Sukkah 9b — the Talmud in English

MISHNA:

Our Mishna presents two cases in which, even when the sukkah itself is made according to halakha, it is invalid because of the location in which it stands:

a.

One who makes his sukkah beneath a tree,

and the tree’s shade is greater than its sun, so that most of the area of the sukkah is shaded by the tree, the sukkah is considered

as though he had made it inside a house,

and is invalid. This law applies even if the sukkah’s shade is greater than its sun, and it does not need additional shade from the tree.

b. A

sukkah

that is

above another sukkah,

the

upper sukkah is valid, and the lower one is invalid.

Because the lower sukkah has two coverings, and the Torah said, “In sukkot you shall dwell seven days”—“in sukkot” is in the singular form according to the spelling—and this teaches us that if the sukkah is roofed with one roofing it is valid, but if it has two coverings it is invalid.

Rabbi Judah says: If there are no permanent dwellings

in the

upper one,

and one cannot sit in it properly, the upper sukkah is invalid, for Rabbi Judah follows his position that “a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling,” and a sukkah that is not fit for permanent dwellings is not a permanent dwelling. Consequently, according to his view,

the lower one is valid,

because it does not have two coverings. For the upper one is not a sukkah, and everything is considered the roofing of the lower sukkah.

But according to the Rabbis, a sukkah is a temporary dwelling. Therefore, although the upper one is not fit for permanent dwelling, it is valid. Consequently, the lower one is invalid, because it is “a sukkah beneath a sukkah.”

GEMARA:

Rava said: They taught

in the Mishna that one who makes his sukkah beneath a tree is considered as though he had made it inside a house, and it is invalid,

only with regard to a tree whose shade is greater than its sun.

But

if the tree had

more sun than shade,

the sukkah beneath it is

valid.

And Rava explains:

From where

did I learn this law?

From the fact that it teaches

in the Mishna that one who makes his sukkah beneath a tree is

“as though he had made it inside a house.”

And one must consider:

Why do I need it to teach “as though he had made it inside a house”?

After all, the law of a sukkah inside a house and the law of a sukkah beneath a tree are identical, and we learn both of them from the same verse. Why did the tannay attach the law of a sukkah beneath a tree to a sukkah made inside a house as a reason for invalidating the sukkah?

Let it teach,

the tannay should have said that it is

invalid,

as he said concerning a sukkah beneath a sukkah.

Rather, this teaches us

by the tannay having attached the invalidity of this sukkah to a sukkah made inside a house,

that the tree

of the Mishna which invalidates the sukkah is only a tree

similar to a house.

Just as

a

house has more shade than sun, so too a tree

this one has

more shade than sun,

and this is the reason for invalidating the sukkah.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, according to your words, when the tree has more sun than shade, the sukkah beneath it will be valid.

But this is difficult:

And if it has more sun than shade, what of it? Does not invalid roofing join

—the branches of the tree, which are invalid for roofing because they are attached to the ground [as it is written, “When you gather from your threshing floor and your winepress,” and we expound that the sukkah must be roofed only with what you gather from your threshing floor, and not with what is attached to the ground]—

with valid roofing?!

For the case here is one in which the sukkah does not have enough valid roofing for its shade to be greater than its sun, and it needs the tree’s shade to join with it, so how can invalid roofing complete the measure of roofing required to make the sukkah valid?! The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna is speaking

when he lowered them.

He lowered the branches of the tree, and mixed them with the valid roofing, in such a way that it is impossible to distinguish which is the valid roofing and which is the invalid one. The case is one in which the valid roofing is greater than the invalid roofing, and nullifies it. The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If

the Mishna is speaking

when he lowered them, what does it teach us?! What is the novelty in the words of the Mishna, and why did Rava need to teach us this law? After all, none of the reasons specified in the Mishna for invalidating the sukkah applies here: there are not two coverings, and there is no invalid roofing overshadowing valid roofing, because everything is mixed together?!

What is the novelty in the Mishna’s statement, and why did Rava need to teach us this law? None of the reasons for disqualifying the sukka stated in the Mishna applies here: There are not two roofs, and there is no disqualified roofing providing shade over valid roofing, because everything is mixed together?!

Certainly, the Mishna did not come here to innovate the law of “nullification by a majority,” for this is an established halakha everywhere.

The Gemara answers: Without the words of the Mishna, I would not have known that this sukkah is valid, because

it might enter your mind

to say:

Let us decree in a case where he lowered them,

and invalidate this sukkah rabbinically, even though as a matter of law it is valid,

on account of a case where he did not lower them,

in which case the sukkah is invalid because of the joining of the invalid roofing.

