Sukkah 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Our Mishna presents two circumstances in which, even when the sukka itself is constructed in accordance with halakha, it is disqualified because of the location in which it stands:

a.

One who makes his sukka beneath a tree,

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

as though he had made it inside a house,

and it is disqualified. This halakha applies even when the sukka’s shade is greater than its sunlight and it does not need any additional shade from the tree.

b. A

sukka

that is

above another sukka

has the following status: the

upper one is valid, and the lower one is disqualified.

This is because the lower sukka has two coverings, whereas the Torah states: “You shall reside in sukkot for seven days.” The word “sukkot” is written in the singular [according to its spelling], teaching that when the sukka is covered with one covering it is valid, but when it has two coverings it is disqualified.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no permanent residents

in the usual sense

in the upper one,

and it is not possible to sit in it properly, the upper sukka is disqualified. This follows Rabbi Yehuda’s position that “we require a sukka to be a permanent dwelling,” and a sukka that is unsuitable for permanent habitation is not a permanent dwelling. Consequently, according to his position,

the lower one is valid,

since it does not have two coverings, as the upper one is not a sukka, and everything is considered part of the lower sukka’s sakhakh.

But according to the Rabbis, a sukka is a temporary dwelling. Therefore, although the upper one is not suitable for permanent habitation, it is valid. Consequently, the lower one is disqualified because it is “a sukka beneath another sukka.”

Gemara:

Rava said: They taught

in the Mishna that one who makes a sukka beneath a tree is considered as though he made it inside a house, and it is disqualified,

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

But

if the tree’s

sunlight is greater than its shade,

the sukka beneath it is

valid.

Rava explains:

From where

did I derive this ruling?

From the fact that it teaches

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

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

And one may analyze this:

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

After all, the law of a sukka inside a house and the law of a sukka beneath a tree are identical, and we learn both of them from the same verse. Why, then, did the tanna attach the law of a sukka beneath a tree to the sukka that one made inside a house, as the reason for disqualifying the sukka?

He should have taught, that the tanna should have said that it is

disqualified,

as he says with regard to a sukka beneath another sukka.

Rather, this teaches us

that by linking the disqualification of this sukka to a sukka made inside a house, the tanna teaches

that the tree

in the Mishna that disqualifies the sukka is only a tree

analogous to a house.

Just as

a

house has greater shade than sunlight, so too

a tree

whose

shade is greater than its sunlight

causes the sukka to be disqualified.

The Gemara raises the following difficulty: If so, according to your reasoning, when the tree’s sunlight is greater than its shade, the sukka beneath it should be valid.

But this is difficult:

What difference does it make if the tree’s sunlight is greater than its shade? Invalid sakhakh combines

—the branches of the tree, which are invalid for use as sakhakh because they remain attached to the ground [as it is written: “When you gather in your grain and your wine,” from which we derive that one must cover the sukka only with material that you gather from your threshing floor, and not with material attached to the ground]—

with valid sakhakh!

This is referring to a case in which the sukka does not have enough valid sakhakh for its shade to be greater than its sunlight and it needs the tree’s shade to combine with it, so how can invalid sakhakh complete the measure of sakhakh required to validate the sukka?! The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna is speaking

when he lowered them.

He lowered the branches of the tree, and intermingled them with the valid sakhakh so that it is impossible to distinguish which sakhakh is valid and which is invalid. It is referring to a case in which the valid sakhakh is greater than the invalid sakhakh, and nullifies it. The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If

the Mishna is speaking

when he lowered them, what is it coming to teach?!

What is the novelty in the Mishna’s statement, and why did Rava need to teach us this halakha? None of the reasons stated in the Mishna for disqualifying the sukka applies here: there are not two coverings, and there is no invalid covering suspended over valid sakhakh, since everything is intermingled?!

Certainly, the Mishna here did not come to introduce the law of nullification by a majority, since that is an established halakha everywhere. The Gemara answers: Were it not for the statement of the Mishna, I would not know that this sukka is valid, because it might enter your mind to say

that we should decree

in a case where he lowered them

that we should disqualify this sukka rabbinically, even though as a matter of strict law it is valid,

lest it be confused with a case where he did not lower them,

in which case the sukka is disqualified because invalid sakhakh combines with valid sakhakh.

