Sukkah 17b — the Talmud in English

Granted, according to me, since I say

that invalid roofing does not invalidate [the sukka] until

four cubits,

as we learned in the Mishna regarding a house whose roof was breached ,

because it is a measure, and this is not a measure.

That is, the reason that invalid roofing four cubits wide invalidates the sukka is because it contains the “measure” required to invalidate it. Whereas invalid roofing of less than four cubits does not invalidate the sukka, because it lacks the “measure” required to invalidate it. And this measure is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, like the other measures of the Torah.

Therefore, one cannot raise the difficulty that the air alongside it should join it to complete a measure of four cubits, since

this—

the joining of the invalid roofing and the air—

is not a measure;

it is not considered invalid roofing four cubits wide,

since their measures are not equal

[the invalid roofing and the air]

to one another,

for air invalidates at three handbreadths, whereas roofing invalidates at four cubits; therefore

they do not join

to complete one measure.

But according to you, who say that the measure

of invalid roofing for invalidating the sukka is four handbreadths,

because of separation,

the foundation of this measure being that four handbreadths are considered throughout the Torah to be an “important place” in their own right: if so, here too, when invalid roofing was four handbreadths wide, it is considered like a place unto itself and divides the sukka, making it like two sukkot, neither of which has three walls.

If so,

what difference is it to me

whether

the sukka was divided

by invalid roofing,

what difference is it to me if it was divided by invalid roofing and air,

for in the end there are four handbreadths in the middle of the sukka, which is the measure of an “important place” unfit for sitting, and it will divide it?!

Abaye said

to Rabba:

And according to the Master as well,

who holds that there is no invalid roofing until it reaches the appropriate measure, why does the air not join it to complete the deficient measure in the invalid roofing?

Behold,

although

even

their measures are not equal

[the measures of invalid roofing and air are not equal] for invalidating it

in a large sukka

larger than the measure of seven handbreadths—for the measure of invalid roofing is four cubits, whereas the measure of air is three handbreadths, and they do not join together to complete one measure—

nevertheless,

in a small sukka,

which is only seven handbreadths wide,

are their measures not equal?!

Surely, in this sukka, if three handbreadths are missing from its measure and it thereby leaves the category of “lavud,” whether this occurred through air or through invalid roofing, it is invalid, since it does not contain the measure of a valid sukka covered with valid roofing. Since, with regard to a small sukka, their measures are equal, it is possible even in a large sukka to join the air to complete the deficient measure of the invalid roofing in order to invalidate it?!

Rabba said

to Abaye:

There,

in a small sukka, where even invalid roofing invalidates at three handbreadths,

it is not because their measures are equal to one another.

It is not because their measures are equal, so that you could say that in a small sukka the measure of invalid roofing and air is one.

Rather,

the reason that even invalid roofing invalidates in a small sukka at three handbreadths

is because there is no measure of

valid

sukka

covered with valid roofing

here.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

if

whenever the measures of

two things

are not equal to one another,

they

do they not join?

a. “The bedding of a man afflicted with gonorrhea” is impure and becomes a primary source of impurity, as it is stated [Leviticus 15:4]: “And every bed on which he who has the discharge lies shall be impure.”

b. A man afflicted with gonorrhea renders his bed or his seat impure only if they were designated for this purpose and were fit to serve as a bed or a seat. The measure at which they are fit for this purpose will be explained in the Mishna below.

And we learned in the Mishna

[Kelim 27b]:

A garment

designated for the bed of a man afflicted with gonorrhea has, with regard to receiving impurity of bedding, a minimum measure of

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths.

And the measure of

a sack

[made of goat’s wool, and thicker than a garment] is at least

four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths.

And the measure of

leather is five

handbreadths

by five

handbreadths.

And the measure of

a mat

[a mat made of ropes ] is

six

handbreadths

by six

handbreadths.

And it was taught concerning it, we learned in a beraita concerning this Mishna:

The garment,

the more stringent one, which receives impurity at three handbreadths,

and the sack,

the less stringent than it, which receives impurity only at four handbreadths, when they joined them together and made from them one sheet four handbreadths by four handbreadths,

and likewise the sack,

the more stringent one, which receives impurity at four handbreadths,

and the leather,

the less stringent than it, which receives impurity only at five handbreadths, when they joined them to one another and together completed a measure of five handbreadths by five handbreadths, the measure for receiving impurity in leather, which is the least stringent of them,

And likewise the leather and the mat,

when they joined them and made from them one sheet six handbreadths by six handbreadths, the measure of the mat, which is the least stringent of them,

behold, these

join with one another.

