 讜讚讘专转讬 讗转讱 诪注诇 讛讻驻讜专转

And this is what they taught: The Ark of the Covenant was itself nine handbreadths high, as it is stated explicitly in the Torah that it was one and a half cubits high and the cubit used to measure Temple vessels consisted of six handbreadths. And the Ark cover was one handbreadth thick. There is a total height of ten handbreadths here. And it is written: 鈥淚 will meet with you there and I will speak with you from above the Ark cover鈥 (Exodus 25:22),

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

alon shvut women

Sukkah Rules

Sukkah Daf 4 This article by Susan Suna is a brief reference guide as we begin to traverse Masechet Sukkah....
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 4: From the Earth to the Heavens

More on the very tall 20+ amot high - what if you build a platform within it, raising the ground,...

Sukkah 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 4

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘讟诇讬谞讛讜 [诇讻讜诇讛讜] 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讟诇讛 讚注转讜 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐

And even though he nullified them all, intending that for the duration of the Festival the halakhic status of these cushions and blankets is nothing more than that of dirt, it is not deemed a fit nullification because his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. People do not typically do so, so the action of one who does so is discounted.

转讘谉 讜讘讟诇讜 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 注驻专 讜讘讟诇讜

If one placed straw on the floor of his sukka in order to diminish its height, and verbally nullified it by saying that he will not use it for another purpose, it is a decrease of halakhic significance, as the halakhic status of adding straw is like that of adding dirt to the sukka floor and diminishing its height. The same is true, all the more so, if he placed dirt on the sukka floor and nullified it.

转讘谉 讜讗讬谉 注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讜注驻专 住转诐 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讬诇讗讛讜 转讘谉 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 讜讘讬讟诇讜 诪讘讜讟诇

A case where one placed straw on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it from there, although he did not nullify it, and a case where one placed undesignated dirt that was not nullified, are the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis with regard to whether the actions alone are effective as nullification. As we learned in a mishna: In a house in which there is a corpse or an olive-bulk of a corpse, the halakha is that if there is a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof, the roof serves as a barrier that prevents the ritual impurity from spreading beyond the roof. However, if there is less than a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof, the roof does not serve as a barrier, and the ritual impurity spreads upward. In a house of that sort where one filled the space between the corpse and the roof with straw or pebbles mixed with clods of dirt, and then nullified the straw or dirt, it is effectively nullified, and the ritual impurity spreads upward.

讘讬讟诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 诇讗 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转讘谉 讜讗讬谉 注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻注驻专 住转诐 讜讘讟诇 注驻专 讜注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住转诐 转讘谉 讜诇讗 讘讟讬诇

By inference, if he explicitly nullified it, yes, it is nullified; if he did not nullify it, no, it is not nullified. And it is taught concerning this mishna in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yosei says: If one placed straw on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it, its halakhic status is like that of undesignated dirt and it is nullified. If he placed dirt on the sukka floor and he does intend to evacuate it, its halakhic status is like that of undesignated straw, and it is not nullified. Apparently, the tanna鈥檌m already discussed this matter.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讛讜爪讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诐 爪诇转诐 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转诐 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讛

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high, but the ends of the palm leaves [hutzin] fall within twenty cubits, then the following distinction applies: If the shade provided solely by the leaves within twenty cubits of the ground is greater than the sunlight in the sukka, it is fit. If not, it is unfit.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇转讜讱 注砖专讛 住讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗诐 讞诪转诐 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转诐 讻砖讬专讛

The Gemara applies the same principle to the opposite case. In a case where the sukka was only ten handbreadths high, the minimum height for a fit sukka, but the ends of the palm leaves fall within ten handbreadths, Abaye thought to say that the same calculation applies here: If the sunlight in the sukka is greater than the shade provided by the leaves within ten handbreadths of the ground, meaning that those leaves do not constitute a fit sukka on their own, the sukka is fit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讬专讛 住专讜讞讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 讘讚讬专讛 住专讜讞讛

Rava said to him: That calculation does not apply in this particular case, as, if the branches fall within ten handbreadths of the ground, that is considered a sagging [seru岣] residence, and a person does not reside in a sagging residence. Therefore, it cannot even be considered a temporary residence.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘谞讛 讘讛 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讻谞讙讚 讚讜驻谉 讛讗诪爪注讬 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 讻砖专讛

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one built a raised platform in it opposite the entire middle wall, as typically a sukka has three walls and the fourth side is open as an entrance, and the platform has an area of at least a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the minimum area required for fitness of a sukka, the sukka is fit. Since the seven-by-seven-handbreadth section from the platform to the roof has three walls and it is less than twenty cubits high, that section is a fit sukka in and of itself, and the rest of the sukka beyond the platform is fit as far as the roofing continues.

