Sukkah 4b — the Talmud in English

But if from the edge of the excavation to the wall there are

less than three handbreadths,

the sukka is

valid.

For it is a tradition received by us, a halakha given to Moses from Sinai, that if two things are distant from one another by less than three handbreadths, we view them as though they are adjacent to one another; and this law is called “lavud.”

And the Gemara asks:

What is different there,

concerning a sukka higher than twenty cubits in which he built a platform,

that you say

that if the walls are distant from the roofing

by less than four cubits,

the sukka is valid,

and what is different here,

in a sukka less than ten handbreadths high,

that you say

that it is valid specifically if the walls are distant from the sukka

by less than three handbreadths,

but if they are more distant, the sukka is invalid?!

And the Gemara explains:

There,

in a sukka higher than twenty cubits,

the wall exists;

there is an existing wall, since a wall that is ten handbreadths high is called a wall. Therefore, if the wall is distant

by less than four

cubits, that suffices,

and it is valid because of a bent wall.

But

here,

where its partitions are less than ten handbreadths and the designation “wall” does not apply to them, and now our desire, through the halakha of a bent wall, is

to make it a wall,

to make them into a wall by considering the wall as though it were bent until opposite the place of the excavation, therefore, specifically if the wall is distant

by less than three

handbreadths,

yes,

then the sukka is valid.

But if not,

if it is not distant by less than three, but by more,

no!

And it is invalid.

Another halakha is explained by the Gemara:

If

the sukka

was higher than twenty cubits, and he built in it

within it

a pillar that was ten handbreadths high,

and it had

in its width the measure sufficient for

a valid sukka,

which is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, and the pillar is far from the walls by a great distance, and it is impossible to validate it through a bent wall.

Abaye thought to say:

the sukka is valid, because we say

“extend and raise the partitions.”

That is, we view it as though the sides of the pillar rise as partitions around it up to the roofing, and they are the partitions of the sukka. And it is a valid sukka, since from the ground of the pillar to the roofing there is less than twenty cubits.

[And concerning a pillar that is less than ten handbreadths high, it is impossible to say “extend and raise the partitions,” for only when there is an existing partition do we say “extend and raise” to consider it as rising upward, and there is no partition less than ten handbreadths high.]

Rava said to him:

The halakha of “extend and raise the partitions” was stated specifically concerning Shabbat, and one may consider the pillar a private domain, but concerning a sukka

we require recognizable partitions

specifically,

and there are none.

And the explanation of the distinction between Shabbat and sukka is: The foundation of the law of “extend and raise” is that through this halakha the place within the partitions is considered a domain separate from the public domain outside it. This applies only on Shabbat, whose concern is the division of domains. But the concern of a sukka is that it should be like a dwelling; therefore, it requires actual partitions.

The Sages taught: If one fixed four stakes,

posts,

and roofed over them

and did not make walls for the sukka,

Rabbi Yaakov declares

the sukka valid,

and the Sages declare it invalid.

Rav Huna said: The dispute

between Rabbi Yaakov and the Sages in the beraita applies specifically when he fixed the stakes

on the edge of the roof,

at the very edge of the roof, opposite the walls of the house.

For Rabbi Yaakov holds: We say, “extend and raise the partitions,”

and we view it as though the walls of the house rise up to the roofing itself. And they are not like the partitions of a pillar, concerning which extend and raise was not said, because here they are more recognizable, since they enclose the interior space of the house; and although they are not recognizable in the sukka, nevertheless it is recognizable that they are partitions.

And the Rabbis hold:

Even here

we do not say, “extend and raise the partitions,”

since the partitions are not recognizable above in the sukka.

But

if he fixed the stakes

in the middle of the roof,

where it is impossible to say “extend and raise the partitions,”

everyone agrees that the sukka is invalid,

for there are no partitions surrounding it.

And Rav Nahman said:

When he fixed the stakes

in the middle of the roof, there is a dispute

between Rabbi Yaakov and the Sages in the beraita.

And the reason of Rabbi Yaakov is that the stakes themselves are considered partitions, for example, when they are a handbreadth wide on all their sides and made in the form of a right angle, and they are called “diyumadin” [two posts—two posts]. The posts stand opposite one another, and for each of the directions of the sukka there is a beginning and an end of a wall; and since they are a handbreadth wide, the matter is considered as though that entire side is closed by a partition, as will be explained below.

And according to the Sages, the sukka is not valid until it has two partitions made in accordance with their law, while for the third, a handbreadth suffices.

