Sukkah 2b — the Talmud in English

And now the Gemara explains in what the three amoraim cited above disagree:

1.

All of them [Rabbi Zeira and Rava]

(Rabbi Zeira and Rava)

did not state their opinions

in accordance with Rabba, who learned from the verse, “so that your generations may know,” and explained that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is invalid because the eye does not dominate it,

because they did not say so,

since in their view, the verse “so that your generations may know” does not come to teach us that one sitting inside it must know that he is sitting in a sukka, but

that

verse

is “knowledge for the generations”

to come

indeed.

For through fulfilling the mitzva of sukka, the generations to come would know about the matter of the surrounding Clouds of Glory that were made for Israel when they went out of Egypt.

And the Gemara further adds and explains:

They also did not state their opinions in accordance with Rabbi Zeira,

who explains that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is invalid because above twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the walls, and not in the shade of the roofing,

they also did not say so [Rabba and Rava], since in their view,

(Rabba and Rava), since in their view,

that

[the verse “And there shall be a sukka for shade by day”],

is written concerning the days of the Messiah.

This verse was stated concerning that sukka which the Holy One, blessed is He, will make for the righteous in the future, but the purpose of the festival sukka is not specifically shade.

And Rabbi Zeira

responds to this:

If so,

that this verse was stated only concerning the days of the Messiah,

let the verse say, “And there shall be a canopy for shade by day,”

since “canopy” is an expression of covering and protection.

And what is the meaning of “And there shall be a sukka for shade by day,”

where from this expression it follows that the intention of the verse is the festival sukka? Rather, certainly,

you learn from it

from this verse

two things:

two matters are to be learned from here: one concerning the mitzva of sukka, that the name sukka applies only to a sukka made for shade; and the other concerning that sukka that the Holy One, blessed is He, will make for the righteous in the days of the Messiah. Consequently, the meaning of the verse is that the sukka of the righteous in the future is called a sukka and not a canopy because it is made for shade. Likewise, the essence of the festival sukka is shade, and therefore it is called a sukka.

And now the Gemara continues and explains why Rabba and Rabbi Zeira did not interpret Rabba’s statement in accordance with Rava:

In accordance with Rava,

who explained that the reason a sukka higher than twenty cubits is invalid is that it must be made as a temporary structure, whereas a sukka higher than twenty cubits cannot be made as a temporary structure,

they also did not state their opinions [Rabba and Rabbi Zeira],

(Rabba and Rabbi Zeira)

because of Abaye’s objection,

that if so, one who makes iron walls and places roofing upon them has not fulfilled his obligation. Rava’s answer above—that it is not necessary to make it actually temporary, but only according to the measure suitable for making it temporary—was not accepted by them. For according to this interpretation, the law of the roofing differs from that of the walls: the roofing must actually be made temporary, whereas the walls need only be of a measure suitable for being made temporary.

And now the Gemara explains statements that amoraim said in the name of Rav, according to the approaches of the amoraim above:

1.

In accordance with whom does this statement of Rabbi Josiah in the name of Rav go: “The disagreement”

between the Sages and Rabbi Judah in our Mishna as to whether a sukka higher than twenty cubits is valid or invalid is specifically

when the walls

of the sukka

do not reach the roofing,

but the walls are low, and the roofing is placed above on stakes.

But if the walls

of the sukka

reach the roofing, even if

the sukka

was higher than twenty cubits,

everyone agrees that it is

valid.

In accordance with whom

does it go? Necessarily,

in accordance with Rabba, who said

that the reason for the invalidity of a sukka higher than twenty cubits is

because the eye does not dominate it,

and he does not know that he is sitting in the shade of a sukka.

And since the walls reach the roofing,

even if it was higher than twenty cubits,

the eye does dominate it,

because a person’s gaze follows the wall to its end.

2.

In accordance with whom does this statement of Rav Huna in the name of Rav go: “The disagreement”

between the Sages and Rabbi Judah concerning a sukka higher than twenty cubits in our Mishna is specifically

when it does not have

within the area of the sukka

, but only four cubits by four cubits. But if it has

an area

greater than four cubits by four cubits,

for example, its area is five cubits by five cubits,

even

if it was high

above twenty cubits,

everyone agrees that it is

valid.

