Sukkah 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

And he should set it up

to a handbreadth

opposite the end of the row?!

That is, he should not set the handbreadth at a right angle, parallel to the second wall, but diagonally, close to the middle wall, with its upper end inclined toward the edge of the second wall, [like a triangle]. The “end of the row” is a furrow at the end of a field, where the furrows terminate diagonally.

Rav was silent,

and did not respond to their words.

This was also stated: Shmuel said in the name of Levi: “He sets it up opposite the protruding section.” And so they ruled in the beit-midrash: “He sets it up opposite the protruding section,”

and not opposite the end of the row.

Rabbi Simon, and some say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

disagreed and

said: He makes it

a wall

of a generous handbreadth.

A handbreadth is measured as four fingerbreadths, and a generous handbreadth means that the handbreadth is not measured by four fingerbreadths touching one another, but by fingerbreadths held slightly apart, so that they measure a handbreadth and something more.

And he sets it up within three handbreadths of the wall.

Anything less than three handbreadths from a wall is considered lavud, and that air is regarded as though it were a sealed area. Together, the handbreadth and the air beside it form a partition four handbreadths wide. Since the required measure of a sukka’s partition is seven handbreadths, those four handbreadths are regarded as though most of the wall had been constructed, and the majority is like the whole.

Rav Yehuda said: A sukka constructed like an alleyway

open at both ends, with its two walls opposite one another,

is valid.

He held that even two walls arranged like an alleyway are considered “two walls according to their laws,” and not only when the walls stand at a right angle .

And that handbreadth

of the third wall

he may set up in whichever direction he wishes,

at any one of the four ends of the walls.

Rabbi Simon, and some say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said:

In a sukka constructed like an alleyway open at both ends,

he makes a strip

that is an actual wall,

four

handbreadths

and something more wide, and sets it up within three

handbreadths

of the wall, and anything within three handbreadths of a wall is considered lavud.

Consequently, there is here a wall seven handbreadths long, the measure of a small sukka.

The Gemara asks:

And what is different there

in a sukka constructed at a right angle,

where you say that it suffices

to place

a generous handbreadth

less than three handbreadths from the wall,

and what is different here

in a sukka constructed like an alleyway,

where you say that a four-handbreadth strip is required

handbreadths?!

The Gemara answers:

There,

in a sukka constructed at a right angle, like the Hebrew letter gamma,

where there are two walls according to their laws,

complete and arranged at a right angle,

a generous handbreadth suffices for it.

But

here, where there are not two walls

like a gamma, and it is not so evident that this is a sukka,

if there is a four-handbreadth strip

handbreadths,

yes,

it is valid. Through the four-handbreadth strip, there are here two walls arranged at a right angle. But

if

not,

if there is no strip four handbreadths wide,

no!

It is invalid.

It is evident that according to Rabbi Simon, the walls are considered “two according to their laws” only if they are arranged like a gamma—as a right angle. Rav Yehuda, however, held that “two according to their laws” means complete walls of the measure required for a valid sukka, but there is no requirement that they be adjacent to one another. Therefore, he held that even a sukka constructed like an alleyway has walls that are considered two walls constructed according to their laws.

The Gemara now presents Rav’s opinion and explains his words in three ways:

a.

Rava said:

The handbreadth mentioned in the beraita alone is not sufficient to permit the third wall,

and it is permitted only by

the addition of

a doorway-form.

He must make a doorway-form from that handbreadth extending across its entire length. How does he do this? He takes a reed half a handbreadth wide and places it adjacent to the edge of the middle wall, drives another reed half a handbreadth wide into the opposite end of the sukka, and places a reed across their tops. This causes the entire opening to be considered as though it were sealed, just as we find concerning Shabbat partitions, where a doorway-form is considered a complete partition. One should not make the doorway-form with thinner reeds, since it is not sufficiently conspicuous. This is the handbreadth mentioned in the beraita.

b.

Some say:

Rava did not mean that both a handbreadth and a doorway-form are required; rather,

Rava said: It is also permitted by means of a doorway-form.

That is, the handbreadth mentioned in the Mishna is as Rabbi Simon explained above: one makes a generous handbreadth and places it within three handbreadths of the wall. Rava adds that if one made a doorway-form, even with two thin reeds, the sukka is valid, and not even a handbreadth is required.

c.

Some say: Rava said: A doorway-form is also necessary.

