Sukkah 7a — the Talmud in English

And he should set it up

to the width of 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. Rather, he should place it diagonally, close to the middle wall, tilted toward the end of the second wall, [like a triangle]. A “row’s end” is a furrow at the end of a field, where the furrows end diagonally.

Rav was silent,

and did not answer their words.

It was also stated: Shmuel said in the name of Levi: He places it opposite the projecting wall. And this is also the ruling taught in the house of study: He places it opposite the projecting wall

and not opposite the end of a 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. A generous handbreadth means that the four fingerbreadths are not measured with the fingers touching one another, but with them held slightly apart, making a handbreadth and a little more.

And he places it within three handbreadths of the wall.

Anything less than three handbreadths from a wall is considered attached to it by the principle of lavud. The open space is regarded as though it were filled, and together the handbreadth and the adjoining open space 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 made; and most is considered like all.

Rav Yehuda said: A sukka made like an open passageway,

with two walls facing one another,

is valid.

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

And that handbreadth

of the third wall

may be placed 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 made like an open passageway,

he makes a strip

that is an actual wall,

four

handbreadths

and something more wide, and places it within three

handbreadths

of the wall. Anything less than three handbreadths from a wall is considered attached to it by the principle of lavud,

and thus there is a wall seven handbreadths long, the measure of a small sukka.

The Gemara asks:

And what is different there,

in a sukka made at a right angle,

where you say that it is sufficient

to place

a generous handbreadth

within three handbreadths of the wall,

and what is different here,

in a sukka made like an open passageway,

where you say that a four-handbreadth strip is required

?!

The Gemara answers:

There,

in a sukka made at a right angle, like the Hebrew letter gimel,

there are two walls according to the law,

complete walls arranged at a right angle;

a generous handbreadth is sufficient for it.

But

here, where there are not two walls

arranged like a gimel, and it is therefore not so clear that this is a sukka,

if there is a four-handbreadth strip

of handbreadths,

yes,

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

if

not,

if there is no strip four handbreadths wide,

no!

It is invalid.

It is clear that according to Rabbi Simon, the walls are considered “two walls according to the law” only if they are arranged like a gimel, at a right angle. But Rav Yehuda held that “two walls according to the law” means complete walls of the measure required for a valid sukka, but they need not be adjacent to one another. Therefore, he held that even in a sukka made like an open passageway, its two walls are considered two walls made according to the law.

The Gemara now brings Rava’s view and explains his words in three ways:

a.

Rava said:

The handbreadth taught in the beraita by itself is not sufficient to permit the third wall;

it is permitted only through

the addition of

a doorway-form.

He must make a doorway-form from that handbreadth across the entire opening. How does he do this? He takes a reed half a handbreadth wide and places it close to the end of the middle wall. He drives another reed half a handbreadth wide into the other end of the sukka, and places a reed across the tops of the two reeds. This makes the entire opening be considered as though it were closed, just as we find regarding Shabbat partitions, where a doorway-form is considered a complete partition. He should not make the doorway-form with thinner reeds, since it would not be sufficiently noticeable. 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 through 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 even a handbreadth is not required.

c.

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

That is, it is not enough to make only a handbreadth. 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

[that is, he found]

Rav Kahana making a generous handbreadth

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

and he was also making

a

doorway-form.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana:

Does the Master not accept Rava’s ruling, for Rava said: “It is also permitted through a doorway-form”?

A generous handbreadth is not needed at all, according to Rava’s second formulation. Why, then, are you making both?!

He said to him,

Rav Kahana said:

I hold in accordance with Rava’s other formulation,

the final formulation,

as Rava 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 the law,

and the third may be even a handbreadth.

Rabba said: And likewise

we say

regarding

Shabbat partitions:

Since it is

regarded as that handbreadth being

a wall

regarding a sukka, it

is a wall

also

regarding Shabbat.

Regarding Shabbat, an area is not considered a private domain for carrying within it unless it is enclosed by three partitions. Rabba teaches that on Shabbat during the Festival of Sukkot, the sukka is considered a private domain even though its third wall is only a handbreadth, and one may carry from it into his house and from his house into it by means of the principle of “since.” Just as this handbreadth is considered a wall regarding the sukka, it is considered a complete wall regarding Shabbat as well, making the area a private domain.

Abaye raised an objection to him: Do we really say “since”?

But it was taught in a beraita: A sukka wall is like a Shabbat wall.

All types of partitions that are effective regarding Shabbat are also effective regarding a sukka. For example, a partition made of vertical poles without horizontal crosspieces, meaning a partition made of reeds standing next to one another,

provided that there is not

a gap

of three handbreadths between one reed and the next

so that they are not attached to one another by lavud and do not form a single partition together. This applies specifically when, if all the gaps between them were combined into one area, the open area would be larger than the standing area. But if the reeds are wide and the gaps between them are not larger than the reeds, the sukka is valid even if in several places the gaps are more than three handbreadths wide, since those places are regarded as openings even though they are not made in the form of a doorway.

And Shabbat has an additional stringency over Sukkah

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

Shabbat is permitted only with

partitions in which

the standing part is greater than the breach,

that is, if you gather all the reeds into one place, their total area will be greater than the area of the open space.

This is not so with Sukkah,

which is made with two walls according to its halakha and a third wall of a handbreadth, which is valid even if in those two walls there are several openings that do not have the form of a doorway, and even if, when you join the breaches on their two sides, the breached area is greater than the standing area. [For if they have the form of a doorway, they are considered ממש as closed].

Indeed, with the partitions themselves, every partition must have its standing part greater than its breach, for otherwise it is not considered a partition.

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

What, is it not that: Shabbat has an additional stringency over Sukkah,

and even on the Shabbat that falls within the festival it is forbidden to carry within it, as the law of a public domain, although it is considered a Sukkah with regard to the laws of the festival,

and

it is explained that

we do not say migo

that since it is a wall for Sukkah, it is a wall for Shabbat?

And we answer:

No!

Shabbat in general has an additional stringency

during the rest of the days of the year

over the Shabbat of Sukkah,

but on the Shabbat that falls within the festival it is permitted to carry within it, because we say: since it is a wall with regard to Sukkah, it is a wall with regard to Shabbat.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

that we say migo,

let it also teach: Sukkah in general has an additional stringency

during the festival of Sukkot

over the Sukkah of Shabbat

of the festival of Sukkot.

For if it is an ordinary Sukkah

made like a through-passage alley

it requires

at the very least

a generous handbreadth

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

whereas

the Sukkah of Shabbat

of the festival of Sukkot, made like a through-passage alley,

does not require a generous handbreadth, and a side-post suffices

even though it is not a handbreadth wide.

For it is you who said: If one provided roofing over an alley that has a side-post, it is valid

the Sukkah on the Shabbat of the festival of Sukkot: since it is a wall for Shabbat, it is a wall for Sukkah.

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, in such a case too we say migo, except that

that

[this law]

was not needed by him

to innovate for Rabbah.

Since

from the lenient

Sukkah, whose laws of partitions are lenient,

to the stringent—

Shabbat, whose laws are more stringent,

we say

that since it is a wall for Sukkah, it is also a wall for Shabbat,

then

from the stringent

Shabbat

to the lenient

Sukkah,

is it not all the more so

that we say: since it is a wall with regard to Sukkah, it is a wall with regard to Shabbat?

The matter itself, Rabbah said: