Sukkah 3b — the Talmud in English

And one does not make it an ibur between two towns.

It is forbidden to go out on Shabbat from the town beyond the Shabbat limit, that is, more than two thousand cubits in every direction, and this distance is measured from the last house at the edge of the town.

And in tractate Eruvin it is explained: A house that is found at a distance of seventy cubits and remnants [slightly more than half a cubit] from the town is considered part of the town, and one measures two thousand cubits from it onward. But if it is farther away, it does not join with it, and one measures the Shabbat limit from the town itself.

And likewise, two towns that are one hundred and forty-one cubits distant from one another: if there is a house in the middle of the way between them, the two towns are considered one town by means of the joining of this house. The practical consequence is for a person who lodges in one of them: if he wishes to go out on Shabbat from the town, he counts two thousand cubits beyond the boundaries of both of them in every direction.

But if the area of the house was less than four cubits, it is not significant enough to join them, and the towns are considered two separate towns, each from the other.

And brothers and partners do not divide it,

they cannot compel one another to divide it, since it does not contain enough for division.

And it is proven from the beraita that a house that does not contain four cubits is not considered a house.

Now the Gemara returns to discuss whose view that beraita represents:

Let us say

it is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi,

who holds that a sukka that does not contain four cubits by four cubits is not a sukka,

and not

in accordance with the view of

the Rabbis,

who deem valid a sukka whose measure is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, implying that with this measure it is called a dwelling.

The Gemara rejects this:

You may even say

that this beraita is the statement of

the Rabbis; there is no comparison between this beraita and our discussion.

this baraita should not be compared with the discussion before us.

For

the Rabbis stated their view here only

that the measure of a sukka is merely seven handbreadths,

with regard to a sukka, for it is a temporary dwelling,

and the measure of a temporary dwelling is small, and seven handbreadths suffice.

But with regard to a house, which is a permanent dwelling, even the Rabbis agree that if it contains four cubits by four cubits, people dwell in it. And if not, people do not dwell in it,

and it is not considered a house.

The Master said,

we learned above: A house that does not contain four cubits by four cubits is

exempt from the mezuzah, and from

the parapet, and it does not become impure with afflictions, and it is not irrevocably acquired in houses of walled cities, and one does not return on its account from the ranks of the army.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

Because

the

expression

“house” is written regarding all of them,

and any house that is not four cubits by four cubits wide is not a house.

We further learned in the beraita:

And one may not establish an eruv in it, nor establish a partnership in it, nor place an eruv in it.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that one may not establish a partnership in it?

Because

it is not fit for dwelling,

as it is not suitable for habitation. And courtyard eruvs must be placed specifically in a dwelling, because the basis of the law of eruv is that we regard it as though all the inhabitants of the courtyard dwell in the house where the eruv is located, and the entire courtyard is considered the courtyard of that house. Therefore, specifically a house fit for habitation is required.

And the Gemara infers: It implies that specifically

courtyard eruvs may not be placed in it. But a partnership

of alleyways [to permit taking from the courtyard into the alleyway and carrying within the alleyway]

may be placed in it.

What is the reason?

Since, despite the fact that

it

is not a house, nevertheless

it is no worse than a courtyard in an alleyway,

in which alleyway partnerships may be placed. That is to say, specifically for courtyard eruvs, they must be placed in a location suitable for habitation, because all the inhabitants of the houses must be joined as though they dwell in one house. But the subject of alleyway partnerships is the joining of the courtyards surrounding the alleyway; therefore, it may be placed in a courtyard, and a dwelling specifically is not required.

For we learned in tractate Eruvin

[page 85b]:

Courtyard eruvs

may be placed

in a courtyard.

And it is explained that even courtyard eruvs need not be placed specifically in a house. And likewise,

alleyway partnerships

may be placed

in an alleyway,

and they need not be placed in a location suitable for habitation.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: Courtyard eruvs—

do they indeed place them

in a courtyard?

But we learned:

One of the members of the courtyard

who places his eruv in a gatehouse

[a small house at the entrance to the courtyard where the watchman sits],

or in a colonnade

[something like a paved courtyard that has a roof],

or on a balcony

that is long and made for passage from the stairs outside to the house [something like a modern stairwell],

his eruv is not an eruv.

For these places are not suitable for habitation, but serve for passage and other uses of the courtyard.

And

likewise,

one who dwells there

in a colonnade

does not prohibit

the members of the courtyard from carrying within it, since it is not considered a house, and he need not participate in the eruv.

And it is proven that courtyard eruvs must be placed in a place suitable for habitation. And what is the explanation of the statement of the Mishna that courtyard eruvs are placed in a courtyard?!

The Gemara answers:

Rather, say

that the intention of the Mishna is:

Courtyard eruvs are placed in a house in the courtyard,

that is, certainly courtyard eruvs must be placed specifically in a place suitable for habitation. And what we learned, “courtyard eruvs in a courtyard,” means that one may not place the eruv in a house located in another courtyard, even though it is suitable for habitation; rather, specifically in a house located in this courtyard.

And alleyway partnerships are placed in a courtyard in the alleyway

[and not in a courtyard in another alleyway].

And this one,

a house that does not contain four cubits by four cubits,

is no worse than a courtyard in an alleyway,

in which one is permitted to place an eruv for an alleyway partnership.

We further learned in the beraita:

And one does not make

that

same

house that does not contain four cubits

an ibur between two towns.

And the Gemara explains: It comes to teach us

that even like a burganin

[a hut made by watchmen of produce and bird hunters from willow branches and reeds ], which do not contain four cubits,

we do not make it so!

For burganin are made an ibur between two towns.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that this house’s law is truly different from that of burganin?

Because

burganin are fit for their purpose,

their purpose is for one person to lodge overnight, and for this they are indeed suitable; therefore, they become joined with the town.

And

if

this one,

the house smaller than four cubits,

is not fit for its purpose,

for a house is made for permanent dwelling and not for one night, and for this use it is not suitable.

We further learned:

And brothers and partners do not divide it—

one cannot compel the other to divide it, since it does not contain an area suitable for use, enough for this one and enough for that one.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

The reason

that one does not compel the other to divide it is

that it does not contain four cubits; but if it contains four cubits, they divide it.

But

[yet]

we learned

in the first chapter of tractate Bava Batra [page 11b]:

One does not divide a courtyard until there are four cubits for this one and four cubits for that one,

so it follows that, in order for one to be able to compel the other to divide, the house must be eight cubits wide?!

The Gemara explains:

Rather, say

that the tanna intended to say that

it has no law of division like a courtyard.

And what is the law of division? It is as stated by Rav Huna and Rav Hisda:

For Rav Huna said: A courtyard is divided according to its entrances.

Brothers who inherited a courtyard in which there were several houses, and those houses had entrances opening onto the courtyard: if one took three small houses and his brother took one large house opposite them,

the one who took three houses takes three portions of the courtyard, and the one who took one house takes one portion, since he has only one entrance.

And the reason is that the purpose of a courtyard is entry and exit, and loads are brought through it; therefore, the courtyard is divided according to its entrances.

And Rav Hisda said: He gives four cubits for each and every entrance.

The entire courtyard is not divided according to the number of entrances; rather, opposite each entrance he takes four cubits of the courtyard opposite the entrance, and the width of that area is the width of the entrance,

and they divide the remainder equally.

And a house that does not contain four cubits by four cubits takes no portion in the courtyard at all.

For these words

that one gives from the courtyard opposite the entrance apply to

a house that is fit to remain,

which is enduring; therefore

we give it a courtyard,

so that he can enter and exit his house. But

this one

[this house],

which is fit to be demolished,

which is not suitable for habitation and is destined for demolition,

we do not give it a courtyard.

The following laws are rulings from teachings of the members of the academy who were in Rav Ashi’s study hall, arranged one after another in the Gemara:

If

the sukka

was higher than twenty cubits, and one came to reduce it,

to reduce the height of its interior from twenty cubits, and he places objects on its floor in order to reduce its height by raising the floor.

If he did so

with pillows and cushions, it is not a reduction.