In accordance with whom? —

In accordance with Rabbi Zeira, who said

that the reason for the invalidity of a sukka higher than twenty

is because of shade,

for when the roofing is twenty cubits high, the sun enters from the sides and covers the entire area of the sukka. And the Gemara assumed that this applies specifically when the area of the sukka is four cubits by four cubits, but if it was wider, it is valid. And the reason is:

since it is wider

than four cubits,

there is the shade of a sukka.

For the measure of the shade of the roofing is relative to the width of the sukka and the height of the roofing, and the wider the roofing is, the less the sun from the side covers the entire area beneath it, unless it is higher.

3.

In accordance with whom does this statement of Rav Hanan bar Rabba in the name of Rav go: “The disagreement”

between the Sages and Rabbi Judah in our Mishna

in

a sukka

that holds

in its area

only his head, the greater part of his body, and his table,

and this is a sukka whose area is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths. [Since the place occupied by a person is six handbreadths, one handbreadth must be added for the place of his table.] And the reason of the Sages who invalidate this sukka is that it resembles a chicken coop, which is high and narrow and is not suitable for human dwelling.

But if

the sukka

holds more than his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, even

if it was high

above twenty

everyone agrees that it is

valid.

In accordance with whom

does it go? — Apparently,

not in accordance with any one

of the amoraim who explained the Mishna.

For according to Rabba, who explains that the reason for the invalidity is because the eye does not dominate it, this law certainly cannot be so, since even if the sukka is wider than twenty cubits, the eye still does not dominate it.

And according to Rabbi Zeira, who invalidates a sukka that is high because he sits in the shade of the walls and not in the shade of the roofing, this statement also cannot be explained so, since even with such a small measure he still sits in the shade of the walls.

And according to Rava, whose reason for the invalidity is that it cannot be made temporary, certainly even with this measure it cannot be made temporary.

And now the Gemara discusses in what Rabbi Josiah, Rav Huna, and Rav Hanan bar Rabba disagree:

Granted,

the first statement,

of Rabbi Josiah

in the name of Rav, which distinguishes between a sukka whose walls reach the roofing and a sukka whose walls do not reach the roofing, certainly

disagrees,

Rabbi Josiah differs in his explanation of Rav’s words

from Rav Huna,

who explains that the Sages and Rabbi Judah disagree only concerning a sukka that is no more than four cubits by four cubits,

and

with

from

Rav Hanan bar Rabba, who said that the disagreement concerns a sukka that holds only his head, the greater part of his body, and his table. According to

them, they establish a measure in area,

in the area of the sukka, for they explained that Rabbi Judah and the Sages disagree only concerning a specific area, but concerning a wider sukka everyone agrees that even if it is higher than twenty cubits it is valid.

But

if

he [Rabbi Josiah]

(Rabbi Josiah)

does not establish a measure in area,

in the width of the sukka, but holds that in every case, if the sukka was higher than twenty cubits it is invalid, whether large or small, and they disagree only when the partitions do not reach the roofing.

Rather,

concerning the two following statements of

Rav Huna and Rav Hanan bar Rabba,

who distinguish between whether the sukka is wide or not—according to Rav Huna it is valid specifically if it is four cubits wide, while according to Rav Hanan it is valid even if it is seven handbreadths wide—there is a question whether they disagree in explaining Rav’s words.

For it is possible that they did not disagree at all in explaining Rav’s words, but this is what they heard from him: Rabbi Judah and the Sages disagree concerning a sukka whose width is exactly the measure required for a valid sukka, but if it has more than the measure required for a valid sukka, Rabbi Judah and the Sages do not disagree.

And from now

let us say that the measure of

the

valid sukka —

the area required in a sukka —

is what Rav Huna and Rav Hanan bar Rabba disagree about.

between Rav Huna and Rav Hanan bar Rabba.

For one says,

Rav Huna

holds

that the measure of

a valid sukka is four cubits,

but a sukka whose area is less than four cubits is invalid.

And the other says,

Rav Hanan

holds

that the measure of

a valid sukka

is

such that

it will

hold his head, the greater part of his body, and his table.

And a sukka that is not so wide is invalid.

Consequently, they do not disagree in explaining Rav’s words; rather, each one explains Rav according to his own position. The matter depends on what the measure of a valid sukka is, concerning which Rabbi Judah and the Sages disagree.

And the Gemara rejects this:

No,

this is not what they disagree about. Rather,

everyone,

both Rav Huna and Rav Hanan, holds that the measure of

a valid sukka

is enough for

his head, the greater part of his body, and his table.

That is, a sukka whose area is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths.

And here, this is what they disagree about: one says,

Rav Hanan

holds

that according to Rav,

the Sages and Rabbi Judah disagree concerning one that holds his head, the greater part of his body, and his head

[unclear: the source repeats “his head”], but concerning one that holds more than his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, according to everyone it is valid.

And the other says,

Rav Huna

holds

that the Sages and Rabbi Judah did not disagree only concerning a small sukka whose entire width is merely seven handbreadths; rather,

they disagree from the measure of his head, the greater part of his body, and his table up to four cubits.

And according to the Sages, every sukka whose width is not four cubits by four cubits, if it is higher than twenty cubits, is invalid.

But

if the area of the sukka is

more than four cubits, everyone agrees that it is valid.

Now the Gemara raises an objection to those amoraim who explain the Mishna:

The Gemara challenges

from what we learned in a beraita:

A sukka that is higher than twenty cubits is invalid. And Rabbi Judah validates it even

if the sukka was high

up to forty or fifty cubits

or more.

Rabbi Judah said: An incident occurred involving Queen Helena in Lod, whose sukka was higher than twenty cubits, and the Elders would enter and leave there, and they did not say anything to her.

And Rabbi Judah proves from here according to his position that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is valid.

They said to him,

the Sages: Is it possible that

from there

there is

proof?!

After all, the Sages did not remain silent to her because they held that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is valid, but because

she was a woman, and was exempt from the sukka.

He said to them,

Rabbi Judah said to the Sages: How is it possible to explain it this way?

After all, she had seven sons,

who were obligated in sukka, and they too sat with her; and if, as you say, her sukka was invalid, why did they not say anything to her?!

And furthermore,

after all,

she did all her deeds only according to the direction of the Sages?!

Before the Gemara explains its objection from the beraita, it explains the end of Rabbi Judah’s words there:

Why did Rabbi Judah need to teach, “And furthermore, she did all her deeds only according to the direction of the Sages,”

when the proof was not from Queen Helena’s actions, but from the Sages’ silence?!

And the Gemara explains:

This is what he said to them,

Rabbi Judah said to the Sages:

For

perhaps

you will say: She had small children,

Queen Helena,

and small children are exempt from the sukka,

and therefore the Sages did not say anything to her,

it is not possible to explain it this way!

Since she had seven sons

Queen Helena,

it is impossible that there was not among them

one son

who did not need his mother

[that is, when he awoke from his sleep, he did not call “Mother, mother”]. And a minor who does not need his mother must be trained in the mitzva of sukka; so why did they not say anything to her? Rather, it is proven that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is valid. And Rabbi Judah continues and says:

And if you will say,

perhaps you will say that this law cannot be proven from here, since

a minor who does not need his mother

is only

obligated by rabbinic law

in the mitzvot, by virtue of the obligation of training, in order to accustom him to fulfilling them,

and

if

she

[Queen Helena]

in

the

rabbinic mitzvot did not take heed,

she was not particular about fulfilling rabbinic mitzvot,

Ta shma,

therefore I say:

And furthermore, she performed all her actions only according to the Sages.

Thus, she was careful also with rabbinic mitzvot. [Until here the explanation of the words of the beraita].

Now the Gemara explains its objection from the beraita to the words of the amoraim above:

Granted, according to the one who says

Rabbi Yashya said Rav,

when the walls do not touch the schach

it

is the dispute

of the Sages and Rabbi Judah, it fits well what they disputed in the beraita concerning the sukkah of Queen Helene, since

a queen’s practice is to sit in a sukkah whose walls do not reach the schach,