Sukkah 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

Because of the air,

so that the air would circulate within it on account of the heat; and it is possible that this was indeed the case.

But according to the one who says

[Rav Huna and Rav Ḥanan said in the name of Rav],

the dispute concerns a small sukka

between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages—that is, a sukka measuring only four cubits by four cubits, or seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths—but in the case of a large sukka everyone agrees that even if it was higher than twenty cubits it is fit. How, then, can it be explained that they disputed the sukka of Queen Helena?

Is it the practice of a queen to sit in a small sukka?

Her maidservants and attendants sat with her; so how did Rabbi Yehuda derive from this case support for his view that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is fit?!

The Gemara answers:

Rabba bar Rav Adda said:

Indeed, her sukka was certainly very large; however,

it was necessary only with regard to a sukka made of small chambers.

That is, a sukka consisting of chamber after chamber, with each chamber measuring no more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda brought proof from this sukka for his view, because each small chamber is measured independently; and Queen Helena’s sukka was of this kind. The Gemara challenges this:

Is it the practice of a queen to sit in a sukka made of small chambers?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Ashi said: It was necessary only with regard to the small chambers within it.

That is, there were certainly also large halls in her sukka; rather, the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda disputed the status of the small chambers in that sukka. [For it was their practice to make a small private chamber in a large sukka.]

The Rabbis hold:

These small chambers are unfit, and therefore certainly

her sons were sitting in a proper sukka

—in its large halls—

while she

Queen Helena

was sitting in the small chambers

within it, which were unfit for the mitzva of sukka,

because of modesty; and for that reason they did not say anything to her,

since she was a woman and exempt from the sukka.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Her sons—

they were sitting up high

—

in the small chambers,

and even so the Sages did not say anything to her.

The

Rabbis

And Rabbi Yehuda proved from this that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is fit, even if its area is only seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths.

The Gemara now summarizes the sukka’s dimensions according to the fundamental law:

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: The halakha

is that the sukka

must be large enough to contain

in area

a person’s head

and

most of his body,

that is, most of his body,

and his table

—which is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths.

Rabbi Abba said to him: In accordance with whom

did you state your ruling? Is it

in accordance with Beit Shammai?

On page 28a we learned: “One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka while his table was in the house: Beit Shammai declare him unfit, and Beit Hillel declare him fit. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: This was not the incident. For the elders of Beit Hillel and the elders of Beit Shammai went to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka while his table was in the house, and they said nothing to him. Beit Shammai said to them: [That was not the incident; rather,] they also said to him: If this is how you have been accustomed to act, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in your life.”

It is thus clear that according to Beit Shammai, if the table was not [in the sukka], one did not fulfill his obligation when he sat in the sukka. According to Beit Hillel, he fulfilled his obligation even if his table was in the house.

The reason that the sukka’s area is measured as seven handbreadths is that six handbreadths are a person’s space, while one additional handbreadth is needed for his table. If so, according to Beit Hillel the sukka need be only six handbreadths wide. It follows that Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak, who requires the sukka to be seven handbreadths wide, follows the view of Beit Shammai.

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said to him:

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Abba:

But in accordance with whom else?!

Indeed, my view is certainly in accordance with Beit Shammai.

Some say

that the matter was as follows:

Rabbi Abba said: The one who told you

this ruling—

who is it? He said to him:

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak:

It is Beit Shammai, and do not budge from it!

The Gemara now assumes that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed whether the measure of a small sukka is six handbreadths or seven.

The Gemara challenges this:

Rav Naḥman bar

Yitzḥak raised an objection: From where

do you know that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed specifically with regard to a small sukka

that is no more than seven handbreadths wide?

Perhaps they disputed with regard to a large sukka, and the case is one in which he was sitting at the entrance of the sukka,

perhaps they disputed even in the case of a very large sukka, but he was sitting at its entrance while his table was inside the house.

For Beit Shammai hold:

Although the sukka itself is fit, if he sat in this manner he did not fulfill his obligation, because

we issue a decree lest he be drawn

during his meal

after his table

and eat in his house.

And Beit Hillel,

who permit sitting in this manner,

hold that we do not issue a decree

lest he be drawn after his table.

And this is also precise—

indeed, this is also implied by the wording of the Mishna,

as it teaches: “One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka while his table was in the house: Beit Shammai declare him unfit, and Beit Hillel declare him fit.”

And if it is so

that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed the measure of a small sukka—whether it must

be large enough to contain

one’s head, most of his body, and his table—

and

if it

is not large enough

to contain anything more than his head and most of his body it is unfit, or whether it is sufficient for it to be large enough to contain his head and most of his body, then

it should have been necessary for him

the tanna to state this in the Mishna. Why, instead, did he teach the manner in which one sitting inside it is positioned? Rather, they certainly did not dispute the sukka’s measure; they disputed the case of a large sukka, when he sits near its entrance.

