Sukkah 22a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

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

explained in the Gemara —

is fit.

A sukka

whose roofing is thick like a house,

whose roofing is very thick,

even though the stars

are not visible from within it,

it

is fit.

Gemara:

And we explain:

What is “disordered”?

Rav said: A poor sukka,

its roofing is scant and there is much open space in it—but there are not three tefachim of open space together —and the shade of the sukka is greater than its sunlight. This is what we learned subsequently, “and whose shade is greater than its sunlight,” for it is all one matter [as the Gemara explains below].

And Shmuel said: One reed rises and one reed descends.

For the reeds of the roofing do not lie beside one another, but one is high and one is low, and because of this its sunlight is greater than its shade. Nevertheless, the sukka is fit, since if the roofing were lying evenly, its shade would be greater than its sunlight [and what we learned, “and whose shade is greater than its sunlight,” is another matter, as the Gemara explains below].

Rav taught one [clause],

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

And

if

Shmuel taught two [clauses],

he explains it as referring to two sukkot—

Rav taught one: A disordered sukka.

For according to him,

what is “

disordered”?

Loosened,

for it is poor in roofing, and nevertheless, since

its shade is greater than its sunlight,

it

is fit.

And Shmuel taught two:

and according to him,

what is disordered?

Confused,

one reed rises and one reed descends.

And it teaches two [clauses]:

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 it is fit] only

to deem fit a sukka in which one reed rises and one reed descends,

but when between this and that

between one reed and the next

there are three tefachim,

since everything less than three is like one roofing [Rashi]—

But if between this and that there are three tefachim,

it

is unfit.

Rava said: Even if there are three tefachim between this and that, as well, we said [that it is unfit]

that it is unfit

only when there is not on its upper surface

[on the rising reed] a width of

a tefach,

since there is no tent there, enabling it to be considered and for us to say concerning it, “chavut ramei” [lower and cast it upon the open space beneath it]—

But if there is a tefach on its upper surface,

the sukka

is fit,

because

we say

concerning the rising reed:

“Chavut ramei.”

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

‘Chavut ramei,’

and when it does not have a tefach, we do not say

‘Chavut ramei’?

lower and place it”?

From that which

we learned:

There is a novelty in the impurity of a corpse that is not present in the other impurities: that it renders impure without contact and without carrying, through an “ohel” alone.

And there are three different forms of impurity of an ohel.

A. “The ohel of the corpse”: a corpse found beneath an ohel renders all the people and utensils found beneath that ohel impure with corpse-impurity.

B. A person or utensil that “makes an ohel” over a corpse, by their very presence above it, becomes impure with corpse-impurity.

C. A corpse that “makes an ohel” over a person or utensil—for example, they carried a corpse through the air above a person or utensil, without an interruption between them—the person or utensil becomes impure with corpse-impurity.

A house built of two stories, called “the house and the upper story,” with the corpse in the lower story, called “the house”: the people and utensils in the upper story do not become impure, despite being above the corpse, because they are not considered to be making an ohel over it, since there is an interruption between them, as will be explained.

Between the house and the upper story there was a double interruption, made from the roof of the house and the floor of the upper story.

The roof of the house was made of long beams, and above them lay short planks [across the width of the beams], which filled the space between the beams.

Above those planks they poured a floor made of clay, called “ma’azeva.”

The beam in the roof of the house [when it makes an ohel over the corpse], if it is at least a tefach wide, is considered an “ohel” with regard to the person or utensil beneath it. It is likewise significant for interrupting the impurity before those above it, so that the corpse-impurity does not break upward and render them impure. Also, those above it are not considered to be making an ohel over the corpse.

And thus we learned in Tractate Ohalot: A house over which there was no roof, but in which there were only

the beams of the house

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

and

if in the roof of the upper story there were likewise only beams

of the upper story

[beams intended to support the roof of the upper story], and each of them was a tefach wide [the measure of an ohel], and there were no planks between the beams, and

there was no

between the beams

flooring

made of clay, but only the beams by themselves.

And they were aligned,

the beams of the house and the beams of the upper story lay exactly one above the other, and it follows that the house and the upper story were not roofed except that the place beneath the beams themselves is considered a place 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 utensil found

beneath it,

beneath that beam,

—

is impure, because the beam becomes an ohel and brings the corpse-impurity upon everything found beneath it.

But if the person or utensil was upon the beam, and the corpse was beneath it, it interrupts before the impurity beneath it, both with regard to the fact that the person or utensil above the beam is not considered to be making an ohel over the corpse, and with regard to the fact that the corpse-impurity beneath the beam does not break through and rise; therefore they are pure.

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

between

the beam

below,

which is above the house,

and

between the lower beam and the beam

above

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

between them

[between the lower beam and the upper beam]

is impure,

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

But if there were utensils beneath the lower beam, the lower beam interrupts before them; and likewise, if there were utensils above the upper beam, the upper beam interrupts before them.

C. If the corpse was upon

the beam

above,

and there was nothing above it, then a person or utensil that passed from above,

opposite

it, opposite the impurity,

to the sky

—

it

is impure.

For if they made an ohel over the impurity, they are impure, since there is no interruption between them.

But what is found beneath the upper or lower beam is not impure, for there is an interruption before the impurity. And if

the upper beams were like the spaces between the lower ones,

so that the upper beams lay opposite the open space between the lower ones, such that if they had been lying below with the lower ones, they would fill all the open space between them, then it follows that the area of the house below is entirely roofed, through the combination of the lower and upper beams. Therefore:

A. If there was

impurity beneath one of them,

then a person or utensil found

beneath all of them,

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

is impure.

Because we say “chavut ramei”: cast the upper beams down between the lower ones,

and the entire house is considered roofed, becoming one ohel.

B. If there was impurity upon them, upon each and every one of the beams,

opposite them to the sky is impure.

And he taught concerning it

in the beraita, to explain the entire Mishna:

In what case are these words said,

that the entire house and upper story are considered roofed by one roof, through the combination of all the beams,

when they have,

in the lower and upper beams, a width of

a tefach,

which is the measure of an ohel to bring impurity or to interrupt before impurity—

and

even

between them,

between the lower beams, there is open space of “

an opening of a tefach,”

and the upper beams—which fill the width opposite that open space—are found to be a tefach wide [for “the upper ones were like the spaces between the lower ones”], and therefore we say concerning them “chavut ramei”—

But when there is not between them

of the lower beams

an opening of a tefach,

and the upper beams are found to be less than a tefach,

the beams do not join to form one roof; rather, each beam is an ohel for the corpse and for the person or utensil found beneath it alone.

Therefore, if there was impurity beneath one of them, beneath it alone is he impure, but between them, between the lower beams,

and the upper beams are therefore less than one handbreadth wide, the beams do not combine to form one ceiling. Rather, each beam is a tent only for the corpse and for the person or utensil beneath it.

and upon them

he is pure.

there alone is he

And Rava concludes his proof from the Mishna:

Thus, since it has a tefach, we say “

‘Chavut ramei,’

and when it does not have a tefach, we do not say

‘Chavut ramei.’”

And we answer:

Learn from it.

Rav Kahana sat and recited this teaching

of Rava:

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: And

is it so that

everywhere that it does not have a tefach, we do not say “

‘Chavut ramei’”?!

Infer from this.

Rav Kahana sat and recited this teaching

of Rava.

But it was taught: A beam

of an alleyway [brought in order to permit carrying in an alleyway on Shabbat]

that projects from this wall

on the side of the entrance of the alleyway

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

and one projecting

opposite it

from that wall,

on the other side of the entrance of the alleyway,

and they do not touch one another:

If the distance—between the beam and the wall, or between the beams themselves—was

less than three

tefachim,

he need not bring another beam,

because we say “lavud.”

But if the distance—between the beam and the wall, or between the beams themselves—was

three

tefachim,

he must bring another beam.

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

says:

one need not bring another crossbeam,

because we apply the principle of “lavud,” considering the gap to be closed.

But if the distance—between the crossbeam and the wall, or between the two crossbeams—is

three

handbreadths,

one must bring another crossbeam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—who holds everywhere that a gap of less than four handbreadths is treated according to the principle of “lavud”—

says: