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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 14, 2021 | 讛壮 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 7

Today’s daf is dedicated anonymously in memory of H’Ari Hakadosh.

The third wall of the sukkah (according to the rabbis) only needs to be one handbreadth. Where should that third wall be positioned? Do the same definitions apply to Shabbat? Abaye shows that several positions held by different rabbis are all part of the same concept – each of them hold that a sukkah needs to be a permanent structure.

讜讬注诪讬讚谞讜 讻谞讙讚 专讗砖 转讜专 砖转讬拽 专讘

And let him position the wall measuring one handbreadth opposite the wall that emerges like the diagonal line formed by the end of the furrows as the field gradually narrows. This third partition would represent the third side of a triangle and would make the sukka appear more like a full-fledged structure, as the diagonal would represent closure of both unwalled directions. Rav was silent and did not respond.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 诪注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜爪讗 讜讻谉 诪讜专讬谉 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 诪注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜爪讗

It was also stated that Shmuel said in the name of Levi: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall. And similarly, they rule in the study hall: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall.

专讘讬 住讬诪讜谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 注讜砖讛 诇讜 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜诪注诪讬讚讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬

Rabbi Simon said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said, that the third wall is positioned differently. He establishes for the third side a wall that measures an expansive handbreadth, measured with the fingers spread apart, which is slightly larger than a standard handbreadth. And he then positions it less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall opposite the second wall. And the legal status of any item positioned less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall is like an item joined to that wall. In this way, the handbreadth-wide wall is joined to the adjacent wall, and it is as if it is a wall of four handbreadths, which is the majority of the minimum measure of the wall of a full-fledged sukka, seven handbreadths.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻诪讘讜讬 讻砖专讛 讜讗讜转讜 讟驻讞 诪注诪讬讚讜 诇讻诇 专讜讞 砖讬专爪讛

Rav Yehuda said: A sukka constructed like an alleyway, with two parallel full-fledged walls, is fit, and with regard to that third wall that measures one handbreadth, he positions it adjacent to one of the walls in any direction that he chooses, as it is merely a conspicuous marker.

专讘讬 住讬诪讜谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 注讜砖讛 诇讜 驻住 讗专讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讜诪注诪讬讚讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬

Rabbi Simon said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said: In the case of a sukka built like an alleyway open on two ends, a third wall measuring a single handbreadth is insufficient. Rather, one establishes for the third side a board with a width of four handbreadths and a bit and positions it less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to either wall, as a wall on either of the open ends. And the legal status of any item positioned less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall is like an item joined to that wall. The result is a full-fledged seven-handbreadth sukka wall.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚拽讗诪专转 住讙讬讗 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专转 讘注讬讗 驻住 讗专讘注讛 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讻讛诇讻转谉 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 驻住 讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the case of two attached walls, where you say that a wall with the dimension of an expansive handbreadth suffices to complete the third wall, and what is different here where you say that it requires a board that measures four handbreadths and a bit? The Gemara answers: There, where there are two walls in the standard sense, as they are attached forming a type of structure, it is sufficient to have the third wall measure an expansive handbreadth in order to render the sukka fit; however, here, where there are not two walls in the standard sense, as they are not attached, if there is a board that measures four handbreadths as the third wall, yes, it is fit, and if not, no, it is unfit.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬谞讛 谞转专转 讗诇讗 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞

Rava said: And the sukka consisting of two adjacent walls with a third wall measuring one handbreadth is permitted and fit only if the third wall is in the form of a doorway. One can render the sukka fit only by splitting the one-handbreadth wall and attaching one half to the standing wall and one half across from the other wall that emerges from the standing wall, and then placing a pole across the two halves. By creating the form of a doorway, that third wall becomes like an open gate, which is considered a halakhic partition.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜谞转专转 谞诪讬 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞

Some say that Rava said: And a sukka consisting of two adjacent walls is also permitted and fit if the third wall is in the form of a doorway. In other words, Rava does not reject the remedy of the expansive-handbreadth wall suggested by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi; rather, he suggests an alternative.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜爪专讬讻讗 谞诪讬 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞

