Sukkah 4a — the Talmud in English

And even though he nullified them

by nullifying them to the ground

all of them,

for the entire seven days of Sukkot.

Because his opinion is nullified before the opinion of every person.

For it is not the way of people to leave these objects on the ground throughout all the days of the festival, lest they be ruined, and therefore they are not considered part of the ground, but rather as an object present in the sukka, and the height of the sukka is measured from the ground, and it is still higher than twenty cubits. However, if he placed straw on the ground

and nullified it

by nullifying it

from using it, and said that he has no intention of using it throughout all seven days of Sukkot,

it is a reduction.

And all the more so

if he placed there

earth and nullified it,

and made it like part of its ground, for through this its height was reduced.

And if he placed on its ground

straw, and does not intend to clear it away,

that is, he did not actually nullify it by his speech for all seven days of Sukkot, but the truth is that he will not need to clear it from the floor of the sukka throughout all the days of the festival.

And

likewise, if he placed there

ordinary earth

and did not nullify it by his speech, and it is also not known whether he will need to clear it away during the festival or not, we have arrived at the

dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.

And likewise they disputed if he placed earth there, and it is known that he will not clear it away throughout all the days of the festival: according to the Rabbis, even in this case the earth is not nullified to the ground. And what it stated with regard to ordinary earth, where it is not known whether he will clear it away, was to inform you of the force of Rabbi Yosei, who held that even in this case the earth is nullified to the ground.

The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei was stated with regard to a house in which there is a corpse, as will be explained below.

One who makes an overhanging tent over a corpse is impure by Torah law. However, one who makes an overhanging tent over the tent of a corpse, if there is a handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof of the house, the roof constitutes a barrier, and one who makes an overhanging tent over the house is pure.

But if the house is full up to its roof, and there is no space of a handbreadth in it, its roof does not constitute a barrier, and the impurity is considered “compressed impurity,” whose law is that it bursts through and rises to the firmament, and one who makes an overhanging tent over it is impure.

And now the Mishna discusses: If the house was full of earth or straw, and no space of a handbreadth remained in it, is the earth or straw nullified to the house, so that it becomes like a sealed object, and the impurity is considered “compressed impurity,” which bursts through and rises to the firmament? Or perhaps the earth or straw is considered an object found inside the house, which does not reduce the space of the house, and then the roof of the house forms a barrier before the impurity?

For we learned [Oholot 15:7]:

A house

in which there is a corpse,

which they filled with straw or stones

—

clumps of earth and stones—

and nullified them,

for he nullified the straw or stones from use, it is

nullified.

And the Gemara infers from here: It implies,

“he nullified them”—yes.

That is, only if he explicitly nullified them is it nullification. But if he

did not nullify them

explicitly,

no,

it is not nullification.

And it was taught concerning it,

and we learned in the Tosefta concerning this Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says:

If he placed there

straw and does not intend to clear it away, it is like ordinary earth,

for it is not known whether he intends to clear it away,

and it is nullified.

The opinion of the first tanna is that whether earth or straw, if he did not explicitly nullify it, it is not nullified, even though he does not intend to clear it away from there. But Rabbi Yosei says: If he placed straw there—if it is known that he does not intend to clear it away, it is nullified, despite the fact that he did not explicitly nullify it. And if he placed earth or stones there, even if it is not known whether he intends to clear it away, it is nullified, since it is not customary to clear it away.

Thus, according to the first tanna, even if he placed earth there, it is nullified only if he explicitly nullifies it. And according to Rabbi Yosei, even if it is not known whether he intends to clear it away within seven [days] or not, it is nullified.

But if he placed there

earth, and

he knows that he

intends to clear it away, it is like ordinary straw

—where it is not known whether he intends to clear it away—

and it is not nullified.

The Gemara explains another law:

If

the sukka was

higher than twenty cubits, and

there were

branches,

the leaves of the roofing,

descending within twenty cubits,

then

if,

when we remove the upper roofing,

their shade

—that of the branches themselves descending within twenty cubits—

is greater than their sunlight,

it is

valid, since the height of the sukka is measured up to the place of the branches, and its interior space is not more than twenty cubits.

And if not,

if the branches descending within twenty cubits are not numerous enough to provide a majority of shade without the roofing above them, the sukka is

invalid,

because the branches by themselves are not considered the roofing of the sukka, for their sunlight is greater than their shade, and the upper roofing is higher than twenty cubits.

And likewise, if

the

sukka was

ten handbreadths high, and

there were

branches descending within ten

handbreadths,

Abaye thought to say:

Although a sukka less than ten handbreadths high is invalid,

if their sunlight

—that of the branches—

is greater than their shade, it is valid.

For just as with a sukka higher than twenty, if the sunlight of the branches is greater than their shade, they are not considered to reduce the height of its interior space, so too with a sukka ten handbreadths high: they are not significant as roofing to reduce its interior space and invalidate it through this, but rather they are considered an object found inside the sukka beneath the roofing.

Just as in a sukka higher than twenty cubits, when the branches have more sunlight than shade they are not considered to reduce the height of its interior, so too, in a sukka ten handbreadths high, they are not significant as roofing to reduce its interior height and thereby invalidate it. Rather, they are considered an object located inside the sukka beneath the roofing.

Rava said to him:

Although they do not reduce the height of its interior space, nevertheless,

this

[after all]

is a foul dwelling,

because of the branches,

and a person does not dwell in a dwelling

that is foul,

and every sukka that is unfit for dwelling is invalid for the mitzva of sukka.

The Gemara explains another law: We have a tradition, a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, that “the sekhakh protruding from the sukka is judged like the sukka.” That is, a valid sukka whose roofing extends to a place where there are no walls, or to a place that is higher than twenty [cubits], and the like— that place is considered part of the sukka, and one who sits there fulfills his obligation. For we view it as though its walls extend there.

Therefore, if

the

sukka was

higher than twenty cubits, and

in order to reduce the height of its interior space he

built in it a platform,

a structure made of clay and stones,

opposite the middle wall,

[an ordinary sukka has three partitions, as will be explained below],

across all of it,

across its entire width, in such a manner that the platform reaches its three surrounding walls,

and it has,

on the platform, the measure of

“the requisite measure of a sukka,”

which is a place of seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, above which the roofing is no higher than twenty cubits,

the entire sukka is valid

for sitting in it, even the place outside the platform, by virtue of the law of “the sekhakh protruding from the sukka.” And even though the roofing in the other places is higher than twenty cubits. The reason is that we view all the other places in the sukka as subordinate to the place of the platform, which has the requisite measure of a sukka.

We have another tradition, a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, called “a bent wall.”

That is, it is possible to validate a sukka by bending the wall. If invalid roofing separates between the wall and the sukka, and its measure is less than four cubits, we view that invalid roofing as though it were part of the wall, except that the wall bent until the edge of the platform, and the matter is considered as though the place of the wall were opposite the edge of the platform, even though the “straight” part of the wall is distant from there.

And

therefore, if the sukka was higher than twenty amot, and he built in it a platform

at the side,

adjacent to one of the side walls, and not at the side of the middle wall, and consequently the platform was adjacent not to all three walls of the sukka but only to two,

then,

if from the edge of the platform to the wall

opposite it there is a distance of

four amot,

the

sukka is invalid.

For the platform has only two walls: the wall adjacent to it, and the middle wall of the sukka. And since the platform cannot be considered a sukka in its own right, it is impossible to sit in the area outside it by virtue of “the invalid roofing that extends from the sukka,” for the halakha of “invalid roofing that extends from the sukka” was stated only when the invalid roofing extends from a valid sukka.

But if there was between the second wall and the edge of the platform

less than four amot,

the sukka

is valid.

For this wall, too, belongs to the sukka upon the platform.

For this is the halakha given to Moses at Sinai: that a wall which is distant from the roofing by less than four amot [and the area between the wall and the roofing was covered with invalid roofing] can be assigned to the sukka by means of dofen akuma, as was explained above.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

What does it teach us

the Gemara through this law? Is it the law

that we say

this halakha of

dofen akuma,

but

we already learned

this law in our Mishna?!

For we learned as follows [below, 19a]:

A house whose roof was breached

in its middle,

and he roofed over it

with valid roofing over the breach, while the roof of the house, which is invalid for roofing, separates between the walls of the house and the roofing, since it was breached only in its middle.

Then,

if there are four amot from the wall to the roofing, it is invalid.

For the halakha of dofen akuma was not stated when the distance is four amot.

And it follows:

but less than this

[than four amot], even by something

it is valid,

because we say dofen akuma, and view the roof of the house as part of the wall of the sukka that became bent, and the wall of the house is considered the wall of the sukka.

If so, we already learned this law of dofen akuma in the Mishna; why does the Gemara need to repeat it here?!

And the Gemara explains:

Lest you say, there it is

that we say dofen akuma, because

the

wall of it

is fit to be a wall,

for it is not higher than twenty amot, and it is only necessary to bend it in order to bring it closer to the roofing,

but here, since it is not fit to be a wall,

because it is higher than twenty amot,

say no,

it is possible that the halakha of dofen akuma was not stated to validate it as the wall of the sukka, since this law was stated only to bring the wall closer to the sukka, and not to create a new wall that had not previously existed.

Therefore

it teaches us,

that this halakha was stated even for this purpose.

And the Gemara adds:

If

the sukka was

higher than twenty amot, and he built

in it

a platform in its middle,

in such a manner that it was adjacent to none of the walls,

then,

if from the edge of the platform to the wall

there is a distance of

four amot in every direction,

the sukka

is invalid.

Since there are no walls surrounding the platform, and it is impossible to bring the walls of the sukka closer by means of dofen akuma, since they are four amot distant from the platform.

But if the distance between the walls of the sukka and the platform was

less than four amot,

the sukka

is valid,

because we say dofen akuma on every side, and the sukka has walls on all its sides.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

What does it teach us

the Gemara,

that we say dofen akuma—this is the same thing

this matter was already innovated in the preceding halakha?!

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say, we say dofen akuma from one side,

that is, when two walls are adjacent to it and one wall is distant from it. But dofen akuma from

every side we do not say; it teaches us,

that even from all four sides we say dofen akuma.

Now the Gemara explains another halakha:

We learned in the Mishna: A sukka that is not ten tefachim high is invalid. And if

the

sukka was

less than ten tefachim

in height,

and he hollowed out in it

a depression in its middle,

in order to complete it to ten

tefachim opposite the depression, and in that depression there was an area of seven by seven tefachim, sufficient for the validity of a sukka, except that the walls of the sukka were distant from it,

if from the edge of the hollowing to the wall

of the

sukka there are three tefachim,

the sukka

is invalid.

For the walls of the sukka are not associated with the sukka, since they are three tefachim distant from the edge of the hollowing [in which there is the requisite measure for a sukka],