סוכה יז

סוכה יז

מַתְנִי׳ הִרְחִיק אֶת הַסִּיכּוּךְ מִן הַדְּפָנוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — פְּסוּלָה.

MISHNA: If one distanced the roofing from the walls of the sukka at a distance of three handbreadths the sukka is unfit, because three handbreadths of open space, even adjacent to the walls, render the sukka unfit.

בַּיִת שֶׁנִּפְחַת וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבָּיו — אִם יֵשׁ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל לַסִּיכּוּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, פְּסוּלָה.

In the case of a house that was breached, creating a hole in the middle of the roof, and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there are four or more cubits of the remaining original roof, it is an unfit sukka. If the roofing is less than four cubits from the wall, the sukka is fit, based on the principle of curved wall; the remaining intact ceiling is considered an extension of the vertical wall.

וְכֵן חָצֵר שֶׁהִיא מוּקֶּפֶת אַכְסַדְרָה, סוּכָּה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהִקִּיפוּהָ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מְסַכְּכִין בּוֹ — אִם יֵשׁ תַּחְתָּיו אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, פְּסוּלָה.

And likewise, in the case of a courtyard that is surrounded on three sides by a portico, which has a roof but no walls, if one placed roofing over the courtyard between the different sides of the portico and the roof of the portico is four cubits wide, the sukka is unfit. Similarly, a large sukka that was surrounded at the edge of its roofing with material with which one may not roof a sukka, e.g., vessels susceptible to ritual impurity, if there are four cubits beneath the unfit roofing, the sukka is unfit. The principle of curved wall does not apply to unfit roofing that measures four cubits or more.

גְּמָ׳ כׇּל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא: דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בַּיִת שֶׁנִּפְחַת — מִשּׁוּם דְּהָנֵי מְחִיצוֹת לְבַיִת עֲבִידָן. אֲבָל חָצֵר הַמּוּקֶּפֶת אַכְסַדְרָה, דִּמְחִיצוֹת לָאו לְאַכְסַדְרָה עֲבִידִי — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these cases based on the identical principle of curved wall? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to cite all the cases, as, if the mishna had taught us only the case of the house that was breached, I would have said that the principle of curved wall applies there because those walls were established for the house. Therefore, when the house is transformed into a sukka, the walls continue to serve their original function as walls of the sukka. However, with regard to a courtyard surrounded on each of the three sides by a portico, where its walls were established not for the portico but for the house that opens into the portico, and they happen to serve as the interior walls of the portico, I could say no, they are not considered as connected to the roofing at all. Consequently, it is necessary for the mishna to cite that case as well.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, מִשּׁוּם דִּסְכָכָן סְכָךְ כָּשֵׁר הוּא, אֲבָל סוּכָּה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהִקִּיפוּהָ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מְסַכְּכִין בּוֹ, דִּסְכָכָהּ סְכָךְ פָּסוּל הוּא — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

And if the mishna taught us only these two cases, one would have said that the principle of curved wall can apply because all of their roofing is fit roofing, and the preexisting roof of the house and the portico is unfit only due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. However, here, in the case of a large sukka that was surrounded at the edge of its roofing with material with which one may not roof a sukka, where some of its roofing is unfit and the fit roofing does not actually reach the wall, one could say no, the roofing is unfit. Therefore, it is necessary to state that case as well.

אָמַר רַבָּה: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: אֲוִיר פּוֹסֵל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, סְכָךְ פָּסוּל פּוֹסֵל בְּאַרְבָּעָה.

§ Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav, who were sitting and saying in the name of Rav: Space without roofing renders the sukka unfit with a measure of three handbreadths of space. However, unfit roofing renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four handbreadths.

וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: אֲוִיר דְּפוֹסֵל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְנָא לְכוּ — דִּתְנַן: הִרְחִיק אֶת הַסִּיכּוּךְ מִן הַדְּפָנוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — פְּסוּלָה. סְכָךְ פָּסוּל נָמֵי לָא לִיפְסֹיל אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, דִּתְנַן: בַּיִת שֶׁנִּפְחַת וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבָּיו, אִם יֵשׁ בֵּין הַסִּיכּוּךְ לַכּוֹתֶל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — פְּסוּלָה!

And I said to them: From where do you derive that space renders the sukka unfit when it amounts to three handbreadths? It is as we learned in the mishna: If one distanced the roofing from the walls of the sukka at a distance of three handbreadths, the sukka is unfit. If, indeed, this mishna is the source of the halakha, also in the case of unfit roofing, let it render the sukka unfit only if the roofing measures four cubits, as we learned in the same mishna: With regard to a house that was breached and one roofed over the breach, if from the wall to the roofing there is four or more cubits of the remaining original roof, the sukka is unfit.

וַאֲמַרוּ לִי: בַּר מִינַּהּ דְּהַהִיא, דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מִשּׁוּם דּוֹפֶן עֲקוּמָּה נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.

And they said to me: Cite proof from the mishna, apart from this case, as both Rav and Shmuel said that in this case, the Sages in the mishna touched upon the principle of curved wall. In other words, the fact that this house is a fit sukka is unrelated to the minimum measure of unfit roofing. It is fit due to the principle of curved wall.

וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: מָה אִילּוּ אִיכָּא סְכָךְ פָּסוּל פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה וַאֲוִיר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה מַאי? כְּשֵׁרָה. מַלְּיֵיהּ בְּשַׁפּוּדִין מַאי — פְּסוּלָה, וְלֹא יְהֵא אֲוִיר הַפּוֹסֵל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כִּסְכָךְ פָּסוּל הַפּוֹסֵל בְּאַרְבָּעָה!

And I said to them: What if there is a sukka with less than four handbreadths of unfit roofing and an adjacent space of less than three handbreadths; what would be the status of the sukka? The sukka would be fit, since it lacks the minimum measure of both space and unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit. If one then filled the space with skewers, what would be the status of the sukka? It would be unfit, as there would be more than four handbreadths of unfit roofing. But shouldn’t space, which is more stringent, as it renders the sukka unfit with only three handbreadths, be as stringent as unfit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit only with four handbreadths of unfit roofing?

וַאֲמַרוּ לִי: אִי הָכִי, לְדִידָךְ נָמֵי דְּאָמְרַתְּ סְכָךְ פָּסוּל פּוֹסֵל בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, מָה אִילּוּ אִיכָּא סְכָךְ פָּסוּל פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וַאֲוִיר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, מַאי? כְּשֵׁרָה. מַלְּיֵיהּ בְּשַׁפּוּדִין מַאי — פְּסוּלָה. לֹא יְהֵא אֲוִיר הַפּוֹסֵל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כִּסְכָךְ פָּסוּל הַפּוֹסֵל בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת!

And they said to me: If so, according to you, who said that unfit roofing renders a sukka unfit only with four cubits of unfit roofing, the same question arises. Just as, if there were a sukka with less than four cubits of unfit roofing and an adjacent space measuring less than three handbreadths, what would be its status? It would be fit. If one then filled the space with skewers, what would be its status? It would be unfit. Here too, the question arises: Shouldn’t space, which is more stringent, as it renders the sukka unfit with only three handbreadths of space, be as stringent as unfit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit with only four cubits of unfit roofing?

וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי דְּאָמֵינָא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת —

And I said to them: What is this comparison? Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit is four cubits,

מִשּׁוּם שִׁיעוּרָא וְלָאו שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא. הַאי לָאו שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא שָׁווּ שִׁיעוּרַיְיהוּ לַהֲדָדֵי — לָא מִצְטָרְפִי.

the status of the sukka is determined on the basis of whether it is the requisite measure or it is not the requisite measure. In other words, the difference between unfit roofing that is four cubits and unfit roofing that is less is a unique halakha, completely unrelated to the principle of curved wall. Similarly, it is a unique halakha that three handbreadths of space in a roof render a sukka unfit. In this case, there is not the requisite measure according to either halakha; and since their measures are not equal to each other, they do not combine to render the sukka unfit. The sukka is rendered unfit only when the measure of unfit roofing reaches four cubits.

אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ דְּאָמְרִיתוּ שִׁיעוּר מִשּׁוּם הַפְלָגָה — מָה לִי אִיתַּפְלַג בִּסְכָךְ פָּסוּל, מָה לִי אִתַּפְלַג בִּסְכָךְ פָּסוּל וַאֲוִיר.

However, according to you, who say that the measure of four handbreadths for unfit roofing is due to the distance between the wall and the fit roofing, which renders the sukka unfit, what is the difference to me if it was distanced due to unfit roofing, and what is the difference to me if it was distanced due to a combination of unfit roofing and space? In either case, the distance between the roofing and the wall should prevent connecting the roofing to the wall. This concludes Rabba’s account of his exchange with the Sages of the school of Rav.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּלְמָר נָמֵי, נְהִי דְּלָא שָׁווּ שִׁיעוּרַיְיהוּ בְּסוּכָּה גְּדוֹלָה, בְּסוּכָּה קְטַנָּה מִי לָא שָׁווּ שִׁיעוּרַיְיהוּ?

Abaye said to Rabba: And according to the Master, too, although their measures are not equal in a large sukka, which is larger than four cubits, in a small sukka aren’t their measures equal? In a minimally sized sukka, seven by seven handbreadths, three handbreadths of unfit roofing must render the sukka unfit. If the measure of fitness were to remain up to four handbreadths, that would mean that a sukka with a majority of unfit roofing is fit, which is unreasonable. Therefore, Rabba’s contention that the measures of unfit roofing and space are totally different is not precise.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּשָׁווּ שִׁיעוּרַיְיהוּ לַהֲדָדֵי הוּא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לְשִׁיעוּרָא דְסוּכָּה הוּא.

Rabba said to him: There, in the case of the minimally-sized sukka, the fact that the sukka is unfit is not due to the fact that their measures are equal. Rather, it is due to the fact that in a case where the unfit roofing is three handbreadths, the sukka lacks the minimum required measure of fit roofing. In other words, it is not the amount of unfit roofing that creates the problem; rather, it is that the fit area of the sukka is too small.

וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּלָא שָׁווּ שִׁיעוּרַיְיהוּ לַהֲדָדֵי לָא מִצְטָרְפִי? וְהָתְנַן: הַבֶּגֶד שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה, הַשַּׂק אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה, הָעוֹר חֲמִשָּׁה עַל חֲמִשָּׁה, מַפָּץ שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה.

Rabba maintains that since the two requisite measures of unfitness are not equal, they do not join together. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that their measures are not equal, do they not combine to constitute the requisite measure? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: The garment must be at least three by three handbreadths in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity by means of ritual impurity imparted by treading of a zav; and the sackcloth made from goats’ hair must be at least four by four handbreadths; and the animal hide must be five by five; and a mat must be six by six?

וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק, הַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר, הָעוֹר וְהַמַּפָּץ — מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.

And a baraita is taught concerning the mishna: The garment and the sackcloth, the sackcloth and the hide, and the hide and the mat join together with one another. If one attaches a piece of material that has a smaller, more stringent measure for ritual impurity to a piece of material that has a larger, more lenient measure, the combined cloth is susceptible to contract ritual impurity if together they compose the larger measure. Apparently, two items whose measures are not equal combine to compose the more lenient measure.

הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה טַעַם — הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְטַמֵּא מוֹשָׁב. כְּדִתְנַן: הַמְקַצֵּעַ מִכּוּלָּן טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח — טָמֵא.

The Gemara rejects this. There, it is as the reason is taught that Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that these different fabrics combine? They combine since all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits, as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since they are all suitable for the same use, they join together with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. As we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who trims and processes a piece of any of the above-mentioned materials measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth, that piece is capable of becoming ritually impure. There is a certain halakha for which each of the different materials has the same measure; they therefore join together in other areas as well.

טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח לְמַאי חֲזֵי? וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי (לִיטְּלוֹ) עַל גַּבֵּי הַחֲמוֹר.

The Gemara asks: For what use is a cloth that is one handbreadth by one handbreadth fit? After all, a rag that has no use does not contract ritual impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Since it is suitable for use as a patch on a donkey’s saddlecloth, it is capable of contracting ritual impurity. This ends the discussion of the exchange between Rabba and the Sages of the school of Rav.

בְּסוּרָא אָמְרִי לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא. בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא מַתְנוּ: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סְכָךְ פָּסוּל בָּאֶמְצַע — פּוֹסֵל בְּאַרְבָּעָה. מִן הַצַּד — פּוֹסֵל בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְרַב אָמַר: בֵּין מִן הַצַּד בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע — בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

The Gemara notes: In Sura, they stated this halakha in that language cited above. In Neharde’a, however, they taught it as follows: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Unfit roofing in the center of the sukka renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing. Along the side of the sukka, it renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing. And Rav said: Both along the side and in the center, it renders the sukka unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing.

תְּנַן: נָתַן עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים — כְּשֵׁרָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין מִן הַצַּד בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי כְּשֵׁרָה. אֶלָּא שְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בָּאֶמְצַע בְּאַרְבָּעָה — אַמַּאי כְּשֵׁרָה? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — מִן הַצַּד.

We learned in a mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. And the Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav, who said that both along the side and in the center, a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that the sukka is fit. However, according to Shmuel, who said that in the center of the sukka, the sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing, why is the sukka fit? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he placed the beam along the side; but had he placed it in the center, then according to Shmuel the sukka would indeed be unfit.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנֵי סְדִינִין — מִצְטָרְפִין. שְׁנֵי נְסָרִים — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נְסָרִים כִּסְדִינִין.

The Gemara cites a proof with regard to Rav’s opinion. Come and hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together to render the sukka unfit. However, two boards placed on the sukka do not combine to render the sukka unfit. Rabbi Meir says: Even boards have the same legal status as sheets, and they combine to render the sukka unfit.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר רַב בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין מִן הַצַּד בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, מַאי ״מִצְטָרְפִין״ — מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אֶלָּא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר רַב בָּאֶמְצַע בְּאַרְבָּעָה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, לְמָה לְהוּ אִצְטְרוֹפֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה, קַנְיָא בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ?

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to that version from Neharde’a that Rav said: Both along the side and in the center, a sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four cubits of unfit roofing, what is the meaning of join together? It means that the two unfit objects join together to comprise four cubits. However, according to this version from Sura, in which Rav said: A sukka is rendered unfit with a measure of four handbreadths of unfit roofing in the center, 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; they are merely reeds?

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

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a case where each of the boards has four handbreadths in its width, and what is the meaning of join together? It means they join together to constitute four cubits along the side. This understanding fits both versions of Rav’s opinion.

תָּא שְׁמַע: סִכְּכָהּ בִּנְסָרִין שֶׁל אֶרֶז שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה. אֵין בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.

Come and hear proof from another baraita: If one roofed the entire sukka with cedar beams that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If they do not have four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems the sukka unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.