sukkah

“That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths?” “Or a person who swears to lightly express with his lips for bad or for good.” Just as doing good is a matter of choice, so doing bad is a matter of choice; that excludes any prohibition which is a commandment. They wanted to say, inadvertently, but not intentionally. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, “anything that comes out of his mouth he shall do,” not what comes out of Heaven’s mouth. Should we say that this is the same for vows of sanctification? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: For a man may vow his sukkah to Heaven.

The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” How do you honor Him? From your property! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah, and lulav,shofar, and tefillin, and ẓiẓit, one feeds the hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors.

“What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, and shofar, and lulab, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the [mother from the] nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Rebbi Simeon said to them: Do you not agree with me that it is a positive commandment activated by time? Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Hila said: The reason of the rebbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

Rab Joseph said : If he acted in accordance with the view of Bet Shammai, he has done nothing at all. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : If the head and greater part of a man's body be in a Sukkah and his table inside his house, Bet Shammai pronounce it invalid, but Bet Hillel declare it valid.

Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai, "It once happened that the Elders of Bet Shammai and the Elders of Bet Hillel went to visit R. Johanan b. ha-Horanit and they found him with his head and the greater part of his body in the Sukkah and his table inside his house, but they said nothing to him."

They asked them, "Is proof to be drawn from this? They certainly told him, 'If this be thy practice, never hast thou in thy life-time properly observed the commandment of Sukkah!' "

A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. Rabbi Judah validates it.

Now why is it different that when it comes to the Sukkah it is declared invalid, while with when it comes to [the cross-beam over] the alley, a remedy is indicated?

With regard to the Sukkah, since it is a toraitic mitzvah, it taught that it was invalid; with regard to [the cross-beam over] an alley, since it is only derabanan, a remedy is given.

And, if you wish, you may say that even with a toraitic mitzvah a remedy may be given, but with regard to the sukkah, since there are many rules about it, it was briefly stated, invalid. [While in the case of a cross-beam over] an alley, since it has only one rule, it taught a remedy.

Rabbah answered: Scripture says, "That your generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot" (Leviticus 23:43). Up to twenty cubits [high] one knows that he is dwelling in a sukkah, but with one higher than twenty cubits he does not ‘know’ that he is dwelling in a sukkah, since his eye does not catch sight of it.

Rabbah answered: Scripture says, "That your generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot" (Leviticus 23:43). Up to twenty cubits [high] one knows that he is dwelling in a sukkah, but with one higher than twenty cubits he does not ‘know’ that he is dwelling in a sukkah, since his eye does not catch sight of it.

Rabbi Zera said: From the following verse, "And there shall be a sukkah for shade in the daytime from the heat" (Isaiah 4:6). Up to twenty cubits [high] one sits in the shade of the sukkah; but with one higher than twenty cubits he sits, not in the shade of the sukkah but in the shade of its walls.

Rabbi Zera said: From the following verse, "And there shall be a sukkah for shade in the daytime from the heat" (Isaiah 4:6). Up to twenty cubits [high] one sits in the shade of the sukkah; but with one higher than twenty cubits he sits, not in the shade of the sukkah but in the shade of its walls.

Rabbi Zera said: From the following verse, "And there shall be a sukkah for shade in the daytime from the heat" (Isaiah 4:6). Up to twenty cubits [high] one sits in the shade of the sukkah; but with one higher than twenty cubits he sits, not in the shade of the sukkah but in the shade of its walls.

Abaye said to him: If so, if a man made his sukkah in Ashteroth Karnayim would it also not be a valid sukkah?

Abaye said to him: If so, if a man made his sukkah in Ashteroth Karnayim would it also not be a valid sukkah?

He answered him: In that case, remove the Ashteroth Karnayim and there will remain the shade of the sukkah, but here, remove the walls, and you have no shade of a sukkah.

He answered him: In that case, remove the Ashteroth Karnayim and there will remain the shade of the sukkah, but here, remove the walls, and you have no shade of a sukkah.

Abaye said to him: If so, if he made walls of iron and placed the [proper] skhakh over them, would it also not be a valid Sukkah.