It teaches us

our Mishna

that we do not decree.

The Gemara rejects this:

This too,

this law—that we do not decree in the case where he lowered them on account of a case where he did not lower them—was also

taught—we learned it from the Mishna below. For we learned there:

from the Mishna below. For we learned there:

If one trained over it

—over the roof of the sukkah—

the grapevine, the gourd, and the ivy,

which are plants that climb the walls of houses, and he raised their branches over the sukkah while they were still attached to the ground, so that they would make shade inside it,

and

also

roofed over them

with valid roofing, the sukkah is

invalid,

because of the joining of the valid roofing with the invalid roofing.

But if the roofing

that is valid was

greater than them, or if he cut them,

from their attachment to the ground, it is

valid.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

In what circumstance does it speak, such that if the valid roofing was greater than the grapevine or the ivy, the sukkah is valid?

If you say it is when he did not lower them,

when he did not lower them and mix them together, why is the sukkah valid?

Is it not

indeed

that invalid roofing joins with valid roofing?!

And the branches of the invalid roofing are not nullified by the majority of the valid roofing, because they are recognizable and are not properly mixed with it.

Rather, is it not

certainly speaking

when he lowered them

and mixed them together, and the valid roofing was greater than the invalid roofing and nullified it; therefore the sukkah is valid.

And learn from this that we do not decree

in a case where he lowered them, lest he err and validate the sukkah even when he did not lower them.

The Gemara answers: From the Mishna concerning one who trained the grapevine over it alone, it is impossible to learn this law. For

it might enter your mind

to say:

These words

that this sukkah is valid apply

after the fact,

when he has already made this sukkah and mixed the valid and invalid roofing; in that case the Sages did not require him to make another sukkah.

But initially,

if a person asks whether it is proper to make such a sukkah,

no!

Perhaps we would tell him that he should not do so. Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna that even initially it is permitted to make this sukkah, and there is no concern that he may err and validate it even when the branches of the tree are not properly mixed with the valid roofing.

We learned in the Mishna:

A sukkah above a sukkah,

the upper one is valid and the lower one is invalid.

The Sages taught:

“In sukkot you shall dwell

seven days.” [This verse is written in the singular form, with defective spelling, and read in the plural form, “In sukkot you shall dwell seven days.”] And the Sages expounded: You shall dwell in one sukkah,

and not in a sukkah beneath a sukkah, and not in a sukkah beneath a tree, and not in a sukkah inside a house.

That is, one must dwell beneath a single covering, and not beneath two roofs.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

On the contrary, “in sukkot” implies two,

for it is a plural expression [according to the reading]?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: “In sukkot” is written,

and according to the spelling it is singular. The Sages expounded the verse according to its spelling, and not according to its reading.

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

we find several possibilities in the law of a sukkah beneath a sukkah:

Sometimes —

both of them,

that is, the two sukkot made one above the other,

are valid.

Sometimes —

both of them are invalid.

Sometimes —

the lower one is valid and the upper one is invalid.

Sometimes —

the lower one is invalid and the upper one is valid.

And the Gemara explains:

When are there times when both are valid?

For example, when the sun of the lower one is greater than its shade,

and it is not covered with a large amount of roofing, and without the addition of the upper sukkah it is invalid, since its sun is greater than its shade.

And the upper one

is covered with a large amount of roofing, and

its shade is greater than its sun, and the upper one stands,

that is, the roofing of the upper sukkah,

within twenty

cubits of the ground of the lower sukkah. And both are valid: the upper one, since it is made according to its law. And the lower one is valid since it has only one roofing, the roofing of the upper sukkah, and it follows that the two sukkot are one sukkah. And the roofing of the lower sukkah is not considered roofing to invalidate it by the law of two roofings, since its sun is greater than its shade, and anything whose sun is greater than its shade is not called roofing. However, if the roofing of the upper sukkah were higher than twenty cubits from the ground of the lower sukkah, the lower sukkah would be invalid, by the law of a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits.

Sometimes both are invalid —

What are the circumstances?

For example, when both of them,

the two sukkot, the upper and the lower,

have shade greater than sun,

and therefore the lower one is invalid, since it has two roofings, and this is the law of a sukkah beneath a sukkah explained in the Mishna.

And the upper one stands above twenty cubits

from the roof of the lower sukkah, which is the floor of the upper sukkah; it follows that the roofing of the upper sukkah is higher than twenty cubits, and it is invalid by the law of a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits, [as explained above, 2a].

Sometimes the lower one is valid and the upper one is invalid —