Sukkah 23a — the Talmud in English

This is the rule: whenever the

if

the tree were removed and the

sukka

could stand on its own,

it is

valid, and one ascends to it on the Festival.

Gemara:

Whose is the Mishna

that validates a sukka atop a ship?

It is Rabbi Akiva!

For it was taught in a beraita: One who makes his sukka atop a ship: Rabban Gamliel invalidates it; and Rabbi Akiva validates it,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain their dispute.

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva, who were coming on a ship. Rabbi Akiva arose and made a sukka atop the ship. The next day, a wind blew and uprooted it. Rabban Gamliel said to him: “Akiva! Where is your sukka?!”

Abaye said

to explain their dispute:

Everyone agrees that wherever it cannot withstand an ordinary wind on land, it is nothing,

for even a temporary dwelling it is not [Rashi].]]

And if

it can withstand an

wind

that is not an ordinary wind on land,

which is like an ordinary wind at sea [Rashi], even though it cannot withstand an extraordinary wind at sea,

everyone agrees that it is valid,

for even according to the one who requires a permanent dwelling for a sukka, there is one here.

When do they disagree? In a case where it can withstand an ordinary wind on land, but cannot withstand an ordinary wind at sea—

Rabban Gamliel holds: We require a sukka to be a permanent dwelling, and since it cannot withstand an ordinary wind at sea, it is nothing.

Rabbi Akiva holds: We require a sukka to be a temporary dwelling, and since it can withstand an ordinary wind on land, it is valid.

We learned in the Mishna: One who makes his sukka atop a tree

or on the back of a camel

it is valid, but one does not ascend to it on the Festival:

Whose is the Mishna?

It is Rabbi Meir’s!

For it was taught in a beraita: One who makes his sukka on an animal,

for example, he placed two boards on two horses, and they are the floor of the sukka, and he made walls and roofing on the boards:

Rabbi Meir validates; and Rabbi Yehuda invalidates.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

The verse says: “

You shall make for yourself the Festival of Sukkot seven days,”

a sukka fit for the seven

days of the Festival,

is called a sukka;

but

a sukka not fit for the seven

days of the Festival,

is not called a sukka.

And this one, since one does not ascend to it on the Festival [Rashi]] , this sukka is found not to be fit for seven days.

And Rabbi Meir

can say to you:

this one too, according to Torah law, is fit [

this sukka is fit according to Torah law for the seven days of the Festival],

and it is the Rabbis who decreed concerning it [

the Sages prohibited remaining in it on the Festival].

If he made an animal a wall for a sukka:

Rabbi Meir invalidates; and Rabbi Yehuda validates.

For Rabbi Meir would say: Anything that possesses the breath of life, one does not make it:

not a wall for a sukka—

and not a side-post for an alleyway,

to place it at its opening that is open to the public domain, in order to permit carrying in the alleyway.

and not partitions for wells,

to permit drawing water from wells in the public domain by placing an animal as a partition, which the Sages instituted for them [and this is explained more fully in the note] .

and not a covering for a grave,

that is, if they made it a cover for the coffin of a dead person, it does not have the designation “covering” upon it to impart impurity like other coffin covers, which impart impurity through contact, carrying, and a tent, even if the dead person is removed from there, as we derive from that which is written, “And whoever touches upon the face of the field one slain by the sword or a dead person,” to include a covering [Rashi].

In the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean they said: One may not even write women’s bills of divorce upon it.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir?

Abaye said:

we are concerned

lest it die

the animal on the Festival and fall, so there is no wall here and he is thereby nullified from the mitzva of sukka [Rashi].

Rabbi Zeira said:

we are concerned

lest it flee

the animal.

And the Gemara explains in what manner they disagree:

with a tied elephant,

concerning which there is no concern that it will flee,

everyone agrees

that it is valid. And even according to the one who holds that we are concerned lest it die, since

even if it dies [

even if it dies] and falls,

its carcass has ten

handbreadths, which is the measure of a partition.

When do they disagree? With an untied elephant: according to the one who says, “Lest it die”—

we are not concerned,

for its carcass has a height of ten handbreadths.

Whereas

according to the one who says: A decree lest it flee—

we are concerned,

since it is not tied.

And we object to this: But even

according to the one who says, “A decree lest it die,” let us also be concerned

also

lest it flee?!

Rather, with an untied elephant

and there is concern that it will flee,

everyone agrees

that it is invalid, since everyone concedes that there is concern lest it flee.

When do they disagree? With an animal—

whose carcass is not ten handbreadths high—

that is tied,

and there is no concern lest it flee:

According to the one who says, “A decree lest it die,” we are concerned,

lest it die and fall. Whereas

according to the one who says, “A decree lest it flee,” we are not concerned,

for it is tied.

And we are still perplexed:

But

even

according to the one who says, “A decree lest it flee,” let us also be concerned

also

lest it die?

And we answer: Rabbi Zeira holds:

death is not common,

and there is no concern for this.

And we object: How can an animal serve as a partition,

for there is open space between its legs [

for there is empty space between its legs], and this is a breach in the partition even while it is alive?!

And we answer:

he makes for it

a partition between its legs

with palm branches [

palm fronds]

and laurel branches [

a type of branches].

And we are still perplexed:

But perhaps it will lie down,

for there is concern lest the animal lie down, and it will not have ten handbreadths?!

And we answer:

it is stretched with ropes from above [

it is tied with ropes above], so that it will not lie down.

And we are perplexed:

But

since this is so, it is difficult

also according to the one who says, “A decree lest it die”: it is stretched with ropes from above

for it is tied with ropes, and even if it dies it will not fall; so why do they not make it a wall for a sukka?!

And we answer: In any event, there is a loss when it dies, because

sometimes he positions it less than three [handbreadths] from the roofing [

sometimes he positions the animal, whose height is only seven handbreadths and a little, close to the roofing], so that through lavud there is here a partition of ten handbreadths.