Sukkah 19a — the Talmud in English

They disagree

Abaye and Rava,

according to Rav,

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

Abaye,

who says that, with regard to a sukka in a courtyard, we say “the edge of the roof descends and closes” on all sides of the sukka, held

like Rav,

who says that the edge of the roof descends and closes even when one existing partition is absent.

And Rava could say to you:

My opinion, too, is like Rav’s. And the reason that we do not say “the edge of the roof descends and closes” with regard to a sukka in a courtyard is not because we say “the edge of the roof descends and closes” only when one partition exists. Rather, it is for another reason; and even if the sukka lacked only one wall, we would not say “the edge of the roof descends and closes,” even according to Rav.

For

Rav said only there,

with regard to a portico in an open field, “the edge of the roof descends and closes,” so that it is as though it is surrounded by partitions,

but

because

the partitions,

that is, the edge of the roof, which is the thickness of the walls, which are the beginnings of the partitions,

are made for the portico;

they are made for the needs of the portico, and therefore we regard them as though they descend and close from its four sides.

But here,

with regard to a sukka in a courtyard,

since the

thickness of the boards in the roof of the portico

is not for this purpose,

for the sukka in the courtyard,

made,

but they are made for the needs of the portico, therefore

they do not

become partitions for the sukka by virtue of the rule that the edge of the roof descends and closes.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against Abaye, who said, with regard to a sukka in a courtyard, that the edge of the roof descends and closes:

We learned

in the Mishna: A house whose roof was breached, and one covered over it, if there are four cubits from the wall to the roofing, it is invalid.

And likewise, a courtyard surrounded by a portico,

if the roof of the portico was four cubits wide, it cannot be rendered valid by means of the wall of the house under the rule of a crooked wall.

And

this is difficult for Abaye:

Why

is the sukka not valid when the roof of the portico was four cubits wide? Surely

let us say, “the edge of the roof,

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

descends and closes,”

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

The Gemara answers:

Rava interpreted it,

explained and established

Rava

our Mishna

according to Abaye,

according to Abaye’s method,

when he made its roofing level.

When he did not place the sukka’s roofing on the roof of the portico, but rather made the sukka’s roofing exactly level with it, and the edge of the portico is not discernible within the sukka; therefore, we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and closes, because the “edge” of the roof is not discernible here.

In Sura they taught this statement [

they used to teach the words of Abaye and Rava ]

in this wording,

as it is taught before us.

But

in Pumbedita—

they taught,

they used to teach them in another manner:

If one roofed over a portico that has no posts [

a portico that has no columns around it, positioned less than three handbreadths apart from one another, so that they would be considered partitions by the rule of lavud ],

everyone agrees that it is invalid.

And we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and closes, since the thickness of the boards was not made for the sake of the sukka, but for the sake of the portico.

But if

it has posts,

Abaye and Rava disagree about this:

Abaye says it is valid; Rava says it is invalid.

And the Gemara explains:

Abaye says it is valid,

because

we say “lavud.”

And even though the posts were not made for the sake of the sukka, but as part of the portico, this is a partition. For this distinction was said specifically with regard to the edge of the roof; but concerning “lavud,” since there are not three handbreadths between them, it is a complete closure, since air of less than three handbreadths is not considered anything. That is, the rule of “lower it” is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and the halakha was stated only when the partition was made for the sake of the sukka; but with regard to “lavud,” in addition to the halakha, there is also reasoning: anything less than three handbreadths is not significant at all.

Rava said: It is invalid,

for he held that

we do not say “lavud.”

And his reason is that lavud, too, is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and through reasoning alone it would not be considered a partition; and 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’s opinion.

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

Rav Ashi found [

he found ]

Rav Kahana, who was 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 did not make a third wall one handbreadth wide on its northern side to complete the required measure of the walls, which is “two in accordance with their law, and the third even one handbreadth”; rather, he positioned the sukka adjacent to a portico that had no posts, which was on the northern side of the sukka, and rested the ends of the reeds of the roofing on the roof of the portico, with the edge of the portico’s roof discernible within it.

And Rav Ashi thought that Rav Kahana was relying on the roof of the portico as a third partition by virtue of the rule that the edge of the roof descends and closes.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Is it so that

my master does not hold this statement of Rava,

that specifically if

it has posts it is valid

by virtue of lavud, but

if it has no posts it is invalid,

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

He showed him,

Rav Kahana showed Rav Ashi

“visible from outside and flush from inside. 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,

visible

was this handbreadth

from outside

the sukka,

and flush from inside

it.

That is, this wall extended from the northeastern corner of the sukka to behind the eastern wall, along the portico, which was wider than the sukka and extended behind it. Consequently, to one 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.

And this wall is effective even though it is not discernible within the sukka, but only from outside.

For it was stated

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

visible from outside

the alley

and flush from inside,

that is, he placed the side-post at the corner of the alley toward the public domain, and the side-post did not protrude into the alley and was not visible within the alley, but extended along the side of the alley alongside the public domain, and the side-post was visible only to the people of the public domain and not to the people of the alley, nevertheless it is

considered a side-post.

And a side-post—

this is posts.

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

A tanna [

we learned in a beraita ] :

A “discard” projecting from the sukka is considered like a sukka.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is

what does

“a discard projecting from the sukka” mean?