And Rabi Zeira? If that were true, let it say "and a canopy will be for shade in the daytime." And what [does it say]? "And a Sukkah will be for shade in the daytime." We learn both things from this.

Whose ruling is followed in the statement made by R. Yoshia in the name of Rav that the difference of opinion is where the walls do not reach the covering, but where the walls do reach the covering the sukkah is valid, even if it is higher than twenty amos? Whose ruling is followed? Like Rabbah's, whose reason is that:

Whose ruling is followed in the statement made by R. Huna in the name of Rav? That the difference of opinion is where the area of the Sukkah was only four amos square but where it was more than four amos square [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty amos it is kosher. Whose ruling is followed? Like Rabi Zeira, Who says:

The [character of the] shade, and, since it is spacious- there is the shade of a Sukkah.

Whose ruling is followed in the statement made by R. Chanan b. Rabbah in the name of Rav that the difference of opinion is only where [the Sukkah] can contain [only] a person's head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but where it is larger than this [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty amos it is Kosher. Whose ruling is followed? No one's.

It is understandable that R. Yoshia disagrees with R. Huna and with R. Chanan b. Rabbah, since they lay down a [minimum] measurement in the extent [of the Sukkah] while he does not lay down a minimum measurement as to the extent [thereof];

but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the kashrus of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four amos [square] while the latter holds that The kashrus of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?

but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the kashrus of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four amos [square] while the latter holds that The kashrus of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?

but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the kashrus of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four amos [square] while the latter holds that The kashrus of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?

No! Both agree that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its ability of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but here they differ on the following principle: the former, holding the opinion that They differ where the Sukkah [can] contain [only] his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but if it is larger than this both agree that it is kosher,

No! Both agree that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its ability of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but here they differ on the following principle: the former, holding the opinion that They differ where the Sukkah [can] contain [only] his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but if it is larger than this both agree that it is kosher,

And the other, holding the opinion that holds the opinion that they differ [about a Sukkah whose size is] between [one capable of] containing his head, the greater part of his body and his table, and one four amos square, but if it is more than four amos square, both agree that it is kosher

It was objected: A Sukkah which is higher than twenty amos is pasul And Rabi Yehudah [says] it is kosher up to forty or fifty amos

Rabi Yehudah says: ‘It happened with Queen Heloni in Lud that her Sukkah was higher than twenty amos, and the elders nevertheless were going in and out of it and spoke not a word to her [in disagreement]’. They [the Chachamim] said to him: Is this proof? She was a women, and therefor free from the [mitzvah] of Sukkah He answered them: ‘Did she not have seven sons? And besides, ... she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Chachamim’.

Rabi Yehudah says: ‘It happened with Queen Heloni in Lud that her Sukkah was higher than twenty amos, and the elders nevertheless were going in and out of it and spoke not a word to her [in disagreement]’. They [the Chachamim] said to him: Is this proof? She was a women, and therefor free from the [mitzvah] of Sukkah He answered them: ‘Did she not have seven sons? And besides, ... she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Chachamim’.

Thus he said to them: If you will answer [with regard to her seven sons] that her sons were minors, and minors are free from [the mitzvah of] the sukkah, since [however] she had seven, there must have been at least one who was [old enough] not to be dependent on his mother;

Now this [Baraisa] is well according to the authority who says that their difference of opinion was in the case where the walls did not reach the covering; Since it is the custom of a queen to sit in a sukkah whose walls do not reach the roof,

because of ventilation; but according to the ruling who states that they differed only in the case of a small’ Sukkah, is it then customary for a queen to sit in a small Sukkah? Rabbah bar Ada answered: The ruling was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah constructed with many recesses.

because of ventilation; but according to the ruling who states that they differed only in the case of a small’ Sukkah, is it then customary for a queen to sit in a small Sukkah? Rabbah bar Ada answered: The ruling was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah constructed with many recesses.

because of ventilation; but according to the ruling who states that they differed only in the case of a small’ Sukkah, is it then customary for a queen to sit in a small Sukkah? Rabbah bar Ada answered: The ruling was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah constructed with many recesses.

Is it then customary for a queen to sit in a sukkah with many recesses? ... Rav Ashi answered: [The ruling] was necessary only in the case of the recesses in it.

