Sukkah 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

1.

By Torah law,

we have received as a tradition, as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, that only when the interposition covers

the majority of it and he objects to it

does it interpose.

For example, if the majority of his hair was soiled with mud, or if the majority of his hairs were tied individually.

2.

And

dirt

to which he does not object

does not interpose,

because it is like a part of his body, since he has no intention of removing it from there.

3.

And

the Sages

decreed with regard to the majority to which he does not object,

since it somewhat resembles an interposition prohibited by Torah law, as the interposition covers the majority,

because of the majority to which he objects,

which interposes by Torah law.

4.

And

similarly, they decreed

with regard to a minority to which he objects,

since it somewhat resembles an interposition prohibited by Torah law with regard to the fact that he objects to it,

because of the majority to which he objects.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And should they not also decree with regard to a minority to which he does not object, because of a minority to which he objects?!

Alternatively,

let us decree with regard to it

because of a majority to which he does not object?!

The Gemara answers:

That itself is a decree,

the fact that a majority to which he does not object and a minority to which he objects, which do interpose, do so only by rabbinic decree, since by Torah law only a majority to which he objects interposes.

And

shall

we then arise and enact a decree

to safeguard a decree?!

This which we say throughout the Talmud that one does not decree a decree for a decree, we derive from the verse "and you shall guard my charge," which the Sages expounded: make a guard—that is, a decree; for my charge—for my Torah; and not a guard to a guard, so that they should not make a decree for a decree, Rashi Bava Batra 2b. The later objectors: since the majority that one is not particular partitions Rabbinically, hence from now on he is particular about it, so that he will not stumble into a Rabbinic prohibition, and as a result of his particularity it will now be a Torah partition, as a majority that one is particular. If so, why do we not decree about a minority that one is not particular—namely the majority that one is not particular—which is now a Torah partition?! And they brought in the name of the R' Chaim of Brisk to answer: in a partition consisting of a majority that one is not particular, he does not need to remove the entire partition because of his particularity, rather it suffices that he remove only a small portion of the majority, so that only a minority of partition remains, and then the partition is a minority that one is not particular, which does not partition at all. It follows that his particularity is only about the small part that makes the partition a majority, and hence he is particular only about a minority, and that is nothing but a minority that is particular, which partitions only Rabbinically. And see further in Yalkut mefarshim.

If so, the conclusion of the Gemara is that although we learned the fundamental law of interposition from an explicit verse, all those detailed laws were transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

The Gemara returns to explain:

Partitions—

that which we said.

It is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that a sukka must be ten handbreadths high.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

This works well according to Rabbi Yehuda

([5b above]), who does not derive the required height of a sukka from verses, and therefore requires a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

But according to Rabbi Meir,

who derives the height of a sukka from the cherubim,

what can be said?

Why is a halakha concerning a partition necessary?!

The Gemara answers:

When the halakha was given—

to

we learned these laws:

“Extend”

When the wall does not reach the roofing, we regard it as though the wall continues upward until the roofing, and the sukka is thereby fit. This is called “extend and raise” [extend and raise it].

And conversely, when the wall does not reach the ground of the sukka, we regard it as though the wall descends downward until the floor of the sukka, and this is called “extend and lower” [extend and lower it].

2.

“Lavud”—

Any space that is less than three handbreadths is regarded as though it were closed and joined, or as though it is not considered an interruption.

3.

“A crooked wall”—

If at the edge of the sukka, adjacent to the wall, there is invalid roofing extending less than four cubits from the wall, we validate the sukka by means of a crooked wall. We regard the invalid roofing adjacent to the wall as though it were part of the wall, except that it has bent.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

a sukka

that does not have three walls

is unfit.

The Sages taught:

The walls of a sukka must be at least

two according to their halakhic requirements,

complete and standing at right angles,

and

the

third

wall need be

only even one handbreadth.

And what we have taught "and that it does not have three walls is invalid" — this is in this manner, that two partitions are made properly, and the third is only a tefach, Sfat Emet. And he also wrote in another manner: that indeed from the Torah a third wall of a tefach is sufficient as explained in the tractate, but Rabbinically one must make three full partitions! And what we taught that three walls are required, and it implies they must be whole, this is only Rabbinic. And thus it is explained below 7a, that concerning a third besides the tefach one also needs the form of an opening to complete the third wall Rabbinically.

Rabbi Shimon says:

It is necessary to have

three

walls

according to their halakhic requirements, and

a

fourth

wall need be

only even one handbreadth.

The Gemara explains:

With regard to what do they disagree?

The Rabbis hold: There is an exegetical basis in the written text.

The manner in which the Torah is written and transmitted by Moses to Israel is primary, and not the manner in which it is pronounced. At times there is a difference between what is implied by the written text and what is implied by its reading.

And Rabbi Shimon holds: There is an exegetical basis in the reading.

What is primary is what is implied by the reading, and not what is implied by the written text, when the two contradict one another.

Therefore,

the Rabbis hold: There is an exegetical basis in the written text,

and three verses are stated in the passage concerning sukka: “

In a sukka

you shall dwell,” “They shall dwell

in a sukka,” and “For

in sukkot

I caused the Children of Israel to dwell.”

—

Here there are four

walls according to the written text.

And the Sages expounded as follows: In the verses listed above, “in a sukka” is written twice defectively, without the letter vav, and according to the written text each is as though it were written in the singular. And once “in sukkot” is written plene, and the minimum of a plural is two. Therefore, this “in sukkot,” together with the two defective instances of “sukka,” yields four walls.

Remove one,

subtract one verse, to expound it

for its own purpose,

to teach the fundamental obligation of the mitzva of sukka.

There remain,

there remain from the four

three.

And the verse comes to teach the law of three partitions.

However,

two

of them must be complete

according to their halakhic requirements, and the halakha came

to Moses at Sinai

and reduced the

partition

of the third, and established it at one handbreadth,

so that it need not extend along the entire sukka, and one handbreadth is sufficient.

But

Rabbi Shimon holds: There is an exegetical basis in the reading,

and consequently the three verses,

“in sukkot,” “in sukkot,” “in sukkot,”

are all expounded in the plural, since according to the manner of reading they are all plural forms, and the minimum of a plural is two.

Here there is

the possibility of including

six

partitions.

Remove one,

subtract one

verse for its own purpose,

and do not expound the first verse at all—

there remain,

two verses, from which we learn that

four

partitions are required, of which

three according to their halakhic requirements,

complete along the entire length of the sukka.

The halakha came

to Moses at Sinai

and reduced the

partition

of the fourth, and established it at one handbreadth.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that there is an exegetical basis in the reading,

and four remain.

And here they disagree about this:

One Sage holds,

namely, the Rabbis:

The roofing

of the sukka also

requires

being derived from a

verse,

and one must be subtracted to teach us that the sukka must be roofed. Consequently, only three partitions remain, and the halakha comes and reduces the third, establishing it at one handbreadth.

And one Sage holds,

Rabbi Shimon:

Its roofing does not require a verse.

Rather, from the basic meaning of the first verse we already know the law of roofing, since without roofing it is not a sukka. Therefore, there are four partitions, and the halakha comes and reduces the third, establishing it at one handbreadth.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that there is an exegetical basis in the written text,

and three remain for the partitions,

and here they disagree about this:

One Sage holds,

the Rabbis:

When the halakha came

to Moses at Sinai,

it was to reduce

the third wall to one handbreadth.

And one Sage holds,

Rabbi Shimon: the halakha did not come to reduce; rather,

when the halakha came—

it was to add

an additional handbreadth to the three partitions required by the fundamental law. For the law of three partitions was stated only for a situation of constraint, and from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai we learn that ideally one should add part of a fourth wall.

And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that when the halakha came—it was

to reduce,

and they also hold that there is

an exegetical basis in the written text, and they disagree about whether the initial instances are expounded;

as will be explained:

One Sage holds,

Rabbi Shimon:

the initial instances are expounded,

and the first verse, which comes to teach the fundamental law, is also expounded; thus there are four, and the halakha comes and reduces the fourth, so that it need only be one handbreadth.

And one Sage holds,

the Rabbis:

the initial instances are not expounded,

and consequently there are only three verses from which to teach the law of partitions, and the halakha comes and reduces the third to one handbreadth.

Rav Mattana said: The reason for Rabbi Shimon’s view is from here: “And there shall be a sukka for shade by day from the heat, and for shelter and refuge from storm and rain,”

and without four partitions it is not shelter from storm, since the wind blows through the open side. The Gemara now discusses:

And that one handbreadth

according to the Rabbis, who require two walls according to their halakhic requirements and a third of even one handbreadth,

where does he place it?

Rav said: He places it opposite the projecting end,

when the two walls stand at right angles, he places the handbreadth at the end of one of the walls, parallel to the other wall.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: