Sukkah 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

But if the distance from the edge of the recess to the wall is

less than three handbreadths,

the

sukka is fit.

This is because we have received it as a tradition, as a halakha given to Moses from Sinai, that when two objects are less than three handbreadths apart, we regard them as though they are adjacent to one another. This principle is called lavud."

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

What is the difference there

in the case of a sukka that is more than twenty cubits high, in which one built a platform,

where you said

that if the walls are distant from the roofing

by less than four cubits,

the sukka is fit,

and what is the difference here,

in the case of a sukka that is less than ten handbreadths high,

where you said

that it is fit only if the walls are distant from the sukka

by less than three handbreadths,

but if they are farther away, the sukka is unfit?!

The Gemara explains:

There,

in the case of a sukka more than twenty cubits high,

the wall exists;

there is an actual wall, since a wall ten handbreadths high is considered a wall. Therefore, if the wall is distant

by less than four

cubits, that is sufficient,

and the sukka is fit by virtue of the principle of a bent wall.

But

here,

where its partitions are less than ten handbreadths high and therefore are not considered a wall, and now we wish, through the halakha of a bent wall,

to make it a wall,

to transform them into a wall by considering the wall as though it bends until it reaches the area of the recess, therefore, only if the wall is distant

by less than three

handbreadths

is

the sukka fit.

But if not,

if it is not less than three handbreadths away but farther,

no!

It is unfit.

The Gemara explains another halakha:

If

the sukka

was more than twenty cubits high, and one built in it

inside it

a pillar that was ten handbreadths high,

and it had

a width sufficient for

the dimensions required for a fit sukka,

namely, seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, and the pillar was far from the walls, so that it could not be rendered fit by means of a bent wall.

Abaye thought to say:

the sukka is fit because we say

“raise and extend the partitions.”

That is, we regard the sides of the pillar as though they rise as partitions around it up to the roofing, and they are the partitions of the sukka. The sukka is fit because from the ground of the pillar to the roofing there is less than twenty cubits.

[And with regard to a pillar that is less than ten handbreadths high, it is impossible to say “raise and extend the partitions,” because the principle of “raise and extend” is stated only when an existing partition is present, so that it can be considered as rising upward; and a partition less than ten handbreadths high is not a partition.]

Rava said to him:

The halakha of “raise and extend the partitions” was stated specifically with regard to Shabbat, and one may thereby consider the pillar a private domain. But with regard to a sukka,

we require recognizable partitions

specifically,

and there are none.

The explanation of the distinction between Shabbat and sukka is as follows: The basis of the principle of “raise and extend” is that through this halakha, the area 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 resemble a dwelling, and therefore it requires actual partitions.

The Sages taught: If one inserted four poles,

posts,

and spread roofing over them

without making walls for the sukka,

Rabbi Yaakov deems

the sukka

fit, but the Sages deem it unfit.

Rav Huna said: The dispute

between Rabbi Yaakov and the Sages in the beraita applies specifically when one inserted the poles

at the edge of the roof,

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

Rabbi Yaakov holds: We say, ‘raise and extend the partitions,’

and we regard the walls of the house as though they rise all the way up to the roofing. They are not like the partitions of a pillar, concerning which we do not say “raise and extend,” because here they are more recognizable, since they enclose the interior of the house. Although they are not recognizable within the sukka, nevertheless it is evident that they are partitions.

But the Rabbis hold:

Even here,

we do not say, ‘raise and extend the partitions,’

since the partitions are not recognizable above within the sukka.

But

if one inserted the poles

in the middle of the roof,

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

everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit,

since there are no partitions surrounding it.

And Rav Naḥman said:

The dispute

concerns inserting the poles in the middle of the roof

between Rabbi Yaakov and the Sages in the beraita.

The reason for Rabbi Yaakov’s view is that the poles themselves are considered partitions—for example, when they are one handbreadth wide on each of their sides and are fashioned like a right angle—and they are called diomedin [double posts—two posts]. The posts stand opposite one another, so that each side of the sukka has the beginning and end of a wall. Since they are one handbreadth wide, this is considered as though the entire side is closed by a partition, as will be explained below.

According to the Sages, the sukka is not fit until it has two partitions made in accordance with their requirements; for the third, a handbreadth is sufficient.

The Gemara raises an uncertainty:

They raised a dilemma:

According to Rav Naḥman, is the

dispute

between

Rabbi Yaakov and the Sages

only

in the middle of the roof, but at the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit,

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

Or perhaps, both in this case

in the middle of the roof]

and in that case [above

at the edge of the roof],

there is a dispute.

The Gemara’s conclusion is:

The matter remains unresolved.

The Gemara raises an objection

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

If one inserted four poles into the ground and spread roofing over them, Rabbi Yaakov deems

the sukka

fit, but the Sages deem it unfit.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But ‘ground’ is comparable to the middle of the roof,

and there is no basis there for applying the law of “raise and extend,”

yet Rabbi Yaakov deems

the sukka fit. This proves that his reason is the law of diomedin, and not “raise and extend,” does it not? The Gemara concludes:

An objection to Rav Huna; an objection.

The Gemara now discusses the matter:

Shall we say that this is a double refutation of Rav Huna?

A. With regard to what he said—that in the middle of the roof everyone agrees that it is unfit—for the beraita proves that they disputed this case, and Rabbi Yaakov deems it fit.

B. With regard to what he said—that there is a dispute at the edge of the roof, and according to the Sages we do not say “raise and extend the partitions.” The beraita implies that everyone agrees that it is fit, and even the Sages say “raise and extend the partitions.”

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Huna could say to you:

No!

They disputed the case of the middle of the roof, and the same law

applies that they disputed the case

of the edge of the roof.

That is, although everyone agrees that we do not say “raise and extend the partitions,” Rabbi Yaakov deemed the sukka fit, whether it was in the middle of the roof or at its edge, because of the law of diomedin. According to the Rabbis, the sukka is unfit, since they did not validate it by virtue of diomedin.

And the fact that they are stated as disputing the middle of the roof,

even though they also disputed the same law at the edge of the roof—whether the diomedin are considered partitions or not—

is to teach you the force of Rabbi Yaakov, who deems it fit even in the middle of the roof

by virtue of diomedin. For if they had not disputed the case of the edge of the roof, one might have said that Rabbi Yaakov’s reason was “raise and extend,” and not diomedin, and we would not have known that he also deems the sukka fit in the middle of the roof.

The Sages taught: If one inserted four poles

round

ones into the ground and spread roofing over them.

Rabbi Yaakov says: We consider whether each

has sufficient thickness

that if they were hollowed out,

meaning that if the round poles were cut and squared,

and they were divided

on their inside and fashioned like a right angle, until

they had,

within the poles, at the sides of the angles,

a handbreadth on this side and a handbreadth on that side,

then they

are considered diomedin,

and may be used as the partitions of a sukka.

But if not,

if they are not sufficiently thick,

they are not considered diomedin.

For Rabbi Yaakov would say:

The measure of

a sukka diomed

is that the diomed has

a handbreadth

on each side.

But the Sages say:

Partitions of diomed are not effective for a sukka, and it is not fit

until there are two [partitions] in accordance with their requirements—

two complete, adjacent walls seven handbreadths long, one along its length and one along its width—

and

the

third

wall need only be

even one handbreadth,

as will be explained below, on 6b.

We learned in the Mishna:

and one that is not ten handbreadths high

is unfit.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where do we derive

this halakha?

The Gemara cites in support of this an amoraic statement:

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

the following statement.

By way of parenthesis, the Gemara adds that

throughout the entire order of Moed, every

place where

such a pair

of these two pairs of amoraim is mentioned together in the Gemara,

there are variant versions:

some do not have

Rabbi Yohanan, and insert

in his place

Rabbi Yonatan.

These two pairs of amoraim said that the reason a sukkah that is not ten handbreadths high is unfit can be derived from the following:

The height of the

Ark

in the Tabernacle was

nine

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

This refers to a cubit of six handbreadths, and not to a cubit of five handbreadths.

And the Ark-cover,

the cover above the Ark, was

one handbreadth high.

Here, then,

the height of the Ark together with the cover upon it is

ten

handbreadths.

And it is written [Exodus 25:22],

“

And I will meet with you there, and I will speak with you from above the Ark-cover.”