Sukkah 10a — the Talmud in English

What are the circumstances? For example, where the lower one

is covered in accordance with its requirements, and

its shade is greater than its sunlight, while the upper one

is not covered with much roofing, and

its sunlight is greater than its shade.

And

therefore, the lower one is valid, since there is here no deficiency of a sukka beneath a sukka, because the upper one is not a sukka, since its sunlight is greater than its shade. And the upper one is invalid, by reason of a sukka whose sunlight is greater than its shade, since it is not covered in accordance with its requirements.

And both of them stand

within twenty

cubits of the ground.

For if the roof of the upper sukka is higher than twenty cubits from the floor of the lower sukka, the lower sukka is also invalid, because then the roofing of the upper sukka is considered invalid with regard to the lower sukka, since it is higher than twenty cubits; and the invalid roofing combines with the valid roofing and diminishes the valid roofing opposite it. And the remaining roofing, which is not opposite the upper roofing, is insufficient to shade most of the sukka. But when the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the ground, it is considered valid roofing and does not invalidate the sukka beneath it, even though it combines with it and shades it.

And it is explained in the words of Rabbi Yirmeya that invalid roofing which provides shade over valid roofing not only does not combine with it to validate it if they were not intermingled with one another, but it also invalidates the valid roofing opposite it.

And sometimes the upper one is valid and the lower one is invalid. What are the circumstances?

For example, where the shade of both is greater than their sunlight,

and then the lower sukka is invalid because of a sukka beneath a sukka, while the upper one is valid.

And the upper one stands within twenty

cubits of the roof of the lower one, which is the floor of the upper sukka. For otherwise, it is invalid by reason of a sukka that is higher than twenty cubits.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

It is obvious

that if one of the sukkot has more sunlight than shade, there is no deficiency of a sukka beneath a sukka, since every sukka whose sunlight is greater than its shade is not a sukka. What did Rabbi Yirmeya renew with his statement?!

And the Gemara answers:

The lower one is valid, and the upper one is invalid,

and it is within twenty cubits of the ground of the lower sukka,

was necessary for him to state.

This case is the novel point in Rabbi Yirmeya’s words.

For

lest you say, we should decree

and invalidate the lower one:

perhaps invalid roofing will combine with valid roofing,

perhaps the upper sukka will be higher than twenty cubits, and the upper roofing will be invalid, ,

because the invalid roofing invalidates the valid roofing opposite it, and the valid combines with the invalid to produce the measure of shade greater than sunlight. And he will not pay attention to this, because he thinks that since the upper roofing has more sunlight than shade, it is not significant enough to nullify the valid roofing beneath it, as though it did not exist at all.

It teaches us

that they did not decree lest one err and validate the lower one even when the upper one is higher than twenty cubits.

The Gemara now discusses:

How much must there be

of a distance

between sukka and sukka,

between the upper roofing and the lower roofing,

for the lower one to be invalid

because of a sukka beneath a sukka, and for the two roofings not to be considered as one roofing?

Rav Huna said:

If the distance between them is

a handbreadth,

they are not considered as one roofing. But if there is not an airspace of a handbreadth between them, everything is considered as one roofing, and the air is not considered a place unto itself. And from where did we learn this?

For we find this in tents of impurity,

that the smallest height considered a tent is

a handbreadth.

For we learned [Ohalot 3:7]: A wooden board whose length is

a handbreadth,

by

a width of

a handbreadth,

and which stands

at a height

of

a handbreadth

above the ground, it

brings impurity.

That is, if at that time it forms a covering over an olive-bulk of a corpse and over vessels, it brings impurity upon the vessels, even though they do not touch the corpse, by the law of impurity of a tent.

And

likewise it

interposes before impurity.

If there is a vessel upon the board, and the board interposes between the vessel and the impurity, the vessel is pure, and the impurity does not break through and rise through the board.

But

if the board was raised above the ground

less than the height

of

a handbreadth,

then it

does not bring

impurity upon the vessels located beneath it, even though at that time it forms a covering over the corpse and over them.

And

likewise it

does not interpose

before impurity, and the vessel upon the board is impure, since the impurity beneath it breaks through and rises to the sky.

This law is a halakha given to Moshe at Sinai: that “compressed impurity,” meaning impurity above which there is no airspace of a handbreadth in height up to the roof of the tent, breaks through and rises, and that board is not considered a tent that interposes before impurity.

It follows that the measure of a tent is a handbreadth. Likewise here, although for the validation of a sukka no roofing less than a height of ten is considered roofing, nevertheless, if there is an airspace of a handbreadth in height between the two roofings, they will be considered a sukka beneath a sukka.

And Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say:

Only if there is a distance of

four

handbreadths between the two roofings is the lower sukka invalid because of a sukka beneath a sukka, since

we do not find a significant place

to be a domain unto itself, for example, with regard to domains of

less than four

handbreadths, and the like.

And Shmuel said: Only if there are

Only if there are

ten

handbreadths between the two roofings are they considered a sukka beneath a sukka.

And the Gemara explains:

What is Shmuel’s reason?

Just as

the measure of

its validation

of the sukka,

so

is the measure of

its invalidation

of a sukka beneath a sukka.

What,

just as

its validation

of the sukka is

at

a height of

ten

handbreadths, [as explained in the Mishna above, 2:1],

so its invalidation

is

at

a height of

ten

handbreadths. And Shmuel’s reason is that the invalidation is not because he sits beneath two roofings, but because he sits beneath two sukkot. And any sukka that does not have a height of ten handbreadths is not a sukka. Therefore, if the upper one does not have a height of ten handbreadths, one who sits in the lower one fulfills his obligation, even though he sits beneath two roofings, since he does not sit beneath two sukkot.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty to Shmuel:

We learned: Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no dwellings in the upper one, the lower one is valid.

[For the upper sukka is not considered a sukka, since it is unfit for dwellings.]

And the Gemara discusses:

What

does “there are no dwellings”

in the upper one mean, on account of which Rabbi Yehuda validates the lower sukka?

If you say, actual dwellings,

that no people dwell inside it at this time, but the sukka itself is fit for habitation,

this certainly cannot be the explanation!

For

is it so

that

dwellings cause

the invalidation? Surely even if no one dwells in it, it should be invalidated because of a sukka beneath a sukka.

Rather, what does “there are no dwellings”

which Rabbi Yehuda says mean?

Anything that is unfit for habitation. And what are the circumstances

in which it is unfit for habitation?

That the roof

of the upper sukka is not

ten

handbreadths from the roof of the lower sukka, which is its floor, and therefore the upper sukka is not considered a sukka. And for this reason Rabbi Yehuda validated the lower sukka.

And the Gemara infers:

It follows that the first tanna,

who invalidates the lower sukka even when there are no dwellings in the upper one,

holds that even though

the upper sukka

is unfit for habitation,

the lower one is

invalid.

And if so, Shmuel has a difficulty from the words of the first tanna, namely, the Sages, whose ruling is the halakha.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: They said in the West,

in the Land of Israel: Rabbi Yehuda did not intend to validate the lower sukka when the upper one is not ten handbreadths high, since in this case even according to the first tanna the lower sukka is valid, as Shmuel said.

Rather, the meaning of “unfit for habitation” which Rabbi Yehuda said is:

if there is no

roof of the

lower one

strong enough, so that it

can receive the pillows and cushions of the upper one,

and also support the person sleeping upon them,

the lower one is valid,

since it is impossible to dwell in the upper one, and consequently it is not considered a sukka. And since according to Shmuel “just as its validation, so its invalidation,” the upper sukka does not invalidate the lower one unless it is considered a sukka, this one, which is unfit for habitation, does not invalidate the lower one.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

It follows that the first tanna,

who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda,

holds that even though it is unfit

the lower sukka

to receive

the pillows and cushions of the upper one, the lower one is

invalid!?

But the upper one is not considered a sukka, so why does it invalidate the lower one?!

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, if the lower sukka cannot receive the pillows and cushions of the upper one, even according to the first tanna the lower one is valid. Rather,

the difference between them is where it can

the lower sukka

receive

the pillows and cushions of the upper one

with difficulty.

And they disagree whether in such a case the upper one is called a sukka.

Mishna:

The Mishna presents additional circumstances in which the sukka is invalid, because it has invalid roofing:

If one spread over it

over the roofing of the sukka

a sheet

in order to protect it

from the sun,

or

if he spread a sheet

beneath it,

beneath the roofing, in order to protect those sitting inside it

from falling leaves,

so that leaves and twigs would not fall upon his table, the sukka is invalid, since the sheet is susceptible to impurity and is invalid for roofing.

Or

even if he did not spread the sheet to protect it from the sun or from falling leaves, but solely for decoration, for example,

he spread

the sheet

over the canopy,

the canopy is made of four posts attached to the four legs of the bed and higher than it, and one places a pole upon them and spreads a sheet over it, which descends on a slope to both sides of the bed, and since it is distant from the roofing,

it is invalid.

However, the reason for the invalidation when he spread a sheet over a canopy is not that the sukka itself is invalid, as in the case of spreading a sheet over it against the sun, where the invalid roofing invalidates the valid roofing; rather, it is because the canopy is considered a tent, and one who sits beneath it is not sitting in the sukka, but inside the empty space of the tent located within the sukka.

But he may spread

the sheet

over the bed-posts.

The “bed-posts” are two posts that emerge from the middle of the bed, one toward the head of the bed and the other toward its foot; one places a pole upon them and spreads a sheet over it, and it descends on a slope to both sides of the bed. And since it does not have a roof one handbreadth wide, it is not considered a tent, and it does not interrupt between the person sleeping in the bed and the shade of the roofing.

Gemara:

Rav Hisda said: They did not teach

in the Mishna that if one spread a sheet beneath it, it is unfit,

but

only when he spread this sheet beneath it

because of falling leaves,

for then the roofing was made to protect those sitting inside it, and its law is like that of roofing made to protect them from the sun. Therefore, since the sheet is unfit for roofing, because it can contract ritual impurity, the sukka is unfit.

But

if he spread the sheet in order

to beautify it,

and not in order to protect the one sitting inside it, the sheet is not considered the roofing of the sukka, and

it is fit.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious!

What did Rav Hisda make known with his statement? For this halakha is explicit in the Mishna, since

“because of falling leaves,” we learned.

And it follows that if he spread the sheet for another purpose, the sukka is fit.

And the Gemara answers: From the language of the Mishna I would not have learned this halakha. For

one might say: it is likewise the law that even

if he spread the sheet over the sukka in order

to beautify it

it is also unfit,

and the fact that it teaches “because of falling leaves,”

is not precise, but

it teaches the usual circumstance.

For this is the way of people: they spread a sheet over their sukka because of falling leaves, and not in order to beautify it.

He makes this known

Rav Hisda: If he spread a sheet in order to beautify it, the sukka is fit.

And the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say that it supports him

Rav Hisda from a beraita:

For it was taught:

If he roofed

the sukka

according to its law,

so that its shade was greater than its sun,

and adorned it with colored cloths,

with colored garments in which the designs were woven,

and with decorated sheets

on which the designs were embroidered,

and hung in it walnuts, almonds, peaches, and pomegranates, clusters of

grapes,

and crowns of ears of grain, wines, oils, and fine flours

that he placed in glass vessels,

it is forbidden to make use of them

and to use them,