Sukkah 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai say: From above,

it is sufficient to make a partition ten handbreadths high above, meaning 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, one must make a partition ten handbreadths high at the bottom of the pit, ממש adjacent to the water.

Rabbi Yehuda said [he disagreed with all the tanna'im cited above]: 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

it would follow that

this partition

that the Sages said should be made inside the pit

should not be greater than the wall between them,

which separates 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. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a suspended partition is a complete partition and permits carrying within it, even if it was not made directly above the water.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehuda,

who is lenient with regard to a suspended partition,

stated his opinion in accordance with the approach of Rabbi Yosei

in our Mishna,

as he said

with regard to the partitions of a sukka:

A suspended partition permits.

The Gemara rejects the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana:

That is not so!

Rather

, Rabbi Yehuda did not adopt the view of Rabbi Yosei, nor did Rabbi Yosei adopt the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

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

Rabbi Yehuda did not adopt the view of Rabbi Yosei:

because

Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion there only

to be lenient with regard to a suspended partition

in the matter of the joining of courtyards, which is rabbinic,

as by Torah law it is prohibited only to carry out from a private domain into a public domain; but carrying from one private domain into another private domain is prohibited only by rabbinic law. Therefore, they were lenient with regard to a suspended partition.

But here,

in our Mishna, concerning the mitzva of dwelling in a

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

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

Nor did Rabbi Yosei adopt the view of Rabbi Yehuda:

because

Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion here only

to be lenient with regard to a suspended partition

in the case of a sukka, as it is merely a positive mitzva

and carries no punishment of death; therefore, they were lenient with regard to its laws as well.

But

with regard to

Shabbat, when

one is liable for

the prohibition

against labors prohibited by Torah law to receive the punishment of

stoning,

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

did not

permit leniency with regard to a suspended partition, lest people come to be lenient even with regard to labors prohibited by Torah law.

And if you say,

according to your statement, that Rabbi Yosei too agrees that a suspended partition does not permit carrying from one domain to another on Shabbat, then

the incident that took place in Tzippori,

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

according to whose opinion was it performed?

After all, Rabbi Yosei was the head of the academy in the city of Tzippori, and surely everyone followed his opinion.

Your answer is:

That incident was not performed according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei

but

according to

that of his son,

Rabbi Yishmael, son of

Rabbi Yosei,

and it took place after the death of Rabbi Yosei.

A. Just as it is prohibited to carry on Shabbat from one private domain to another, so too the Sages prohibited carrying from one house of the residents of a courtyard into the courtyard shared by all the residents. Since this courtyard is shared by everyone, carrying into it is like carrying from one’s private house into another person’s courtyard.

B. The prohibition against carrying applies only from a house used as a dwelling, or even from a courtyard situated in front of houses and used for domestic purposes. But a synagogue, which serves the public, is not considered a dwelling for this purpose, and it is permitted to carry from the 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 too they prohibited carrying from the alleyway [a passageway situated in front of the courtyards of the houses], which is shared by two courtyards, into the houses in those courtyards, unless they established an eruv of alleyways. Here 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 onto it.

And what was the incident

that took place 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 [as was their practice, they would leave 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 established an eruv of courtyards before Shabbat. Alternatively, the synagogue and the courtyard of the house in which the Torah scroll was located opened onto an alleyway to which many courtyards opened, and they had not established an eruv of alleyways. Consequently, they were prohibited from taking the Torah scroll from that house to the synagogue through the courtyard or alleyway.

What did they do?

The next day

on Shabbat,

they spread sheets over poles

that stood on both sides of the route from the house to the synagogue, until the route between them became like a small alleyway to 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 a synagogue is not used as a dwelling, as explained above.

The Gemara raises an objection: Is it conceivable that

they spread

sheets,

could it enter your mind?!

How could this have happened?

From where did they bring

those sheets

on Shabbat,

as they were prohibited from carrying them from the houses into the courtyard, since they had not established an eruv of courtyards?! The Gemara explains: Indeed, they certainly did not bring these sheets on Shabbat,

rather, they found sheets spread over the poles, and they brought the Torah scroll and read from it.

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

Rav Ḥisda said that Avimi said: A mat

that is as long as the wall and is

four

handbreadths

and something

wide, when its length is positioned along the length of the wall and its width along the height of the sukka,

permits a sukka

that is exactly ten handbreadths high

by virtue of a wall.

The reason for this will be explained below.

The Gemara explains:

How is it done,

how should one position it so that it will be valid?

He suspends it,

suspending the mat, whose width is four handbreadths,

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

any space of less than three handbreadths is considered joined.

That is, we regard all that airspace of less than three handbreadths as though it were sealed, and it is therefore like part of the wall. Here too, there is the principle of lavud on one side above, and lavud on the other side 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 that only

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

[either above, near the roof, or below, near the ground] is

do we say.

But

two instances of lavud,

above and below,

we do not say. Therefore,

Therefore,

he teaches us

Rav Ḥisda that we do say lavud twice.

The objection is raised

from what we learned:

A mat that is

seven

handbreadths

wide

and something permits a sukka by virtue of a wall.

One positions it less than three handbreadths from the ground or from the roofing, and through lavud the partition is considered ten handbreadths high. This implies that we say one instance of lavud, but we do not say two instances of lavud. For if not, the beraita should have taught a greater novelty: that even a partition four handbreadths and something wide permits a sukka by virtue of a wall?!

The Gemara answers:

When that

beraita

was taught, it was in a large sukka,

one that was very high, in which one cannot apply two instances of lavud. The beraita is speaking of a case in which the mat was positioned less than three handbreadths from the roofing and hung far above the ground.

And what does this teach us

according to this interpretation?

That one may extend the walls from above downward,

and

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

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 by virtue of a wall.

That is, in the case of a sukka that has one complete wall, and beside it, on one side, there is an additional wall consisting of only one handbreadth, so that on its other side it lacks the additional wall of seven handbreadths, it can be rendered valid by means of a strip four handbreadths wide,

and he positions it

that is, he positions the “four-handbreadth strip”

less than three handbreadths from the wall

that completes it, on its other side.

And any space of less than three handbreadths adjacent to a wall is considered joined.

Thus, there is a wall of seven handbreadths adjacent to the second wall.

What does this teach us?

This teaches us: The minimum length of a small sukka

is

seven

handbreadths.

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