Sukkah 15a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Introduction

a.

A roof of a house, even if it was made of valid roofing, one may not sit beneath it during the festival for the purpose of the mitzva of sukka, since the Torah said: “The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself,” and we expound: “You shall make a sukka, and not from that which was already made for dwelling or for storage”—for it does not bear the designation of a sukka. Therefore, one must make the sukka for shade, or for the purpose of the mitzva of sukka.

b.

In the preceding sugya it was explained that with regard to boards four handbreadths wide, according to Rav, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree concerning their status. Rabbi Meir invalidates them, and Rabbi Yehuda validates them. But according to Shmuel, they are invalid according to everyone.

c.

It is explained in the Mishna below [at the end of the page] that a sukka roofed with invalid roofing and valid roofing together: there is one who says that even if the invalid and the valid are equal, the sukka is valid, since it is sufficient that the “breach” [the place that is not enclosed, or that was made invalidly] be like the “standing” [the place made validly], and it is not necessary that the “standing” exceed the “breach.” And there is one who requires that the standing exceed the breach.

d.

We hold that invalid roofing invalidates in the middle of the sukka’s roof specifically when it is four handbreadths wide. Indeed, according to Rav [below, 17a], the sukka is not invalidated until the invalid roofing is four cubits wide.

Roof

of a house made of boards four handbreadths wide [as explained above, 14a, that most house roofs are made of these boards],

which has no plastering,

which was not plastered with mortar, and it is consequently a sukka that is invalid for two reasons:

a. This sukka was not made for the sake of a sukka, but for the sake of a house, and is invalid because of “You shall make it, and not from that which was already made.”

b. According to Rav in the view of Rabbi Meir, and according to Shmuel according to everyone, since the roof is made of boards four handbreadths wide, even if he raises the roofing slightly and lays it down for the sake of a sukka, so that it will no longer have the invalidity of “You shall make it, and not from that which was already made,” these boards are nevertheless invalid for roofing because of the decree concerning a roof [lest, if we permit him to roof with these, he come to sit beneath the roof of his house], as explained above, 14a.

Our Mishna discusses how it is possible to validate this roof for roofing:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning this matter:

Beit Shammai say:

One who wishes to sit in this sukka

loosens it,

dismantles the roof, and moves all the boards for the sake of a sukka, and the matter is considered as though it had originally been made for the sake of a sukka.

And

afterward,

he removes

one beam

from between them,

from among every two boards he removes one, and places valid roofing in its place. The Gemara below will explain why it is necessary both to move all the roofing and to remove one from between them.

And Beit Hillel say:

It is sufficient that he

loosens

moves all the roofing,

or removes one from between them.

He need not do both, since each of these actions is considered making it for the sake of a sukka.

And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own view in this matter, for he permitted roofing with boards four handbreadths wide, and therefore held that moving them is sufficient to permit them for roofing. [The moving is needed in order to consider them as though they were initially made for the sake of a sukka, and they are not invalid because of “You shall make it, and not from that which was already made.”] The Gemara below will explain how these matters are to be reconciled according to Shmuel, who holds that even according to Rabbi Yehuda one may not roof with boards four handbreadths wide.

Rabbi Meir says:

Loosening alone is not sufficient to permit the boards for roofing. He, too, follows his own view in this matter, for he held that boards four handbreadths wide are invalid for roofing, and therefore even if he places them upon the sukka for the sake of roofing, they remain invalid because of the decree concerning a roof.

Rather, this is what Beit Hillel said:

He removes one from between them,

and places valid roofing in its place,

but he does not loosen it.

And this is sufficient so that the sukka will not be invalidated because of the decree concerning a roof, and the matter is also considered as though the sukka had been made for the sake of the festival.

And the reason that removing a board from between them is effective to validate the sukka, even though it had all been roofed with boards four handbreadths wide that are invalid for roofing, is as explained below [18a, cited above, 14b]: The entire sukka was roofed with a board and invalid roofing, a board and invalid roofing, until its middle, and he did the same on its other side; and in the middle of the sukka there were two valid roofings [valid roofing materials] lying next to one another, which together contain the measure required for a valid sukka. Only that place is valid for sitting in a sukka, but the rest of the sukka is invalid, since the valid roofing does not contain the measure required for a valid sukka. And the boards do not interrupt between the middle valid roofing and the walls, since they are considered part of the wall, by virtue of “a crooked wall.”