Some say a third version of that which Rava said: And a sukka consisting of two adjacent walls, even with a third that is an expansive handbreadth wide as suggested by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, also requires the form of a doorway to be fit. In other words, in addition to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 remedy, one must also create the form of a doorway to render the sukka fit.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜拽讗 注讘讬讚 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诪专 诇讛讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜谞转专转 谞诪讬 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讗讬讚讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚专讘讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜爪专讬讻讗 谞诪讬 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi found Rav Kahana establishing his sukka, which had two adjacent walls, and establishing a third wall that was an expansive handbreadth wide and establishing the form of a doorway as well. Rav Ashi said to him: And does the Master not hold in accordance with that opinion of Rava, as Rava said: And the sukka is also permitted and fit if the third wall is in the form of a doorway? Why are you establishing a wall that is an expansive handbreadth wide as well? Rav Kahana said to him: I hold in accordance with the other version of the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: And the sukka also requires the form of a doorway, in addition to the expansive handbreadth, to be fit.

砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 诇砖讘转 诪讙讜 讚讛讜讬讗 讚讜驻谉 诇注谞讬谉 住讜讻讛 讛讜讬讗 讚讜驻谉 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转

搂 It is taught in the Tosefta that if the sukka has two walls in the standard sense and a third wall that measures one handbreadth, it is fit. Rava said: And likewise with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot, since it is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka it is considered a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Were one to construct a sukka in that manner in a public domain adjacent to the entrance to his house, its legal status would be that of a private domain and one would be permitted to move objects from it to his house and vice versa on Shabbat that occurs during the Festival. However, that structure is not considered a private domain on any other Shabbat.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讚讜驻谉 住讜讻讛 讻讚讜驻谉 砖讘转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 拽谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: And do we say that this principle: Since it is considered, etc., applies in this area of halakha? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The specifications of the wall of a sukka are like those of a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Just as with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, one forms a partition by establishing adjacent reeds, so too, one forms the wall of a sukka in the same manner, provided that the gap from one reed to another will not be as much as three handbreadths. If the gap is three handbreadths or greater, the legal status of the reeds is that they are not considered joined.

讜讬转讬专讛 砖讘转 注诇 住讜讻讛 砖讛砖讘转 讗讬谞讛 谞转专转 讗诇讗 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘住讜讻讛

But the stringency of the halakha with regard to Shabbat goes beyond the stringency of the halakha with regard to sukka, in terms of the criteria for effective partitions, as with regard to Shabbat, carrying is permitted only in a case where the total of the standing segments of the partition, the actual wall, is greater than the total of the breached segments of the partition, the gaps that are less than three handbreadths. That is not so with regard to the sukka, where, even if the breached segments total more than the standing segments, e.g., a sukka consisting of two walls in which there are gaps and a third wall measuring only a single handbreadth, it is still fit.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讬转讬专讛 砖讘转 讚住讜讻讛 讗住讜讻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. What, isn鈥檛 the baraita teaching that the stringency with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot goes beyond the stringency with regard to the rest of the festival of Sukkot? And apparently, we do not say the principle: Since it is considered a fit partition for sukka let it also be considered a fit partition for Shabbat. This is difficult according to Rava, in whose opinion that principle is applied in this case.

诇讗 讬转讬专讛 砖讘转 讚注诇诪讗 注诇 砖讘转 讚住讜讻讛

Rava rejects that interpretation of the baraita. No, the baraita is teaching that the stringency with regard to Shabbat in general goes beyond the stringency with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot. On Shabbat during the festival of Sukkot, a partition where the total of the breached segments of the partition is greater than the total of the standing segments is effective, as, since it is effective as a wall in a sukka, it is effective as a partition for Shabbat as well. That is not the case on Shabbat during the rest of the year, when a partition of that sort is ineffective on Shabbat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讬转讬专讛 住讜讻讛 讚注诇诪讗 讗住讜讻讛 讚砖讘转 讚讗讬诇讜 住讜讻讛 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讬讗 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜讗讬诇讜 住讜讻讛 讚砖讘转 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜住讙讬 讘诇讞讬

Abaye asked: If it is so that the distinction in the baraita is not a fundamental distinction between the halakhot of sukka and the halakhot of Shabbat, but is instead a distinction between the halakhot of Shabbat in general and the specific case of Shabbat during the festival of Sukkot, then let the baraita also teach a novel distinction involving Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot. The stringency with regard to sukka in general during the rest of Sukkot goes beyond the stringency with regard to sukka on Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot, as a sukka in general consisting of two parallel walls, like an alleyway, requires that its third wall measure an expansive handbreadth, while a sukka on Shabbat does not require an expansive handbreadth for this purpose, and it is sufficient for the third wall to be established with a side post ten handbreadths high and any width.

讚讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 诇讞讬 讻砖专

Since the side post is effective as a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, it should also be effective as a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka although it is less than one handbreadth wide, as you are the one who said: If one placed roofing over an alleyway which has a side post on one of the open ends to permit carrying in that alleyway on Shabbat, it is fit as a sukka for that same Shabbat, although it would not be fit during the rest of the week of the Festival.

讛讛讜讗 诇讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪拽讬诇转讗 诇讞诪讬专转讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讞诪讬专转讗 诇拽讬诇转讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rava replied to him: That is indeed my statement; however, the fact is that the baraita does not cite that distinction, because it is not necessary to state that there are circumstances in which the general halakhot of sukka are stricter than its halakhot on Shabbat, as there is no novelty in the concept that the halakhot of partitions on Shabbat should apply to a sukka. Now that we say that halakhot may be derived from a leniency to a stringency, as a halakha that applies to sukka, which is a positive mitzva, is applied to the halakhot of Shabbat, which is a stringent prohibition punishable by karet; then from a stringency, the halakhot of Shabbat, to a leniency, all the more so may halakhot be derived. Therefore, there is no reason for the baraita to mention that distinction explicitly.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗

搂 Apropos roofing over an alleyway, the Gemara elaborates about the matter itself. Rava said:

住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 诇讞讬 讻砖专讛

If one placed roofing over an alleyway that has a side post, it is fit for use as a sukka.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讻砖专讛

And similarly, Rava said: If one placed roofing over upright boards surrounding wells, it is fit for use as a sukka. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. In order to permit drawing water from the well, the surrounding area must be partitioned off and rendered a private domain. For the benefit of Festival pilgrims, the Sages instituted a special leniency that full-fledged partitions need not be constructed around the well for this purpose. Rather, it is sufficient if there are four double posts at the four corners of the area surrounding the well. Since these symbolic barriers are considered partitions for the halakhot of Shabbat, they are considered partitions for the halakhot of sukka on Shabbat as well.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讘讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讚诇讬讻讗 砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for Rava to state the halakha in each of the two similar cases, as if he had taught us only that the sukka is fit in the case of the alleyway, one could say that it is due to the fact that there are two full-fledged walls; however, in the case of upright boards surrounding wells, where there are not two full-fledged walls and most of the area is breached, say no, it is not considered a fit sukka.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诐 讗专讘注 讚驻谞讜转 讗讘诇 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 讗专讘注 讚驻谞讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

And if he had taught us only the case of upright boards surrounding wells, one could say that it is due to the fact that in that case it is in the category of a sukka with four, albeit virtual, walls; however, in the case where one placed roofing over an alleyway, where it is not in the category of a sukka with four walls, say no, it is not considered a fit sukka.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪讞诪讬专转讗 诇拽讬诇转讗 讗讘诇 诪拽讬诇转讗 诇讞诪讬专转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if he had taught us only these two cases, to teach that a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat is a partition with regard to the halakhot of sukka, one could say that it is due to the fact that one can derive a halakha from a stringency, the halakhot of Shabbat, to a leniency, the halakhot of sukka; however, to derive a halakha from a leniency to a stringency, say no. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the third halakha with regard to a sukka consisting of two walls in the standard sense and a third wall measuring a handbreadth: Since the third wall is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka, a leniency, it is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, a stringency.

讜砖讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转讛 驻住讜诇讛

搂 The mishna continues: And a sukka whose sunlight, i.e., the sunlight that passes through the roofing, is greater than its shade, is unfit.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪转讛 诪讞诪转 住讬讻讜讱 讜诇讗 诪讞诪转 讚驻谞讜转 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讞诪转 讚驻谞讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita that in the statement: Whose sunlight is greater than its shade,the reference is to sunlight that passes through due to sparse roofing, and not to the sunlight entering due to gaps in the walls. It is possible for a sukka to have more sunlight than shade due to sunlight passing through the sides and not the roofing, in which case the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yoshiya says: If the sunlight exceeds the shade the sukka is unfit, even if the sunlight is due to gaps in the walls.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜住讻讜转 注诇 讛讗专讜谉 讗转 讛驻专讜讻转 驻专讜讻转 诪讞讬爪讛 讜拽讗 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 住讻讻讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讻住讻讱 讘注讬谞谉

