סוכה יד

סוכה יד

יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין עוֹלִין מִטּוּמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְּשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה. מַעֲשֶׂה מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחְשָׁבָה. מַחְשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחְשָׁבָה.

descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought? Although an unfinished vessel ordinarily cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided to leave it in its unfinished state, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. However, they ascend from their state of ritual impurity only by means of a change resulting from an action. Merely deciding to complete the unfinished vessel does not alter its status. It loses its status as a vessel only when he takes action to complete it. Action negates status created by action and status created by thought; however, thought negates neither status created by action nor status created by thought. Therefore, once the straw of the grain harvested for food is considered a handle and is susceptible to ritual impurity, its status cannot be negated by thought alone.

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי כֵּלִים דַּחֲשִׁיבִי, אֲבָל יָדוֹת, דִּלְצוֹרֶךְ אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ — בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נַעֲשֶׂה וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה סָלְקָא. וְהָתְנַן: כָּל יְדוֹת הָאוֹכָלִין שֶׁבְּסָסָן בַּגּוֹרֶן — טְהוֹרוֹת (וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא).

And if you say: There is a distinction between the cases, as this principle applies only to vessels, which are significant, but with regard to handles that are not independently significant but are merely for the purpose of handling food, perhaps by means of thought they become handles and by means of thought they emerge from that status; but didn’t we learn in the mishna to the contrary? All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, as through one’s actions he indicated that has no use for them and does not consider them significant. And Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּסָסָן״ — הִתִּיר אִגּוּדָן, שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַאי ״בְּסָסָן״ — בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to the one who said that besasan means that one untied their binding, it works out well. Although no action was performed on the sheaves, nevertheless, since their only purpose is to facilitate binding the sheaves, he indicated by unbinding them that the handles no longer suit his needs. However, according to the one who said: What is the meaning of besasan? It means he actually trampled them, what can be said? According to that opinion, only an action can negate the status of the handles. What, then, is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that thought alone can negate their status?

הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁבְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ. אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דַּאֲחֵרִים? דַּאֲמוּר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא.

The Gemara answers: Here too, the dispute between the Rabbis and Aḥerim with regard to using grain for roofing the sukka is in a case where one actually trampled them, and that is the reason that they are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: If so, and a change was made to the grain itself, what is the rationale for the opinion of Aḥerim, who nevertheless prohibit their use as roofing? The Gemara answers: It is because Aḥerim state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in the previously cited mishna: Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure even after trampling.

הַאי מַאי?! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם — טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי חַזְיָא לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיוֹת לְהוֹפְכָן בְּעֶתֶר.

The Gemara asks: What is the basis of this comparison between the cases? Granted, there, in the dispute concerning the ritual impurity of the grain on the threshing floor, the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that the handles remain susceptible to ritual impurity, is that they are suitable for use. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork, as the straw prevents the grain from falling between the prongs of the pitchfork.

אֶלָּא הָכָא לְמַאי חַזְיָא? חַזְיָא לְכִי סָתַר לְמִנְקַט לְהוּ בְּגִילַיְיהוּ.

However, here, where one needs the straw only for roofing the sukka, for what are the handles suited after they have been trampled? They serve no purpose in terms of handling the grain. The Gemara answers: They are suited when one dismantles the roofing, in order to hold the grain by the straw, so that it will scatter. Therefore, Aḥerim hold that the straw remains capable of contracting ritual impurity.

גּוּפָא, כָּל יְדוֹת הָאוֹכָלִין שֶׁבְּסָסָן בַּגּוֹרֶן — טְהוֹרוֹת, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא. מַאי ״בְּסָסָן״? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ. רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) אוֹמֵר: הִתִּיר אַגְדָּן.

Apropos the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, and Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of besasan? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It means that one actually trampled them under foot. Rabbi Elazar says: It means he untied their binding.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר), דְּאָמַר ״בְּסָסָן״ — הִתִּיר אַגְדָּן, הַיְינוּ דִּמְטַמֵּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר בְּסָסָן מַמָּשׁ, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיוֹת לְהוֹפְכָן בְּעֶתֶר.

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who said that besasan means that he untied their binding, this is the reason that Rabbi Yosei deems the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that besasan means that one actually trampled them, why does Rabbi Yosei deem the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity? Didn’t one thereby render them insignificant? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled, the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork.

אָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר): לָמָּה נִמְשְׁלָה תְּפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים כְּעֶתֶר — לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה עֶתֶר זֶה מְהַפֵּךְ אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה בַּגּוֹרֶן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, אַף תְּפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים מְהַפֶּכֶת דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִמִּדַּת אַכְזָרִיּוּת לְמִדַּת רַחֲמָנוּת.

Apropos a pitchfork, the Gemara cites a related aggadic teaching: Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork [eter]? It is written: “And Isaac entreated [vayetar] the Lord for his wife, because she was barren” (Genesis 25:21), to say to you: Just as this pitchfork overturns the grain on the threshing floor from place to place, so too, the prayers of the righteous overturn the mind of the Holy One, Blessed be He, from the attribute of cruelty to the attribute of mercy, and He accepts their prayers.

