Sukkah 11a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara adds:

And a

low

one as well,

a naked person who sticks his head out of it may not recite the recitation of the Shema,

even though it is not high

the house

ten

handbreadths,

since it is fixed

in its place—

it is a tent. For it is not inferior to kinofot,

which are considered a tent even though they are not ten handbreadths high.

Above, the Gemara said in the name of Shmuel that a canopy is not fixed like kinofot, and therefore it is permitted to sleep beneath it if it is not ten handbreadths high. Now the Gemara brings another wording in understanding Shmuel’s words, which maintains that Shmuel stated his ruling specifically concerning a bridegroom’s canopy, which does not have a roof one handbreadth wide above, but rather is made like naklitin.

Another wording: Some say that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted to sleep in a bridegroom’s canopy in the sukka, since it has no roof

(for it has naklitin)

even though it is ten handbreadths high.

But as for another canopy, which has a roof one handbreadth wide, it is forbidden to sleep inside it in the sukka, even though it is not fixed like kinofot.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It was taught:

we learned in a beraita:

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

And the Gemara assumed that a bridegroom’s canopy is included as well.

And the Gemara answers:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a

canopy

that has a roof,

and not with a bridegroom’s canopy made like naklitin.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

“Naklitin

are

two,

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

and kinofot

are

four

posts placed at the four legs of the bed.

If one spread

a sheet

over kinofot, it is invalid.

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

over naklitin, it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed.

And it follows:

If

the naklitin were

ten higher than

handbreadths

than the bed, it is invalid,

that is, he has not fulfilled his obligation,

even though it has no roof.

And this is difficult for Shmuel, who permits sitting beneath a bridegroom’s canopy even if it is ten handbreadths high.

And the Gemara answers:

The naklitin are different, for they are fixed

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

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If the naklitin are fixed

to the bed,

let them be like kinofot,

which are considered a tent even if they are not ten handbreadths high. The Gemara answers:

With regard to kinofot,

the naklitin

are not

considered

fixed,

and therefore, if they are not ten handbreadths high, they are not considered a tent to separate between the person sitting inside them and the space of the sukka. But

with regard to a canopy,

the naklitin are considered

fixed,

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

Rabba bar Rav Huna expounded: It is permitted to sleep in 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 words? Is it

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who said

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

a temporary tent does not come and cancel a permanent tent? [

And according to his view, a sukka is a permanent tent, for a permanent dwelling is required for a sukka, as explained above, folio 6b.]

For we learned: 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 the bed, which is a temporary tent, does not come and cancel the sukka, which is a permanent dwelling.

If so,

let him say, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,”

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

And the Gemara answers:

If

Rabba bar Rav Huna had said

“The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,” I would have said

I would say:

This applies to a bed,

for 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 to use beneath it as a tent; therefore it is permitted to sleep beneath it. Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is not that a temporary tent does not come and cancel a permanent tent.

But a canopy, which is made for its interior,

to provide shade over one sleeping beneath it,

say no,

and it is forbidden 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 because

a temporary tent does not come and cancel a

permanent tent.

Therefore,

it makes no difference whether a bed or whether a canopy,

it is permitted to sleep beneath it, because a temporary tent does not come and cancel a permanent tent.

Mishna:

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

If one raised

and spread

over it,

over the roof of the sukka,

a grapevine,

for which he arranged cords by means of which the vine would climb and cover the roof of the sukka,

and

likewise if one raised over it

a gourd plant and ivy,

which are climbing plants,

and roofed

with them

on top of it,

the sukka

is invalid.

Since one may not roof with something attached to the ground. And the Sages learned this halakha from the verse, “The festival of sukkot you shall make for yourself, when you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress”—the verse is speaking of the refuse of the threshing floor and the winepress, which are detached, and not of that which is attached.

And if there was there valid roofing that was greater than them, more than the invalid roofing, the invalid roofing is nullified by the valid roofing that is greater than it, and the sukka is valid. Or if he cut them,

the grapevine, the gourd plant, and the ivy, and made them detached and fit for roofing, the sukka

is valid.

This is the rule in matters of invalid roofing: Every thing that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and also something that does not grow from the ground, one may not roof with it. And anything that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and grows from the ground, one may roof with it.

greater than them,

greater than the invalid roofing, the invalid roofing is nullified by the valid roofing, which is greater than it, and the sukka is valid.

Or if he cut them,

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

is valid.

This is the general rule

concerning invalid roofing material:

Any

thing

that is susceptible to ritual impurity, or

anything that

Gemara:

Rav Yosef sat

[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

he must shake

a little the roofing that he placed over the sukka while it was attached. But if he does not shake the roofing a little, the sukka will not become valid through cutting alone.

