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

October 28, 2021 | כ״ג במרחשון תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Rosh Hashanah 19

Today's Daf Yomi

July 13, 2021 | ד׳ באב תשפ״א

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

Sukkah 6

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) NYC “with much thanks to Hashem for the very speedy refuah shlema of Robert Weiss (Aaron ben Chana) from very recent partial knee replacement. Thank you to the entire staff of HSS for restoring Robert’s life. And also with gratitude for the refuah slema of Yaacov Shimon ben Yisraela.” And by Malka Abraham in honor of her father, Chaim Goodman’s 97th birthday. “My dad has always been supportive of my continuing to learn. Even at 97, he is a sweet, kind, caring dad.”

When Rav Chiya bar Ashi says that requisite amounts, barriers, and walls are halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai, to what was he referring? Aren’t some of those learned out from the Torah? The gemara answers these questions and explains what is meant by each of these terms. There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding how many walls does a sukkah need – two whole walls and a third that is only one handbreadth? Or three whole walls and a fourth that is one handbreadth? What is the root of their debate? The gemara brings five possibilities.

היה לבוש כליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו באצבעותיו הוא טמא מיד והן טהורים עד שישהה בכדי אכילת פרס פת חטין ולא פת שעורין מיסב ואוכל בליפתן

However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is based on wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not on barley bread, and it relates to one who is reclining and eating it together with relish or a condiment, which hastens the eating. This is a Torah measurement connected specifically to wheat.

שעורה דתנן עצם כשעורה מטמא במגע ובמשא ואינו מטמא באהל

Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not render all the articles in the house ritually impure.

גפן כדי רביעית יין לנזיר

The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarterlog of wine for a nazirite. A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure.

תאנה כגרוגרת להוצאת שבת

Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulk with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat. One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food.

רמון דתנן כל כלי בעלי בתים שיעורן כרמונים

Pomegranate teaches the following measure, as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken, as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual impurity. They are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates.

ארץ זית שמן (ודבש) ארץ שכל שיעוריה כזיתים כל שיעוריה סלקא דעתך הא איכא הני דאמרינן אלא אימא שרוב שיעוריה כזיתים

The Sages interpreted: “A land of olive oil and honey,” as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks. The Gemara poses a question: Does it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are olive-bulks? But aren’t there those measures that we just mentioned above, which are not olive-bulks? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are olive-bulks, as most measures relating to forbidden foods, e.g., fats, blood, piggul, leftover sacrificial flesh, ritually impure food, and the sciatic nerve, are olive-bulks, as are the measures for a corpse to transmit impurity in a tent and for an animal carcass to transmit impurity through contact.

דבש ככותבת הגסה ביום הכפורים

Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulk of food.

אלמא דאורייתא נינהו ותסברא שיעורין מי כתיבי אלא הלכתא נינהו וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא הוא

Apparently, all these halakhic measurements are derived from this verse in the Torah and are not halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara refutes this argument: And how can you understand it in that manner that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse cited is mere support for these halakhot, not a source.

חציצין דאורייתא נינהו דכתיב ורחץ (את בשרו) במים שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין המים

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said earlier that Rav said that the halakhot governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion: These, too, are written in the Torah, as it is written: “And he shall bathe his flesh in the water” (Leviticus 14:9), and the Sages derived that nothing should interpose between his flesh and the water. Apparently, the halakhot of interposition are derived from a verse in the Torah and not through oral tradition.

כי אתאי הלכתא לשערו כדרבה בר בר חנה דאמר רבה בר בר חנא נימא אחת קשורה חוצצת שלש אינן חוצצות שתים איני יודע

The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition on one’s skin, which is indeed derived from verses in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach that an interposition in one’s hair invalidates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: A single hair [nima] tied in a knot interposes and invalidates the immersion. Three hairs tied together in a knot do not interpose, because three hairs cannot be tied so tightly that water cannot penetrate them. With regard to two hairs tied together in a knot, I do not know the halakha. This halakha with regard to hair is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

שערו נמי דאורייתא נינהו דכתיב ורחץ את בשרו במים את הטפל לבשרו ומאי ניהו שערו

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to one’s hair is also written in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to that which is written: “And he shall bathe [et besaro] his flesh in the water.” The superfluous word et comes to include that which is subordinate to his flesh, and what is that? That is his hair. The fact that, like the body, there can be no interposition between one’s hair and the water is also derived from a verse.

