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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 16, 2021 | ื–ืณ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื

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 9

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) in memory of her mother, Edith Bettelheim Aschheim, Pesel bat Kalman, whose 38th Yartzeit is today. “Mommy. You often said that Hitler robbed you of a Jewish education, when you were forced to flee Vienna on the Kindertransport for London. Fortunately, you were reunited with your parents before the war in Bangor, Maine. You always encouraged me and were my closest, unconditional buddy. I still miss you greatly. You laid the foundations for who I am today. You would be so proud of me and Robert, and our children and grandchildren.

Can one use a sukkah that was built not for the sake of the holiday of Sukkot? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree. From where does each find a source in the Torah for their opinion? If one built a sukkah under a tree, it is not a valid sukkah. In which case is there an exception? A sukkah on top of a sukkah – the upper one is valid but the bottom one is not. Rabbi Yehuda says it depends. Rabbi Yirmiah explains that there are four different types of cases regarding a sukkah on top of a sukkah and the law is different in each case.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืกื•ื›ื” ื™ืฉื ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืกื•ื›ื” ื™ืฉื ื” ื›ืœ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืงื•ื“ื ืœื—ื’ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืื ืขืฉืื” ืœืฉื ื—ื’ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืฉื ื” ื›ืฉืจื”

MISHNA: With regard to an old sukka, Beit Shammai deem it unfit for the mitzva of sukka and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And which is considered an old sukka? It is any booth that one established thirty days or more prior to the Festival without expressly designating that it was for the mitzva of sukka. In that case, the assumption is that he constructed it for some other purpose. However, if he established it expressly for the sake of the festival of Sukkot, even if he constructed it at the beginning of the previous year, it is fit for use in the fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka, even according to Beit Shammai.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ ืกื•ื›ื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœืฉื ื—ื’ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Shammai? The Gemara explains that it is as the verse states: โ€œThe festival of Sukkot is seven days unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 23:34), indicating that we require a sukka established for the sake of the Festival. A sukka not constructed expressly for the Festival is unfit.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆื™ ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Hillel interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In Beit Hillelโ€™s opinion, that verse is necessary to teach in accordance with the statement of Rav Sheshet, as Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From where is it derived that use of the wood of the sukka is prohibited for any purpose other than for the sukka all seven days of the Festival, and it is designated exclusively for the mitzva? It is derived as the verse states: โ€œThe festival of Sukkot is seven days unto the Lord.โ€

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืฉื ืฉื—ืœ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื’ื™ื’ื” ื›ืš ื—ืœ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ ืžื” ื—ื’ ืœื”ืณ ืืฃ ืกื•ื›ื” ืœื”ืณ

And it is taught in a baraita in explanation that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Just as the name of Heaven takes effect upon the Festival peace-offering, so too, the name of Heaven takes effect upon the sukka, as it is stated: โ€œThe festival of Sukkot is seven days unto the Lordโ€; just as the Festival offering is consecrated to the Lord, so too, the sukka is consecrated to the Lord.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™

The Gemara asks: But donโ€™t Beit Shammai require the verse to derive this halakha as well? The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so that Beit Shammai derives the sanctity of the wood of the sukka from this verse. Therefore, the rationale for their opinion with regard to an old sukka must be based on a different verse.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืกื•ื›ื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœืฉื ื—ื’ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ

Rather, what is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Shammai with regard to an old sukka? Another verse is written: โ€œYou shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven daysโ€ (Deuteronomy 16:13), from which it is derived that we require a sukka established for the sake of the Festival.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืกื•ื›ื” ื‘ื—ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Hillel interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach that one may establish a sukka even during the intermediate days of the Festival. If one failed to construct a sukka prior to the onset of the Festival, or if it collapsed during the Festival, he may establish it during the intermediate days, as the mitzva to establish a sukka is in effect for all seven days of the Festival.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืกื•ื›ื” ื‘ื—ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara asks: And from where do Beit Shammai derive this halakha? They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: One may not establish a sukka during the intermediate days of the Festival. Therefore, the requirement to build the sukka for the sake of the mitzva may be derived from this verse.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขืฉืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืงื•ืฆื™ืŸ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื“ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืŸ ื”ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจื”

The Gemara proceeds to clarify Beit Hillelโ€™s opinion: And do Beit Hillel not agree with the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one fashioned ritual fringes from hanging threads that remain protruding from the fabric like thorns after most of the superfluous threads were torn, and tied them into ritual fringes; or if he tied the fringes from threads that hang down after sewing; or if he tied them from the fringes [geradin] that hang from the bottom of a garment, the ritual fringes are unfit for fulfilling the mitzva. However, if the ritual fringes were tied from balls of thread that were not spun for the sake of the mitzva, they are fit.

ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืคืกื•ืœื” (ืืœืžื) ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื˜ื•ื™ื” ืœืฉืžื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืกื•ื›ื” ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœืฉืžื”

And Rav Yehuda related: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Even ritual fringes tied from balls of thread are unfit, as we require the spinning of the thread to be for the sake of the mitzva. Just as the threads for the ritual fringes must be spun for the sake of the mitzva, here too, let us require a sukka established for the sake of the mitzva.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื’ื“ื™ืœื™ื ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ืœืš ืœืฉื ื—ื•ื‘ืš ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ืœืš ืœืฉื ื—ื•ื‘ืš

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: โ€œYou shall prepare for you fringesโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:12), from which it is derived: โ€œFor you,โ€ for the sake of your obligation. The fringes, from the beginning of their production, must be produced for the sake of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: Here, too, with regard to sukka, the verse says: โ€œYou shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkotโ€ (Deuteronomy 16:13). Shouldnโ€™t it be derived: โ€œFor you,โ€ for the sake of your obligation?

ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื’ื–ื•ืœื” ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื’ื–ื•ืœื”

The Gemara answers that this term โ€œfor youโ€ is required to exclude use of a stolen sukka; establish the sukka for you, and do not use a sukka belonging to another. The Gemara asks: There, too, with regard to ritual fringes, isnโ€™t the term โ€œfor youโ€ required to exclude use of stolen ritual fringes?

ื”ืชื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื•ืขืฉื• ืœื”ื ืžืฉืœื”ื

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to ritual fringes, another verse is written: โ€œAnd they shall make for them ritual fringesโ€ (Numbers 15:38), from which it is derived: โ€œFor them,โ€ of their own, to exclude the use of stolen ritual fringes. Therefore from the term โ€œfor you,โ€ it may be derived that ritual fringes must be produced for the sake of the mitzva.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืขื•ืฉื” ืกื•ื›ืชื• ืชื—ืช ื”ืื™ืœืŸ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขืฉืื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืกื•ื›ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืกื•ื›ื” ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื”

MISHNA: With regard to one who establishes his sukka beneath a tree, it is as though he established it inside the house and it is unfit. If one established a sukka atop another sukka, the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no residents in the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ ืฉืฆืœืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชื• ืื‘ืœ ื—ืžืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฆืœืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

GEMARA: Rava said: They taught this halakha that a sukka beneath a tree is unfit only with regard to a tree whose shade is greater than its sunlight, as the source of the shade in the sukka is the tree and not the roofing. However, if its sunlight is greater than its shade, the sukka is fit, as in that case the roofing provides the shade.

ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขืฉืื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขืฉืื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืืœื ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ืœืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืžื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฆืœืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชื• ืืฃ ืื™ืœืŸ ืฆืœืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชื•

The Gemara asks: From where does Rava reach this conclusion? The Gemara answers: He learns this from the fact that the mishna teaches: It is as though he established it inside the house. Why do I need the mishna to teach: It is as though he established it inside the house? Let the mishna teach simply: It is unfit. Rather, this is teaching us that in the context of this halakha, a tree is similar to a house; just as with regard to a house, its shade is greater than its sunlight, so too, with regard to a tree, it invalidates the sukka only if its shade is greater than its sunlight.

ื•ื›ื™ ื—ืžืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฆืœืชื• ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ืกื›ืš ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืกื›ืš ื›ืฉืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ืฉื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And even if the sunlight is greater than the shade of the tree, what of it? Why does Rava deem the sukka beneath the tree fit in that case? Isnโ€™t there unfit roofing, the uncut branches of the tree, joining together with the fit roofing on the sukka, rendering even the fit roofing on the sukka unfit? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where one lowered the uncut branches and combined them with the fit roofing so that the branches still attached to the tree are inconspicuous. Given that the majority of the roofing is fit, the roofing in its entirety is fit.