Gemara:

The Gemara raises an objection:

Granted, Beit Hillel,

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

their reason

is understood: their reason for not requiring both loosening and removing one from between them is that in their view the sukka is invalid only

because of “You shall make it, and not from that which was already made.”

And they did not invalidate boards four handbreadths wide for roofing because of the decree concerning a roof, since they followed Rabbi Yehuda according to Rav, who holds that boards were not prohibited at all.

Therefore, one of the two is sufficient. For

if he loosens it, he performs an act

for the sake of a sukka, and this is sufficient to validate it so that it will not be considered made invalidly; and likewise,

if he removes one from between them,

also

he has performed an act in it.

But Beit Shammai,

who required both loosening and removing one from between them, one must wonder:

What is their reason?

After all, in either case:

If

they held that the reason for the invalidity of a roof is

because of “You shall make it, and not from that which was already made,”

then

with one

[with one of the two actions]

it is sufficient,

as explained in the words of Beit Hillel.

And

if

they held that the invalidity of the roof is also

because of the decree concerning a roof,

and therefore moving the boards for the sake of a sukka is not effective, since they are still invalid because of the decree concerning a roof, then

when he removes one from between them,

so that there will be two valid roofings in the middle, as explained in the Mishna,

is it sufficient?

This should be sufficient, since only the place of the middle valid roofings is valid for the mitzva of sukka, while beneath the boards it is forbidden to sit because of “the decree concerning a roof.” What need is there for loosening?!

The Gemara explains:

Actually,

according to Beit Shammai the sukka is invalid also

because of the decree concerning a roof.

And the basis of the disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in our Mishna is that according to Beit Shammai, boards that are four handbreadths wide are invalid for roofing, while according to Beit Hillel one roofs with boards even if they are four handbreadths wide [and this is the view of Rabbi Yehuda according to Rav].

And this is what they said

Beit Shammai:

Even though he loosens it,

this is not sufficient to validate the sukka, since the roof is made of boards four handbreadths wide that are invalid because of the decree concerning a roof. Therefore,

if he removes one from between them, it is valid,

then the sukka is valid even if he does not loosen it. And

if he does not

remove one from between them, even if he moves all the roofing,

it does not

help to validate the sukka.

But according to Beit Hillel, one roofs with boards even if they are four handbreadths wide, and therefore, in the roof of his house, the reason for the invalidity is only “You shall make it, and not from that which was already made.” For this, one of the two is effective—either he loosens it or he removes one from between them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

that only according to Beit Shammai is it specifically necessary to remove one from between them,

say the latter clause:

Rabbi Meir says,

that the view of Beit Hillel is:

He removes one from between them, but he does not loosen it.

And according to what has been explained, it follows that

Rabbi Meir is the same as Beit Shammai?!

The Gemara answers:

This is what

Rabbi Meir says to Rabbi Yehuda:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning this matter,

but everyone agrees that the boards are invalid because of the decree concerning a roof, and loosening is not effective for them; therefore, even according to Beit Shammai the sukka is not valid until he removes one from between them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

What does it teach us

in our Mishna, by bringing the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda? Is it coming to say

that Rabbi Meir accepts the decree concerning a roof, whereas Rabbi Yehuda

according to Beit Hillel, whose view is the halakha,

does not accept the decree concerning a roof?

But

yet

they disagreed about it,

they had already disagreed concerning this

one time

[in the Mishna above, 14a].

As we learned: One roofs with boards; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Meir prohibits it.

Why, then, does the Mishna need to teach us this disagreement a second time?!

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Actually, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed concerning the decree regarding a roof only in our Mishna. But in the Mishna above, 14a, they did not disagree concerning the decree regarding a roof [as the Gemara explained there]; rather, they disagreed concerning another matter.

And this is what it means:

The first clause,

in the preceding Mishna, in which Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed,

we are dealing with planed boards

and smooth ones, fit for use and therefore considered “vessels,”

we are dealing with them. These boards are not three or four handbreadths wide, and therefore there is no basis for invalidating them because of the decree concerning a roof.

with such boards. These boards are not three or four handbreadths wide, and therefore they cannot be invalidated because of the rabbinic decree concerning a roof.

And in this they disagreed: According to the basic law, since these boards have no receptacle, their status is like that of “simple wooden vessels,” that is, wooden vessels that have no receptacle and do not contract ritual impurity, and they are valid for roofing.

And because of the decree concerning vessels

that contract ritual impurity,

they touched upon it

to prohibit them.

Rabbi Meir held that the Sages prohibited roofing with these boards lest one come to roof with vessels that contract ritual impurity. But Rabbi Yehuda was not concerned about this and permitted roofing with them.

The Gemara now raises an objection to this explanation, that they decreed against simple wooden vessels that one may not roof with them:

In their time, arrows were made of two parts: the arrow itself was made of metal, but its handle was made of wood. There were two types of handles. One protruded at its end and entered into a receptacle in the arrow itself; this handle was called “male,” since it had no receptacle. The second type was a handle that had a receptacle, and the arrow was inserted into it; this handle was called “female.”

And according to Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, who said

above, 12b:

If one roofed with

the handles of

arrows,

before the arrows had yet been placed in them, and those handles were

male,

having no receptacle and being only “simple wooden vessels” [wooden vessels without a receptacle], which do not contract ritual impurity, the sukka is

valid.

But if he roofed

with female

handles of arrows whose handles have a receptacle and which contract ritual impurity, the sukka is

invalid,

since one may not roof with something that contracts ritual impurity.

And he did not decree

that one may not roof with

male

handles, which do not contract ritual impurity,

lest

one come to roof with

female

handles of arrows, which contract ritual impurity.

And if so,

here too, no decree should have been enacted

not to roof with

planed boards

since they are merely flat wooden vessels;

are all vessels

that are susceptible to ritual impurity?!

Rather, it is necessarily so:

they did not disagree concerning a decree relating to vessels, but

in the first clause

of the Mishna cited above, on 14a,

they disagreed concerning the decree relating to a roof, and

also

in the latter clause

of our Mishna,

they disagreed concerning the decree relating to a roof.

And as for the difficulty we raised,

and should they disagree twice—

why do I need it?

why was this disagreement stated twice?—it can be resolved as follows: the

latter clause

was necessary only for

Rabbi Yehuda, who said to Rabbi Meir,

with whom he disagreed in the first clause and who prohibited roofing with boards, and argued with him:

Why do you prohibit

roofing

with boards, because of the decree relating to a roof?

Your ruling is not correct! For

this reasoning

concerning the decree relating to a roof belongs

only to Beit Shammai, whereas

if

Beit Hillel did not enact a decree

prohibiting roofing with boards, and the halakha is in accordance with their view.

And

he

Rabbi Meir said to him: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning this matter.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

This works out well

according to the interpretation we gave for our Mishna, that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed concerning boards four handbreadths wide, whether they are disqualified because of the decree relating to a roof,

according to Rav, who said

above, on 14a:

the disagreement

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna there is

concerning

boards

that are four

handbreadths wide,

as Rabbi Meir holds that there is a decree relating to a roof, whereas Rabbi Yehuda does not hold

at all

that there is a decree relating to a roof.

But according to Shmuel, who said

there that even Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the decree relating to a roof, and the disagreement is specifically

concerning

boards

that are less than four

handbreadths wide,

the subject of their disagreement,

as Rabbi Meir prohibited roofing even with these boards.

But

if he roofed his sukka with boards that

are four handbreadths wide, everyone agrees

that the sukka

is invalid

because of the decree relating to a roof. If so,

in the latter clause

of our Mishna,

what do they disagree about?

After all, our Mishna is referring to a roof made of boards four handbreadths wide, which are disqualified for roofing even according to Rabbi Yehuda; why, then, did Rabbi Yehuda, according to the view of Beit Hillel, deem this sukka fit merely by loosening the boards? These boards are four handbreadths wide and should still be disqualified because of the decree relating to a roof?! The Gemara answers: Indeed, according to Shmuel, if one roofed his sukka with boards four handbreadths wide, everyone agrees that the sukka is invalid; and in our Mishna

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree concerning the nullification of the roof

.

That is, they disagreed as to whether the Sages prohibited boards four handbreadths wide in every case, or whether they prohibited these boards only when one initially comes to roof his sukka with them. In that case, the Sages were concerned that if they permitted him to use this sukka, he might say: Why should I sit in this sukka? I will sit in my house, which is also roofed with boards of this kind. But if the roof was already in place, and it is disqualified because of the principle of “You shall make it,” and not one made automatically, and he is occupied with nullifying it and rendering it fit by loosening the boards or the like, it should not be disqualified on account of the boards, since he has already demonstrated that he knows that one may not sit beneath the roof of a house: After all, he is occupied with correcting this disqualification. Therefore, in this case the Sages did not enact a decree.

And this is the subject of the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda: One

Rabbi Yehuda

held:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning this matter. According to Beit Shammai, one must remove one board from between them, since even in this case they prohibited roofing with boards because of the decree relating to a roof. But according to Beit Hillel, since he has demonstrated that he knows that this roof is unfit for roofing, and there is no concern that he may come to sit beneath the roof of his house,

the decree

is nullified

in this manner,

and loosening the roofing is sufficient.

And the other

Rabbi Meir

held:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree in this regard. According to everyone, although he is occupied with rendering the roof of his house fit and there is no concern that he may sit beneath the roof of his house,

the decree is not nullified in this manner,

and he must remove one board from between them and place two pieces of fit roofing in the middle; only that area is fit for sitting in the sukka.

Mishna:

The Mishna before us will clarify two fundamental laws concerning invalid roofing.

The first: In the case of a sukka roofed with invalid and fit roofing together, what is the measure of invalid roofing that disqualifies it?

The second: The law concerning roofing that came into being automatically: Is it fit or invalid?

a.

1.

of one who makes the roof of

his sukka with metal spits

, which are disqualified for roofing,

or with the long boards of a bed

, the frame boards running along the length of the bed, which are susceptible to ritual impurity and are disqualified for roofing. [The reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.]

Then,

if there is space between them

, between the spits or the long boards,

equal to them,

meaning that the width of the airspace between the spits is equal to the width of the spits, it is

fit,

as will be explained below in the Gemara.

b.

2.

—

he removed the sheaves from the bottom, close to the ground, until a cavity measuring the minimum area of a fit sukka was formed within the haystack, and the roofing came into being automatically—

it is not a sukka.

The reason is that the Torah said: “You shall make the Festival of Sukkot,” and the Sages expounded: “You shall make it,” and not one made automatically.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses this:

Shall we say that it will be

our Mishna, in which we learned: “If there is space between them equal to them, it is fit,” and it is apparent from this that it is sufficient for the measure of fit roofing to equal that of the invalid roofing, and that it is not necessary for the fit roofing to be greater than the invalid roofing,

a refutation of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua?!

As it was stated,

with regard to the enclosure of partitions for a private domain on Shabbat, that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, disagreed concerning the law of

breach equal to the standing section.

That is, a domain that was entirely surrounded by incomplete partitions, in which the area that was “breached” in the partitions was equal to the area that was “standing” in them [the area enclosed by partitions is called “standing”].

For example, the partition was made of boards three handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths high, and between each board and the next he left an airspace three handbreadths wide, equal to the width of the boards. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, disagreed as to whether this is considered a partition with regard to a private domain on Shabbat or not.

However, if the airspace between them was less than three handbreadths, then although the area that was “breached” was equal to the “standing” area, it is nevertheless a complete partition according to everyone, because we regard the boards as though they were adjacent to one another, by virtue of the halakha of “lavud.”

Rav Pappa said:

This is a partition, and it is a private domain, and therefore

it is permitted

to carry within it.

And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

This is not a partition, and this area is not a private domain, and therefore

it is prohibited

to carry within it, until the standing section is greater than the breached section.

The Gemara reasoned that just as they disagreed with regard to partitions on Shabbat, so too they disagreed with regard to the roofing, which is the roof of the sukka and is like an upper partition: If part of the roofing consisted of invalid roofing [and consequently its area is considered “breached”], while part consisted of fit roofing [and its area is considered “standing”], whether the fit roofing must be greater than the invalid roofing, or whether, even if the invalid roofing is equal to the fit roofing, the sukka is fit.

And it is explicit in our Mishna that even if the fit roofing was equal in measure to the invalid roofing, the sukka is fit, contrary to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who requires the standing section to be greater than the breached section.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, could say to you:

The Mishna does not intend to permit a case in which the standing section was equal to the breached section.

What

is the meaning of what the Mishna said:

“If there is space between them

equal to them”?

It does not mean literally equal to them, but rather

such that one can enter and exit.

The space between them was sufficiently large that the spits or the long boards of the bed could enter and exit through the airspace between the spits easily and with room to spare. Consequently, that airspace was slightly wider than the area occupied by the spits. Therefore, when fit roofing was placed in that space, the fit roofing was greater than the spits, and the standing section was greater than the breached section, making it fit according to everyone.

The Gemara reasoned that the interpreter explained it in this manner because “equal to them” implies “such that one can enter and exit,” and not “literally equal to them,” since people do not generally measure with exact precision.