כי אתאי הלכתא לכדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק

The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition in one’s hair, which is indeed derived from a verse in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

דבר תורה רובו ומקפיד עליו חוצץ ושאינו מקפיד עליו אינו חוצץ וגזרו על רובו שאינו מקפיד משום רובו המקפיד ועל מיעוטו המקפיד משום רובו המקפיד

By Torah law, if there is an interposition between a person and the water, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular about it and wants the interposing substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. However, if he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. The Sages, however, issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the majority of one’s body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one’s body with regard to which he is particular. And, they issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which one is particular.

וליגזר נמי על מיעוטו שאינו מקפיד משום מיעוטו המקפיד אי נמי משום רובו שאינו מקפיד

The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one’s body with regard to which he is not particular an interposition, due to substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which he is particular, or alternatively, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which he is not particular.

היא גופא גזירה ואנן ניקום ונגזר גזירה לגזירה

The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree because the halakha that deems both an interposition covering the minority of his body about which one is particular and an interposition covering the majority of his body about which one is not particular an interposition is itself a decree. Shall we then arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? In any case, these details with regard to interpositions are neither written nor alluded to in the Torah; rather, they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

מחיצין הא דאמרן הניחא לרבי יהודה אלא לרבי מאיר מאי איכא למימר

The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the minimum height for partitions is ten handbreadths is as we stated earlier. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no verse in the Torah from which this halakha can be derived, as he therefore concludes that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. However, according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that all of the cubits in the Temple consist of six handbreadths and therefore the measure of ten handbreadths can be derived from verses in the Torah, what is there to say? What is the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to partitions?

כי אתאי הלכתא לגוד ולבוד ודופן עקומה

When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is with regard to other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of a curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is fit even if there are up to four cubits of unfit roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the unfit roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah.

ושאין לה שלש דפנות

§ Among the factors listed in the mishna that render a sukka unfit is: And one that does not have three walls.

תנו רבנן שתים כהלכתן ושלישית אפילו טפח רבי שמעון אומר שלש כהלכתן ורביעית אפילו טפח

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In order to construct a fit sukka, two of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, sealing the entire length and height of the sukka, and the third wall may be even one handbreadth long. Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and the fourth wall may be even one handbreadth long.

במאי קמיפלגי רבנן סברי יש אם למסורת ורבי שמעון סבר יש אם למקרא

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Rabbis hold: The tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling.

רבנן סברי יש אם למסורת בסכת בסכת בסכות הרי כאן ארבע

With regard to sukka, the Rabbis hold: The tradition of the verses is authoritative, as the word basukkot is written three times in the context of the mitzva of sukka. It is written twice in the verse: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (Leviticus 23:42). In both of these instances, the word in Hebrew is spelled without a vav, as are Hebrew words in the singular. And one time it is written with a vav, as are Hebrew words in the plural: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (Leviticus 23:43). There is mention here of sukka four times, two singular plus one plural hinted at here in these verses.

דל חד לגופיה פשו להו תלתא שתים כהלכתן ואתאי הלכתא וגרעתה לשלישית ואוקמה אטפח

Subtract one to teach the mitzva of sukka itself, and three remain. These three remaining sukkot teach that the sukka requires three walls; two of the three are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the third and establishes it as one handbreadth. That tradition teaches that one wall need not be any longer than one handbreadth.

רבי שמעון סבר יש אם למקרא בסכות בסכות בסכות הרי כאן שש דל חד קרא לגופיה פשו להו ארבע שלש כהלכתן אתאי הלכתא וגרעתה לרביעית ואוקמתה אטפח

On the other hand, Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. Therefore, although two of the instances are written without a vav, since they are all vocalized in the plural, basukkot, basukkot, basukkot, there is mention here of sukka six times in these two verses. Subtract one verse to teach the mitzva of the sukka itself, and two mentions of basukkot, which equal four sukkot, remain and teach that the sukka requires four walls. Three of the walls are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the fourth and establishes it as one handbreadth.