ืื™ ื‘ืฉื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ืžืื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ืื˜ื• ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ื’ื–ืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where he lowered them, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isnโ€™t it self-evident? The Gemara answers that it is necessary lest you say: Let us issue a decree and deem the roofing unfit in a case where one lowered them due to a case where one did not lower them. Therefore, it teaches us that we do not issue such a decree.

ื”ื ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ื“ืœื” ืขืœื™ื” ืืช ื”ื’ืคืŸ ื•ืืช ื”ื“ืœืขืช ื•ืืช ื”ืงื™ืกื•ืก ื•ืกื™ื›ืš ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืกื™ื›ื•ืš ื”ืจื‘ื” ืžื”ืŸ ืื• ืฉืงืฆืฆืŸ ื›ืฉืจื”

The Gemara asks: That halakha, too, we already learned in a mishna: If one trellised the grapevine, the gourd, or the ivy, climbing plants, over a sukka while they are still attached to the ground, and he then added roofing atop them, the sukka is unfit, as roofing attached to the ground is unfit. If the amount of fit roofing was greater than the plants attached to the ground, or if he cut the climbing plants so that they were no longer attached to the ground, it is fit.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืฉืœื ื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ืกื›ืš ืคืกื•ืœ ืขื ืกื›ืš ื›ืฉืจ ืืœื ืœืื• ื›ืฉื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ืœื ื’ื–ืจื™ื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืื‘ืœ ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara clarifies the details of the mishna: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to a case where he did not lower the climbing plants and combine them with the fit roofing, doesnโ€™t the unfit roofing join together with the fit roofing on the sukka, rendering even the fit roofing on the sukka unfit? Rather, isnโ€™t the mishna referring to a case where he lowered them, and conclude from this mishna that we do not issue a decree in a case where he lowered the branches due to a case where he did not lower the branches. Ravaโ€™s statement is therefore unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this applies only after the fact, i.e., that if one already lowered the uncut branches or plants it is not unfit, but one may not do so ab initio; therefore, Rava teaches us that one may place roofing in this manner even ab initio.

ืกื•ื›ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืกื•ื›ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ (ื‘ืกื•ื›ื•ืช) ืชืฉื‘ื• ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉืชื—ืช ื”ืกื•ื›ื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉืชื—ืช ื”ืื™ืœืŸ ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช

ยง The mishna continues: If one established a sukka atop another sukka, the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: โ€œIn sukkot shall you resideโ€ (Leviticus 23:42), and not in a sukka that is beneath another sukka, and not in sukka that is beneath a tree, and not in a sukka that is inside a house.

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืชืจืชื™ ืžืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืกื›ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara questions that derivation. On the contrary, the term โ€œin sukkot,โ€ which is written in the plural, indicates two. The conclusion should be that one sitting inside a sukka beneath a sukka fulfills the mitzva. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Although the term is vocalized in the plural, basukkot is written without the vav, indicating a single sukka.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืฉื™ืจื•ืช ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ื”ืขื™ื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื”

Rabbi Yirmeya said: There are times when both of the sukkot one atop the other are fit; there are times when both of the sukkot are unfit; there are times when the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit; and there are times when the lower sukka is unfit and the upper sukka is fit.

ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืฉื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื—ืžืชื” ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฆืœืชื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืฆืœืชื” ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชื” ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืขืฉืจื™ื

The Gemara elaborates: There are times when both of the sukkot one atop the other are fit. What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in the lower sukka its sunlight is greater than its shade, rendering the sukka unfit, and in the upper sukka its shade is greater than its sunlight, rendering the sukka fit. And the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the ground. In that case, the roofing of the upper sukka is effective for both the upper sukka and the lower one.

ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืฆืœืชืŸ ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชืŸ ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืขืฉืจื™ื ืืžื”

There are times when both of the sukkot are unfit. What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in both sukkot, their shade is greater than their sunlight, but the upper one is more than twenty cubits above the roofing of the lower sukka, rendering it unfit. Since the roofing of the upper sukka is unfit, and it casts shade over the lower sukka, the lower sukka is also unfit.

ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืคืกื•ืœื”

There are times when the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit.

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...
shomera

A Sukkah Tale

Today when we hear the word โ€œsukkahโ€ one image pops into the mind of Jewishly knowledgeable people โ€“ a temporary...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 9: A Tree Is Like a House

Does the age of the materials being used to build a sukkah matter? How long on advance of Sukkot can...

Sukkah 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 9

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืกื•ื›ื” ื™ืฉื ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืกื•ื›ื” ื™ืฉื ื” ื›ืœ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืงื•ื“ื ืœื—ื’ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืื ืขืฉืื” ืœืฉื ื—ื’ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืฉื ื” ื›ืฉืจื”

MISHNA: With regard to an old sukka, Beit Shammai deem it unfit for the mitzva of sukka and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And which is considered an old sukka? It is any booth that one established thirty days or more prior to the Festival without expressly designating that it was for the mitzva of sukka. In that case, the assumption is that he constructed it for some other purpose. However, if he established it expressly for the sake of the festival of Sukkot, even if he constructed it at the beginning of the previous year, it is fit for use in the fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka, even according to Beit Shammai.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ ืกื•ื›ื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœืฉื ื—ื’ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Shammai? The Gemara explains that it is as the verse states: โ€œThe festival of Sukkot is seven days unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 23:34), indicating that we require a sukka established for the sake of the Festival. A sukka not constructed expressly for the Festival is unfit.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆื™ ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Hillel interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In Beit Hillelโ€™s opinion, that verse is necessary to teach in accordance with the statement of Rav Sheshet, as Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From where is it derived that use of the wood of the sukka is prohibited for any purpose other than for the sukka all seven days of the Festival, and it is designated exclusively for the mitzva? It is derived as the verse states: โ€œThe festival of Sukkot is seven days unto the Lord.โ€

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืฉื ืฉื—ืœ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื’ื™ื’ื” ื›ืš ื—ืœ ืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ ืžื” ื—ื’ ืœื”ืณ ืืฃ ืกื•ื›ื” ืœื”ืณ

And it is taught in a baraita in explanation that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Just as the name of Heaven takes effect upon the Festival peace-offering, so too, the name of Heaven takes effect upon the sukka, as it is stated: โ€œThe festival of Sukkot is seven days unto the Lordโ€; just as the Festival offering is consecrated to the Lord, so too, the sukka is consecrated to the Lord.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™

The Gemara asks: But donโ€™t Beit Shammai require the verse to derive this halakha as well? The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so that Beit Shammai derives the sanctity of the wood of the sukka from this verse. Therefore, the rationale for their opinion with regard to an old sukka must be based on a different verse.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืกื•ื›ื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœืฉื ื—ื’ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ

Rather, what is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Shammai with regard to an old sukka? Another verse is written: โ€œYou shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven daysโ€ (Deuteronomy 16:13), from which it is derived that we require a sukka established for the sake of the Festival.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืกื•ื›ื” ื‘ื—ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Hillel interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach that one may establish a sukka even during the intermediate days of the Festival. If one failed to construct a sukka prior to the onset of the Festival, or if it collapsed during the Festival, he may establish it during the intermediate days, as the mitzva to establish a sukka is in effect for all seven days of the Festival.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืกื•ื›ื” ื‘ื—ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara asks: And from where do Beit Shammai derive this halakha? They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: One may not establish a sukka during the intermediate days of the Festival. Therefore, the requirement to build the sukka for the sake of the mitzva may be derived from this verse.

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขืฉืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืงื•ืฆื™ืŸ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื“ื™ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืŸ ื”ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจื”

The Gemara proceeds to clarify Beit Hillelโ€™s opinion: And do Beit Hillel not agree with the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one fashioned ritual fringes from hanging threads that remain protruding from the fabric like thorns after most of the superfluous threads were torn, and tied them into ritual fringes; or if he tied the fringes from threads that hang down after sewing; or if he tied them from the fringes [geradin] that hang from the bottom of a garment, the ritual fringes are unfit for fulfilling the mitzva. However, if the ritual fringes were tied from balls of thread that were not spun for the sake of the mitzva, they are fit.

ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืคืกื•ืœื” (ืืœืžื) ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื˜ื•ื™ื” ืœืฉืžื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืกื•ื›ื” ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœืฉืžื”

And Rav Yehuda related: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Even ritual fringes tied from balls of thread are unfit, as we require the spinning of the thread to be for the sake of the mitzva. Just as the threads for the ritual fringes must be spun for the sake of the mitzva, here too, let us require a sukka established for the sake of the mitzva.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื’ื“ื™ืœื™ื ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ืœืš ืœืฉื ื—ื•ื‘ืš ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื—ื’ ื”ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ืœืš ืœืฉื ื—ื•ื‘ืš

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: โ€œYou shall prepare for you fringesโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:12), from which it is derived: โ€œFor you,โ€ for the sake of your obligation. The fringes, from the beginning of their production, must be produced for the sake of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: Here, too, with regard to sukka, the verse says: โ€œYou shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkotโ€ (Deuteronomy 16:13). Shouldnโ€™t it be derived: โ€œFor you,โ€ for the sake of your obligation?

ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื’ื–ื•ืœื” ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื’ื–ื•ืœื”

The Gemara answers that this term โ€œfor youโ€ is required to exclude use of a stolen sukka; establish the sukka for you, and do not use a sukka belonging to another. The Gemara asks: There, too, with regard to ritual fringes, isnโ€™t the term โ€œfor youโ€ required to exclude use of stolen ritual fringes?

ื”ืชื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื•ืขืฉื• ืœื”ื ืžืฉืœื”ื

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to ritual fringes, another verse is written: โ€œAnd they shall make for them ritual fringesโ€ (Numbers 15:38), from which it is derived: โ€œFor them,โ€ of their own, to exclude the use of stolen ritual fringes. Therefore from the term โ€œfor you,โ€ it may be derived that ritual fringes must be produced for the sake of the mitzva.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืขื•ืฉื” ืกื•ื›ืชื• ืชื—ืช ื”ืื™ืœืŸ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขืฉืื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืกื•ื›ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืกื•ื›ื” ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื”

MISHNA: With regard to one who establishes his sukka beneath a tree, it is as though he established it inside the house and it is unfit. If one established a sukka atop another sukka, the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no residents in the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืื™ืœืŸ ืฉืฆืœืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชื• ืื‘ืœ ื—ืžืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฆืœืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

GEMARA: Rava said: They taught this halakha that a sukka beneath a tree is unfit only with regard to a tree whose shade is greater than its sunlight, as the source of the shade in the sukka is the tree and not the roofing. However, if its sunlight is greater than its shade, the sukka is fit, as in that case the roofing provides the shade.

ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขืฉืื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขืฉืื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืืœื ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ืœืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืžื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฆืœืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชื• ืืฃ ืื™ืœืŸ ืฆืœืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชื•

The Gemara asks: From where does Rava reach this conclusion? The Gemara answers: He learns this from the fact that the mishna teaches: It is as though he established it inside the house. Why do I need the mishna to teach: It is as though he established it inside the house? Let the mishna teach simply: It is unfit. Rather, this is teaching us that in the context of this halakha, a tree is similar to a house; just as with regard to a house, its shade is greater than its sunlight, so too, with regard to a tree, it invalidates the sukka only if its shade is greater than its sunlight.

ื•ื›ื™ ื—ืžืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฆืœืชื• ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ืกื›ืš ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืกื›ืš ื›ืฉืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ืฉื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And even if the sunlight is greater than the shade of the tree, what of it? Why does Rava deem the sukka beneath the tree fit in that case? Isnโ€™t there unfit roofing, the uncut branches of the tree, joining together with the fit roofing on the sukka, rendering even the fit roofing on the sukka unfit? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where one lowered the uncut branches and combined them with the fit roofing so that the branches still attached to the tree are inconspicuous. Given that the majority of the roofing is fit, the roofing in its entirety is fit.