This teaches us

the Mishna

that we do not enact such a decree.

The Gemara rejects this:

This too

—this halakha, that we do not decree against a case where he lowered the branches because of a case where he did not lower them—

was also

taught

in a Mishna below. For we learned there:

If one trained

a vine, a gourd plant, or ivy

over the roof of the sukka,

and also covered over them

with valid sakhakh, the sukka is

disqualified

because invalid sakhakh combines with valid sakhakh.

But if the valid covering

was

greater than them, or if he cut them

from their attachment to the ground, the sukka is

valid.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

In what situation does the Mishna state that if the valid sakhakh was greater than the vine or ivy, the sukka is valid?

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

that he did not lower them and intermix them with the valid sakhakh, why is the sukka valid?

Is it not

the case that

invalid sakhakh combines with valid sakhakh?!

The branches of the invalid sakhakh are not nullified by the majority of the valid sakhakh, since they are recognizable and are not properly intermingled with it.

Rather, is it not

certainly referring to a case

where he lowered them

and intermingled them, and the valid sakhakh was greater than the invalid material and nullified it, which is why the sukka is valid?

And infer from here that we do not decree

in a case where he lowered them, lest he err and deem the sukka valid even when he did not lower them.

The Gemara answers: It is impossible to derive this halakha solely from the Mishna concerning one who trained a vine over the sukka.

It might enter your mind to say:

I would say that

this applies

to the sukka being valid

after the fact,

when he has already made this sukka and intermingled the valid and invalid sakhakh. In that case, the Sages did not require him to make another sukka.

But initially,

if a person asks whether it is appropriate to make such a sukka,

no!

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

this teaches us

that our Mishna teaches that even initially it is permitted to make this sukka, and there is no concern that he may err and deem it valid even when the branches of the tree are not properly intermingled with the valid sakhakh.

We learned in the Mishna:

A sukka above another sukka,

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

The Sages taught:

“

In sukkot you shall reside

for seven days.” [This verse is written in the singular, with defective spelling, but read in the plural: “In sukkot you shall reside for seven days.”] The Sages expounded: You shall reside in one sukka,

but not in a sukka beneath another sukka, not in a sukka beneath a tree, and not in a sukka inside a house.

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

On the contrary, “in sukkot” implies two,

since it is written in the plural [according to its reading]?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “In sukka” is written,

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

The Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “In a sukka” is written

[with the singular spelling], and according to its written form it is in the singular. The Sages expounded the verse according to its spelling, and not according to its reading.

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

We find several possibilities with regard to a sukkah beneath a sukkah:

At times—

both of them—

that is, the two sukkot constructed one above the other—

are valid.

At times—

both of them are invalid.

At times—

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

At times—

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

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances in which both of them are valid?

For example, when the lower one has more sunlight than shade,

and is not covered with a sufficient amount of sekhakh, so that without the addition of the upper sukkah it would be invalid, since it has more sunlight than shade.

And the upper one

is covered with a sufficient amount of sekhakh, and

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

that is, the sekhakh of the upper sukkah—

within twenty

cubits of the ground of the lower sukkah. And both of them are valid: The upper one, since it is made in accordance with its requirements. And the lower one is valid since it has only one layer of sekhakh, the sekhakh of the upper sukkah, and it is found that the two sukkot are one sukkah. And the sekhakh of the lower sukkah is not considered sekhakh that would invalidate it on account of two layers of sekhakh, since it has more sunlight than shade, and anything that has more sunlight than shade is not called sekhakh. But if the sekhakh of the upper sukkah were more than twenty cubits above the ground of the lower sukkah, the lower sukkah would be invalid, by virtue of the law of a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits.

At times both of them are invalid—

what are the circumstances?

For example, when both of them,

the two sukkot, the upper and the lower—

have more shade than sunlight,

and therefore the lower one is invalid, since it has two layers of sekhakh, which is the law of a sukkah beneath a sukkah stated in the Mishna.

And the upper one stands above twenty cubits

above the roof of the lower sukkah, which is the floor of the upper sukkah. It follows that the sekhakh of the upper sukkah is more than twenty cubits high, and it is invalid under the law of a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits [as explained above, 2a].

At times the lower one is valid and the upper one is invalid—