Sukkah 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara adds:

and a

low

one as well,

if one is naked and sticks his head out from it, he may not recite the Shema,

even though it is not ten

handbreadths

high

—

since it is fixed

in its place,

it is a tent. For it is no less than a canopy,

which is considered a tent even though it is not ten handbreadths high.

Earlier, the Gemara said in the name of Shemuel that a canopy is not fixed like a canopy supported by four posts, and therefore one may sleep beneath it if it is not ten handbreadths high. Now the Gemara presents another formulation of Shemuel’s statement, according to which Shemuel issued his ruling specifically with regard to a bridal canopy, which has no roof one handbreadth wide above it, but is constructed like a canopy supported by two poles.

Another formulation: Some say that Rav Yehuda said that Shemuel said: One may sleep beneath a bridal canopy in a sukka, since it has no roof

[as it has two poles]

even though it is ten handbreadths high.

But regarding any other canopy, which has a roof one handbreadth wide, it is prohibited to sleep beneath it in a sukka, even though it is not fixed like a canopy supported by four posts.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It was taught in a baraita:

we learned:

One who sleeps beneath a canopy in a sukka has not fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara assumed that this includes even a bridal canopy.

The Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a

canopy

that has a roof,

and not with a bridal canopy constructed like one supported by two poles.

And the Gemara raises another objection:

Come and hear

from that which we learned in a baraita:

The two-pole canopies

are

two,

two posts, one emerging from the head of the bed and the other from its foot,

and the four-pole canopies

are

four

posts, placed at the four legs of the bed.

If one spread

a sheet

over a four-pole canopy, it is unfit.

That is, one who sits beneath it has not fulfilled his obligation. But if one spread a sheet

over a two-pole canopy, it is fit, provided that the two poles are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed.

This implies:

indeed,

if the two poles were

ten handbreadths higher than the bed,

handbreadths

it is unfit,

that is, one has not fulfilled his obligation,

even though it has no roof.

This is difficult for Shemuel, who permits sitting beneath a bridal canopy even if it is ten handbreadths high.

The Gemara answers:

The two-pole canopies are different, as they are fixed

to the bed more than a bridal canopy is. Therefore, if they are ten handbreadths high, they are considered a tent even though they have no roof. But a bridal canopy, which is not fixed and has no roof one handbreadth wide, may be used beneath in a sukka and is not considered a tent.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If the two poles are fixed

to the bed,

let them be like a four-pole canopy,

which is considered a tent even when it is not ten handbreadths high. The Gemara answers:

With regard to a four-pole canopy,

the two poles

are not

considered

fixed,

and therefore, if they are not ten handbreadths high, they are not considered a tent that intervenes between those sitting beneath them and the space of the sukka. But

with regard to a bridal canopy,

the two poles are considered

fixed,

and therefore, if they are ten handbreadths high, their status is that of a tent.

Rabba bar Rav Huna taught: One may sleep beneath a canopy even though it has a roof

one handbreadth

wide, even though it is ten

handbreadths high.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

In accordance with whom

did Rabba bar Rav Huna state his ruling? Does he mean

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who said

below in the Mishna that a temporary tent does not intervene between one sitting in a sukka and the space of the sukka, because

a temporary tent cannot come and negate a permanent tent? [According to his view, a sukka is a permanent tent, since a permanent dwelling is required for a sukka, as explained above, on page 6b.]

According to his view, a sukka is a permanent tent, because a permanent dwelling is required for a sukka, as explained above, on page 6b.]

As we learned in the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda said: We would customarily sleep beneath the bed

in the sukka

in the presence of the elders,

even though the bed was ten handbreadths high. The reason for the permission is that the bed is considered a temporary tent, since it is customary to move it from place to place; and a bed, which is a temporary tent, cannot come and negate the sukka, which is a permanent dwelling.

If so,

let him say: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda;

why did he state this halakha in his own name?!

The Gemara answers:

If Rabba bar Rav Huna had said

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said

—I would have said:

This applies only to a bed;

it is permitted to sleep beneath it, and it is not considered a tent, because

it is made for its upper surface,

to lie upon it, and it is not made for using the space beneath it as a tent. Therefore, it is permitted to sleep beneath it. Rabbi Yehuda’s reason would not be that a temporary tent cannot negate a permanent tent.

But a canopy, which is made for its interior,

to provide shelter over the one sleeping beneath it,

you might say that it is not so,

and it is prohibited to sleep beneath it, even though it is a temporary tent. Therefore,

he teaches us

Rabba bar Rav Huna

that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason

is

that a temporary tent cannot come and negate a

permanent tent.

Therefore,

it makes no difference whether it is a bed or whether it is a canopy;

it is permitted to sleep beneath it, because a temporary tent cannot come and negate a permanent tent.

Mishna:

The Mishna presents another form of roofing with invalid sekhakh that invalidates the sukka:

If one raised

and spread

over it,

over the roof of the sukka,

a grapevine,

by arranging cords by means of which the vine could climb and cover the roof of the sukka,

or

if one raised over it

a gourd or ivy,

which are climbing plants,

and roofed

with them

over its top,

the sukka

is unfit.

Since one may not roof with something attached to the ground. The Sages derived this halakha from the verse: “You shall make the Festival of Sukkot for yourself, when you gather from your threshing floor and your winepress”—the verse is speaking of the refuse of the threshing floor and winepress, which has been detached, and not of something attached to the ground.

But if there was

there

fit roofing

that was

greater than it,

greater than the invalid roofing, the invalid roofing is nullified by the fit roofing that exceeds it, and the sukka is fit.

Or if one cut them,

the grapevine, gourd, and ivy, thereby making them detached and fit for roofing, the sukka is

fit.