ืื™ ื‘ืฉื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ืžืื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ืื˜ื• ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ื’ื–ืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where he lowered them, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isnโ€™t it self-evident? The Gemara answers that it is necessary lest you say: Let us issue a decree and deem the roofing unfit in a case where one lowered them due to a case where one did not lower them. Therefore, it teaches us that we do not issue such a decree.

ื”ื ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ื“ืœื” ืขืœื™ื” ืืช ื”ื’ืคืŸ ื•ืืช ื”ื“ืœืขืช ื•ืืช ื”ืงื™ืกื•ืก ื•ืกื™ื›ืš ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืกื™ื›ื•ืš ื”ืจื‘ื” ืžื”ืŸ ืื• ืฉืงืฆืฆืŸ ื›ืฉืจื”

The Gemara asks: That halakha, too, we already learned in a mishna: If one trellised the grapevine, the gourd, or the ivy, climbing plants, over a sukka while they are still attached to the ground, and he then added roofing atop them, the sukka is unfit, as roofing attached to the ground is unfit. If the amount of fit roofing was greater than the plants attached to the ground, or if he cut the climbing plants so that they were no longer attached to the ground, it is fit.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืฉืœื ื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฆื˜ืจืฃ ืกื›ืš ืคืกื•ืœ ืขื ืกื›ืš ื›ืฉืจ ืืœื ืœืื• ื›ืฉื—ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ืœื ื’ื–ืจื™ื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืื‘ืœ ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara clarifies the details of the mishna: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is referring to a case where he did not lower the climbing plants and combine them with the fit roofing, doesnโ€™t the unfit roofing join together with the fit roofing on the sukka, rendering even the fit roofing on the sukka unfit? Rather, isnโ€™t the mishna referring to a case where he lowered them, and conclude from this mishna that we do not issue a decree in a case where he lowered the branches due to a case where he did not lower the branches. Ravaโ€™s statement is therefore unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this applies only after the fact, i.e., that if one already lowered the uncut branches or plants it is not unfit, but one may not do so ab initio; therefore, Rava teaches us that one may place roofing in this manner even ab initio.

ืกื•ื›ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืกื•ื›ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ (ื‘ืกื•ื›ื•ืช) ืชืฉื‘ื• ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉืชื—ืช ื”ืกื•ื›ื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉืชื—ืช ื”ืื™ืœืŸ ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ื›ื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช

ยง The mishna continues: If one established a sukka atop another sukka, the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: โ€œIn sukkot shall you resideโ€ (Leviticus 23:42), and not in a sukka that is beneath another sukka, and not in sukka that is beneath a tree, and not in a sukka that is inside a house.

ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืกื•ื›ื•ืช ืชืจืชื™ ืžืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืกื›ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara questions that derivation. On the contrary, the term โ€œin sukkot,โ€ which is written in the plural, indicates two. The conclusion should be that one sitting inside a sukka beneath a sukka fulfills the mitzva. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Although the term is vocalized in the plural, basukkot is written without the vav, indicating a single sukka.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืฉื™ืจื•ืช ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ื”ืขื™ื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื”

Rabbi Yirmeya said: There are times when both of the sukkot one atop the other are fit; there are times when both of the sukkot are unfit; there are times when the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit; and there are times when the lower sukka is unfit and the upper sukka is fit.

ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืฉื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื—ืžืชื” ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฆืœืชื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืฆืœืชื” ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชื” ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืขืฉืจื™ื

The Gemara elaborates: There are times when both of the sukkot one atop the other are fit. What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in the lower sukka its sunlight is greater than its shade, rendering the sukka unfit, and in the upper sukka its shade is greater than its sunlight, rendering the sukka fit. And the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the ground. In that case, the roofing of the upper sukka is effective for both the upper sukka and the lower one.

ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืฆืœืชืŸ ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžื—ืžืชืŸ ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืขืฉืจื™ื ืืžื”

There are times when both of the sukkot are unfit. What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in both sukkot, their shade is greater than their sunlight, but the upper one is more than twenty cubits above the roofing of the lower sukka, rendering it unfit. Since the roofing of the upper sukka is unfit, and it casts shade over the lower sukka, the lower sukka is also unfit.

ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืคืกื•ืœื”

There are times when the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit.

Scroll To Top