Sukkah 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

When Abaye and Rava disagree

according to

Rav,

who maintains that we say, “the edge of the roof descends and seals,” with regard to a sukka in an open field:

Abaye,

who says that in a sukka situated in a courtyard, “the edge of the roof descends and seals” on all sides of the sukka, holds

in accordance with Rav,

who says that the edge of the roof descends and seals even when one wall is not actually present.

And Rava could say to you:

I, too, agree with Rav. And the reason that we do not say, “the edge of the roof descends and seals,” with regard to a sukka in a courtyard is not that this principle applies only when one wall is actually present. Rather, it is for another reason; and even if the sukka were lacking only one wall, we would not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals, even according to Rav.

For

Rav said this only there,

with regard to a portico in an open field, that “the edge of the roof descends and seals,” so that it is considered surrounded by walls,

but

because

the partitions,

that is, the edge of the roof, which is the thickness of the walls and the beginning of the partitions,

were made for the portico;

they were made for the portico’s needs, and therefore we regard them as though they descend and seal it on all four sides.

But here,

with regard to a sukka in a courtyard,

as

the thickness of the boards in the roof of the portico

was not made for this purpose,

for the sukka in the courtyard,

but was made

for the needs of the portico, therefore

it does not

become a partition for the sukka by virtue of the principle that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Abaye, who said with regard to a sukka in a courtyard that the edge of the roof descends and seals:

We learned

in the Mishna: If a house’s roof was breached and one roofed over the opening, the sukka is unfit if there are four cubits from the wall to the roofing.

And likewise, a courtyard surrounded by a portico,

if the roof of the portico was four cubits wide, it cannot be rendered fit by using the wall of the house according to the principle of a crooked wall.

And

this is difficult for Abaye:

Why

is the sukka unfit when the roof of the portico was four cubits wide? Let us say:

“The edge of the roof,

the thickness of the boards at the edge of the portico,

descends and seals,”

and why is it necessary to invoke the principle of a crooked wall, with its limitation that a crooked wall applies only up to four cubits?!

The Gemara answers:

Rava interpreted

and explained

Rava

our Mishna

according to Abaye,

according to Abaye’s position,

when he made its roofing level.

This is referring to a case where he did not place the sukka’s roofing on top of the portico’s roof, but made the sukka’s roofing exactly level with it, so that the edge of the portico is not discernible within the sukka. Therefore, we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals, since the “edge” of the roof is not discernible here.

In Sura they taught this discussion [

they transmitted the statements of Abaye and Rava ]

in this wording,

as it is taught before us.

But

in Pumbedita—

they taught

the matter differently:

If one roofed over a portico that has no posts [

a portico that has no posts around it with gaps of less than three handbreadths, so that they would be considered partitions by virtue of lavud ],

everyone agrees that it is unfit.

We do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals, since the thickness of the boards was not made for the sukka, but for the portico.

But if

it has posts,

Abaye and Rava disagree in this matter:

Abaye says it is fit; Rava says it is unfit.

And the Gemara explains:

Abaye says it is fit

because

we say “lavud.”

Although the posts were not made for the sukka but as part of the portico, this is nevertheless a partition. The distinction was stated specifically with regard to the edge of the roof; but concerning lavud, since there are not three handbreadths between the posts, it is a complete closure, for an airspace of less than three handbreadths is considered insignificant. That is, the law of “lower and bring down” is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the halakha was stated only when the partition was made for the sukka; but with regard to lavud, in addition to the tradition there is also logical reasoning, since anything less than three handbreadths is insignificant.

Rava says: It is unfit,

for he holds that

we do not say “lavud.”

His reason is that lavud, too, is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and on the basis of reasoning alone it would not be considered a partition. This halakha was stated only when the posts were made to enclose the sukka. But here, since the posts were made to enclose the portico, the lavud partition is not effective for the sukka.

And the Gemara decides:

And the halakha is—

according to the first wording,

and in accordance with Rava.

Therefore, if one roofed over a portico that has posts, the sukka is fit by virtue of lavud. But when it has no posts, the sukka is not fit, since we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals when the beginning of the partition was not made for the sukka.

Rav Ashi found [

he found ]

Rav Kahana roofing over a portico that had no posts.

He had made a sukka with two walls, one to the south and the other to the east. He had not made a third wall one handbreadth wide on its northern side to complete the required measure of the walls—“two according to their halakhic form, and the third even one handbreadth”—but had placed the sukka adjacent to a portico without posts, which was on the northern side of the sukka, and rested the ends of the roofing poles on the roof of the portico, whose edge was discernible within the sukka.

Rav Ashi assumed that Rav Kahana was relying on the roof of the portico as the third wall, by virtue of the principle that the edge of the roof descends and seals.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Is it the case that

my master does not hold that which Rava said,

namely, that only when

it has posts is it fit

by virtue of lavud, but

when it has no posts it is unfit,

and we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and seals?!

He showed him

Rav Kahana showed Rav Ashi

“visible from within and flush from outside. Alternatively,

Rashi did not have this version], that the sukka had a third wall one handbreadth wide at the northeastern corner, but this wall was not visible within the sukka.

Rather, there was

visible

this one handbreadth

from outside

the sukka,

and flush from within

it.

That is, this wall extended from the northeastern corner of the sukka to the rear of the eastern wall, along the portico, which was wider than the sukka and extended behind it. Consequently, to someone standing outside the sukka within the portico, the partition was discernible as the beginning of a third wall of the sukka; but to those standing inside the sukka, the wall was not visible.

This wall is effective even though it is not visible within the sukka, but only from outside.

For it was stated

similarly with regard to Shabbat, concerning a side-post placed at the entrance of a mavוי in order to permit carrying within the mavוי on Shabbat: If the side-post was

visible from outside

the mavוי,

and flush from within,

meaning that he placed the side-post at the corner of the mavוי toward the public domain, and the post did not protrude into the mavוי and was not visible within it, but extended along the side of the mavוי beside the public domain, so that it was visible only to those in the public domain and not to those in the mavוי, nevertheless it is

considered a side-post.

And a side-post—

that is, posts.

That is, just as this strip is effective as a side-post, so too is it effective as a wall for a sukka; that is, this side-post is considered a “post” of this sukka.

A tanna taught [

we learned in a beraita ] :

“The sekhakh that extends from the sukka is considered a sukka.”

And the Gemara asks:

What

does

“the sekhakh that extends from the sukka” mean?

He said [

he explained ]

Ulla: Poles

from the roofing

that extend

and continue

behind the sukka,

outside the middle wall, behind the sukka.

The Gemara raises an objection: According to Ulla’s explanation, that the reference is to poles extending behind the sukka, they should be considered a sukka in their own right and should not be subordinate to the sukka, since the middle wall separates them from the interior of the sukka.

And

if so, how can these poles be rendered fit by virtue of the law of sekhakh that extends from the sukka?

After all,

we

require

a sukka to have

three walls,

whereas these poles are not surrounded by any walls at all?! [

But poles extending in front of the sukka, from the fourth, open side, are certainly considered part of the sukka, and they need not be surrounded by three partitions, as will be explained below. ] The Gemara answers: The case is

where there are

two parallel walls behind the sukka, and the sukka’s middle wall also serves as the middle wall of the outer sukka; therefore, the space between them is considered a sukka.

The Gemara raises another objection: Even if the space behind the sukka were surrounded by partitions, how could we render it fit?

But

after all,

we

require the space to be seven handbreadths wide, the measure of

a fit sukka?

The interior of the sukka cannot combine with it to complete the measure, since a partition separates them, and they are like two separate sukkot.

The Gemara answers: The case is

where there is

in the outer sukka an area equal to the measure of a fit sukka.

The Gemara raises another objection: Is it conceivable that poles extending behind the sukka are always considered a sukka?

But

after all,

we

require the sukka to have

more shade than sunlight?!

The Gemara answers: The case is

where there is

among the poles a measure in which the shade exceeds the sunlight.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if the outer sukka contains all the conditions necessary for a fit sukka—both three walls and roofing of the requisite measure—

what is the point of stating it?

What does the beraita teach us by stating that this sukka is fit?!

The Gemara explains: Had the beraita not innovated that this sukka is fit,

you might have said,

I would have said:

Since

the middle partition

was made for the interior,

it was made for the inner sukka,

and was not made for the exterior,

it was not made for the outer sukka,

say, it is not

this partition effective except in front of it, for the inner sukka, and not for the sukka behind it. Therefore,

it teaches us

the beraita that this partition is effective on both sides, and the outer sukka, too, is considered a sukka in every respect.

Rabba bar bar Hana and Rav Yosef both said

to explain the beraita differently:

Here,

the beraita is not discussing poles extending behind the sukka beyond the middle wall, but rather

poles extending into the sukka,

toward the fourth side, which is open, and in a case where

one wall extends and continues along with them,

one of the sukka’s walls extends until the end of the poles.

You might have said,

we might have thought to say, since the opposite wall was not also extended to the end of the poles, this indicates that he does not wish to include that area within his sukka; rather, it is a separate sukka, and it should therefore be disqualified, since

after all,

it lacks

the requisite walls of a sukka of seven handbreadths, the measure of

a fit sukka,

as it has only two partitions: the middle wall and the wall that extends to the end of the poles.

It teaches us

the beraita that the entire area is considered one sukka, and is fit even though he did not extend the third wall to the end of the poles. This is because the essential form of the mitzva of sukka is that one makes two walls according to their halakhic form along its entire length, and a third wall one handbreadth wide; the third wall need not extend along the entire length.

Rabba bar bar Hana said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan,

explaining the beraita differently:

This beraita was necessary

only

for a sukka whose majority has more shade than sunlight, while its minority has more sunlight than shade,

so that the sukka as a whole has more shade than sunlight.

And the baraita’s intention is to teach a novel point:

One might have thought:

I would say,

the sukkah would be invalidated

by the sukkah

in that small area,

because of that section where the sunlight is greater than the shade,

that it is permitted to sit throughout the entire sukka, even beneath the area where the sun is greater than the shade.

And

according to this interpretation, that the invalid section does not actually extend beyond the sukka,

what

is the meaning of the term

“extends”

from the sukka, as the baraita states? —

It extends beyond the area valid for a sukkah,

as it is not covered in the manner required for a valid sukka.

Rabbi Oshaya said

to explain the baraita in a different manner:

It was necessary

for this baraita

only with regard to invalid roofing less than three

handbreadths wide that is placed

in a small sukkah,

which measures only seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, and this roofing does not invalidate the sukka; rather, it combines with the valid roofing to complete the minimum measure required for its validity. [For if it did not combine with it, the sukka would necessarily be invalid, since it would not contain seven handbreadths of space covered in the valid manner.]

And what

is the meaning of the term

“extends”

from the sukka, as we learned in the baraita?

It extends beyond the status of a sukkah,

since part of the roofing is not of a material valid for roofing.

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection against this:

Why does the baraita need to teach us this halakha, that invalid roofing less than three handbreadths wide does not invalidate a small sukka? After all, even if

this were not

invalid roofing

but merely open space,

which is more stringent and invalidates a large sukka when it measures three handbreadths, unlike invalid roofing, which invalidates it only when it measures four,

and

if

open space less than three handbreadths wide in a small sukkah, does it invalidate it!?

It certainly does not invalidate the sukka, and all the more so invalid roofing does not invalidate it. What, then, does the baraita teach us?!

Rabbi Abba said to him

to Rav Hoshaya: Indeed, the baraita’s intention was not to teach that invalid roofing less than three handbreadths wide combines with the valid roofing to complete the minimum measure of the sukka. Rather, it comes to teach us that the Sages were more lenient with invalid roofing than with open space.

This,

invalid roofing,

combines

with the valid roofing to complete the minimum measure of the sukka,

and

one may even

sleep beneath it, whereas

if

this,

open space less than three handbreadths wide,

combines

with the valid roofing to complete the minimum measure of the sukka,

but one may not sleep beneath it.

And the Gemara asks:

Is there such a thing

[is there such a possibility]

that it combines with another

to complete the required measure,

while it itself is not valid?