Sukkah 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

If the distance was

less than four

handbreadths,

there is no need to bring another beam.

And if the distance was

four

handbreadths,

one must bring another beam.

The required width of a beam is sufficient for the beam to be able to “receive” [i.e., support on its upper surface] a brick, which is half of a brick measuring three by three handbreadths. It is sufficient for the beam to be one handbreadth wide, so that it can receive a brick along its width, with an extra fingerbreadth on each of its two sides.

And likewise, in the case of two matching beams

lying side by side like twins, when

neither one

has a width

sufficient to receive a brick, and

even

neither one

has a width

sufficient to receive a brick:

If they receive a brick along its width,

which is

one handbreadth,

there is no need to bring another beam.

But if not, one must bring another beam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If they receive a brick along its length, three handbreadths,

there is no need to bring another beam; but if not, one must bring another beam.

If

the beams were

one above and one below,

one higher and one lower, and between them there was sufficient space to receive a brick when they were positioned next to one another, except that the supports of one were higher than those of the other [Rashi, Eruvin]—

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

We apply the principle “strike down and place,” and therefore:

We view the upper one as though it were below,

beside the lower beam,

and the

that is, or the]

lower one—

as though it were above,

beside the upper beam.

Provided that the upper one is not above twenty cubits,

for when the beam is above twenty cubits it is invalid, [as explained in the Mishna at the beginning of Eruvin]—

and

the lower one must not be

below ten

handbreadths, for when the beam is below ten handbreadths it is invalid, since there is no partition of less than ten handbreadths [Rashi]. We have therefore learned:

If

they were

both [the upper and lower ones]

[verkhnyaya i nizhnyaya]

within twenty

cubits—even if the upper one was adjacent to the twenty-cubit mark and the lower one was adjacent to the ten-handbreadth mark—

we say, “strike down and place,”

and

even though it does not have

a width of

one handbreadth.

He said to him: Resolve it and say it as follows:

a. The “we view” that they stated is not based on “strike down and place,” but on lavud, as, for example, when they were less than three handbreadths apart.

b. What they stated, “provided that the upper one is not above twenty and the lower one is not below ten,” does not mean that the fulfillment of these conditions alone is sufficient. Rather, two cases are being discussed, and this is what it means:

a.

Provided that the upper one is not above twenty

cubits,

but is within twenty, and the lower one is adjacent to it at a distance of less than three—

b.

Alternatively: provided that the lower one is not below ten

handbreadths,

but is above ten

handbreadths,

and the upper one is adjacent to it at a distance of less than three.

But

if there were

three

handbreadths between them, so that one cannot say “lavud,”

since it has no one-handbreadth width, we do not say

“strike down and place.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And if its shade is greater than the sunlight, it is fit:

And we raise a difficulty: Since we learned that when its shade is “greater” than its sunlight the sukka is fit, it is implied that

if they are equal [when the shade and sunlight are equal], the sukka is

[kogda ten i solnechnyi svet ravny], suka

invalid.

But we learned in another chapter [in the preceding chapter]:

[v predyduschem razdele]:

And when its sunlight is

“greater”

than its shade, it is invalid,

which implies the opposite:

if they are equal,

it is

fit?!

And we answer: The sunbeams that penetrate through the airspaces in the sekhakh above produce more sunlight below than the size of the opening through which they entered. The two Mishnayot are not discussing the same matter: one is speaking of the sekhakh and the airspaces, while the other is speaking of the shade and the sunlight.

And consequently,

there is no difficulty

in reconciling the Mishnayot:

For

here—

in our Mishna, “and if its shade is greater than its sunlight, it is fit”—the discussion is

from above,

with regard to the sekhakh. If the sekhakh is greater than the airspace, it is fit. But if the sekhakh and airspace are equal, it is not fit, since below, the sunlight is greater than the shade.

Here—in the Mishna in the preceding chapter, “and when its sunlight is greater than its shade, it is invalid”—the discussion is

— v Mishne predydushchego razdela: «a esli solnechnyi svet preobladaet nad tenyю, ona nedeistvitelna» — rech idet

from below,

with regard to the floor of the sukka, where the sunlight and shade are discernible, and there is more sunlight than shade. But if the sunlight and shade are equal, the sukka is fit, since the sekhakh itself is greater than the airspace.

Rav Pappa said: This is what people say: For the value of a zuz

[a small coin, a zuz] of airspace

above

at a height, it produces sunlight

the size of

razmer

a sela [a large coin]

[bolshaya moneta sela]

below,

on the floor.

We learned in the Mishna: The

dense [sukka], like a house,

even though the stars cannot be seen through it, is fit:

The Sages taught: A dense [sukka], like a house, even though the stars cannot be seen through it, is fit.

And if

sun-stars

[sunbeams]

cannot be seen through it: Beit Shammai declare it invalid; and Beit Hillel declare it fit.

Mishna:

One who makes his sukka atop a wagon,

even though it is movable and not fixed,

or atop a ship,

the elevated part of a ship, even though it is very high and the wind prevails there and uproots the sukka.

The sukka is

fit,

since a sukka is a temporary dwelling.

And one may ascend to it,

it is permitted to ascend to it

on a Festival.

But if he made his sukka

atop a tree,

he prepared his place at its top and made partitions and sekhakh there—

or atop a camel,

for example, he placed doors across two camels, and they served as the floor of the sukka, and he made partitions and sekhakh above them. The sukka is

fit,

and if he ascended to it on a Festival, he fulfilled his obligation.

But

indeed,

one may not ascend to it on a Festival.

For one may not ascend or make use of a tree on a Festival, lest one detach something from it. Similarly, it is forbidden to ride upon an animal on a Festival, lest one cut a branch to drive it.

If he made

two

[two partitions]

on a tree,

he supported most of the floor of the sukka on the tree and made two partitions around it at the top of the tree,

and

the

one [one partition]

he made

by human hands,

setting it on the ground and supporting part of the sukka floor in the middle of the partition, with the partition ten handbreadths higher than the ground.

Or

he made

two

[two partitions]

by human hands and one on a tree—

the sukka is

fit, but one may not ascend to it on a Festival,

for if the tree were removed, the floor of the sukka would fall even though it rested upon two partitions on the ground, and he would thereby be making use of the tree.

But if he made

three by human hands and one on a tree,

the sukka is

fit, and

one may

also ascend to it on a Festival.