And the Gemara is uncertain:

It was asked of them:

According to Rav Nahman, is it only

in the middle of the roof that there is

a

dispute

between Rabbi Yaakov and the Sages,

but at the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is valid,

and everyone agrees that we say “extend and raise the partitions”?

Or perhaps, both in this [

in the middle of the roof]

and in this [

at the edge of the roof]

there is a dispute.

The conclusion of the Gemara is:

Teyku.

The objection is raised

from the beraita against Rav Huna, who explains that Rabbi Yaakov and the Sages disagreed concerning a sukka made at the edge of the roof:

“He fixed four stakes in the ground and roofed over them; Rabbi Yaakov declares

the sukka

valid, and the Sages declare it invalid.”

And the Gemara asks:

But “ground” is analogous to the middle of the roof,

and there is no applicability there to saying the law of “extend and raise,”

and Rabbi Yaakov declares

the sukka valid; and it is proven that his reason is because of diyumadin, and not because of extend and raise?! And the Gemara concludes:

A refutation of Rav Huna, a refutation.

Now the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rav Huna on two points:

a. Concerning what he said, that in the middle of the roof everyone agrees that it is invalid. For in the beraita it is proven that they disputed this, and Rabbi Yaakov declares it valid.

b. Concerning what he said, that there is a dispute at the edge of the roof, and according to the Sages we do not say “extend and raise the partitions.” But in the beraita it implies that according to everyone it is valid, and even according to the Sages we say “extend and raise the partitions.”

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Huna could say to you:

No!

They disputed in the middle of the roof, and the same law applies

that they disputed

at the edge of the roof.

That is, although according to everyone we do not say “extend and raise the partitions,” Rabbi Yaakov declared it valid, whether the sukka was in the middle of the roof or whether it was at its edge, because of diyumadin; but according to the Rabbis the sukka is invalid, for they did not declare it valid because of diyumadin.

And this—that they dispute in the middle of the roof,

although they also dispute at the edge of the roof concerning the same law—whether the diyumadin have the status of partitions or not—

is to inform you of the power of Rabbi Yaakov, that even in the middle of the roof he declares

the sukka valid because of diyumadin. For if they had not disputed at the edge of the roof, it would have been possible to say that the reason of Rabbi Yaakov is on account of extend and raise and not on account of diyumadin, and we would not have known that he also declares it valid in the middle of the roof.

The Sages taught: He fixed four stakes

round

in the ground and roofed over them.

Rabbi Yaakov says: We view any

stake that has in its thickness a width such

that if they were hollowed out,

if they cut the round stakes and squared them, and divided

them

from the inside and made them in the form of a right angle, until

there is in them,

in the stakes, at the sides of the angles,

a handbreadth here and a handbreadth there,

behold, they are

treated as a diyumad,

and it is possible to use them as partitions of a sukka.

And if not,

if they are not so thick,

they are not treated as a diyumad.

For Rabbi Yaakov would say: The measure of

a

sukka diyumad,

is when there is in the diyumad

a handbreadth

on each side.

And the Sages say:

Partitions of a diyumad are not effective for a sukka, and it is not valid

until there are two according to their law—

two complete walls joined together, seven handbreadths in length, one along its length and one along its width—

and

the

third

wall need only be

even a handbreadth,

as will be explained below, 6b.

We learned in the Mishna:

and that which is not ten handbreadths high

is invalid:

And the Gemara discusses:

From where do we learn

this halakha?

And the Gemara brings concerning this a statement of amoraim:

It was stated: Rav and Rav Hanina, and Rabbi Yohanan and Rav Haviva, taught

this following matter.

And, in a parenthetical remark, the Gemara adds that

throughout the entire Order of Moed, every

place where they mention

such a pair,

the two pairs of amoraim together in the Gemara,

interchangeably,

there are those who do not read

Rabbi Yohanan, and insert

in his place

Rabbi Yonatan.

And these two pairs of amoraim said that from here we learn the reason that a sukka which is not ten handbreadths high is invalid:

The height of the

Ark

in the Tabernacle was

nine

handbreadths, as it is stated [Exodus 25:10]: “And a cubit and a half its height.”

And it is speaking of a cubit of six handbreadths, and not of a cubit of five handbreadths.

And the cover,

the covering above the Ark, its height was

one handbreadth.

Here, then,

the height of the Ark with the cover upon it is

ten

handbreadths.

And it is written [Exodus 25:22],

“

“And I shall meet with you there, and I shall speak with you from above the cover.”