Sukkah 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

And even though he nullified them

by nullifying them with respect to the ground

, all of them,

for the entire seven days of Sukkot.

Because his opinion is nullified in the eyes of everyone.

For people do not ordinarily leave these objects on the ground throughout the festival, lest they be damaged, and therefore they are not considered part of the ground, but rather an object located in the sukka. The height of the sukka is measured from the ground, and it nevertheless remains more than twenty cubits high.

But if he placed on the ground

straw and nullified it

verbally from using it, saying that he did not intend to use it throughout all seven days of Sukkot,

it constitutes a reduction.

All the more so

if he placed there

earth and nullified it,

making it like part of the ground of the sukka, thereby reducing its height.

And if he placed on the ground of the sukka

straw that he does not intend to remove,

meaning that he did not actually nullify it verbally for all seven days of Sukkot, but in truth he will not need to remove it from the ground of the sukka throughout all seven days of the festival,

and

likewise, if he placed there

ordinary earth

and did not nullify it verbally, and it is also unknown whether he will need to remove it during the festival, we arrive at

the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.

They likewise disputed the case where he placed earth there and it is known that he does not intend to remove it throughout the festival. According to the Rabbis, even in this case the earth is not nullified with respect to the ground. The reason the case of ordinary earth, where it is unknown whether he intends to remove it, was stated is to inform you of the extent of Rabbi Yosei’s position: Even in this case, he maintains that the earth is nullified with respect to the ground.

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

One who extends himself over a corpse becomes impure by Torah law. However, one who extends himself over the tent of a corpse is pure if there is an airspace of a handbreadth between the corpse and the roof of the house, because the roof forms a barrier, and one who extends himself over the house is pure.

But if the house is filled up to its roof, and there is no airspace of a handbreadth, the roof does not form a barrier. The impurity is considered “compressed impurity,” whose law is that it breaks through and ascends to the heavens, and one who extends himself over it becomes impure.

The Mishna now discusses the following question: If the house was filled with earth or straw, and no airspace of a handbreadth remained, is the earth or straw nullified with respect to the house, so that it becomes sealed and the impurity is considered “compressed impurity,” which breaks through and ascends to the heavens? Or is the earth or straw considered an object located within the house, which does not reduce the airspace of the house, in which case the roof of the house forms a barrier against the impurity?

As we learned [Ohalot 15:7]:

A

house

containing a corpse

that they filled with straw or stones

clumps of earth and stones,

and nullified them,

meaning that he nullified the straw or stones from use, it is

nullified.

The Gemara infers from here: It implies that if

he nullified them, yes.

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

did not nullify them

explicitly,

no,

the nullification is not effective.

And it was taught concerning it,

and we learned in the Tosefta concerning this Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says:

If he placed there

straw that he does not intend to remove, it is like ordinary earth,

with regard to which it is unknown whether he intends to remove it,

and it is nullified.

The view of the first tanna is that both earth and straw are not nullified if he did not explicitly nullify them, even if he does not intend to remove them from there. But Rabbi Yosei says: If he placed straw there and it is known that he does not intend to remove it, it is nullified, despite the fact that he did not explicitly nullify it. And if he placed earth and stones there, even if it is unknown whether he intends to remove them, they are nullified, since it is not customary to remove them.

It follows that according to the first tanna, even if he placed earth there, it is nullified only if he explicitly nullifies it. According to Rabbi Yosei, even if it is unknown whether he intends to remove it within the seven days, it is nullified.

But if he placed there

earth, and

he knows that he

intends to remove it, it is like ordinary straw

whose removal is uncertain,

and it is not nullified.

The Gemara explains an additional law:

If

the sukka

was higher than twenty cubits, and

there were

thin branches,

the leaves of the roofing,

descending within twenty cubits,

then

if,

when the upper roofing is removed,

their shade

the shade of the branches themselves that descend within twenty cubits

is greater than their sunlight,

it is

valid, since the height of the sukka is measured to the level of the branches, and its airspace is not more than twenty cubits.

But if not,

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

disqualified,

disqualified,

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

Likewise, if

the sukka

was

ten handbreadths high, and

there were

branches descending within ten

handbreadths,

Abaye considered saying

that although a sukka less than ten handbreadths high is disqualified,

if their sunlight

the branches’ sunlight

is greater than their shade, it is valid.

For just as in the case of a sukka higher than twenty cubits, when the sunlight of the branches is greater than their shade they are not considered to reduce the height of its airspace, so too in the case of a sukka ten handbreadths high, they are not considered roofing that reduces its airspace and thereby disqualifies it; rather, they are considered an object located inside the sukka beneath the roofing.

Rava said to him:

Rava said to him:

Although they do not reduce the height of its airspace, nevertheless,

this

is a foul dwelling,

because of the branches,

and no person dwells in a dwelling

that is foul,

and any sukka that is unfit for dwelling is disqualified for the mitzva of sukka.

The Gemara explains another law: We have received it as a tradition, a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, that “the invalid roofing extending 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 higher than twenty cubits, and the like, is considered part of the sukka, and one who sits there fulfills his obligation. This is because we regard it as though its walls extend to that place.

Therefore, if

the sukka

was

higher than twenty cubits, and

in order to reduce the height of its airspace he

built a platform in it,

a platform made of mortar and stones,

opposite the middle wall,

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

across its entire surface,

throughout its entire width, in such a manner that the platform reaches all three of its surrounding walls,

and it contains,

on the platform, the measure of

a valid sukka,

which is an area of seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, above which the roofing is not higher than twenty cubits,

the entire sukka is valid

for dwelling in, even the area outside the platform, by virtue of “the invalid roofing extending from the sukka.” This is so even though the roofing in the other areas is higher than twenty cubits. The reason is that we regard all the other areas of the sukka as subordinate to the area of the platform, which contains the measure of a valid sukka.

There is another tradition in our possession, a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, called “a bent wall ”.

That is, a sukka can be rendered valid by bending the wall. If invalid roofing separates the wall from the sukka, and its measure is less than four cubits, we regard that invalid roofing as though it were part of the wall, except that the wall bent until the edge of the platform. The result is considered as though the place of the wall were opposite the edge of the platform, even though the “straight” portion of the wall is distant from it.

And

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

at the side,

adjacent to one of the side walls, and not alongside the middle wall, so that the platform was consequently adjacent to only two of the three walls of the sukka,

then,

if from the edge of the platform to the wall

opposite it there is a distance of

four cubits,

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 beyond it by virtue of the principle of “invalid roofing extending from the sukka,” since the halakha of “invalid roofing extending from the sukka” was stated only when the invalid roofing extends from a valid sukka.

However, if between the second wall and the edge of the platform there was

less than four cubits,

the sukka is

valid.

For this wall, too, is considered part of the sukka situated above the platform.

For this is the halakha given to Moses at Sinai: when a wall is less than four cubits distant from the roofing [and the space between the wall and the roofing is covered with invalid roofing], the wall may be associated with the sukka by means of a “curved wall” (dofen akuma), as explained above.

The Gemara raises an objection:

What does it teach us

the Gemara by stating this law? Does it teach the law

that we say

this law of

a curved wall,

but

we already learned

this law in our Mishna?!

For we learned as follows [below, 19a

a house whose roof collapsed

in its middle

and he roofed over it

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

Then,

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

For the halakha of a curved wall does not apply when the distance is four cubits.

And it follows:

if it is less than this

[than four cubits], even by a little,

it is valid,

because we say that it is a curved wall, and we regard the roof of the house as part of the wall of the sukka that became curved, and the wall of the house is considered the wall of the sukka.

If so, we already learned this law of a curved wall in the Mishna. Why does the Gemara need to teach it again here?!

The Gemara explains:

It might enter your mind that there it is

that we say that it is a curved wall, because

the

wall there

is fit to serve as a wall,

as it is not higher than twenty cubits, and it is necessary only to curve it in order to bring it nearer to the roofing;

but here, where it is not fit to serve as a wall,

since it is higher than twenty cubits,

say no:

perhaps the halakha of a curved wall 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 for this purpose as well.

The Gemara adds:

If

the sukka was

higher than twenty cubits, and he built

in it

a platform in its middle,

so that it was not adjacent to any of the walls,

then,

if from the edge of the platform to the wall

there is a distance of

four cubits in every direction,

the sukka is

invalid.

Since there are no walls surrounding the platform, it is impossible to bring the walls of the sukka closer by means of a curved wall, as they are four cubits distant from the platform.

However, if the distance between the walls of the sukka and the platform was

less than four cubits,

the sukka is

valid,

because we say that it is a curved wall on every side, and the sukka has walls on all its sides.

The Gemara raises an objection:

What does it teach us

the Gemara,

that we say that it is a curved wall; this is the same thing

—this matter was already innovated in the preceding halakha?!

The Gemara answers:

It might enter your mind that we say that it is a curved wall on one side,

meaning, when two walls are adjacent to it and one wall is distant from it. But with regard to a curved wall on

every side we do not say so; it teaches us

that one says that it is a curved wall even on all four sides.

The Gemara now explains another halakha:

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

the

sukka was

less than ten handbreadths

high,

and he hollowed out in it

a cavity in its middle

in order to complete it to ten

handbreadths opposite the cavity, and that cavity had an area of seven by seven handbreadths, sufficient for a valid sukka, except that the walls of the sukka were distant from it,

if from the edge of the hollowed-out area to the wall

of the

sukka there are three handbreadths,

the sukka is

invalid.

For the walls of the sukka are not considered associated with the sukka, since they are three handbreadths distant from the edge of the hollowed-out area [in which there is the required area for a valid sukka],.