Sukkah 18a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Meir concedes:

even if the boards were four handbreadths wide,

that if there is

a space

between one board and the board

adjacent to it

the full

width of a

board, in which he places invalid sekhakh [

valid sekhakh ]

between them, it is valid.

The reason is: because the measure of invalid sekhakh is equal to the measure of valid sekhakh, and we found that Rav Pappa said above [15a]: “The breached area equal to the standing area is permitted.” That is, if the area of the sukkah roofed with valid sekhakh was equal to the area roofed with invalid sekhakh, it is valid. And according to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua there, that the sukkah is not valid until the valid exceeds the invalid, we must say that the valid was slightly greater than the invalid, and therefore the entire sukkah is valid.

And the Gemara explains:

Granted, according to the one who says

the measure of invalid sekhakh needed to invalidate the sukkah

whether

it was

in the middle

of the sukkah,

or at the side

it was

four cubits, for that reason

the sukkah is

valid,

and the boards do not invalidate the sukkah, because they are not four cubits wide.

But according to the one who says

roofing placed

in the middle

of the sukkah invalidates

with four

handbreadths,

why is the sukkah valid

when he roofed it with boards four handbreadths wide? Is not one of these boards sufficient to separate between the parts of the sukkah and invalidate it?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: Here, we are dealing with a sukkah that was not

wide

except eight

cubits

exactly,

which are forty-eight handbreadths, since a cubit is six handbreadths. And it is speaking of one who began roofing it from both of its sides in this manner:

He placed

a

board

four handbreadths wide upon it, adjacent to the wall of the sukkah,

and

beside it he placed

invalid sekhakh,

valid sekhakh four handbreadths wide, equal to the full width of a board. And so he continued

and

a second time he placed another

board and invalid sekhakh. And

he continued a third time, and placed

a board and invalid sekhakh on this side,

from one side of the sukkah, up to its middle. Thus their combined measure was twenty-four handbreadths, so that the third section of invalid sekhakh was adjacent to the middle of the sukkah.

And

likewise, he placed three times

a board and invalid sekhakh, and a board and invalid sekhakh, and a board and invalid sekhakh, on this side,

from the other side of the sukkah up to its middle,

so that there were

together

two sections of invalid sekhakh,

each one of which was four handbreadths wide,

in the middle

of the sukkah.

And

it turns out that

there is

a measure sufficient for

the validity of a sukkah in the middle

of the sukkah, and on each side of it there are twenty handbreadths, which are less than four cubits, and they are considered a “bent wall” to validate the area beneath the sections of invalid sekhakh in the middle.

Abaye said:

If there was in the sukkah

an open space

of

three

handbreadths, which was not roofed at all, that being the measure for invalidation

in a large sukkah, and he reduced it, whether

he reduced the open space

with

that he placed in the open space

reeds

valid for roofing,

or with rods

invalid for roofing,

it is a reduction,

and the sukkah is valid. And the rods do not combine with the remaining open space to invalidate it at three handbreadths, since their measures for invalidating it are not equal: open space invalidates at three, while invalid sekhakh invalidates at four, as explained above, page 17a.

And if that open space was three handbreadths wide

in a small sukkah,

which was only seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths wide, then only if he reduced it

with reeds

valid for roofing

is it a reduction,

since there is not here a measure sufficient to invalidate it. But if he reduced it

with rods

invalid for roofing,

it is not a reduction,

and the sukkah is invalid, since through both of them the measure of the sukkah was reduced, and there is not here the measure sufficient for the validity of a sukkah.

And this applies

that open space does not invalidate the sukkah until three handbreadths when the open space was

at the side,

adjacent to the wall of the sukkah, for if it was less than three handbreadths, we regard the sekhakh as adjacent to the wall by the law of “lavud,” and the open space is considered nothing.

But

if the open space was less than three handbreadths

in the middle

of the sekhakh,

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about it:

One said: There is lavud in the middle. And one said: There is no lavud in the middle.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of the one who says there is lavud in the middle?

By Torah law it is forbidden to carry an object four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat. But a mavoy [an alleyway made in front of the courtyards of houses], surrounded by three partitions, although by Torah law it is permitted to carry in it more than four cubits and its law is that of a private domain, the Sages prohibited doing so, lest people come to carry in the public domain.

However, the Sages permitted carrying in it by placing a beam one handbreadth wide on the walls of the mavoy, at the entrance opening of the mavoy. The reason for this permission: some said that it is because of “recognition,” so that through it people will not come to confuse it with the public domain. And some said that it is because of a “partition,” for we regard it as though the beam descends and closes it like a partition, and the mavoy is thereby enclosed on its four sides.

For it was taught: A beam

that permits the mavoy, when it is placed above the walls at its opening facing the public domain,

that projects from this wall

of the mavoy

and does not touch the wall

the

other

on the opposite side of the mavoy,

and likewise two beams

placed opposite one another across the width of the mavoy,

one projecting from this wall

of the mavoy

and one projecting from another wall

opposite it,

and they do not touch one another,

if the distance between the wall and the beam [in the first case], and between the two beams [in the second case], was

less than three

handbreadths,

he does not

need to bring another beam

and close that open space, since we regard that open space as closed by the law of “lavud.”

But if the distance between them was

three

handbreadths, having already left the category of “lavud,”

he needs to bring another beam,

and place it across that open space.

In any event, we have learned that we say “lavud” even in the “middle,” in a place that is not adjacent to the walls.