That is, it is not enough to make a handbreadth alone; one must make both a generous handbreadth within three handbreadths of the wall and place a thin reed at the end of the sukka, with another reed across their tops.

Rav Ashi found

[he found]

Rav Kahana making a generous handbreadth

within three handbreadths of the wall, in accordance with Rabbi Simon,

and also making

an additional

doorway-form.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana:

“Does the Master not accept Rava’s statement, for Rava said: ‘It is also permitted by means of a doorway-form’?”

Thus, according to Rava’s second formulation, no generous handbreadth is required at all. Why are you making both of them?!

He said to him,

Rav Kahana said:

“I follow Rava’s other formulation,

[his later formulation]

for I hold with Rava, who said: ‘A doorway-form is also necessary.’”

We learned in the beraita [above, 6b]: The number of walls of a sukka is

two according to their laws,

and the third may be even a handbreadth.

Rabba said: Likewise

we say

with regard to

partitions

of Shabbat: Since it is

considered that handbreadth

a wall

with regard to a sukka, it

is a wall

also

with regard to Shabbat.

The basis for Rabba’s ruling that since it is a wall for a sukka it is a wall for Shabbat is as follows: Since the Torah specified the partitions of a sukka, and it is impossible for the seven days of Sukkot to pass without a Shabbat, the Torah certainly did not come to validate the sukka for only six days, requiring a person to seek another sukka on the seventh day. It is not the Torah’s way to grant a validation that is insufficient for the entire period. Since a partition cannot permit only half the time, we say: Since it is a wall for a sukka, it is a wall with regard to Shabbat, Ran. Ran, the purpose of the generous handbreadth is not that it thereby constitutes most of the wall, but that it thereby qualifies as a partition, and even though most of it is open, this suffices for the third wall.] Ran asked: According to Rava’s final formulation, why is the principle of “since” necessary? He made a doorway-form across the entire side, and with regard to Shabbat a doorway-form is a wall from the outset! Ran, the purpose of the generous handbreadth is not that it thereby constitutes most of the wall, but that it thereby qualifies as a partition, and even though most of it is open, this suffices for the third wall.] answers that there are cases in which this suffices to regard it as a wall for a sukka, but not for Shabbat. For example, a partition in which the open area exceeds the standing portion: this is valid for a sukka but is insufficient with regard to Shabbat. Or when one wall is very long and the wall opposite it is only seven handbreadths long: with regard to a sukka, the area extending to the end of the long wall is effective by virtue of the rule that “an extension projecting from the sukka is treated as a sukka,” whereas with regard to Shabbat it is effective only opposite the shorter wall. By virtue of the principle of “since,” it is effective on Shabbat even opposite the longer wall. the Rif) and Maimonides omitted this law. As the reason, Ran, the purpose of the generous handbreadth is not that it thereby constitutes most of the wall, but that it thereby qualifies as a partition, and even though most of it is open, this suffices for the third wall.] and the Rosh wrote that the Rif) ruled according to Rava’s final formulation above, which requires a doorway-form as well. It is obvious that once there are three substantial partitions, the principle of “since” is unnecessary. Later authorities asked: Nevertheless, is the principle of “since” not needed in the cases listed by Ran, the purpose of the generous handbreadth is not that it thereby constitutes most of the wall, but that it thereby qualifies as a partition, and even though most of it is open, this suffices for the third wall.] . The source for Ravah’s ruling that we say by inference that if it is a wall for the sukkah it is a wall for Shabbat is that since the Torah specified the partitions of the sukkah, and it is impossible for the seven days of Sukkot to be without Shabbat, certainly the Torah did not intend to render it valid for six days only and on the seventh day one would need to seek another sukkah — that is not the way of the Torah to give a validity that does not suffice for the whole time. And since a partition that permits carrying to halves is impossible, we say by inference that if it is a wall for the sukkah it is a wall for Shabbat. — RAN. The RAN raised an objection to Rava’s second version: why need the rule of migu, since he made the form of the opening over its whole surface, and for Shabbat the form of the opening would be a wall ab initio?! The RAN answers that there are cases in which for the sukkah it suffices to count it as a wall but not for Shabbat. For example, a partition whose opening is larger than the standing part — it is valid for the sukkah but not enough for Shabbat. Or when one wall is very long and its opposite is only seven tefachim long, regarding the sukkah it gives effect up to the edge of the long wall by the law “a supporting piece that comes out of the sukkah is treated as a sukkah,” whereas for Shabbat it is effective only opposite the short one, and by migu it is effective even for Shabbat opposite the long one. The Rif and the Rambam omitted this ruling. The RAN and the Ra'ahsh wrote the reason: that the Rif ruled like Rava’s second version above, which requires also the form of the opening, and the thing is simple because since there are three partitions above, one does not need the rule of migu. And later authorities objected whether nonetheless one needs the rule of migu in those cases enumerated by the RAN. See further in the Yalkut of commentators.