讜诪谉 讛爪讚 讗诐 讬砖 诪砖驻转 讗讬爪讟讘讗 诇讻讜转诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讻砖专讛

And if one built the platform along the side wall of the sukka, then the following distinction applies: If there are four or more cubits from the edge of the platform to the opposite wall, the sukka is unfit, as the area of the platform has only two walls. However, if the distance to the opposite wall is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit, as the halakhic status of the roofing that covers the distance to the wall is that of a curved extension of the opposite wall.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬转 砖谞驻讞转 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诐 讬砖 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 诇住讬讻讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: What is this halakha teaching us? Is it that we say that the halakha of a curved wall applies to the halakhot of sukka? We already learned this halakha in a mishna (17a): In the case of a house that was breached by a hole in the middle of the roof, and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there are four or more cubits of the remaining original roof it is an unfit sukka. By inference, if the distance is less than that, it is a fit sukka. That is due to the halakha of a curved wall. The intact portion of the roof is considered an extension of the wall. As this halakha was already taught with regard to sukka, what is novel in the halakha of the platform?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讚讜驻谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讚讜驻谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that there is indeed a novel element to the halakha of the platform. Lest you say that that one applies the halakha of a curved wall specifically there, in the case of a house that was breached, as the wall of the house is suited to be the wall of a sukka since it is less than twenty cubits high; however, here, in the case of the platform, where the opposite wall is not suited to be the wall of a sukka due to its excessive height, say no, the halakha of a curved wall does not apply. Therefore, it teaches us that in the case of the platform too, the roof is considered an extension of the wall.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘谞讛 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讘讗诪爪注讬转讛 讗诐 讬砖 诪砖驻转 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讜诇讚讜驻谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜专讜讞 驻住讜诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讻砖专讛

If the sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one built a platform in the center of the sukka if there is from the edge of the platform to the wall in each and every direction a distance of four cubits, it is unfit, as the platform has no walls. If the distance is less than four cubits, then it is fit.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

The Gemara asks: What is this halakha teaching us? Is it that we say that the halakha of curved wall applies to the halakhot of sukka? Then this halakha is identical to that halakha, as we already learned that the halakha of a curved wall applies.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讻诇 专讜讞 讜专讜讞 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that there is indeed a novel element to the halakha. Lest you say that we say that the halakha of a curved wall applies only in one direction, with regard to one wall of the sukka; but in each and every direction with regard to all the walls of the sukka, no, the halakha does not apply; therefore, it teaches us that this halakha may be applied to consider the roof as an extension of all four walls.

讛讬转讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讞拽拽 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讛 讗诐 讬砖 诪砖驻转 讞拽拽 讜诇讻讜转诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛

If the sukka was less than ten handbreadths high and he dug out an area inside the sukka in order to complete the requisite height of the sukka to ten handbreadths, if from the edge of the dug-out area to the wall there is a distance of three handbreadths, it is unfit, as in that case the edge of the dug-out area is not joined to the wall of the sukka. Therefore, even though the interior space is ten handbreadths high, its walls are not the requisite height to be considered a fit sukka.

驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻砖专讛

If the distance from the edge of the dug-out area to the wall was less than three handbreadths then it is fit, as the edge of the dug-out area is joined to the wall of the sukka based on the principle of lavud.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讗诪专转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the case of a sukka with a platform in its center, that you said that it is a fit sukka if the wall is at a distance of less than four cubits from the edge of the platform, and what is different here that you said the wall must be at a distance of less than three handbreadths for the sukka to be fit?

讛转诐 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讚讜驻谉 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 住讙讬讗 讛讻讗 诇砖讜讜讬讬 诇讚讜驻谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the sukka more than twenty cubits high, where there already is a wall, but it is removed from the platform, as long as the wall is at a distance of less than four cubits, it is sufficient to render the sukka fit. Here, where the sukka is less than ten handbreadths high, its wall is not a fit wall. In order to render it a wall by adding the height of the dug-out area, if the distance between them is less than three handbreadths, yes, the dug-out area is considered joined to the wall, as based on the principle of lavud two objects are considered joined if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths; and if not, no, they are not considered joined.

讛讬转讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘谞讛 讘讛 注诪讜讚 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讬砖 讘讜 讛讻砖专 住讜讻讛 住讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇诪讬诪专 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and one built a pillar in the sukka, far from the walls, that is ten handbreadths high, and the distance from the top of the column to the roofing was less than twenty cubits, and on the horizontal surface of the column there is a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the minimum area required for fitness of a sukka, Abaye thought to say that this is a fit sukka because of the principle: Extend and raise the partitions of this pillar. Given that the column is at least ten handbreadths high, its four sides are therefore considered partitions, and the halakha is that the legal status of a partition is as if it extends and continues upwards indefinitely. Based on that perspective, the surface of the column is supported by four partitions at least ten handbreadths high that extend upward indefinitely, and from the top of the pillar to the roof is less than twenty cubits; therefore, this squared column forms a fit sukka.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛谞讬讻专讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

Rava said to Abaye: That is not so, since in order to have a fit sukka we require conspicuous partitions, and there are none, as the sides of the column do not actually project above the surface.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞注抓 讗专讘注讛 拽讜谞讚讬住讬谉 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘谉 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

