Sukkah 8b — the Talmud in English

However,

a square that emerges from a circle,

when the circle encompasses the square, its circumference is greater than the circumference of the square by

half,

half of the circumference of the square. And if the circumference of a square of four cubits is sixteen cubits, it follows that the circumference of the circle is greater than it by eight cubits, which are half of sixteen, and its measure is twenty-four cubits.

And the conclusion of the Gemara:

That is not so!

The calculation of the judges of Caesarea does not come out correctly.

For behold, we see

that we see

that

the circumference of this circle

is not

so

great to that extent,

but only three times the diagonal of the square, which is seventeen and four-fifths. And as was explained above.

Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Meir:

Two craftsmen’s sukkot,

for the practice of artisans in their days was to make two sukkot,

this one within that one,

in the inner one he lived and placed his utensils, while in the outer one he performed his work and engaged with his customers.

And therefore, since the

inner

sukka served as his dwelling during the rest of the year, it

is not

fit to fulfill in it the mitzva of

sukka.

And although it is not necessary that the festival sukka be made for the sake of the mitzva of sukka—for we establish the halakha in accordance with Beit Hillel, who validate a sukka that was not made for the sake of the festival, and required only a sukka made for the sake of shade—nevertheless, this sukka is invalid by rabbinic law, since it is his place of dwelling throughout the entire year, and it is not apparent that he sits in it for the sake of the festival.

And

for this reason it is also

obligated

in

mezuzah

throughout the entire year, since it is a permanent dwelling.

And the outer one

is fit for fulfilling in it the mitzva of

sukka,

because he does not dwell in it throughout the entire year, and it is apparent that he sits inside it for the sake of the mitzva of sukka.

And it is exempt

from

mezuzah

throughout the entire year, and even during the festival of Sukkot, since it does not serve as a dwelling, but only for entering and exiting and for bringing in merchandise.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And why

is the outer sukka exempt from mezuzah?

Let

the

outer sukka be a gatehouse

for the

inner sukka, and let it be obligated

as well

in mezuzah?!

A gatehouse is a small house made at the entrance to the courtyard, where the gatekeeper sits; and we establish that a gatehouse is considered part of the house and is obligated in mezuzah by rabbinic law.

And the Gemara answers:

Because

the inner and outer craftsmen’s sukkot

are not fixed,

they are not made as a permanent structure; the inner sukka is not sufficiently important for the outer one to be subordinate to it as a gatehouse.

The Sages taught:

A sukka of

Ganbakh,

which is an acronym:

A gentiles’ sukka,

made for dwelling in it during the hot season,

and likewise

a women’s sukka, an animal’s sukka, and a Cuthean’s sukka,

for they are not subject to the mitzva of sukka.

And likewise

a sukka “of every kind,”

that is, even a sukka inferior to these, whose sole deficiency is that they were not made for the needs of a person obligated in the mitzva of sukka [and what it is will be explained below], is also

valid, provided that it is roofed according to its law.

What does “according to its law” mean?

What laws does the tan­​nay require here for the validity of the roofing, beyond the laws known to us, such as that its shade is greater than its sun, and that the roofing is made from the refuse of the threshing floor and the winepress?

The Gemara explains:

Rav Hisda said:

The intention of the tan­​nay is to say that the sukka must be roofed with much roofing,

and that

it will be apparent

that he made it

originally

for the

sake of

the shade of a sukka,

and not merely for privacy. For if he had made this sukka merely for privacy, he would not have taken the trouble to roof it with much roofing.

And this comes to teach you that although it is not necessary to make a sukka for the sake of the mitzva of the festival, nevertheless one must make it for the sake of shade, because the essence of the roofing is to protect from the heat of the sun.

Now the Gemara discusses:

“A

sukka ‘of every kind’

that the tan­​nay stated”—

what does it come to include?

”

And the Gemara explains: It comes

to include a sukka of Rakbash

[which is an acronym for several kinds of sukkot].

For the Sages taught: A sukka of Rakbash;

a shepherds’ sukka,

which they make in the grazing fields to protect them from the heat.

a summer-watchmen’s sukka,

the watchmen of figs [figs spread out to dry across the field], who made a sukka in which to sit because of the heat.

a burganin’s sukka,

the sukka of the city watchmen,

a fruit-watchmen’s sukka,

a sukka “of every kind,”

that is, even a sukka inferior to these: although these sukkot were not made for the sake of the festival, they were made by Jews who are obligated in the mitzva of sukka; therefore it is

valid,

provided that it is roofed according to its law.

Here too the Gemara discusses:

What does “according to its law” mean?

What did the tan­​nay come to include?

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Hisda said: And this is when he made it for the shade of a sukka.

[As the Gemara answered above.]

And regarding what the tan­​nay said, “A

sukka

‘of every kind,’ what does it come to include?”

”

The Gemara explains: It comes

to include a sukka of Ganbakh,

which is inferior to a sukka of Rakbash, for the reason that will be explained below, and nevertheless it is valid.

The Gemara now explains in what the two beraitot differ:

This tan­​nay,

the tan­​nay of the first beraita,

who

speaks of a sukka of

Ganbakh—

it is stronger for him,

to validate a sukka of

Ganbakh

more than a sukka of Rakbash,

because they are fixed,

for they are made for a long time. This is not so with a sukka of Rakbash, which is made only for a short time, since they do not always pasture their animals in the same place, and it might have been thought that it is not considered a dwelling at all.

And

therefore

he teaches

“a

sukka ‘of every kind,’ to include Rakbash,”

which are more inferior sukkot, because

they are not fixed.

And this tan­​nay,

the tan­​nay of the second beraita,

who

speaks of a sukka of

Rakbash—

it is stronger for him

to validate a sukka of

Rakbash

more than a sukka of Ganbakh, because those who make it

are people subject to obligation,

for Jews obligated in the mitzva of sukka made it.

And

therefore

he teaches

“a sukka

‘of every kind,’”

which is more inferior,

to include

a sukka of

Ganbakh, which

those who make it

are not people subject to obligation,

and nevertheless it is valid.