The Gemara challenges this:

And

as to the measure,

did Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel not dispute in the case of a small sukka

at all?!

But it was taught in a beraita: A sukka

that

is large enough to contain

a person’s

head and most of his body

and his table is fit.

Rabbi says:

It is not fit

until it contains four cubits by four cubits.

And it was taught in another beraita: Rabbi says: Any sukka that does not contain

in area

four cubits by four cubits is unfit.

And the Sages say: Even if it is large enough only

for

his head and most of his body,

it is fit.

The Gemara challenges: The words of the Sages state that the sukka must be large enough to contain his head and most of his body,

whereas his table it does not teach

[in the other beraita]. If so,

they contradict

one another,

one to the other,

For the words of the Sages in the first beraita imply that the sukka must be seven handbreadths wide, enough for his head, most of his body, and his table, whereas the second beraita implies that only the space for his head and most of his body is required—that is, six handbreadths?!

Rather, is it not that one may infer from here

that the correct explanation is:

This

[the first beraita] is

Beit Shammai,

who require that he be able to bring his table inside it,

and this

[the second beraita] is

Beit Hillel,

who require only enough room for his head and most of his body. It is thus clear that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed the measure of a small sukka.

And

Mar Zutra said: The Mishna

[below, on page 28a]

also indicates this,

that they disputed the measure of a small sukka.

From the fact that it teaches: Beit Shammai “declare unfit,” while Beit Hillel “declare fit.”

And if it is so

that they disputed specifically in the case of a large sukka,

Beit Shammai say, he did not fulfill

his obligation,

and Beit Hillel say, he fulfilled

his obligation,

it should have been necessary for him

the tanna to say this. It would not be appropriate to formulate the matter in terms of unfitness and fitness, since the sukka itself is certainly fit?!

The Gemara challenges:

But rather,

if they disputed in the case of a small sukka,

there is a difficulty

in the wording of the Mishna: “

One whose

head and most of his body were in the sukka while his table was in the house.” This wording precisely implies that they disputed in the case of a large sukka, as explained?!

And we explain:

Actually, they disputed on two matters,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

They disputed with regard to

the measure of a

small sukka, and they also disputed

also

with regard to a large sukka—

whether the Sages were concerned lest he be drawn after his table.

And something is missing from the Mishna, and this is what it teaches: One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka while his table was in the house: Beit Shammai say, he did not fulfill his obligation, and Beit Hillel say, he fulfilled his obligation.

[This is the dispute with regard to a large sukka.]

And a

sukka

that is large enough only for his head and most of his body

[which is six handbreadths],

Beit Shammai declare unfit, and Beit Hillel declare fit.

The Gemara discusses:

Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught:

A house that does not contain

an area of

four cubits by four cubits is exempt from mezuzah,

because it is written [Deuteronomy 11:20]: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,” and anything that does not contain four cubits by four cubits is not called a “house,” since the measure of a dwelling suitable for habitation is four cubits. And it is exempt

from

the mitzva of making a

parapet.

Nor does it become impure through afflictions

[house afflictions], as it is written [Leviticus 14:35]: “And the one who owns the house shall come,” and this is not called a house.

Nor is it permanently assigned to its purchaser in a walled city,

as it is written [Leviticus 25:29–30]: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then its redemption may be until the end of the year of its sale. And if it is not redeemed until a full year has elapsed, then the house in the walled city shall be permanently assigned to its purchaser throughout his generations.”

This is not called a house, and therefore it is not permanently assigned to its purchaser; rather, he may redeem it forever, as is the law concerning one who sells land.

Nor does one return because of it from the ranks of the army

as it is stated: “Who is the man who has built a new house? Let him go and return to his house.” This is not called a house.

Nor may one establish an eruv in it

for an eruv of courtyards. By Torah law, it is forbidden to take an object on Shabbat from a private domain into a public domain. The Sages ordained that one may not take an object even from one private domain to another private domain, or even from a house to a shared courtyard belonging to several residents, unless all the domains are joined through an eruv and thereby made into one domain.

This is done by collecting a small amount of bread from each house and placing it in one of the houses. It is then considered as though they all reside in that house, and the shared courtyard is regarded as the courtyard of all the residents of that house. A house that does not contain four cubits does not need to contribute bread for the partnership of the courtyards, since it is not called a house.

Nor does one participate in it

in shitufei mavot.

The Sages instituted that all the residents of the courtyards opening onto a dead-end alleyway [which is a lane leading to the public domain, with the lane surrounded on three sides by courtyards and houses, and only its fourth end open to the public domain] must join together by means of bread and place it in one of the courtyards, so that they may carry within the alleyway and from the courtyards into the alleyway.

And if this house, which does not measure four by four cubits, opened onto a courtyard that opens onto the alleyway, it does not need to participate by means of bread in order to permit taking an object from it on Shabbat into the alleyway.

Nor may one place in it

the

eruv

of the courtyard after it has been collected from the residents of the courtyard, since it is not fit for dwelling.