And it is proven that even two things whose measures are not equal join with one another, and the type whose measure is smaller completes the type whose measure is larger than it. If so, likewise let us say with regard to a sukka that the air, whose measure for invalidating the sukka is smaller than the measure of invalid roofing, should join to complete the measure of invalid roofing to four handbreadths?! The Gemara answers: In fact, two types whose measures are not equal do not join. And

there,

where we find different types joining with regard to impurity of bedding, it is

as the reason is taught

in that beraita:

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason

that two types join to complete the measure for receiving impurity, even though their measures are not equal?

Since each is fit

by itself

to render a seat impure.

That is, with regard to impurity of a seat, their measure is equal, as will be explained below. Since their measures are equal in one of the impurities of a man afflicted with gonorrhea, with regard to the impurity of his seat, they join even with regard to another impurity of such a man, that of his bedding.

As we learned in the Mishna

[Kelim 27:4]:

One who trims,

cutting with a knife all around in a fine shape,

from all of them,

from one of all those types mentioned above—even if that piece was only the size of

one handbreadth by one handbreadth,

it is

impure

with impurity of bedding.

The Gemara explains:

One handbreadth by one handbreadth—for what is it fit

[that is, for what is that handbreadth fit], so that because of this it should be fit to receive impurity of bedding?

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Since it is fit to take it,

to make it into a patch

on top of

the saddlecloth of

the donkey,

in the place where a person sits on the saddlecloth. Therefore, if he made from them a patch for the saddlecloth and designated them for this purpose,

they become impure with impurity of a seat. And in this measure all those types are equal. Since they are equal with regard to this, they also join to complete the measure for impurity of the bedding of a man afflicted with gonorrhea.

In Sura they stated this teaching above, concerning the measure that invalid roofing placed in the middle of the sukka invalidates, in this formulation [in this language], as it was brought above. According to this formulation, in Rav’s opinion invalid roofing invalidates in the middle of the sukka at four handbreadths, whereas in Rabba’s opinion, even when the invalid roofing is placed in the middle of the sukka, it does not invalidate until four cubits.

But

in Nehardea they taught

this dispute in another manner: According to the formulation of Nehardea, it is Shmuel who holds that invalid roofing invalidates in the middle of the sukka at four handbreadths, while Rav disagrees with him and holds that invalid roofing does not invalidate even in the middle of the sukka until four cubits.

And this is how they taught in Nehardea:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Invalid roofing in the middle

of the sukka

invalidates at four

handbreadths. But if the invalid roofing was placed

at the side,

immediately adjacent to the walls, it

invalidates only

at four cubits,

for then it leaves the category of a “curved wall.”

And Rav said: Whether at the side

or

whether in the middle, at four cubits.

We learned above, 14a: One may cover with boards, the words of Rabbi Yehuda, while Rabbi Meir prohibits it; and his reason is because of the “decree of a ceiling.”

The Gemara disputed which boards Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disputed.

According to Rav, even Rabbi Meir invalidated only boards four handbreadths wide; but boards that are not four handbreadths wide are valid for roofing according to everyone.

Whereas according to Shmuel, boards four handbreadths wide are invalid for roofing even according to Rabbi Yehuda, and they disputed boards more than three and up to four handbreadths wide: Rabbi Meir prohibited roofing with them because of the decree of a ceiling, while Rabbi Yehuda permitted it.

We learned:

If one placed upon it a board four handbreadths wide,

which is invalid for roofing because of the “decree of a ceiling,” the sukka is

valid.

The Gemara understood that the board was placed in the middle of the sukka, and therefore it is difficult:

Granted, according to Rav

[according to the version of the people of Nehardea],

who says, whether in the middle or whether at the side, at four cubits—for this reason,

when one placed upon it a board only four handbreadths wide, even if it was in its middle, it is

valid,

since invalid roofing does not invalidate the sukka until four cubits.

who says that whether in the middle or at the side, it is four cubits, for this reason,

if one placed upon it a board only four handbreadths wide, even if it was in the middle, it is

valid,

But according to Shmuel, who says

that invalid roofing placed in the middle of the sukka invalidates at four

handbreadths,

why is it valid

when one placed upon it in the middle a board four handbreadths wide?!

