Sukkah 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A sukka whose roofing is disordered and whose shade is greater than its sunlight

as the Gemara explains —

is fit.

A sukka

whose roofing is thick like that of a house,

meaning that its roofing is very dense,

even though the stars

cannot be seen through it,

it

is fit.

Gemara:

And we explain:

What is meant by “disordered”?

Rav said: A poor sukka,

whose roofing is sparse and which contains much open space—but there is no area of three tefachim of open space together —and the sukka’s shade is greater than its sunlight. This is the meaning of what we learned subsequently, “and whose shade is greater than its sunlight”: it is all one matter as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And Shmuel said: One reed is elevated and one reed is lowered.

The reeds of the roofing do not lie beside one another at the same level; rather, one is higher and one lower, and consequently the sunlight is greater than the shade. Nevertheless, the sukka is fit, since if the roofing had been lying evenly, its shade would have been greater than its sunlight [and what we learned, “and whose shade is greater than its sunlight,” is a separate matter, as the Gemara proceeds to explain].

Rav taught one,

interpreting what we learned, “A sukka whose roofing is disordered and whose shade is greater than its sunlight,” as referring to a single sukka.

Whereas

if

Shmuel taught two,

he interprets it as referring to two sukkot—

Rav taught one: “A sukka whose roofing is disordered.”

According to him,

what is the meaning of

“disordered”?

Sparse,

that its roofing is poor, but nevertheless, since

its shade is greater than its sunlight,

it

is fit.

And Shmuel taught two:

According to him,

what is the meaning of “disordered”?

Confused—one reed is elevated and one reed is lowered.

And he teaches two:

A.

A

confused sukka

it

is fit.

B.

And

a poor sukka whose

shade is greater than its sunlight

it

is fit.

Abaye said: They taught

that a sukka in which one reed is elevated and one reed is lowered is fit

only when between one and the other

between one reed and the next there are not

three tefachim,

since anything less than three is regarded as a single roofing [Rashi]—

But if there are three tefachim between one and the other,

it

is unfit.

Rava said: Even if there are three tefachim between one and the other, we likewise did not say

that it

is unfit

unless there is not, on its upper surface

a tefach

in width, since there is no roof-like structure there that would give it significance and allow us to apply the principle of “lower it and place it” [lower and cast it onto the open space beneath it]—

But if its upper surface is a tefach,

the sukka

is fit,

because

we say concerning the elevated reed

that it

is lowered and placed.

Rava said: From where do I say it: For when it has a tefach we say “

Rava said: From where do I say this? For when it has a tefach, we say “

lower it and place it”;

but when it does not have a tefach, we do not say “

lower it and place it”?

From that

which we learned:

There is a particular stringency in the impurity of a corpse that does not apply to other types of impurity: it transmits impurity without contact and without carrying, solely through an “ohel.”

There are three distinct forms of impurity through an ohel.

a. “The ohel of a corpse”: If a corpse is located beneath an ohel, it renders impure through corpse impurity all people and vessels located beneath that ohel.

b. A person or vessel that “overhangs” a corpse—that is, by virtue of being present above it—is rendered impure through corpse impurity.

c. A corpse that “overhangs” a person or vessel—for example, a corpse is carried through the air above a person or vessel, without anything intervening between them—the person or vessel is rendered impure through corpse impurity.

A two-story house, called “house and upper story,” contains a corpse on the lower floor, called the “house.” The people and vessels in the upper story do not become impure, despite being above the corpse, because they are not considered to be overhanging it, since something intervenes between them, as will be explained.

There was a double barrier between the house and the upper story, consisting of the ceiling of the house and the floor of the upper story.

The ceiling of the house consisted of long beams, with short boards lying across them, filling the spaces between the beams.

Above those boards they poured a floor made of mortar, called “ma’aziva.”

A beam in the roof of the house [when it overhangs the corpse], if it is at least a tefach wide, is considered an “ohel” with regard to a person or vessel beneath it. It is also significant as a barrier protecting those above it from the impurity of the corpse, preventing it from breaking upward and rendering them impure. Likewise, those above it are not considered to be overhanging the corpse.

And so we learned in tractate Ohalot: A house that had no ceiling above it, but only

the beams of the house

[beams intended to support the ceiling of the house],

and likewise, if the ceiling of the upper story had only

beams of

the upper story

[beams intended to support the ceiling of the upper story], and each was a tefach wide [the measure of an ohel], with no boards between the beams,

and there was no

between the beams

mortar flooring

a floor, but only the beams themselves—

And they were aligned,

the beams of the house and the beams of the upper story lying exactly one above the other. Thus the house and upper story were not roofed over as a whole; only the areas beneath the beams themselves were considered places having an “ohel.” Therefore:

a. If there was

impurity beneath one of them,

beneath one of the beams of the house, then every person or vessel found

beneath it,

beneath that beam,

is impure,

because the beam becomes an ohel and conveys the corpse’s impurity to everything beneath it.

But if the person or vessel was on top of the beam, with the corpse beneath it, the beam separates them from the impurity beneath it—both in that the person or vessel above the beam is not considered to be overhanging the corpse, and in that the corpse’s impurity beneath the beam does not break through and rise. Therefore, they are pure.

b. Likewise, if the corpse was lying above a beam of the house,

between

the

lower

beam, which is above the house,

and

the beam of the

upper

[the beam of the upper story], then a person or vessel found

between them

[between the lower and upper beams]

is impure,

because the upper beam becomes an ohel for the corpse located above the lower beam.

But if there were vessels beneath the lower beam, the lower beam separates them from the impurity; and likewise, if there were vessels above the upper beam, the upper beam separates them from the impurity.

c. If the corpse was

on top of

the

upper beam,

with nothing above it, then a person or vessel passing above,

opposite

the impurity,

up to the heavens—

is

impure.

For if they overhang the impurity, they become impure, since nothing intervenes between them.

But anything located beneath the upper or lower beam is not impure, since there is a barrier separating it from the impurity.

And if

the upper beams were aligned with the spaces between the lower beams,

so that the upper beams lay opposite the open spaces between the lower beams, and if they had been lying below together with the lower beams they would have filled all the spaces between them, then the entire area of the house below was found to be roofed over, through the combination of the lower and upper beams. Therefore:

a. If there was

impurity beneath one of them,

then a person or vessel located

beneath all of them

[both beneath the lower beams and beneath the upper beams]

is impure.

This is because we say, “lower it and place it”: cast the upper beams down among the lower beams, and the entire house is considered roofed over and becomes a single ohel.

b. If there was impurity

above them,

above each and every one of the beams,

opposite them up to the heavens, it is impure.

And a baraita was taught concerning it,

explaining the entire Mishna:

In what case is this statement said,

that the entire house and upper story are considered roofed by a single ceiling, through the combination of all the beams?

When they contain,

the lower and upper beams, a width of

a tefach,

which is the measure of an ohel for conveying impurity or separating from impurity—

and

also

between them,

there is open space between the lower beams of “

an opening of a tefach,”

and the upper beams—which fill the width opposite that open space—are a tefach wide [as it says, “the upper beams were aligned with the spaces between the lower beams”]. Therefore, we apply to them the rule “lower it and place it”—

But if between them,

the lower beams,

there is not an opening of a tefach,

and the upper beams are consequently less than a tefach wide, the beams do not combine to form a single ceiling. Rather, each beam is an ohel only for the corpse and for the person or vessel located beneath it. Therefore, if there was

impurity beneath one of them, beneath it

alone, it is

there alone is he

impure;

but

between them,

between the lower beams,

and above them,

it is pure.

Learn from it.

And Rava concludes his proof from the Mishna:

Evidently, when it has a tefach, we say “

lower it and place it,”

but when it does not have a tefach, we do not say “

lower it and place it.”

And we respond:

Infer from this.

Rav Kahana was sitting and reciting this statement

of Rava:

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: And is it so that

wherever it does not have a tefach,

we do not say “

lower it and place it”?

and does not touch that wall, on the other side of the entrance of the alleyway— — And likewise, two beams, one projecting from this wall of the alleyway

But was it not taught: A beam

of a mavoi [which comes to permit carrying in a mavoi on Shabbat]

that projects from this wall

on one side of the entrance of the mavoi

but does not touch that wall,

on the other side of the entrance of the mavoi—

and likewise, two beams, one projecting from this wall

of the mavoi

and one projecting

opposite it

from that wall,

on the other side of the entrance of the mavoi,

and they do not touch one another:

If the distance—between the beam and the wall, or between the two beams—is

less than three

tefachim,

he need not bring another beam,

since we say “lavud.”

But if the distance—between the beam and the wall, or between the two beams—is

three

tefachim,

he must bring another beam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—who holds everywhere that for less than four tefachim we say “lavud”—

says: