Sukkah 14b — the Talmud in English

But

two boards

of which neither individually has the measure capable of invalidating it,

do not combine

to four handbreadths to invalidate the sukka in its middle. And this Mishna is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, according to whom the Sages did not decree concerning wide boards to invalidate them for roofing because of the decree of a ceiling.

Rabbi Meir says: Even boards

combine with one another

like sheets,

and combine to invalidate the sukka like other invalid roofing.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is when they do not contain four,

and Rabbi Meir invalidates a board that is not four handbreadths wide,

but when they contain four, everyone agrees that it is invalid,

it can be explained:

what

is the meaning of “combine” that Rabbi Meir said in the beraita? —

They combine to four.

That is, each board was three handbreadths wide and had the status of invalid roofing. Therefore, when they were placed side by side, they combine to invalidate the sukka over four handbreadths, according to the law of other invalid roofing, which invalidates over four handbreadths.

Whereas Rabbi Yehuda, according to his position, held that boards three handbreadths wide are fit for roofing, and therefore they certainly do not combine to invalidate it.

But according to Rav, who says that the dispute is when they contain four, but when they do not contain four everyone agrees that

the sukka is

fit,

even according to Rabbi Meir, if so,

what is the case

of these boards that invalidate the sukka only by combining two boards?!

For whichever way you look at it,

if they contain

in each of them a width of

four

handbreadths, so that they are considered invalid roofing,

why do they need to combine?

After all, each one of them by itself, since it has a width of four handbreadths, invalidates the sukka.

And

if they do not contain

in each of them a width of

four

handbreadths, the measure of the invalidity of the sukka, and therefore they need to be combined together in order to invalidate it, if so,

why

do they combine to invalidate it?

But

it is fit roofing, for

they are merely reeds,

and they are fit for roofing even according to Rabbi Meir, since they are not four handbreadths wide; so why should they invalidate the sukka through combination?!

And the Gemara answers:

In fact,

it is speaking

of their containing

in each of them a width of

four

handbreadths. Indeed, had they been placed in the middle of the sukka, one of them alone would have been sufficient to invalidate it.

And what,

and what Rabbi Meir said concerning two boards,

combine,

means:

They combine to four cubits at the side.

And this is, for example, when he did not place these boards in the middle of the roof of the sukka, but at its side, adjacent to the wall, and he also added boards like these, four handbreadths wide and invalid for roofing, until the roofing of boards reached a distance of four cubits from the wall of the sukka. Therefore, neither one of them invalidates the sukka by itself until they combine together, for the sukka is not invalidated at the side until the invalid roofing is four cubits wide. But when it is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit because of “a crooked wall.” That is, we see the invalid roofing as though it were part of the wall that had become crooked. And through combining the boards together, the sukka becomes invalid, because beyond four cubits the invalid roofing is not considered part of the wall, but has the status of invalid roofing

[but according to Rabbi Yehuda these boards are fit for roofing, and they do not combine to invalidate the sukka]. Another version:

The Gemara’s difficulty was not concerning Rabbi Meir, but concerning Rabbi Yehuda, who said, “Two boards do not combine.” It is implied from his words that if they did combine to complete the measure of the invalidity of the sukka, the sukka would become invalid because of them. And it is explained that even according to Rabbi Yehuda the boards are intrinsically invalid, for otherwise they are fit roofing, and why should they combine to invalidate it?

And this is the Gemara’s difficulty:

Granted according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is when they do not contain four,

and Rabbi Yehuda made them fit only in that case,

but when they contain four, everyone agrees that it is invalid,

it is possible to explain:

what is the meaning of “combine”

that Rabbi Meir said —

they combine

to

complete the measure of

four cubits

when the boards are placed

at the side,

and we do not make this sukka fit because of a crooked wall.

And it is speaking of boards four handbreadths wide, which even Rabbi Yehuda agrees are invalid for roofing; and they disagree whether they combine to four cubits at the side.

But according to Rav,

who said that even boards four handbreadths wide are fit for roofing according to Rabbi Yehuda, the difficulty is:

Granted according to Rabbi Meir,

who invalidates a board four handbreadths wide,

what is the meaning of “combine” —

they combine to four cubits at the side.