But the other one,

who holds that we do not say lavud in the middle of the sukkah, could say to you:

Beams are different,

since the entire obligation to place them is only

rabbinic,

for by Torah law, since the mavoy is enclosed on three sides, its status is that of a complete private domain, and it is permitted to carry within it.

Now the Gemara returns to explain:

What is the reason of the one who says there is no lavud in the middle?

For we learned [

Oholot 10:1 ]

An opening that is in the

roof of the

house, and in it there is an opening of one handbreadth [

it has a width of one handbreadth by one handbreadth ]:

If there was

impurity

of a corpse

in the house, then

the

entire [

entire house ]

is impure, and all the vessels beneath the roof of the house are impure, for the house brings the impurity upon them by the law of the “tent of the corpse.” As it is written [Numbers 19:14]: “This is the law: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent, and whatever is in the tent, shall be impure for seven days.”

and all the vessels beneath the roof of the house are impure, since the house conveys the impurity to them under the law of the “tent of the dead.” As it is written [Numbers 19:14]: “This is the law: When a person dies in a tent, anyone who enters the tent, and everything that is in the tent, shall be impure for seven days.”

But

that which

is found

opposite

the opening of the

opening,

is

pure,

because it is not included within the tent of the corpse, since it is not beneath the roof of the house. [And although the opening is not three handbreadths wide, we do not say “lavud” to consider it closed and render the vessels beneath it impure.]

And if

impurity

of the corpse was present

opposite the opening,

then

the entire house is pure,

because the impurity is not beneath the roof of the house, but only beneath the opening, and the opening is open above.

And the same law applies if

there is no “opening of one handbreadth” in the opening,

an area of one handbreadth by one handbreadth—

If there was

impurity in the house, the entire house is impure, whereas that which is found

opposite the opening is pure.

And if the

impurity was opposite the opening, the entire house is pure.

impurity was opposite the skylight, the entire house is pure.

And from the fact that we declared the vessels beneath the opening pure, it is proven that there is no “lavud” in the middle, for if we said “lavud” there, the entire house would become closed, and it would be one tent.

But the other one,

who holds that there is lavud in the middle, could say to you:

The laws of impurity are different, for thus they learned it

as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, that there is no lavud in the middle in them. And one does not derive from a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that was stated with regard to impurity to other places.

Now the Gemara explains what we learned in the Mishna: if a house was breached and one placed roofing over it, if there are four cubits from the wall to the roofing, it is invalid:

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai expounded: If a house was breached and one placed roofing over it,

this is a sukka

valid.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: Rabbi, explain [

explain your words], for you did not explain how great the distance between the valid roofing and the walls must be.

And

so my father explained

this law: If the roofing was distant from the walls

four cubits,

it is

invalid,

but if it was

less than four cubits,

it is

valid [

as explained above, 17a].

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai expounded: Avroma [

small fish, which are drawn from the river in large groups]

is permitted,

they are permitted for consumption, and there is no concern lest forbidden fish that cannot be discerned because of their smallness became mixed with them.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: Rabbi, explain [

explain your words], why is there no concern lest forbidden fish became mixed with them?

Rather,

my father said thus:

avroma

of a certain place

is

forbidden,

since in that place species of creeping things that cannot be discerned become mixed with them, but

that of a certain place is permitted,

since the river of that place does not breed creeping things.

As in that which Abaye said: This tzahanta [

a species of small fish]

of the Bav River [

from a river named Bav]

is permitted,

they are permitted for eating, and there is no concern lest impure creeping things became mixed with them.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

If you say it is because the waters run swiftly,

for there the waters hurry to flow,

and this impure fish, since it does not have a spinal cord

that gives it the strength to withstand the current,

cannot remain [

it does not survive there], and therefore there is no concern lest they became mixed with the fish,

it is impossible to explain thus, for

we see that it remains [

we see with our own eyes that impure creeping things survive even in rivers that flow with force].

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the impure creeping things do not survive in that river

because the waters are salty [

its waters are salty],

and this impure fish, since it does not have scales [

it has no scales],

cannot remain [

it does not survive because of the salinity of the waters].

This too is impossible to explain, for

we see that it remains [

we see with our own eyes that impure creeping things survive even in rivers whose waters are salty].

Rather,

the reason for the matter is

because

we know

that the mud does not cause impure fish to breed,

for the mud of that river is not fit to breed impure creeping things in it.

Ravina said: And nowadays,

today,

when they pour,

when the waters of

the Eitan River and the Gamda River flow there,

to that place, to the Bav River,

it is forbidden

to eat tzahanta, for there is concern lest impure fish from the rivers that flow into it were poured into it.

It was stated: If one placed roofing over a portico,

a courtyard enclosed on three of its sides, whose roof extends four cubits or more, so that it is impossible to validate the roofing placed in the middle by means of a dofen akuma, but

it has

alongside the sukka

posts,

upright pillars that are not three handbreadths distant from one another,

it is valid

the sukka in the courtyard, for one says “lavud” between the posts, and those pillars become the walls of the sukka within the portico, and there is no need to use the walls of the house, which are distant, as the walls of the sukka. See the illustration at the end of the book.

But if one placed roofing over a courtyard enclosed on three of its sides by a portico

that has no posts,

and the roof of the portico extends four cubits, so that one cannot say in it dofen akuma:

Abaye said:

even so,

it is valid

the sukka. And its reason will be explained below.

And Rava said: It is invalid.