The Sages taught: If one inserted four posts [kundeisin] into the floor and placed roofing over them but no walls, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov deems it a fit sukka and the Rabbis deem it unfit.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 注诇 砖驻转 讛讙讙 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗 讗讘诇 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rav Huna said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov is in a case where the four posts are aligned on the edge of the roof, directly above the exterior walls of a house, as Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov holds that we say the principle: Extend and raise the partitions. Since the exterior walls of the house are full-fledged partitions, they are considered as extending upward indefinitely, constituting the walls of the sukka. And the Rabbis hold that we do not say the principle: Extend and raise the partitions. However, if the posts are placed in the center of the roof, then the walls of the house are irrelevant and everyone agrees that it is an unfit sukka. And Rav Na岣an said: The dispute is in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof, as according to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, if the posts themselves are one handbreadth wide, they serve as the partitions, while the Rabbis hold that it is not a fit sukka until it has two complete walls and a partial third wall.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 注诇 砖驻转 讛讙讙 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rav Na岣an saying that only if the sukka is in the center of the roof there is a dispute between Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis, but if it is at the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit? Or perhaps he is saying that there is a dispute both in this case and in that case? No resolution was found, so the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞注抓 讗专讘注讛 拽讜谞讚讬住讬谉 讘讗专抓 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘谉 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: If one drove four posts into the ground and placed roofing over them, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit.

讜讛讗 讗专抓 讚讻讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 讚诪讬 讜拽讗 诪讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗

But isn鈥檛 the legal status of the ground like that of the center of the roof, as it is not surrounded by partitions that extend upward, and nevertheless Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov deems it fit? This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that everyone agrees that a sukka in the center of the roof is unfit. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion.

讜注讜讚 讘讗诪爪注 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 注诇 砖驻转 讛讙讙 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘转专转讬

And furthermore, there is an additional refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna. It is apparent from this baraita that they disagree with regard to the case of posts inserted in the center of the roof; however, in the case of the posts inserted on the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit. Let us say, then, that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna on two counts. First, with regard to his statement that everyone agrees in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof that it is unfit, while the baraita cites a dispute on the matter; second, with regard to his statement that there is a dispute in the case of a sukka on the edge of the roof, while the baraita indicates that everyone agrees that it is fit.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 注诇 砖驻转 讛讙讙 讜讛讗讬 讚拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诪爪注 讛讙讙 谞诪讬 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna could have said to you that there is no proof from the baraita with regard to the second matter, as it is possible that they disagree in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof and that the same is true in the case of a sukka on the edge of the roof. And the fact that they specifically dispute the case of a sukka in the center of the roof is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who deems the sukka fit even in the center of the roof.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞注抓 讗专讘注讛 拽讜谞讚讬住讬谉 讘讗专抓 讜住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘谉 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬讞拽拽讜 讜讬讞诇拽讜 讜讬砖 讘讛谉 讟驻讞 诇讻讗谉 讜讟驻讞 诇讻讗谉 谞讬讚讜谞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 谞讬讚讜谞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讚讬讜诪讚讬 住讜讻讛 讟驻讞 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞

The Sages taught: If one inserted four posts into the ground and placed a roof over them, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: One considers whether the posts are wide enough that if they were grooved and split, forming a piece of wood with two segments at a right angle, and they have a handbreadth to here, in this direction, and a handbreadth to there, in that direction, then they are considered a double post [deyumad]. With regard to certain halakhot, the status of a double post positioned at a corner is that of two full-fledged partitions. And if not, if after splitting them they are narrower than that, they are not considered a double post, as Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov would say: The minimum measure of double posts of a sukka to be considered full-fledged partitions is one handbreadth. And the Rabbis say: The sukka is fit only if it has two full-fledged partitions in the standard sense, completely closing each of those two sides, and a third wall, which, based on a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, measures even a handbreadth.

讜砖讗讬谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪谞诇谉

搂 The mishna continues: A sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high is unfit. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha?

讗转诪专 专讘 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诪转谞讜

It was stated that Rav, and Rabbi 岣nina, and Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rav 岣viva taught the matter below.

讘讻讜诇讛 住讚专 诪讜注讚 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讞诇讜驻讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪注讬讬诇讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

As an aside, the Gemara notes: Throughout the entire order of Moed, wherever this second pair of Sages is mentioned, there are some amora鈥檌m who replace Rabbi Yo岣nan and do so by inserting Rabbi Yonatan in his place.

讗专讜谉 转砖注讛 讜讻驻讜专转 讟驻讞 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜谞讜注讚转讬 诇讱 砖诐 讜讚讘专转讬 讗转讱 诪注诇 讛讻驻讜专转

And this is what they taught: The Ark of the Covenant was itself nine handbreadths high, as it is stated explicitly in the Torah that it was one and a half cubits high and the cubit used to measure Temple vessels consisted of six handbreadths. And the Ark cover was one handbreadth thick. There is a total height of ten handbreadths here. And it is written: 鈥淚 will meet with you there and I will speak with you from above the Ark cover鈥 (Exodus 25:22),

Scroll To Top