Sukkah 3a — the Talmud in English

Because of the air,

so that the air would prevail in it because of the heat, and it is possible that this was indeed so.

But according to the one who says

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

the dispute is regarding a small sukka

between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages—that is, a sukka in which there are only four cubits by four cubits, or seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths—but regarding a large sukka everyone agrees that even if it was higher than twenty cubits it is fit, how is it possible to explain that they disputed the matter with regard to Queen Helena’s sukka?

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

After all, her maidens and servants sit with her, and how did Rabbi Yehuda prove from here his position that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is fit?!

And the Gemara answers:

Rabba bar Rav Adda said:

Indeed, certainly her sukka was very large, but

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

That is, a sukka made of chambers, chamber by chamber, with no chamber having more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths. Therefore Rabbi Yehuda brought proof from this sukka for his position, because each small chamber is measured separately; and such was Queen Helena’s sukka. And the Gemara raises an objection:

And is it the practice of a queen to sit in a sukka made of small chambers, small chambers?!

And the Gemara answers:

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

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

The Rabbis hold:

These small chambers are unfit, and therefore certainly

her sons were sitting in a superior sukka—

in its large halls—

while she

the Queen Helena

was sitting in the small chambers

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

because of privacy, 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—

up above were

sitting,

in the small chambers,

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

The Sages

to her.

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.

And now the Gemara summarizes what the dimensions of the sukka are according to the essential law:

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak said: The halakha:

The sukka

must be able to contain

in its area enough for

his head

of a person

and most of him—

most of his body—

and his table—

which are seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths.

Rabbi Abba said to him: According to whom

did you state your ruling? Is it

according to Beit Shammai?

On page 28a we learned: “One whose head and most of him 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 event; for the elders of Beit Hillel and the elders of Beit Shammai went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben Ha-Horani, and they found him sitting with his head and most of him in the sukka and his table in the house, and they said nothing to him. Beit Shammai said to them: [This was not the event; rather,] they too said to him: If this was how you conducted yourself, you never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in your life.”

And it is explained that according to Beit Shammai, if he did not have the table, when he sat in the sukka he did not fulfill his obligation. But according to Beit Hillel, he fulfilled his obligation even if his table was in the house.

Now, the reason that the area-measure of the sukka is seven handbreadths is that six handbreadths are a person’s place, and one additional handbreadth is needed for his table. If so, according to Beit Hillel the sukka need only be six handbreadths wide. It follows that Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak, who requires seven handbreadths for the width of the sukka, follows the position of Beit Shammai.

He said to him

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak:

But according to whom?!

Indeed, certainly my opinion is according to Beit Shammai.

Some say

that the matter was as follows:

Rabbi Abba said: The one who stated to you

this ruling,

who is he? He said to him

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak:

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

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

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Rav Naḥman bar

Yitzhak challenged: From where

do you know that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

dispute regarding a small sukka

that they dispute in a large sukka, and for example, he is sitting at the entrance of the hut,

perhaps they also disputed regarding a very large sukka, but he is sitting at its entrance, with his table 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 decree lest he be drawn

during his eating

after his table,

and eat in his house.

And Beit Hillel

who permit sitting in this manner

hold: We do not decree

lest he be drawn after his table.

And it is also precise—

and indeed this is implied by the wording of the Mishna—

for it teaches: “One whose head and most of him 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 regarding the measure of a small sukka—whether it must

be able to contain

enough for his head, most of him, and his table,

and

if it

is not able to contain

anything but his head and most of him, it is unfit, or whether it is sufficient that it be able to contain enough for his head and most of him—then this

it should have been necessary for him

the tan나y to teach in the Mishna. And why did he teach the manner of sitting of one who is inside it? Rather, certainly they did not dispute regarding the measure of the sukka; they disputed regarding a large sukka, when he sits near its entrance.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And

with regard to the measure of

a small sukka they did not dispute

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel?!

But it was taught:

A sukka that

is able to contain

enough for

his head and most of him

and his table is fit.

Rabbi says: It is not fit

unless

it has four cubits by four cubits.

And another [baraita] was taught: Rabbi says: Any sukka that does not have

in its area

four cubits by four cubits is unfit.

And the Sages say: Even if it is able to contain only

enough for

his head and most of him,

it is fit.

The Gemara raises an objection: In the words of the Sages it is explained that the sukka must be able to contain enough for his head and most of him,

but his table it does not teach

[in the other baraita]. If so,

they are difficult

the two baraitot

to each other,

for from the words of the Sages in the first baraita it is implied that the width-measure of the sukka is seven handbreadths, enough for his head, most of him, and his table, whereas from the second baraita it is implied that only the measure of his head and most of him is required—which is six handbreadths?!

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it:

the correct explanation is:

This

[the first baraita]

is Beit Shammai,

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

this

[the second baraita]

is Beit Hillel,

who required only enough for his head and most of him. And it is explained that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed regarding the measure of a small sukka.

And

Mar Zutra said: Our Mishna

[below, page 28a]

also precisely indicates

that they disputed regarding the measure of a small sukka.

Since it teaches: Beit Shammai “declare unfit,” and Beit Hillel “declare fit.”

And if it is so

that they disputed specifically in 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, and it would not be possible to teach the language of unfit and fit, since the sukka itself is certainly fit?!

The Gemara raises an objection:

But rather,

if they disputed regarding a small sukka,

it is difficult

the wording of the Mishna: “

One whose

head and most of him were in the sukka while his table was in the house”—from this wording it is precise that they disputed regarding a large sukka, as was explained?!

And we explain:

Actually, they disputed regarding two matters

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

They disputed regarding

the measure of

a small sukka, and they also disputed

as well

regarding a large sukka—

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

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

[And this is the dispute regarding a large sukka.]

And

a sukka

that is able to contain only his head and most of him

[which are six handbreadths],

Beit Shammai declare unfit, and Beit Hillel declare fit.

The Gemara discusses:

Who is the tanna for this which the Sages taught:

A house that does not have

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 have four cubits by four cubits is not called a “house,” since the measure of a house suitable for dwelling is four cubits. And it is exempt

from

the mitzva of making a

parapet.

And it does not become impure through afflictions

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

And it is not permanently acquired in houses of walled cities,

for it is written [Leviticus 25:29]: “And when 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 that is in the city that does not have [its] wall shall rise permanently to its buyer throughout his generations.”

And this is not called a house; therefore it is not permanently acquired by its buyer, but he redeems it forever according to the law of one who sells land.

And they do not 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.” And this is not called a house.

And one may not establish an eruv in it

of courtyards. By Torah law, one may not take an object on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain. The Sages enacted that one may not take an object even from one private domain to another private domain, and not even from a house to a shared courtyard of several householders, unless they combine all the domains and make them one domain.

This is done by collecting a little bread from each house and placing it in one of the houses, so that it is considered as though they all dwell in that house, and the shared courtyard is considered the courtyard of all the residents of that house. And a house that does not have four cubits does not need to contribute bread in order to participate in the partnership of courtyards, because it is not called a house.

And they do not participate in it

shitufei mevo'ot.

The Sages instituted that all the members of the courtyards that open onto a dead-end alley [which is an alleyway leading to the public domain, and the alleyway is enclosed on three of its sides by courtyards and houses, while only its head, on the fourth side, is open to the public domain] must all participate in the alleyway with bread and place it in one of the courtyards, so that they may carry in the alleyway and from the courtyards into the alleyway.

And if this house, which does not have four by four, was open to a courtyard that was open to the alleyway, it does not need to participate with bread in order to permit taking an object out of it on Shabbat into the alleyway.

And they do not place in it

the

eruv

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