Rav Yeimar bar Shelemya said in the name of Abaye: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya? It is as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall screen [vesakkota] the Ark with the curtain鈥 (Exodus 40:3). The curtain is a partition and not a covering over the Ark, and nevertheless, the Merciful One calls it roofing [sekhakha]. Apparently, we require the purpose of a partition to be similar to the purpose of roofing; just as the roofing must be mostly impermeable by sunlight, so must the partition.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讚谞讬讻讜祝 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讚诪讞讝讬 讻住讻讱

And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoshiya, interpret the term: And you shall screen [vesakkota]? That term teaches that we should bend the top of the curtain a bit so that it appears as roofing over the Ark.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗讞专讬诐 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉

Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yoshiya, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer, and A岣rim all hold that we require the sukka to be sturdy and fit for dwelling like a permanent residence.

专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 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

Abaye cites the relevant statements of the tanna鈥檌m listed above. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits is unfit. These are the dimensions of a permanent residence.

专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The fact that Rabbi Yoshiya holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence can be seen from that which we stated, that the walls must also be impermeable by sunlight like the walls of a permanent residence.

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

Rabbi Yehuda also holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as we learned in the mishna: A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit; Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. As explained above, in constructing a sukka more than twenty cubits high, one cannot render his residence a temporary residence; rather, he must construct a sturdy permanent residence.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 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 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜专讘讬注讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞

Rabbi Shimon agrees, as it is taught in a baraita: The dimensions of a sukka are two walls in the standard sense, and a third wall that measures even a handbreadth; Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and a fourth wall is required that measures even a handbreadth. Apparently, a sukka must be surrounded on four sides like a permanent residence.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘专讗砖 讛注讙诇讛 讗讜 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专

Rabban Gamliel holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka atop a wagon or atop a boat, Rabban Gamliel deems it unfit; a mobile structure is not a permanent residence. Rabbi Akiva deems it fit. Apparently, Rabban Gamliel requires that a sukka be a permanent residence.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 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

Beit Shammai agree, as we learned in a mishna: 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 the sukka unfit, since a small sukka is unfit for use and one cannot fulfill the mitzva of sukka with it. And Beit Hillel deem it fit. Apparently, Beit Shammai require that the sukka be similar to a permanent structure.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讻诪讬谉 爪专讬祝 讗讜 砖住诪讻讛 诇讻讜转诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讙讙 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut whose walls slope down from the center and has no roof, or one who rested the sukka against the wall, taking long branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall, establishing a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit. A permanent residence has a roof.

讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻砖讜讘讱 驻住讜诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讬讜转

A岣rim agree, as it is taught in a baraita that A岣rim say: A sukka built in a circular shape like a dovecote is unfit, because it does not have corners, and a permanent residence is one with corners.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻讻讘砖谉 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛拽讬驻讛 讻讚讬 诇讬砖讘 讘讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a sukka that is shaped like a furnace and is completely round, if its circumference has sufficient space for twenty-four people to sit in it, it is fit, and if not, it is unfit.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 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

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yo岣nan rule that the sukka must be so expansive? The Gemara answers: It is undoubtedly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits is unfit. Since he requires the sukka with the largest minimum dimensions, Rabbi Yo岣nan must hold in accordance with his opinion.

诪讻讚讬 讙讘专讗 讘讗诪转讗 讬转讬讘 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛拽讬驻讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞讘 讟驻讞 讘转专讬住专 住讙讬

However, even if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the question arises: Now, since when a person sits, he occupies one cubit of space, the circumference required by Rabbi Yo岣nan for the sukka is twenty-four cubits. However, mathematically, for every three handbreadths circumference in a circle, there is a diameter of approximately one handbreadth. Consequently, rather than requiring a sukka that holds twenty-four people, a sukka that holds merely twelve people should suffice, since a sukka with a circumference of twelve cubits has a diameter of approximately four. In that case, why does Rabbi Yo岣nan require the sukka to have double the necessary circumference?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 7 – 13 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the minimum number of walls to make a valid Sukka. We will also see the...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 7: The Shade-Sunlight Ratio

Defining sukkot - if you put schach on top of an alleyway, you can ha e a kosher sukkah -...
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 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 7

讜讬注诪讬讚谞讜 讻谞讙讚 专讗砖 转讜专 砖转讬拽 专讘

And let him position the wall measuring one handbreadth opposite the wall that emerges like the diagonal line formed by the end of the furrows as the field gradually narrows. This third partition would represent the third side of a triangle and would make the sukka appear more like a full-fledged structure, as the diagonal would represent closure of both unwalled directions. Rav was silent and did not respond.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 诪注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜爪讗 讜讻谉 诪讜专讬谉 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 诪注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜爪讗

It was also stated that Shmuel said in the name of Levi: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall. And similarly, they rule in the study hall: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall.

专讘讬 住讬诪讜谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 注讜砖讛 诇讜 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜诪注诪讬讚讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬

Rabbi Simon said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said, that the third wall is positioned differently. He establishes for the third side a wall that measures an expansive handbreadth, measured with the fingers spread apart, which is slightly larger than a standard handbreadth. And he then positions it less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall opposite the second wall. And the legal status of any item positioned less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall is like an item joined to that wall. In this way, the handbreadth-wide wall is joined to the adjacent wall, and it is as if it is a wall of four handbreadths, which is the majority of the minimum measure of the wall of a full-fledged sukka, seven handbreadths.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻诪讘讜讬 讻砖专讛 讜讗讜转讜 讟驻讞 诪注诪讬讚讜 诇讻诇 专讜讞 砖讬专爪讛

Rav Yehuda said: A sukka constructed like an alleyway, with two parallel full-fledged walls, is fit, and with regard to that third wall that measures one handbreadth, he positions it adjacent to one of the walls in any direction that he chooses, as it is merely a conspicuous marker.

专讘讬 住讬诪讜谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 注讜砖讛 诇讜 驻住 讗专讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讜诪注诪讬讚讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讜讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讚讜驻谉 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬

Rabbi Simon said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said: In the case of a sukka built like an alleyway open on two ends, a third wall measuring a single handbreadth is insufficient. Rather, one establishes for the third side a board with a width of four handbreadths and a bit and positions it less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to either wall, as a wall on either of the open ends. And the legal status of any item positioned less than three handbreadths from and adjacent to the wall is like an item joined to that wall. The result is a full-fledged seven-handbreadth sukka wall.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚拽讗诪专转 住讙讬讗 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专转 讘注讬讗 驻住 讗专讘注讛 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讻讛诇讻转谉 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 驻住 讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the case of two attached walls, where you say that a wall with the dimension of an expansive handbreadth suffices to complete the third wall, and what is different here where you say that it requires a board that measures four handbreadths and a bit? The Gemara answers: There, where there are two walls in the standard sense, as they are attached forming a type of structure, it is sufficient to have the third wall measure an expansive handbreadth in order to render the sukka fit; however, here, where there are not two walls in the standard sense, as they are not attached, if there is a board that measures four handbreadths as the third wall, yes, it is fit, and if not, no, it is unfit.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬谞讛 谞转专转 讗诇讗 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞

Rava said: And the sukka consisting of two adjacent walls with a third wall measuring one handbreadth is permitted and fit only if the third wall is in the form of a doorway. One can render the sukka fit only by splitting the one-handbreadth wall and attaching one half to the standing wall and one half across from the other wall that emerges from the standing wall, and then placing a pole across the two halves. By creating the form of a doorway, that third wall becomes like an open gate, which is considered a halakhic partition.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜谞转专转 谞诪讬 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞

Some say that Rava said: And a sukka consisting of two adjacent walls is also permitted and fit if the third wall is in the form of a doorway. In other words, Rava does not reject the remedy of the expansive-handbreadth wall suggested by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi; rather, he suggests an alternative.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜爪专讬讻讗 谞诪讬 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞

Some say a third version of that which Rava said: And a sukka consisting of two adjacent walls, even with a third that is an expansive handbreadth wide as suggested by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, also requires the form of a doorway to be fit. In other words, in addition to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 remedy, one must also create the form of a doorway to render the sukka fit.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜拽讗 注讘讬讚 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诪专 诇讛讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜谞转专转 谞诪讬 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讗讬讚讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚专讘讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜爪专讬讻讗 谞诪讬 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi found Rav Kahana establishing his sukka, which had two adjacent walls, and establishing a third wall that was an expansive handbreadth wide and establishing the form of a doorway as well. Rav Ashi said to him: And does the Master not hold in accordance with that opinion of Rava, as Rava said: And the sukka is also permitted and fit if the third wall is in the form of a doorway? Why are you establishing a wall that is an expansive handbreadth wide as well? Rav Kahana said to him: I hold in accordance with the other version of the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: And the sukka also requires the form of a doorway, in addition to the expansive handbreadth, to be fit.

砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 诇砖讘转 诪讙讜 讚讛讜讬讗 讚讜驻谉 诇注谞讬谉 住讜讻讛 讛讜讬讗 讚讜驻谉 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转

搂 It is taught in the Tosefta that if the sukka has two walls in the standard sense and a third wall that measures one handbreadth, it is fit. Rava said: And likewise with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot, since it is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka it is considered a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Were one to construct a sukka in that manner in a public domain adjacent to the entrance to his house, its legal status would be that of a private domain and one would be permitted to move objects from it to his house and vice versa on Shabbat that occurs during the Festival. However, that structure is not considered a private domain on any other Shabbat.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讚讜驻谉 住讜讻讛 讻讚讜驻谉 砖讘转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 拽谞讛 诇讞讘专讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: And do we say that this principle: Since it is considered, etc., applies in this area of halakha? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The specifications of the wall of a sukka are like those of a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Just as with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, one forms a partition by establishing adjacent reeds, so too, one forms the wall of a sukka in the same manner, provided that the gap from one reed to another will not be as much as three handbreadths. If the gap is three handbreadths or greater, the legal status of the reeds is that they are not considered joined.

讜讬转讬专讛 砖讘转 注诇 住讜讻讛 砖讛砖讘转 讗讬谞讛 谞转专转 讗诇讗 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘住讜讻讛

But the stringency of the halakha with regard to Shabbat goes beyond the stringency of the halakha with regard to sukka, in terms of the criteria for effective partitions, as with regard to Shabbat, carrying is permitted only in a case where the total of the standing segments of the partition, the actual wall, is greater than the total of the breached segments of the partition, the gaps that are less than three handbreadths. That is not so with regard to the sukka, where, even if the breached segments total more than the standing segments, e.g., a sukka consisting of two walls in which there are gaps and a third wall measuring only a single handbreadth, it is still fit.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讬转讬专讛 砖讘转 讚住讜讻讛 讗住讜讻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讙讜

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. What, isn鈥檛 the baraita teaching that the stringency with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot goes beyond the stringency with regard to the rest of the festival of Sukkot? And apparently, we do not say the principle: Since it is considered a fit partition for sukka let it also be considered a fit partition for Shabbat. This is difficult according to Rava, in whose opinion that principle is applied in this case.

诇讗 讬转讬专讛 砖讘转 讚注诇诪讗 注诇 砖讘转 讚住讜讻讛

Rava rejects that interpretation of the baraita. No, the baraita is teaching that the stringency with regard to Shabbat in general goes beyond the stringency with regard to Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot. On Shabbat during the festival of Sukkot, a partition where the total of the breached segments of the partition is greater than the total of the standing segments is effective, as, since it is effective as a wall in a sukka, it is effective as a partition for Shabbat as well. That is not the case on Shabbat during the rest of the year, when a partition of that sort is ineffective on Shabbat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讬转讬专讛 住讜讻讛 讚注诇诪讗 讗住讜讻讛 讚砖讘转 讚讗讬诇讜 住讜讻讛 讚注诇诪讗 讘注讬讗 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜讗讬诇讜 住讜讻讛 讚砖讘转 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讟驻讞 砖讜讞拽 讜住讙讬 讘诇讞讬

Abaye asked: If it is so that the distinction in the baraita is not a fundamental distinction between the halakhot of sukka and the halakhot of Shabbat, but is instead a distinction between the halakhot of Shabbat in general and the specific case of Shabbat during the festival of Sukkot, then let the baraita also teach a novel distinction involving Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot. The stringency with regard to sukka in general during the rest of Sukkot goes beyond the stringency with regard to sukka on Shabbat that occurs during the festival of Sukkot, as a sukka in general consisting of two parallel walls, like an alleyway, requires that its third wall measure an expansive handbreadth, while a sukka on Shabbat does not require an expansive handbreadth for this purpose, and it is sufficient for the third wall to be established with a side post ten handbreadths high and any width.