ואי בעית אימא דכולי עלמא יש אם למקרא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר סככה בעיא קרא ומר סבר סככה לא בעיא קרא

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that to derive its roofing requires a verse; therefore, only three of the original six sukkot remain from which walls can be derived. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai reduces the dimension of one of the three walls to one handbreadth. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that to derive its roofing does not require a verse, as the essence of sukka is its roofing. No additional source beyond the verse from which the mitzva of sukka is derived is required for the roofing. Therefore, walls are derived from four of the six sukkot Three full-fledged walls and a fourth measuring one handbreadth.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא יש אם למסורת והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר כי אתאי הלכתא לגרע ומר סבר כי אתאי הלכתא להוסיף

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce to one handbreadth the dimension of one of the three walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to add another wall to the three walls derived from the verses; however, the dimension of that fourth wall may be one handbreadth.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא כי אתאי הלכתא לגרע ויש אם למסורת והכא בדורשין תחילות קמיפלגי מר סבר דורשין תחילות ומר סבר אין דורשין תחילות

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that when the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce the dimension of one of the three walls. And everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and there are four mentions of sukka in the verse. And here it is with regard to whether one derives numbers for halakhic matters from the first mention of a term in the Torah that they disagree. When that total is derived from the number of instances a certain word appears in the Torah, there is a dispute whether the first instance is included in the tally, or whether the first instance is necessary to teach the mitzva itself and the number may be counted only from subsequent mentions. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives numbers from the first mention and therefore four walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that one does not derive numbers from the first mention, and therefore only three walls are derived from the verses.

רב מתנה אמר טעמיה דרבי שמעון מהכא וסוכה תהיה לצל יומם מחורב ולמחסה ולמסתור מזרם וממטר

Rav Mattana said that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is derived from here: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6). A sukka without three full-fledged walls does not provide shelter nor serve as refuge.

ואותו טפח היכן מעמידו אמר רב מעמידו כנגד היוצא

§ The Gemara asks: According to the opinion that a sukka can be built with two full-fledged walls and a third that is one handbreadth, where does one position that third wall that measures one handbreadth? Rav said: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall.

אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

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

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 6: The Tefach-long Wall

Measurements! Barley. The vine. Fig. Pomegranate. Date. Olive. Also, a sukkah must have 3 walls - though that third wall...
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 ר' יוסף בן מנחם מענדל ופעשי ע" ה who exemplified...

Sukkah 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 6

היה לבוש כליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו באצבעותיו הוא טמא מיד והן טהורים עד שישהה בכדי אכילת פרס פת חטין ולא פת שעורין מיסב ואוכל בליפתן

However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is based on wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not on barley bread, and it relates to one who is reclining and eating it together with relish or a condiment, which hastens the eating. This is a Torah measurement connected specifically to wheat.

שעורה דתנן עצם כשעורה מטמא במגע ובמשא ואינו מטמא באהל

Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not render all the articles in the house ritually impure.

גפן כדי רביעית יין לנזיר

The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarterlog of wine for a nazirite. A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure.

תאנה כגרוגרת להוצאת שבת

Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulk with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat. One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food.

רמון דתנן כל כלי בעלי בתים שיעורן כרמונים

Pomegranate teaches the following measure, as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken, as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual impurity. They are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates.

ארץ זית שמן (ודבש) ארץ שכל שיעוריה כזיתים כל שיעוריה סלקא דעתך הא איכא הני דאמרינן אלא אימא שרוב שיעוריה כזיתים

The Sages interpreted: “A land of olive oil and honey,” as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks. The Gemara poses a question: Does it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are olive-bulks? But aren’t there those measures that we just mentioned above, which are not olive-bulks? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are olive-bulks, as most measures relating to forbidden foods, e.g., fats, blood, piggul, leftover sacrificial flesh, ritually impure food, and the sciatic nerve, are olive-bulks, as are the measures for a corpse to transmit impurity in a tent and for an animal carcass to transmit impurity through contact.

דבש ככותבת הגסה ביום הכפורים

Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulk of food.

אלמא דאורייתא נינהו ותסברא שיעורין מי כתיבי אלא הלכתא נינהו וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא הוא

Apparently, all these halakhic measurements are derived from this verse in the Torah and are not halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara refutes this argument: And how can you understand it in that manner that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse cited is mere support for these halakhot, not a source.

חציצין דאורייתא נינהו דכתיב ורחץ (את בשרו) במים שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין המים

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said earlier that Rav said that the halakhot governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion: These, too, are written in the Torah, as it is written: “And he shall bathe his flesh in the water” (Leviticus 14:9), and the Sages derived that nothing should interpose between his flesh and the water. Apparently, the halakhot of interposition are derived from a verse in the Torah and not through oral tradition.

כי אתאי הלכתא לשערו כדרבה בר בר חנה דאמר רבה בר בר חנא נימא אחת קשורה חוצצת שלש אינן חוצצות שתים איני יודע

The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition on one’s skin, which is indeed derived from verses in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach that an interposition in one’s hair invalidates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: A single hair [nima] tied in a knot interposes and invalidates the immersion. Three hairs tied together in a knot do not interpose, because three hairs cannot be tied so tightly that water cannot penetrate them. With regard to two hairs tied together in a knot, I do not know the halakha. This halakha with regard to hair is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

שערו נמי דאורייתא נינהו דכתיב ורחץ את בשרו במים את הטפל לבשרו ומאי ניהו שערו

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to one’s hair is also written in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to that which is written: “And he shall bathe [et besaro] his flesh in the water.” The superfluous word et comes to include that which is subordinate to his flesh, and what is that? That is his hair. The fact that, like the body, there can be no interposition between one’s hair and the water is also derived from a verse.

כי אתאי הלכתא לכדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק

The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition in one’s hair, which is indeed derived from a verse in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

דבר תורה רובו ומקפיד עליו חוצץ ושאינו מקפיד עליו אינו חוצץ וגזרו על רובו שאינו מקפיד משום רובו המקפיד ועל מיעוטו המקפיד משום רובו המקפיד

By Torah law, if there is an interposition between a person and the water, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular about it and wants the interposing substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. However, if he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. The Sages, however, issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the majority of one’s body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one’s body with regard to which he is particular. And, they issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which one is particular.

וליגזר נמי על מיעוטו שאינו מקפיד משום מיעוטו המקפיד אי נמי משום רובו שאינו מקפיד

The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one’s body with regard to which he is not particular an interposition, due to substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which he is particular, or alternatively, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which he is not particular.

היא גופא גזירה ואנן ניקום ונגזר גזירה לגזירה

The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree because the halakha that deems both an interposition covering the minority of his body about which one is particular and an interposition covering the majority of his body about which one is not particular an interposition is itself a decree. Shall we then arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? In any case, these details with regard to interpositions are neither written nor alluded to in the Torah; rather, they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

מחיצין הא דאמרן הניחא לרבי יהודה אלא לרבי מאיר מאי איכא למימר

The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the minimum height for partitions is ten handbreadths is as we stated earlier. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no verse in the Torah from which this halakha can be derived, as he therefore concludes that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. However, according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that all of the cubits in the Temple consist of six handbreadths and therefore the measure of ten handbreadths can be derived from verses in the Torah, what is there to say? What is the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to partitions?

כי אתאי הלכתא לגוד ולבוד ודופן עקומה

When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is with regard to other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of a curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is fit even if there are up to four cubits of unfit roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the unfit roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah.

ושאין לה שלש דפנות

§ Among the factors listed in the mishna that render a sukka unfit is: And one that does not have three walls.

תנו רבנן שתים כהלכתן ושלישית אפילו טפח רבי שמעון אומר שלש כהלכתן ורביעית אפילו טפח

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In order to construct a fit sukka, two of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, sealing the entire length and height of the sukka, and the third wall may be even one handbreadth long. Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and the fourth wall may be even one handbreadth long.

במאי קמיפלגי רבנן סברי יש אם למסורת ורבי שמעון סבר יש אם למקרא

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Rabbis hold: The tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling.

רבנן סברי יש אם למסורת בסכת בסכת בסכות הרי כאן ארבע

With regard to sukka, the Rabbis hold: The tradition of the verses is authoritative, as the word basukkot is written three times in the context of the mitzva of sukka. It is written twice in the verse: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (Leviticus 23:42). In both of these instances, the word in Hebrew is spelled without a vav, as are Hebrew words in the singular. And one time it is written with a vav, as are Hebrew words in the plural: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (Leviticus 23:43). There is mention here of sukka four times, two singular plus one plural hinted at here in these verses.

דל חד לגופיה פשו להו תלתא שתים כהלכתן ואתאי הלכתא וגרעתה לשלישית ואוקמה אטפח

Subtract one to teach the mitzva of sukka itself, and three remain. These three remaining sukkot teach that the sukka requires three walls; two of the three are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the third and establishes it as one handbreadth. That tradition teaches that one wall need not be any longer than one handbreadth.

רבי שמעון סבר יש אם למקרא בסכות בסכות בסכות הרי כאן שש דל חד קרא לגופיה פשו להו ארבע שלש כהלכתן אתאי הלכתא וגרעתה לרביעית ואוקמתה אטפח

On the other hand, Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. Therefore, although two of the instances are written without a vav, since they are all vocalized in the plural, basukkot, basukkot, basukkot, there is mention here of sukka six times in these two verses. Subtract one verse to teach the mitzva of the sukka itself, and two mentions of basukkot, which equal four sukkot, remain and teach that the sukka requires four walls. Three of the walls are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the fourth and establishes it as one handbreadth.

ואי בעית אימא דכולי עלמא יש אם למקרא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר סככה בעיא קרא ומר סבר סככה לא בעיא קרא

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that to derive its roofing requires a verse; therefore, only three of the original six sukkot remain from which walls can be derived. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai reduces the dimension of one of the three walls to one handbreadth. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that to derive its roofing does not require a verse, as the essence of sukka is its roofing. No additional source beyond the verse from which the mitzva of sukka is derived is required for the roofing. Therefore, walls are derived from four of the six sukkot Three full-fledged walls and a fourth measuring one handbreadth.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא יש אם למסורת והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר כי אתאי הלכתא לגרע ומר סבר כי אתאי הלכתא להוסיף

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce to one handbreadth the dimension of one of the three walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to add another wall to the three walls derived from the verses; however, the dimension of that fourth wall may be one handbreadth.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא כי אתאי הלכתא לגרע ויש אם למסורת והכא בדורשין תחילות קמיפלגי מר סבר דורשין תחילות ומר סבר אין דורשין תחילות

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that when the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce the dimension of one of the three walls. And everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and there are four mentions of sukka in the verse. And here it is with regard to whether one derives numbers for halakhic matters from the first mention of a term in the Torah that they disagree. When that total is derived from the number of instances a certain word appears in the Torah, there is a dispute whether the first instance is included in the tally, or whether the first instance is necessary to teach the mitzva itself and the number may be counted only from subsequent mentions. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives numbers from the first mention and therefore four walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that one does not derive numbers from the first mention, and therefore only three walls are derived from the verses.

רב מתנה אמר טעמיה דרבי שמעון מהכא וסוכה תהיה לצל יומם מחורב ולמחסה ולמסתור מזרם וממטר

Rav Mattana said that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is derived from here: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6). A sukka without three full-fledged walls does not provide shelter nor serve as refuge.

ואותו טפח היכן מעמידו אמר רב מעמידו כנגד היוצא

§ The Gemara asks: According to the opinion that a sukka can be built with two full-fledged walls and a third that is one handbreadth, where does one position that third wall that measures one handbreadth? Rav said: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall.

אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

Scroll To Top