Sukkah 16b — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai say: From above,

it is sufficient if he makes a partition ten handbreadths high above, that is, from the edge of the pit downward into it; and even if the pit was very deep, it is a valid partition.

And Beit Hillel say: From below.

That is, he should make a partition ten handbreadths high at the bottom of the pit, immediately adjacent to the water.

Rabbi Judah said [he disagreed with all the earlier Tannaim]:

There is no need at all to make a partition inside the pit in order to permit carrying the water from the pit on Shabbat. The reason is that

this partition

which the Sages said should be made inside the pit

will not be greater than the wall between them,

which divides between the two courtyards.

That is, the partition extending between the courtyards and passing above the mouth of the pit is sufficient to permit carrying the water. And Rabbi Judah held that a suspended partition is a complete partition and permits carrying within it, even if it was not made above the water.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Judah,

who is lenient regarding a suspended partition,

stated his view according to Rabbi Yose

in our Mishna,

as he said

with regard to the partitions of the sukka:

A suspended partition permits.

The Gemara rejects the words of Rabba bar bar Ḥana:

That is not so!

Rather,

, neither did Rabbi Judah hold like Rabbi Yose, nor did Rabbi Yose hold like Rabbi Judah.

That is, from Rabbi Judah’s leniency regarding a suspended partition with respect to the prohibition of carrying between two courtyards on Shabbat, it cannot be proven that one should be lenient regarding a suspended partition with respect to the partitions of a sukka. Conversely, from Rabbi Judah’s leniency regarding a suspended partition with respect to the partitions of a sukka, it cannot be proven that one should be lenient in this matter with regard to the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat, as will be explained.

Neither did Rabbi Judah hold like Rabbi Yose:

For

Rabbi Judah stated his view there only

to be lenient regarding a suspended partition

in the matter of courtyard eruvs, which is rabbinic,

since by Torah law one is prohibited only to carry out from a private domain into a public domain, whereas from one private domain to another private domain one is prohibited only by rabbinic law; therefore they were lenient regarding a suspended partition.

But here,

in our Mishna, with regard to the mitzva of dwelling in a

sukka, which is by Torah law, Rabbi Judah was not

lenient, and it is possible that according to him specifically a complete partition is required.

Nor did Rabbi Yose hold like Rabbi Judah:

For

Rabbi Yose stated his view here only

to be lenient regarding a suspended partition,

but in the case of a sukka, since it is a positive commandment

alone and there is no death penalty for it, they were therefore lenient also in its laws.

But

with regard to

Shabbat, for

one who violates

the prohibition

of labors prohibited by Torah law is liable to

stoning,

the Sages were stringent, and even with regard to rabbinic labors they

were not

lenient regarding a suspended partition, lest people come to be lenient also with regard to labors prohibited by Torah law.

And if you will say,

according to your words, that Rabbi Yose too agrees that a suspended partition does not permit carrying from one domain to another on Shabbat, if so, that

incident that took place in Tzippori,

in which they permitted carrying on Shabbat by means of a suspended partition,

according to whose view was it done?

After all, Rabbi Yose was the head of the yeshiva in the city of Tzippori, and certainly everyone followed his view.

Your answer is:

It was not done according to Rabbi Yose

that incident;

rather, according to

his son,

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi

Yose,

and this was after Rabbi Yose’s death.

A. Just as it is prohibited to carry on Shabbat from one private domain to another, so the Sages prohibited carrying from the house of one of the residents of a courtyard into the shared courtyard of all the residents. Since this courtyard is shared by all, this is like one who carries from his house, which is particular to him, into his fellow’s courtyard.

B. The prohibition of carrying applies only from a house used as a dwelling, or even from a courtyard made in front of the houses and used for dwelling purposes. But a synagogue, which serves the public, is not considered a dwelling for this matter, and it is permitted to carry from a synagogue or from the courtyard in front of it into another person’s house.

C. Just as the Sages prohibited carrying from a shared courtyard into one of the houses within it, so they prohibited carrying from the alleyway [a lane made in front of the courtyards of the houses], which is shared by two courtyards, into the houses in the courtyards, unless they made a shitufei mevo’ot. And in this matter too, the law of a synagogue differs from that of other houses, and it is permitted to carry from the alleyway into a synagogue that opens into it.

And what was the incident

that they carried out in Tzippori?

For when Rav Dimi came, he said: Once they forgot and did not bring a Torah scroll on the eve of Shabbat

to the synagogue [their practice was to place the Torah scroll in one of the houses for safekeeping from the gentiles].

The synagogue and that house opened onto the same courtyard, which was shared by many houses, and they had not made courtyard eruvs before Shabbat. Alternatively, the synagogue and the courtyard of that house, in which the Torah scroll was located, opened onto an alleyway onto which many courtyards opened, and they had not made shitufei mevo’ot. Therefore, they were prohibited to take the Torah scroll from that house to the synagogue through the courtyard or the alleyway.

What did they do?

The next day

on Shabbat,

they spread sheets over the posts

that were there on both sides of the way from the house to the synagogue, until the way between them became like a small alleyway into which only that house and the synagogue opened. The other courtyards and houses were outside the partition, and they did not prohibit carrying from the house into the courtyard.

And they brought the Torah scroll

through those sheets,

and read from it.

For it is permitted to carry from a synagogue into another courtyard, since the synagogue is not used for dwelling purposes, as explained above.

The Gemara raises an objection: Is it so that

they spread

sheets?

Would it enter your mind!?

How is this possible?

From where did they bring them

—those sheets—

on Shabbat,

since they were prohibited to take them out from the houses into the courtyard, as they had not made courtyard eruvs?! The Gemara explains: Indeed, they certainly did not bring these sheets on Shabbat,

but they found sheets spread over the posts, and they brought the Torah scroll and read from it.

These sheets did not actually reach the ground; rather, they were suspended at a distance of three handbreadths from the ground. It was therefore a suspended partition, and nevertheless they permitted carrying within it.

Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Avimi: A mat

that is as long as the length of the wall, and is

four

handbreadths

and something

only wide, when he positions its length along the length of the wall and its width as the height of the sukka,

permits the sukka

that is exactly ten handbreadths high

as a wall.

The reason for this will be explained below.

The Gemara explains:

How does he do it,

how does he position it so that it will be valid?

He suspends it,

he suspends the mat, which is four handbreadths wide,

in the middle

of the height of the sukka, so that it is

less than three

handbreadths

below

the ground,

and less than three

handbreadths

above

the roofing,

and

therefore, although the measure of a partition is ten handbreadths, it is valid as a partition, since

every space of less than three is considered lavud.

That is, we view all that airspace of less than three as though it were sealed, and it is therefore like a part of the wall. Here too, on one side lavud is made above, and on its other side lavud is made below, and thus the mat becomes a partition ten handbreadths high.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious,

did Rav Ḥisda come to teach us this law of lavud?!

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say,

I might have thought to say that only

one lavud [either above, toward the roofing, or below, toward the ground]

is what we

say.

But

two lavuds,

above and below,

we do not say;

therefore

he teaches us

Rav Ḥisda that we say lavud even twice.

He raises an objection

from what we learned:

A mat that is

seven

handbreadths

wide

and something permits the sukka as a wall.

And he positions it less than three handbreadths close to the ground or to the roofing, and by means of lavud the partition is considered ten handbreadths high. It follows that we say one lavud, but we do not say two lavuds. For if not, the beraita should have taught something more novel: that even a partition four handbreadths and something wide permits the sukka as a wall?!

The Gemara answers:

When that

beraita was taught, it was

with regard to a large sukka,

one that was very high, in which you cannot apply two lavuds; and the beraita is speaking of a case in which he positioned it less than three handbreadths close to the roofing, while it remained suspended far above the ground.

And what does it teach us

the beraita, according to this interpretation?

That one extends the walls from above downward,

and

according to Rabbi Yose

in our Mishna; the reason is that a suspended partition permits in a sukka.

Rabbi Ami said: A strip

ten handbreadths high and

four

handbreadths

and something wide permits a sukka as a wall.

That is, a sukka that had one complete wall, and beside it, on one side, there was an additional wall that contained only one handbreadth, so that on its other side it lacked the additional wall of seven handbreadths, can be made valid by means of a strip four handbreadths wide,

and he positions it,

and positions this “four-handbreadth strip”

less than three handbreadths close to the complete wall

on its other side.

And every space of less than three handbreadths close to a wall is considered lavud.

Thus you have a partition of seven handbreadths adjacent to the second wall.

What does it teach us?

This it teaches us: The measure of the length of a small sukka

is

seven

handbreadths.

The reason is that a person’s sitting place is one cubit, and a cubit contains six handbreadths, with one additional handbreadth for his table.