The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? For example, one placed it upon the sukka at the side. And at the side, everyone agrees that it is not invalidated until four cubits, since this invalid roofing is considered part of the wall because of the halakha of a “curved wall.”

handbreadths,

why is it valid

when one placed in its middle a board four handbreadths wide?!

Come and hear

from that which we learned there: One placed upon his sukka

two sheets

that receive impurity as garments and are invalid for roofing because they are an item susceptible to impurity. Neither of them individually has a measure sufficient to invalidate the entire sukka; nevertheless, since they were placed alongside one another, they

join

to invalidate it.

But

two boards

that are wide, neither of which has the measure fit to invalidate it,

do not join

to invalidate it, since according to the first tanna the Sages did not decree upon wide boards to invalidate them for roofing because of the “decree of a ceiling.”

Rabbi Meir says:

Even

boards

join with one another

like sheets.

Rabbi Meir holds that one may not cover with wide boards because of the “decree of a ceiling,” as explained above, 14a. [The amoraim there disputed his view: whether a board three handbreadths wide is invalid for roofing, or only one four handbreadths wide; and according to Rav, they prohibited only boards four handbreadths wide.]

And it is difficult:

Granted, according to that formulation

that they stated in Nehardea,

that Rav says

invalid roofing

whether in the middle or whether at the side, at four cubits, what is the meaning of “they join”

that we learned in the beraita,

“they join to make four cubits”?

For example, the sukka was covered with boards four handbreadths wide, which are invalid for roofing, placed alongside one another until they joined together into a width of four cubits, thereby invalidating the entire sukka.

that invalid roofing

whether in the middle or at the side is four cubits, what does “they combine” mean

as taught in the beraita,

they combine to reach four cubits?

This is referring to a case where the sukka was roofed with boards four handbreadths wide, which are unfit for roofing, placed side by side until together they reached a width of four cubits, thereby invalidating the entire sukka.

And the explanation of the dispute between the tannaim in the beraita is: Rabbi Meir forbids, since according to his view boards four tefachim wide are invalid because of the decree concerning a ceiling; and since they were placed alongside one another, they join together to invalidate all of it within four amot. Whereas the first tanna holds like Rabbi Yehuda, that the Sages did not decree at all to invalidate boards, even if they were four tefachim wide, and therefore they certainly will not join together to invalidate it within four amot, since they are valid sekhakh.

But according to this formulation,

the first formulation, which holds

that Rav said

invalid sekhakh that is placed

in the middle

of the sukka invalidates it

with four

tefachim,

what are the circumstances?

What boards are being discussed in the beraita?

If they contain

in each of the boards a width of

four

tefachim and are invalid for sekhakh, if so,

why do they need to join together?

For even if they do not join together, each one of them by itself has the measure sufficient to invalidate the entire sukka.

And

if they do not contain

in each of the boards a width of

four

tefachim, so that one board by itself would invalidate it, if so, why should they join together? For

they are merely reeds, [לישנא קמא, הסוברת]like the other reeds,

like other reeds,

are they,

and they are valid sekhakh. For according to Rav, even Rabbi Meir did not forbid making sekhakh with boards that are not four tefachim wide; and how can it be that they join together to invalidate it?!

And the Gemara answers:

Actually,

it is speaking

of their containing

in each of the boards a width of

four

tefachim, and they are invalid for sekhakh.

And what does “they join together” mean,

that is, in what manner must they join together in order to invalidate the sukka? —

They join together to make four amot at the side.

For example, they were lying at the side, adjacent to the wall; and therefore, although they are invalid sekhakh, the sukka is not invalidated by one of them alone without their joining together, since invalid sekhakh placed at the side does not invalidate the sukka until four amot, because of a bent wall.

Come and hear

from that which we learned there:

If one covered

his sukka

with cedar boards that contain,

in each and every one of them, a width of

four

tefachim,

according to everyone it is invalid.

But if

they do not contain,

in each and every one of them

, four

tefachim,

Rabbi Meir invalidates, and Rabbi Yehuda validates.