With regard to Shabbat, an area is not considered a private domain for purposes of carrying within it unless it is enclosed by three partitions. Rabba innovates that on the Shabbat of Sukkot, the sukka is considered a private domain even though its third wall consists only of a handbreadth, and it is permitted to bring objects into it from one’s house and take them out of it by virtue of the principle of “since.” Just as this handbreadth is considered a wall with regard to a sukka, it is considered a complete wall with regard to Shabbat as well, making the area a private domain.

Abaye challenged him: “Do we indeed say ‘since’?”

But was it not taught in a beraita: A sukka wall is like a Shabbat wall?

All types of partitions that are effective with regard to Shabbat are also effective with regard to a sukka. For example, a partition made of vertical elements without horizontal elements, meaning a partition made of reeds standing beside one another,

provided that there is not

a gap

of three handbreadths between one reed and the next,

for they are not lavud to one another and do not together constitute a single partition. This applies specifically when, if all the gaps between them were combined into one area, the open area would exceed the standing portion [the enclosed portion]. But if the reeds are wide and the gaps between them do not exceed them, the sukka is valid even if in several places the gaps are more than three handbreadths wide. This is because those areas are regarded as openings, even though they are not made in the form of a doorway-form.

And Shabbat has additional stringencies over sukka:

there are additional stringencies in the laws of its partitions, such that

Shabbat is not permitted except with

partitions in which

the standing area is greater than the breach,

meaning that if all the canes were gathered into one place, their total area would be greater than the area of the open space.

This is not so with regard to a sukka

made with two properly constituted walls and a third wall measuring one tefach, which is valid even if those two walls have several openings that do not have the form of a doorway, and even if, when the breaches on both sides are combined, the breached area is greater than the standing area. [For if they have the form of a doorway, they are considered entirely sealed].

Nevertheless, with regard to the partitions themselves, each partition must have a standing area greater than its breached area; otherwise, it is not considered a partition.

The Gemara discusses the explanation of the words of the beraita:

What, is it not saying: Shabbat in general is more stringent than Shabbat of sukka,

and even on Shabbat that falls during the festival, it is prohibited to carry within it, as in a public domain, although it is considered a sukka with regard to the laws of the festival,

and

it follows that

we do not say migo

that since it serves as a wall for the sukka, it serves as a wall for Shabbat as well?

And we answer:

No!

Shabbat in general

during the other days of the year

is more stringent than Shabbat of sukka,

but on Shabbat that falls during the festival, it is permitted to carry within it, because we say: Since it serves as a wall with regard to the sukka, it serves as a wall with regard to Shabbat as well.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

if we say migo,

let it also teach: A sukka in general is more stringent

on the festival of Sukkot

than a sukka of Shabbat

of the festival of Sukkot.

For if it is an ordinary sukka

made like a mavoy open at both ends, it

requires

at the very least

a slightly-broader tefach

[and according to Rabbi Simon, a strip measuring four tefachim and something] beside one of the walls,

whereas

a sukka of Shabbat

of the festival of Sukkot, made like a mavoy open at both ends,

does not require a slightly-broader tefach, and a lehi suffices,

even though it is not a tefach wide.

For it is you who said: If one roofed over a mavoy that has a lehi, it is valid

the sukka on Shabbat of the festival of Sukkot, because since it serves as a wall for Shabbat, it serves as a wall for the sukka.

The Gemara answers: Indeed, we also say migo in such a case; however,

that

[this law]

was not needed

for Rabba to innovate.

Since

now, from the lenient

sukka, whose partition laws are lenient,

to the stringent

Shabbat, whose laws are more stringent,

we say

that since it serves as a wall for the sukka, it also serves as a wall for Shabbat,

then

from the stringent

Shabbat

to the lenient

sukka,

is it not all the more so

that we say that since it serves as a wall with regard to the sukka, it serves as a wall with regard to Shabbat as well?

The essential matter: Rabba said: