Sukkah 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

This is the principle:

whenever

the tree were removed and the sukkah could

stand

on its own,

it would be

fit, and one may ascend to it on Yom Tov.

Gemara:

Whose opinion is reflected in the Mishna

that deems fit a sukkah at the top of a ship?

It is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion!

As it is taught in a beraita: One who makes his sukkah at the top of a ship: Rabban Gamliel deems it unfit, and Rabbi Akiva deems it fit,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain their dispute.

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva, who were traveling on a ship. Rabbi Akiva arose and made a sukkah at the top of the ship. On the following day, a wind blew and uprooted it. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Akiva, where is your sukkah?!

Abaye said

to explain their dispute:

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

because it is not even a temporary dwelling.

And if

it can withstand

a wind

that is not ordinary on land,

which is equivalent to an ordinary wind at sea, although it cannot withstand an ordinary wind at sea,

everyone agrees that it is fit,

because even the one who requires a sukkah to be a permanent dwelling has one here.

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 sukkah to be a permanent dwelling, and since it cannot withstand an ordinary wind at sea, it is nothing.

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

We learned in the Mishna: One who makes his sukkah at the top of a tree

or on the back of a camel

is fit, but one may not ascend to it on Yom Tov:

Whose opinion is reflected in the Mishna?

It is Rabbi Meir’s opinion!

As it is taught in a beraita: One who makes his sukkah on an animal,

for example, he placed two doors on two horses, which serve as the floor of the sukkah, and made walls and roofing on the doors:

Rabbi Meir deems it fit, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

The verse says: “

You shall make for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days”;

a sukkah suitable for seven

days of the festival

is called a sukkah;

but

a sukkah that is not suitable for seven

days of the festival

is not called a sukkah.

And this one, since one may not ascend to it on Yom Tov, is thereby a sukkah that is not suitable for seven days.

And Rabbi Meir

would say to you:

This one, too, is fit by Torah law,

this sukkah is suitable by Torah law for the seven days of the festival;

and it is the Sages who issued a decree concerning it,

the Sages prohibited remaining in it on Yom Tov.

If he made an animal a wall for a sukkah:

Rabbi Meir deems it unfit, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

For Rabbi Meir would say: Anything that possesses living spirit may not be made

either a wall for a sukkah—

or a leḥi for a mavoi,

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

Nor pasin for wells,

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

below]. Nor a golel for a grave,

that is, if he made it a cover for the coffin of a dead person, it does not have the status of a golel that renders one impure like an ordinary coffin cover, which renders one impure through contact, carrying, and tent impurity, even if the dead person has been removed from there, as we derive from that which is written: “And whoever touches one slain in the open field, or one killed by the sword, or one who died,” to include a golel.

In the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they said: It may not even be used to write bills of divorce for women.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir?

Abaye said:

We are concerned

lest it die,

the animal, on Yom Tov and fall, so that there is no wall here and he will thereby be deprived of the mitzva of sukkah.

Rabbi Zeira said:

We are concerned

lest it flee,

the animal.

The Gemara explains the circumstances of their dispute:

With a tethered elephant,

with which there is no concern that it will flee,

everyone agrees

that it is fit. Even according to the one who says that we are concerned lest it die, since

even if it dies

and falls,

its carcass contains ten

handbreadths, which is the measure of a partition.

They disagree with regard to an untethered elephant: According to the one who says, “Lest it die,”—

we are not concerned,

for its carcass has a height of ten handbreadths.

But

according to the one who says, “A decree lest it flee,”—

we are concerned,

since it is untethered.

And we challenge this: Even

according to the one who says, “A decree lest it die,” should we not also be concerned

about

the possibility that it will flee?!

Rather, it is an untethered elephant,

with which there is concern that it will flee, and

everyone agrees

that it is unfit, since everyone agrees that there is concern lest it flee.

They disagree with regard to an animal—

whose carcass is not ten handbreadths high—

that is tethered,

so there is no concern that it will flee:

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

that it might die and fall. But

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

since it is tethered.

We are still perplexed:

And

even

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

about

the possibility that it will die?

And we answer: Rabbi Zeira holds that

death is uncommon,

and there is no need to be concerned about it.

And we challenge this: How can an animal serve as a partition?

But there is empty space between its legs,

which constitutes a breach in the partition even while it is alive?!

And we answer:

He makes for it

a partition between its legs

with hutzot,

palm fronds,

and dafna,

a type of branches.

We are still perplexed:

Perhaps it will crouch,

for there is concern that the animal will lie down, in which case it will not be ten handbreadths high?!

And we answer:

It is stretched taut with ropes from above,

it is tied with ropes above so that it will not crouch.

And we ask:

And

since that is the case, the following difficulty arises:

according to the one who says, “A decree lest it die,” this should also be so, for it is stretched taut with ropes from above;

it is tied with ropes, and even if it dies, it will not fall. Why, then, may it not be made a wall for the sukkah?!

And we answer: Nevertheless, there is a disadvantage if it dies, because

sometimes he positions it less than three handbreadths from the roofing,

there are times when he positions an animal whose height is only seven handbreadths and a little, close to the roofing, so that through the principle of lavud there is a partition of ten handbreadths.