מַתְנִי׳ מְסַכְּכִין בִּנְסָרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו.

MISHNA: One may roof the sukka with boards like those used in the ceiling of a house; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir prohibits their use. If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּנְסָרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אִית לֵיהּ גְּזֵרַת תִּקְרָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֵית לֵיהּ גְּזֵרַת תִּקְרָה. אֲבָל בִּנְסָרִין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחֲלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה.

GEMARA: Rav said: The dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, the standard size for boards used in house ceilings, as Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. In that case, the roofing of the sukka with boards that wide could be confused with a ceiling. If it were permitted to roof the sukka with a board that size, one might come to sleep beneath the ceiling of his own home during the Festival. And Rabbi Yehuda is not of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. However, with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. And Shmuel said: The dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width; however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit.

אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, הָא קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ?

The Gemara asks: According to Shmuel, the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, and apparently the same would hold true even if their width were less than three handbreadths. In that case, aren’t they merely reeds; why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use?

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, מַאי טַעְמָא — קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עַד אַרְבָּעָה. מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ שִׁיעוּר מָקוֹם, לָא גָּזְרִינַן. וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי לְהוּ מִתּוֹרַת לָבוּד, גָּזְרִינַן.

Rav Pappa said that this is what Shmuel is saying: If they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If their width is less than three handbreadths, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason? It is because they are merely reeds. When they disagree in the mishna, their disagreement pertains to a case where the boards are from three to four handbreadths wide. In that case, one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that since they are not the measure of a significant place, we do not issue a decree prohibiting their use. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that since they have departed from the halakhic status of being joined [lavud], which applies only to gaps of less than three handbreadths, we issue a decree prohibiting their use as roofing.

תְּנַן: נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו. בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו. אֶלָּא לְרַב דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַמַּאי לֹא יִישַׁן תַּחְתָּיו?

The Gemara cites proof with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that one should not sleep beneath the board. However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit, according to Rabbi Yehuda, why may one not sleep beneath it?

מִי סָבְרַתְּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא? סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this last halakha in the mishna, about not sleeping beneath the board, is a ruling with which everyone, including Rabbi Yehuda agrees? Rather, in the latter clause of the mishna we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. He alone, not Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one may not sleep beneath the board. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנֵי סְדִינִין מִצְטָרְפִין.

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together to constitute four handbreadths, the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit.

שְׁנֵי נְסָרִין אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף נְסָרִין כִּסְדִינִין.

However, two boards placed on the sukka do not combine. Rabbi Meir says: Even boards are like sheets, in that they join together to constitute the measure of unfitness.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבָּעָה.

The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, but if they have four handbreadths in their width everyone agrees that it is unfit; what is the meaning of that which Rabbi Meir said: Boards join together? It means that boards less than four handbreadths wide combine to measure four handbreadths, which renders the sukka unfit.

אֶלָּא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, לְמָה לְהוּ לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, אַמַּאי? וְהָא קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ?

However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, but if they do not have four handbreadths in their width everyone agrees that it is fit, what are the circumstances? If each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, why must they join together to render the sukka unfit? If each board is four handbreadths wide, each is capable of rendering the sukka unfit on its own. And if each of the boards does not have four handbreadths in its width, why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use? But aren’t they merely reeds according to Rav? Just as one may roof the sukka with reeds, one should be permitted to roof the sukka with these narrow boards.

לְעוֹלָם דְּאִית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, וּמַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד.

The Gemara answers: Actually, explain that there are four handbreadths in the width of each board and each renders the sukka unfit on its own. However, what is the meaning of: Boards join together? It is with regard to a completely different matter. They join together to constitute four cubits from the side. If one placed these unfit boards adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka, they do not render the sukka unfit, due to the halakhic principle of curved wall, which views that roofing as an extension of that wall. However, that principle applies only up to four cubits of unfit roofing. If these boards join together to measure four cubits, the sukka is unfit according to Rabbi Meir. According to this explanation, the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav as well.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד.

There is another version of the above exchange. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, but if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit, what is the meaning of that which Rabbi Meir said: Boards join together? It means that they join together to constitute four cubits from the side, which renders the sukka unfit.

אֶלָּא לְרַב: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַצַּד. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה כְּשֵׁרָה, מַאי ״אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין״? קָנִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר ״מִצְטָרְפִין״, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין״.

However, according to Rav, granted, according to Rabbi Meir, what is the meaning of: Boards join together? It means that they join together to constitute four cubits from the side. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that even if they have four handbreadths in their width, the sukka is fit, what is the meaning of: Boards do not join together? They are merely reeds, which is fit roofing and fit roofing that joins together remains fit roofing. The Gemara answers: Since Rabbi Meir used the phrase: Join together, Rabbi Yehuda, although it is irrelevant according to his opinion, also said: Do not join together.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: סִכְּכָהּ בִּנְסָרִים שֶׁל אֶרֶז שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה. יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one roofed the sukka with cedar boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit. If there are four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה שֶׁהֵבֵיאנוּ נְסָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה וְסִיכַּכְנוּ עַל גַּבֵּי מִרְפֶּסֶת, וְיָשַׁבְנוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה?! אֵין שְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה רְאָיָה.

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger, when the gentiles decreed that it is prohibited for Jews to construct a sukka, at which point we brought boards that had four handbreadths in their width, and we roofed the porch with them so that it would not appear to be a sukka, and we sat beneath them. Evidently, boards four handbreadths wide are fit roofing for a sukka. They said to him: Is there proof to be cited from there? There is no proof from actions performed during a time of danger. It is possible that the sukka that they built on the porch was unfit, and they built it merely to commemorate the mitzva that they were unable to fulfill. From this baraita, it is apparent that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is in a case of boards that are four handbreadths wide, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: סִכְּכָהּ בִּנְסָרִים שֶׁל אֶרֶז שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה. אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ בֵּין נֶסֶר לְנֶסֶר כִּמְלֹא נֶסֶר — שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ פְּסָל בֵּינֵיהֶם, וּכְשֵׁרָה. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאֵין יְשֵׁנִים תַּחְתָּיו, וְהַיָּשֵׁן תַּחְתָּיו — לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If one roofed the sukka with cedar boards that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If there are not four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. And Rabbi Meir concedes that, if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, and the sukka is fit. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if one roofed the sukka with a board that is four handbreadths wide adjacent to one of the walls, the sukka is fit based on the principle of curved wall; and, nevertheless, one may not sleep beneath that board, and one who sleeps beneath it does not fulfill his obligation. In any event, there are two baraitot, each in accordance with one of the two views presented.

אִתְּמַר: הֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶן, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, וְרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי: כְּשֵׁרָה.

§ It is stated that there is an amoraic dispute: If one turned the unfit boards on their sides, and the width of the side is less than the measure that renders them unfit, do the boards remain unfit, or are they fit because in their current placement their width is narrower? Rav Huna said: The sukka is unfit, and Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is fit.

אִיקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: פְּסוּלָה, נַעֲשׂוּ כְּשַׁפּוּדִין שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.

The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna entered before him. They said to him: If one turned these boards on their sides and roofed the sukka, what is the halakha? They sought to ascertain whether his ruling is in accordance with their opinion or in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. He said to them: The sukka is unfit; since the boards are unfit roofing when placed flat, their legal status became like that of skewers [shapudin] of metal, which are unfit under all circumstances.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא: לָא אֲמַרִי לְכוּ אֱמַרוּ כְּווֹתִי? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וּמִי אָמַר לַן מָר טַעְמָא וְלָא קַבֵּלְינַן מִינֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: וּמִי בְּעֵיתוּ מִינַּאי טַעְמָא וְלָא אֲמַרִי לְכוּ?

When they related this encounter to Rav Huna, Rav Huna said to them: Didn’t I tell you that you should say the halakha in accordance with my opinion? Even Rav Naḥman agrees with me. They said to him: And did the Master actually say a reason for this ruling to us, and we did not accept it from him? Rav Naḥman not only issued a ruling, he also explained his ruling to us. He said to them: And did you ask me for the reason and I did not say it to you?

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: אֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת כְּדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה בָּהּ פִּרְצָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְדַּקֵּר בָּהּ גְּדִי בְּבַת רֹאשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — פְּסוּלָה.

The Gemara notes: Let us say that this baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna: With regard to a sukka that does not hold one’s head, most of his body, and his table; a sukka whose wall was breached with a breach large enough for a goat to jump through headlong, i.e., three handbreadths; a sukka that one placed atop it a board that is four handbreadths wide, even if he only introduced three handbreadths of the board into the sukka, in all these cases, the sukka is unfit.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי, (מַאי) לָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֲפָכָן עַל צִידֵּיהֶם? לָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּאַנְּחַהּ אַפּוּמָּא דִמְטַלַּלְתָּא, דְּעָיֵיל תְּלָתָא לְגָיו וְאַפֵּיק חַד לְבַר, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ פְּסָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַסּוּכָּה, וְכׇל פְּסָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַסּוּכָּה — נִידּוֹן כַּסּוּכָּה.

What are the circumstances of the case where one introduces only three handbreadths of a board that is four handbreadths wide? What, is it not that he turned the board on its side, thereby diminishing its width from four to three handbreadths, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? The Gemara rejects this: No, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where one placed the board over the entrance of the sukka, where there is no wall. He introduced three handbreadths into the sukka and took one handbreadth out of the sukka, so that the legal status of that part of the board would be like that of roofing that protrudes from the sukka, and the halakha is that the legal status of any roofing that protrudes from the sukka is considered like that of the sukka. However, since this board is not adjacent to the wall of a sukka, the principle of curved wall does not apply. Therefore, it is four handbreadths of unfit roofing; it is prohibited to sleep beneath that board, and the entire sukka is rendered unfit. Consequently, there is no support for or against the opinion of Rav Huna from this baraita.