讚讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 诇讞讬 讻砖专

Since the side post is effective as a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, it should also be effective as a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka although it is less than one handbreadth wide, as you are the one who said: If one placed roofing over an alleyway which has a side post on one of the open ends to permit carrying in that alleyway on Shabbat, it is fit as a sukka for that same Shabbat, although it would not be fit during the rest of the week of the Festival.

讛讛讜讗 诇讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪拽讬诇转讗 诇讞诪讬专转讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讞诪讬专转讗 诇拽讬诇转讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rava replied to him: That is indeed my statement; however, the fact is that the baraita does not cite that distinction, because it is not necessary to state that there are circumstances in which the general halakhot of sukka are stricter than its halakhot on Shabbat, as there is no novelty in the concept that the halakhot of partitions on Shabbat should apply to a sukka. Now that we say that halakhot may be derived from a leniency to a stringency, as a halakha that applies to sukka, which is a positive mitzva, is applied to the halakhot of Shabbat, which is a stringent prohibition punishable by karet; then from a stringency, the halakhot of Shabbat, to a leniency, all the more so may halakhot be derived. Therefore, there is no reason for the baraita to mention that distinction explicitly.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗

搂 Apropos roofing over an alleyway, the Gemara elaborates about the matter itself. Rava said:

住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 诇讞讬 讻砖专讛

If one placed roofing over an alleyway that has a side post, it is fit for use as a sukka.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讻砖专讛

And similarly, Rava said: If one placed roofing over upright boards surrounding wells, it is fit for use as a sukka. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. In order to permit drawing water from the well, the surrounding area must be partitioned off and rendered a private domain. For the benefit of Festival pilgrims, the Sages instituted a special leniency that full-fledged partitions need not be constructed around the well for this purpose. Rather, it is sufficient if there are four double posts at the four corners of the area surrounding the well. Since these symbolic barriers are considered partitions for the halakhot of Shabbat, they are considered partitions for the halakhot of sukka on Shabbat as well.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讘讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讚诇讬讻讗 砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for Rava to state the halakha in each of the two similar cases, as if he had taught us only that the sukka is fit in the case of the alleyway, one could say that it is due to the fact that there are two full-fledged walls; however, in the case of upright boards surrounding wells, where there are not two full-fledged walls and most of the area is breached, say no, it is not considered a fit sukka.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诐 讗专讘注 讚驻谞讜转 讗讘诇 住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诐 讗专讘注 讚驻谞讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

And if he had taught us only the case of upright boards surrounding wells, one could say that it is due to the fact that in that case it is in the category of a sukka with four, albeit virtual, walls; however, in the case where one placed roofing over an alleyway, where it is not in the category of a sukka with four walls, say no, it is not considered a fit sukka.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪讞诪讬专转讗 诇拽讬诇转讗 讗讘诇 诪拽讬诇转讗 诇讞诪讬专转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if he had taught us only these two cases, to teach that a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat is a partition with regard to the halakhot of sukka, one could say that it is due to the fact that one can derive a halakha from a stringency, the halakhot of Shabbat, to a leniency, the halakhot of sukka; however, to derive a halakha from a leniency to a stringency, say no. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the third halakha with regard to a sukka consisting of two walls in the standard sense and a third wall measuring a handbreadth: Since the third wall is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka, a leniency, it is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, a stringency.

讜砖讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪诇转讛 驻住讜诇讛

搂 The mishna continues: And a sukka whose sunlight, i.e., the sunlight that passes through the roofing, is greater than its shade, is unfit.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪转讛 诪讞诪转 住讬讻讜讱 讜诇讗 诪讞诪转 讚驻谞讜转 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讞诪转 讚驻谞讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita that in the statement: Whose sunlight is greater than its shade,the reference is to sunlight that passes through due to sparse roofing, and not to the sunlight entering due to gaps in the walls. It is possible for a sukka to have more sunlight than shade due to sunlight passing through the sides and not the roofing, in which case the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yoshiya says: If the sunlight exceeds the shade the sukka is unfit, even if the sunlight is due to gaps in the walls.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜住讻讜转 注诇 讛讗专讜谉 讗转 讛驻专讜讻转 驻专讜讻转 诪讞讬爪讛 讜拽讗 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 住讻讻讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讻住讻讱 讘注讬谞谉

Rav Yeimar bar Shelemya said in the name of Abaye: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya? It is as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall screen [vesakkota] the Ark with the curtain鈥 (Exodus 40:3). The curtain is a partition and not a covering over the Ark, and nevertheless, the Merciful One calls it roofing [sekhakha]. Apparently, we require the purpose of a partition to be similar to the purpose of roofing; just as the roofing must be mostly impermeable by sunlight, so must the partition.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讚谞讬讻讜祝 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讚诪讞讝讬 讻住讻讱

And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoshiya, interpret the term: And you shall screen [vesakkota]? That term teaches that we should bend the top of the curtain a bit so that it appears as roofing over the Ark.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗讞专讬诐 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉

Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yoshiya, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer, and A岣rim all hold that we require the sukka to be sturdy and fit for dwelling like a permanent residence.

专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 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

Abaye cites the relevant statements of the tanna鈥檌m listed above. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits is unfit. These are the dimensions of a permanent residence.

专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The fact that Rabbi Yoshiya holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence can be seen from that which we stated, that the walls must also be impermeable by sunlight like the walls of a permanent residence.

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

Rabbi Yehuda also holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as we learned in the mishna: A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit; Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. As explained above, in constructing a sukka more than twenty cubits high, one cannot render his residence a temporary residence; rather, he must construct a sturdy permanent residence.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 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 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜专讘讬注讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞

Rabbi Shimon agrees, as it is taught in a baraita: The dimensions of a sukka are two walls in the standard sense, and a third wall that measures even a handbreadth; Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and a fourth wall is required that measures even a handbreadth. Apparently, a sukka must be surrounded on four sides like a permanent residence.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘专讗砖 讛注讙诇讛 讗讜 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专

Rabban Gamliel holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka atop a wagon or atop a boat, Rabban Gamliel deems it unfit; a mobile structure is not a permanent residence. Rabbi Akiva deems it fit. Apparently, Rabban Gamliel requires that a sukka be a permanent residence.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 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

Beit Shammai agree, as we learned in a mishna: 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 the sukka unfit, since a small sukka is unfit for use and one cannot fulfill the mitzva of sukka with it. And Beit Hillel deem it fit. Apparently, Beit Shammai require that the sukka be similar to a permanent structure.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讻诪讬谉 爪专讬祝 讗讜 砖住诪讻讛 诇讻讜转诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讙讙 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut whose walls slope down from the center and has no roof, or one who rested the sukka against the wall, taking long branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall, establishing a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit. A permanent residence has a roof.

讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻砖讜讘讱 驻住讜诇讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讬讜转

A岣rim agree, as it is taught in a baraita that A岣rim say: A sukka built in a circular shape like a dovecote is unfit, because it does not have corners, and a permanent residence is one with corners.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讜讻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻讻讘砖谉 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛拽讬驻讛 讻讚讬 诇讬砖讘 讘讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a sukka that is shaped like a furnace and is completely round, if its circumference has sufficient space for twenty-four people to sit in it, it is fit, and if not, it is unfit.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 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

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yo岣nan rule that the sukka must be so expansive? The Gemara answers: It is undoubtedly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits is unfit. Since he requires the sukka with the largest minimum dimensions, Rabbi Yo岣nan must hold in accordance with his opinion.

诪讻讚讬 讙讘专讗 讘讗诪转讗 讬转讬讘 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛拽讬驻讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞讘 讟驻讞 讘转专讬住专 住讙讬

However, even if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the question arises: Now, since when a person sits, he occupies one cubit of space, the circumference required by Rabbi Yo岣nan for the sukka is twenty-four cubits. However, mathematically, for every three handbreadths circumference in a circle, there is a diameter of approximately one handbreadth. Consequently, rather than requiring a sukka that holds twenty-four people, a sukka that holds merely twelve people should suffice, since a sukka with a circumference of twelve cubits has a diameter of approximately four. In that case, why does Rabbi Yo岣nan require the sukka to have double the necessary circumference?

Scroll To Top