Since it is stated, “The festival of sukkot you shall make for yourself,” and from here the Sages learned that the sukka must be made through an act, and not be made by itself. Therefore, already at the time of its making, it must be fit for the mitzva of sukka. But if the sukka was made invalidly, and afterward he repaired it with a minor repair, such as something attached that he cut, it turns out that it was made by itself. For at the time of its making the sukka was not valid, and when it became valid, it had already been made. But if after cutting it he shook the roofing a little, even though he did not actually dismantle the roofing and place it down again, the sukka is valid. For the shaking is close to dismantling, and that is sufficient.

before

[before]

Rav Huna said to Rav Yosef

who had stated this novelty in the name of Rav:

This,

this novelty,

Shmuel said it,

Shmuel said it, and why are you saying it in the name of 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: Am I telling you that Shmuel did not say it? Did I say to you that Shmuel did not state this halakha? Indeed,

Rav said it, and

he also said it,

Shmuel.

Rav Huna said to Rav Yosef

to Rav Yosef:

This is what I am telling you,

this was my intention in saying it:

Shmuel said it, and not Rav!

For Rav

did not hold this way, but

he validates

the sukka through cutting alone, and does not require shaking the roofing. Rav was not concerned to invalidate this sukka because of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made,” since he held that cutting the roofing is the completion of the making of the sukka. The matter is therefore considered as though the entire sukka had been made validly.

And the invalidity 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 in order to validate it. For example, one who hollows out a grain heap to make a sukka for himself: The roofing is made by itself, through his digging into the heap and creating a cavity within it, and he performs no act upon the roofing. But here, where he performed an act upon the roofing itself, cutting it, the matter is considered as though he had roofed with valid roofing.

And the proof that this is Rav’s method is:

For this is like Rav Amram the pious

[Rav Amram the pious],

threw blue wool

and placed tzitzit

for the garment of the people of his household,

for the members of his household—that is, on his wife’s garment,

and when he placed 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 suspended them, but did not cut

them,

he did not cut

their thread-heads

immediately after placing them in the garment in order to make them eight threads, but first made all the tassels and knots.

It consequently turned out that the tzitzit were made invalidly, for at the time of tying the threads there was only one long thread. [And this halakha of “you shall make it, and not from that which is already made” was stated also concerning tzitzit, as it is said, “Tassels you shall make for yourself.”]

who attached sky-blue wool

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 it there would be eight threads, and

he hung them, but did not cut

the

ends of their threads

immediately after inserting them into the garment in order to make them 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. [This principle, “You shall make it, and not from something 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.

He said to him

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi,

“Thus said Rav: They are cut off,

he cuts the threads after the tying,

and they are valid,

and they are not invalid because of “you shall make and not from that which is made”.

It follows,

Rav held,

that their cutting is their making.

And if so, according to Rav,

here too

with regard to the sukka, there is no need to shake the schach after its cutting, since

its cutting is its making,

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

The Gemara raises an objection: Since we compare the cutting of the schach to the cutting of the tzitzit threads, then, just as with regard to the sukka Shmuel held that we do not say “their cutting is their making,” and he must return and shake all the schach, so too with regard to tzitzit we must say that Shmuel’s view is that their cutting is not effective, for we do not say “their cutting is their making”; and if so, this is difficult:

And

because

Shmuel held, we do not say

with regard to tzitzit

“their cutting is their making”?

But Shmuel taught in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: One who placed

tzitzit

on two corners [

the corners of the garment]

at once,

who made four long doubled strands from that long thread of the measure of two sets of tzitzit, and inserted one of their ends into this corner and their other end into another corner,

and afterward cut off their thread-ends,

that is, he cut them in the middle, until there were eight threads for each corner, these are

valid.

What, is it not

speaking of a case

where he ties

the knots and the tassels of the tzitzit,

and afterward cuts them off,

and they are valid even though they were made in an invalid manner?

And it is proven that according to Shmuel we say with regard to tzitzit, “their cutting is their making.” For if not, the tzitzit would be invalid because of “you shall make and not from that which is made.” This is difficult, then: Why, with regard to the sukka, does Shmuel not validate it through the cutting of the schach alone?

The Gemara rejects:

No,

it is not speaking in the manner that you explained, that he ties the tassels and afterward cuts them; rather,

he cuts off

the threads first,

and afterward ties

the tassels. And if so, their making was entirely valid.

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

cuts off

the threads

and afterward ties them, what is there to say?

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

The Gemara answers:

What might you say,