Sukkah 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Introduction

a.

A roof of a house, even if it was made of valid roofing, may not be sat beneath during the festival for the purpose of the mitzva of sukka, because the Torah says: “You shall make the festival of Sukkot for yourself,” and we derive: “Make a sukka, but not from something already made for dwelling or storage”—for it does not have the status of a sukka. Therefore, the sukka must be made for shade, or for the purpose of the mitzva of sukka.

b.

In the preceding discussion it was explained that regarding boards four handbreadths wide, according to Rav, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about their status. Rabbi Meir invalidates them, whereas Rabbi Yehuda deems them valid. According to Shmuel, however, they are invalid according to everyone.

c.

The Mishna below [at the end of the page] explains that regarding a sukka roofed with invalid roofing and valid roofing together, there is one opinion that says that even if the invalid and valid roofing are equal in amount, the sukka is valid. This is because it is sufficient that the “open” area [the place that is not enclosed, or that was made invalidly] be equal to the “standing” area [the place that was made validly]; it is not necessary for the standing area to be greater than the open area. And there is one who requires the standing area to be greater than the open area.

d.

We have established that invalid roofing invalidates the middle of a sukka roof specifically when it is four handbreadths wide. According to Rav [below, 17a], however, the sukka is not invalidated until the invalid roofing is four cubits wide.

A roof

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

that has no plaster,

that it was not plastered with mortar, and this sukka is consequently 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 something already made.”

b. According to Rav’s understanding of Rabbi Meir, and according to Shmuel according to everyone, since the roof was made of boards four handbreadths wide, even if he raises the roofing slightly and replaces it for the sake of a sukka, so that it no longer has the defect of “you shall make it, and not from something already made,” these boards are still invalid for roofing because of the decree concerning a roof [lest, if we permit him to roof with these boards, he come to sit beneath the roof of his house], as explained above, 14a.

Our Mishna discusses how this roof can be rendered valid for roofing:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed about this matter:

Beit Shammai say:

One who wishes to sit in this sukka

loosens

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

And

afterward he

takes

one beam

from between them,

taking one out from between every two boards and putting valid roofing in its place. The Gemara below will explain why it is necessary both to shift all the roofing and to remove one from between them.

And Beit Hillel say:

It is sufficient that he

loosens

and shifts all the roofing,

or removes one from between them.

He need not perform both actions, since each of these acts is considered an act of making for the sake of a sukka.

And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own view in this matter, for he permits roofing with boards four handbreadths wide; therefore, he holds that shifting them is sufficient to permit them for roofing. [The shifting is necessary in order to regard them as though they had originally been made for the sake of a sukka, so that they are not invalid because of “you shall make it, and not from something already made.”] Below, it will be explained how these statements can accord with Shmuel, who holds that even according to Rabbi Yehuda one may not roof with boards four handbreadths wide.

Rabbi Meir says:

Merely loosening the roof is not sufficient to permit the boards for roofing. He too follows his own view in this matter, for he holds that boards four handbreadths wide are invalid for roofing; therefore, even if he places them on 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 takes one from between them,

and puts valid roofing in its place,

but he does not loosen the roof.

This is sufficient to prevent the sukka from being 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.

The reason that removing one board from between them is effective in rendering the sukka valid, even though the entire sukka had 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 one invalid board, one valid board, one invalid board, one valid board, until its midpoint; he did the same from its other side, and in the middle of the sukka there were two valid sections of roofing lying adjacent to one another, which together contained the measure required for a valid sukka. Only that place was valid for sitting in the sukka, while the rest of the sukka was invalid, since the valid sections did not contain the measure required for a valid sukka. The boards do not interrupt between the middle valid sections and the walls, because they are considered part of the wall, by virtue of the principle of a “crooked wall.”

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, with regard to Beit Hillel,

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

their reason

is understood: the reason they did not require both loosening the roof and removing one from between them is that according to them the sukka is invalid only

because of “you shall make it, and not from something already made.”

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 actions is sufficient. For if he loosens the roof,

he performs an act for its sake

of a sukka, and that is sufficient to render it valid so that it will not be considered as having been made invalidly; and likewise,

if he removes one from between them,

also

he has performed an act on it.

But with regard to Beit Shammai,

who required both loosening the roof and removing one from between them, it is difficult to understand

what is their reason?

In either event:

If

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

because of “you shall make it, and not from something already made,”

then

with one [

of the two actions]

it suffices,

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 shifting the boards for the sake of a sukka is not effective, since they remain invalid because of the decree concerning a roof, then

when he removes one from between them,

so that there are two valid sections in the middle, as explained in the Mishna,

is it sufficient?

That should be sufficient, since only the area of the middle valid sections is fit for the mitzva of sukka, while it is forbidden to sit beneath the boards because of the decree concerning a roof; what need is there for loosening the roof?!

The Gemara explains:

Actually,

according to Beit Shammai the sukka is invalid also

because of the decree concerning a roof.

The basis of the dispute 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 may roof with boards even if they are four handbreadths wide [as Rabbi Yehuda holds according to Rav].

And this is what they say,

Beit Shammai:

Even though he loosens the roof,

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

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

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

if he does not

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

it does not

help to render the sukka valid.

According to Beit Hillel, however, one may roof with boards even if they are four handbreadths wide. Therefore, in the roof of his house, the only reason for its invalidity is “you shall make it, and not from something already made,” and one of the two actions is effective for this purpose—either he loosens the roof or he removes one from between them.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

If so,

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

come and hear the latter clause:

Rabbi Meir says,

that the view of Beit Hillel is:

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

According to what has been explained, it turns out that

Rabbi Meir is identical to Beit Shammai?!

The Gemara answers:

This is what

Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Yehuda:

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

but everyone agrees that the boards are invalid because of the decree concerning a roof, and loosening the roof 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 another difficulty:

What does it come to teach us

by bringing the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna? Does it come to teach

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

according to Beit Hillel, whose opinion is the halakha,

does not accept the decree concerning a roof?

But

surely

they already disagreed about it

previously,

one time

[in the Mishna above, 14a].

As we learned: One may roof with boards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Meir prohibits it.

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

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

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

And this is the meaning:

The first clause,

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

with regard to planed boards

and smooth boards, suitable for use and therefore possessing the status of “a vessel,”

we are dealing with.

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

And they disagreed about this: As a matter of strict law, since these boards do not have a receptacle, their status is that of “simple wooden vessels,” that is, wooden vessels without a receptacle, which do not contract ritual impurity and are valid for roofing.

And because of the decree concerning vessels

that contract ritual impurity,

they addressed the matter

in order to prohibit using them.

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

The Gemara now challenges this explanation, that they enacted a decree prohibiting the use of simple wooden vessels for roofing:

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

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

above, 12b:

If one roofed with

the handles of

arrows,

before he had inserted arrows into them, and those handles were

male,

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

valid.

But if he roofed

with female

handles, handles of arrows that have receptacles and contract ritual impurity, the sukka is

invalid,

since one may not roof with an object 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

arrow handles, 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.

The case

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.

One who hollows out a haystack to make a sukka for himself

—

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.