Said [

he explained ]

Ulla: Reeds

from the roofing

that project

and extend

behind the sukka,

outside the middle wall, behind the sukka.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: According to Ulla’s interpretation, that it is referring to reeds projecting behind the sukka, they are considered a sukka in their own right and are not nullified to the sukka, since the middle wall separates them from the inside of the sukka;

and

if so, how can we render these reeds valid under the rule of a discard projecting from the sukka?

After all [

surely ],

we require

in a sukka

three walls,

and these reeds are not surrounded by any walls?! [

But reeds projecting in front of the sukka, from the open fourth 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: It is speaking

when there are,

when behind the sukka there are two parallel walls, and the middle wall of the sukka also serves as the middle wall of the outer sukka; for this reason, the space between them is considered a sukka.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: Even if the space behind the sukka were surrounded by partitions, how can we render it valid?

But [

and surely ],

we require

that the space be seven handbreadths wide, the measure of

a valid sukka?

And the inside of the sukka cannot join with it to complete the measure, since a partition separates them, and they are like two separate sukkot.

The Gemara answers: It is speaking

when there is

in the area of the outer sukka the measure of a valid sukka.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it possible that reeds projecting behind the sukka are always considered like a sukka?

But [

and surely ],

we require

that the sukka be

more shaded than exposed to the sun?!

The Gemara answers:

When there is

among the reeds the measure that its shade is greater than its exposure to the sun.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

that the outer sukka had all the conditions necessary for the sukka’s validity—both three walls and roofing in the required measure—

what does it teach us?

What does it make known to us that this sukka is valid?!

The Gemara explains: Without the innovation of the beraita that this sukka is valid,

what might you say,

I would say:

Since

the middle partition

was made for the inside,

it was made for the sake of the inner sukka,

and was not made for the outside,

and was not made for the sake of the outer sukka,

say, it is not

this partition effective except before it, for the inner sukka, and not for the sukka behind it. Therefore,

it makes known to us

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

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said

to explain the beraita in another manner:

Here,

the beraita is not discussing reeds projecting behind the sukka beyond the middle wall, but rather

reeds projecting into the front of the sukka,

toward the open fourth side, and in a case where

one wall extends and goes along with them,

one of the sukka’s walls extends and continues until the end of the reeds.

What might you say,

we would have thought to say,

since he did not also extend the wall opposite it until the end of the reeds, he thereby revealed his intention that he does not wish to join that space to his sukka, but rather it is a separate sukka, and therefore it should be invalid, since

it does not have,

the outer sukka does not have the required measure of walls of seven handbreadths, the measure of

a valid sukka,

since it has only two partitions: the middle wall and the one extending until the end of the reeds.

It makes known to us

the beraita that the whole of it is considered one sukka, and it is valid even though he did not extend the third wall until the end of the reeds. For this is the essence of the mitzva of sukka: he makes for it two walls in accordance with their law along its entire length, and a third wall one handbreadth, and the third wall need not extend along its entire length.

Rabba bar bar Hana said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan,

to explain the beraita in another manner:

This was necessary

for this beraita

only for a sukka whose majority is more shaded than exposed to the sun, while its minority is more exposed to the sun than shaded,

so that the sukka as a whole has more shade than exposure to the sun.

And the purpose of the beraita is to introduce a novelty:

For it might have been said,

I would have said,

the sukkah would be disqualified

by

this small part,

because of that part in which the sun is greater than its 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 roofing does not actually protrude from the sukkah,

what

is the meaning of the wording “

protrudes

” from the sukkah, which the beraita stated? —

It protrudes from the validity of the sukkah,

for it is not roofed in accordance with the requirements of a valid sukkah.

Rabbi Oshaya said

to explain the beraita in another manner:

It was necessary

for this beraita

only with regard to invalid roofing of less than three

handbreadths, placed

in a small sukkah,

which is only seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, for it does not disqualify the sukkah; rather, it joins with it to complete the measure required for its validity. [For if it did not join with it, it would necessarily be disqualified, since it would not contain seven handbreadths made in accordance with the requirements of validity].

And what

is the meaning of the wording “

protrudes

” from the sukkah, which we learned in the beraita?

It protrudes from the status of a sukkah,

for part of the roofing is not of the type valid for roofing.

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection against it:

Why does the beraita need to teach us this halakha, that invalid roofing of less than three handbreadths does not disqualify a small sukkah? For even if

it were not

invalid roofing

but open space,

which is more stringent and disqualifies a large sukkah with three handbreadths, unlike invalid roofing, which disqualifies only with four,

and

since

does open space of less than three handbreadths in a small sukkah disqualify it!?

Surely it certainly does not disqualify the sukkah; all the more so invalid roofing does not disqualify it. And what, then, does the beraita teach us?!

Rabbi Abba said

to Rav Hoshaya: Indeed, the purpose of the beraita was not to introduce the novelty that invalid roofing of less than three handbreadths joins with it to complete the measure of the sukkah. Rather, it comes to teach us that they were more lenient with invalid roofing than with open space. For

this,

invalid roofing,

joins

with it to complete the measure of the sukkah,

and

even

one may sleep beneath it, whereas

if

this,

open space of less than three handbreadths,

joins

with it to complete the measure of the sukkah,

one may not sleep beneath it.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is there such a thing

[is there such a thing]

that it joins by joining

to complete the measure,

while it itself is not valid?