And this is, for example, when the boards were four handbreadths wide and had the status of invalid roofing, and they combine to complete four cubits at the side.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that even when they contain four it is fit,

and every board in itself is fit roofing,

what is the meaning of “do not combine”

that Rabbi Yehuda said? After all,

they are merely reeds

according to Rabbi Yehuda, and they are fit roofing; so why should the sukka become invalid because of them?!

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, according to Rabbi Yehuda they are fit roofing. And the reason Rabbi Yehuda used the expression “do not combine,” rather than saying that it is fully valid roofing, is that he used this expression because of Rabbi Meir, for

since Rabbi Meir said “they combine,” Rabbi Yehuda said “they do not combine.”

And the Gemara brings:

It was taught

[an explicit beraita]

in accordance with Rav, [in which the dispute is when they contain four], and

[что разногласие касается досок, в которых есть четыре тефаха], и

it was taught

[in another beraita], where it is explained

in accordance with Shmuel, [that the dispute is when they do not contain four].

[что разногласие касается досок, в которых нет четырех тефахов].

It was taught in accordance with Rav: If he roofed it with boards of

cedar

wood that do not contain four, everyone agrees that it is fit.

But if

they contain four, Rabbi Meir invalidates, and Rabbi Yehuda declares fit.

Rabbi Yehuda said

to prove his words:

There was an incident at a time of danger,

when the gentiles decreed that the mitzvot of the Torah should not be observed,

when we brought boards that contained four

handbreadths, so that they would appear to the eyes of the gentiles as a house,

and we roofed with them on top of a balcony, and we sat beneath them.

And it is demonstrated that the Sages did not prohibit roofing with them, for if they were prohibited for roofing, what benefit was there in their sitting in this sukka?!

They said to him:

Is that

proof?! A time of danger is no proof!

For at a time of danger the Sages did not decree, so that, Heaven forbid, the law of sukka would not be forgotten by Israel.

In any event, we have learned that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree concerning a board four handbreadths wide, in accordance with Rav.

It was taught in accordance with Shmuel: If he roofed it with boards of cedar

that contain four

handbreadths,

according to

everyone it is invalid.

If they do not contain four

handbreadths,

Rabbi Meir invalidates, and Rabbi Yehuda declares fit.

And Rabbi Meir concedes that if between one board and another there is

a space

the size of a board

equal to the width of the board,

he places refuse

fit roofing [from the expression “the refuse of the threshing floor and winepress”]

between them, and it is fit.

That is, the case is when he placed, on the side of the sukka adjacent to the wall, a board four handbreadths wide, and beside it he placed fit roofing four handbreadths wide, and after it he again placed a board four handbreadths wide, and roofing four handbreadths wide, and so on, until the middle of the sukka. And likewise he did on the other side of the sukka, until there were in the middle of the sukka two adjacent areas of fit roofing, which together complete at least the measure of seven handbreadths required for a fit sukka, and only beneath them is it fit. [But if there was no one place in the sukka of seven handbreadths roofed with fit roofing, the sukka would not be fit, even if several places four handbreadths wide were scattered throughout the sukka].

And Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if he placed upon it a board four handbreadths wide,

even though the sukka is

fit,

nevertheless,

one may not sleep beneath it.

The Gemara intends to teach that even Rabbi Yehuda, who is lenient concerning a board that is not four handbreadths wide and permits roofing with it, concedes concerning one board that, if he placed it at the side of the sukka, although it is fit because of “a crooked wall,” nevertheless one may not sleep beneath it [but if he placed it in the middle of the sukka, the sukka becomes invalid because of it].

And one who sleeps beneath it has not fulfilled his obligation.

И тот, кто спит под ней, не исполняет свою обязанность.

And from this beraita we learn that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree only concerning a board that is not four handbreadths wide, in accordance with Shmuel.

It was stated:

He had boards wide enough to have the measure that invalidates them for roofing, but the thickness of the boards was less than the measure, and

he turned them on their sides,

and set them on their thickness, and roofed his sukka with them.