This is the general rule

regarding invalid roofing:

Any

item

that is susceptible to ritual impurity, or

any item

that does not grow from the ground,

one may not roof with it. And any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and grows from the ground, one may roof with it.

[he sat] before Rav Huna, and sat and said, [before] “Or if he cut them, it is valid.” He recited before him what is stated in our Mishna. And Rav Yosef added: And Rav said, although it is not necessary to dismantle all the roofing, nevertheless

Gemara:

Rav Yosef sat

[that is, he sat]

before Rav Huna,

[before him,]

and sat and recited,

teaching him what is stated in our Mishna:

“Or if he cut them, it is fit.”

And Rav Yosef added:

And Rav said

that although it is not necessary to dismantle all the roofing, nevertheless one

must shake

the roofing that he placed over the sukka while it was attached to the ground, slightly. But if he does not shake the roofing slightly, the sukka will not become fit through cutting alone.

For it is stated: “You shall make the Festival of Sukkot for yourself,” and from here the Sages learned that the sukka must be made through an act, and not come into being on its own. Therefore, already at the time of its construction, it must be fit for the mitzva of sukka. But if the sukka was constructed in an invalid manner and afterward minimally repaired—for example, one cut something that was attached to the ground—it turns out that it came into being on its own. For at the time of its construction the sukka was not fit, and when it became fit, it had already been constructed. But if after cutting it one slightly shakes the roofing, even if he does not actually dismantle the roofing and replace it, the sukka is fit. This is because shaking it is close to dismantling it, and that is sufficient.

Rav Huna said to Rav Yosef,

who had stated this novel point in the name of Rav:

This,

this novel point,

Shemuel said it,

Shemuel stated it; why are you attributing it to Rav?!

Rav Yosef turned his face away from him,

Rav Yosef turned his face away from Rav Huna in anger.

And he said to him,

to Rav Huna:

Did I perhaps say to you that Shemuel did not say it?

Did I say to you that Shemuel did not state this halakha? Indeed,

Rav said it, and

also

Shemuel

said it.

Rav Huna said to Rav Yosef:

This is what I meant to say to you,

this was my intention:

Shemuel said it, but not Rav!

For Rav

did not hold this way. Rather,

he deemed the sukka fit

through cutting alone, and did not require one to shake the roofing. Rav did not fear that this sukka was invalid because of the principle, “You shall make it,” and not from that which is already made, since he held that cutting the roofing constituted the completion of the sukka’s construction. It is therefore considered as though the entire sukka had been constructed in a valid manner.

The disqualification of “You shall make it,” and not from that which is already made, applies only when no act at all was performed upon the roofing to render it fit—for example, one who hollows out a haystack to make a sukka, where the roofing comes into being on its own by digging into the haystack and creating a space inside it, without performing any act upon the roofing. But here, where he performed an act upon the roofing itself by cutting it, it is considered as though he had roofed the sukka in a valid manner.

The proof that this is Rav’s position is

as in the case of Rav Amram the pious,

[Rav Amram the pious,]

who attached tekhelet

and affixed ritual fringes

to the garment of the members of his household,

to the members of his household—that is, to his wife’s garment, and when he affixed them, he took one long thread and folded it into four parts, so that if he cut them there would be eight threads, and

he hung them, but did not cut

and did not cut

their thread ends

immediately after affixing them to the garment in order to make eight threads. Instead, he first made all the tassels and knots. It therefore turned out that the ritual fringes were made invalidly, since at the time he tied the threads there was only one long thread. [And this principle, “You shall make it,” and not from that which is already made, applies to ritual fringes as well, as it is stated: “You shall make tassels for yourself.”]

And

came

Rav Amram the Pious

before Rav Hiyya bar Ashi,

and asked him whether this tzitzit was valid.

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said:

Rav

Thus Rav said: If he cuts them,

meaning, he cuts the threads after tying them,

they are valid,

and are not invalidated on account of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made.”

Apparently,

Rav holds that

this cutting constitutes their making.

And if so, according to Rav,

here too,

with regard to the sukka, there is no need to shake the roofing after cutting it, since

this cutting constitutes their making,

and it is considered as though the entire sukka had been made in a valid manner.

The Gemara raises an objection: Since we compare cutting the roofing of the sukka to cutting the threads of the tzitzit, then just as with regard to the sukka Shmuel holds that we do not say that this cutting constitutes their making, and he must return and shake all the roofing, so too with regard to tzitzit we must say that Shmuel holds that cutting them is ineffective, because we do not say that this cutting constitutes their making. If so, this is difficult:

And

if

Shmuel holds that we do not say

with regard to tzitzit that

this cutting constitutes their making,

but Shmuel taught in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: If one inserted

tzitzit

into two corners

of the garment,

at the same time,

having made four long doubled strands from a single long thread, of the length required for two sets of tzitzit, and inserted one end of the thread into this corner and the other end into another corner,

and afterward cut the ends of their threads,

meaning, he cut them in the middle, until there were eight threads for each corner, they are

valid.

Is it not

referring to a case

in which he ties

the knots and the tassels of the tzitzit,

and afterward cuts them,

and they are valid despite having been made improperly?

This proves that according to Shmuel, with regard to tzitzit we do say that this cutting constitutes their making. For if not, the tzitzit would be invalidated on account of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made.” If so, this is difficult: Why, with regard to the sukka, does Shmuel not validate it through cutting the roofing alone?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

it is not referring to the case you described, in which he ties the tassels and afterward cuts them. Rather, he

cuts

the threads first

and afterward ties

the tassels. If so, their making was entirely valid.

The Gemara raises an objection: If it is as you say, that he

cuts

the threads

and afterward ties them, what is the point of stating this?

What need was there for Shmuel to teach us this simple law?!

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say,