Rav Huna said: It is invalid.

Even though the part covering the sukka is not wide to the measure that invalidates it for roofing, since the designation of invalidity took effect upon them, they became like metal spits, which are intrinsically invalid for roofing, and turning them over does not help.

And Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

the sukka

is valid,

because the designation of invalidity did not take effect upon them; rather, they were prohibited for roofing because of the decree concerning a ceiling, and once he turned them over, they do not appear like a ceiling, and it is valid.

An incident occurred, and

Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura, and they entered to him [

they entered to him ]

Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna,

who deemed valid a sukka roofed with boards that he had turned onto their sides, in order to ask him, perhaps he would concede to their position.

They said to him,

they asked Rav Naḥman:

What is the law if he turned them onto their sides?

He said to them: It is invalid,

since

the boards

the boards

became like metal spits.

Rav Huna said to them

to Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna, after they realized that Rav Naḥman held as he did: And

did I not say to you, “Say according to my view”? [

Did I not say to you that you should say according to my view, that I deem it invalid ]?!

They said to him,

Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna:

And did our master tell us the reason, and we did not accept it from him?

Did you tell us the reason for the matter and we did not accept it? Had you told us the reason for your words, as Rav Naḥman answered him, we would have accepted it from you.

He said to them,

Rav Huna:

And did you ask me for the reason, and I did not tell you [

Did you ask me to know the reason, and I did not tell you ]?!

Let us say that it supports him,

Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman, who deem these boards invalid even when he turned them onto their sides, from the beraita:

As it was taught: A sukka that

does not hold enough for his head and most of him and his table,

which are seven handbreadths, the measure of a valid sukka,

or in which there was breached

in one of its walls

a breach

of the measure

such that a kid could leap through it

through that breach

at a single bound,

with its head erect easily and with room, and this measure is three handbreadths, which is a significant measure for interrupting between the wall and the ground [as explained below, 16a].

Or if he placed upon it a board four handbreadths wide, even though he inserted into it [

that is, upon the sukka ]

only three handbreadths,

and as will be explained below, in all these cases his sukka

is invalid.

And the Gemara explains the last case that we learned in the beraita:

What are the circumstances

of a board that is four handbreadths wide, while it roofs over the sukka only for an area of three handbreadths?

Is it not, for example, that

the boards were four handbreadths wide, but their thickness was only three handbreadths, and he

turned them onto their sides

and stood them on their thickness, and roofed the entire sukka with these boards, and it was made novel in the beraita that this roofing is invalid.

It follows, then, that even when he turned them onto their sides, since they are four handbreadths wide, although their width does not lie upon the sukka, the invalid roofing is like metal spits.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

not as you explained, that it is speaking of turning them onto their sides. Rather,

with what are we dealing here?

With a small sukka that contains only seven handbreadths, or slightly more, which he roofed with a board four handbreadths wide, and the sukka does not have the measure of seven handbreadths without the area roofed by that board.

And

for example, he placed it [

he placed that board ]

at the mouth

of the sukka,

at the entrance of the sukka, on the fourth side, which has no partition, in such a manner

that three entered,

that he inserted three handbreadths of the width of the board

inside,

into the sukka,

and one he brought outside,

and he brought out the fourth handbreadth of the board and left it outside the sukka.

And since the entire width of the board, totaling four handbreadths, does not roof the sukka, we would have said that the three handbreadths that roof the sukka constitute valid roofing, and their law is like that of a board three handbreadths wide. Therefore, the beraita teaches us that this is not said.

And the reason for the matter is because

it is the case that

that fourth handbreadth

“a pesel” [

roofing, from the expression “the refuse of the threshing floor and winepress” ]

extending from the sukka

to a place that is not surrounded by partitions,

and

the established principle in our possession is that

every pesel

extending from the sukka is judged like the sukka.

That is, if this roofing extending outside the sukka were valid for roofing, he could sit beneath it even though it is not surrounded by partitions, because it is considered part of the sukka. Therefore, this handbreadth joins the three handbreadths that roof the sukka, in order to invalidate it.