The Rabbis hold the opinion that: her sons sat in the proper Sukkah, while she sat in one of the recesses for reasons of modesty, and hence they made no remark, [While,]R. Judah was of the opinion that her sons sat with her, and still they made no remark.

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: The Halachah is that [the Sukkah] must be able to contain his head, the greater part of his body, and his table. R. Abba said to him: [In] agreement with whom [is this ruling?] Like Bais Shammai? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: According to whom else? (I. E. Who else would it be?)

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objected: How do we know that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel are disputing about a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, [with]Bais Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table,while Bais Hillel holds that we do not prohibit it?

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objected: How do we know that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel are disputing about a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, [with]Bais Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table,while Bais Hillel holds that we do not prohibit it?

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objected: How do we know that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel are disputing about a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, [with]Bais Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table,while Bais Hillel holds that we do not prohibit it?

This, furthermore, may be deduced also [from the wording], for it was stated, ‘If his head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah but his table was within the house, Bais Shammai [says] it's pasul, and Bais Hillel [says] it's Kosher;' but if it is [as you say] it should read, [If the Sukkah can] contain, or cannot contain [his head, etc.].

This, furthermore, may be deduced also [from the wording], for it was stated, ‘If his head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah but his table was within the house, Bais Shammai [says] it's pasul, and Bais Hillel [says] it's Kosher;' but if it is [as you say] it should read, [If the Sukkah can] contain, or cannot contain [his head, etc.].

But do they not dispute concerning a small Sukkah? Has it not in fact been taught: [If a Sukkah can] contain his head, the greater part of his body and his table, it is kosher. Rabi says: It must be four amos.

But do they not dispute concerning a small Sukkah? Has it not in fact been taught: [If a Sukkah can] contain his head, the greater part of his body and his table, it is kosher. Rabi says: It must be four amos.

While in another [Baraitha] it has been taught: Rabbi says: Any Sukkah which is not four amos square is invalid, while the Sages say: Even if it can contain only his head, and the greater part of his body it is kosher. Whereas of ‘his table’ there is no mention. Does a contradiction not arise between the two [Baraisas]? We must consequently infer therefrom that: One is from Bais Shammai, and one is from Bais Hillel.

The fact is that they differ on two [points]. They differ on a small Sukkah and they differ on a large Sukkah. But the text is defective and is to be read like this: ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table within the house, Bais Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Bais Hillel says: He has. and if it is [able to contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai says it's pasul and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher.’

The fact is that they differ on two [points]. They differ on a small Sukkah and they differ on a large Sukkah. But the text is defective and is to be read like this: ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table within the house, Bais Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Bais Hillel says: He has. and if it is [able to contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai says it's pasul and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher.’

The fact is that they differ on two [points]. They differ on a small Sukkah and they differ on a large Sukkah. But the text is defective and is to be read like this: ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table within the house, Bais Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Bais Hillel says: He has. and if it is [able to contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai says it's pasul and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher.’

Must we say that it agrees with Rabi, and not with the Rabbis? No! One can even say that it agrees with the Rabbis. The Rabbis say it only with regard to a Sukkah which is a temporary dwelling, but with regard to a house which is a permanent dwelling, even the Rabbis admit that if it has an area of four amos, people live in it, otherwise, they do not dwell within.

[A sukkah where the shach] was taller than 20 amah, and [someone] came to lower it by putting pillows and blankets on the floor: It is not considered to have been lowered.

[A sukkah] was taller than 20 amah, and palm leaves descend within 20 amah. If the shade is greater than the sun, then it is valid. If not, then it is invalid.

[A sukkah] was ten tefah tall, and palm leaves descend fall within ten. Abaye thought to say: If the sun is greater than the shade, then it is valid.

[A sukkah] was taller than 20 amah, and he built a platform inside of it against the middle wall, along its entire length, and it contains [the minimum area of] a valid sukkah: It is valid.

[A sukkah] was taller than 20 amah, and he built a platform inside of it against the middle wall, along its entire length, and it contains [the minimum area of] a valid sukkah: It is valid.

If [a sukkah] was higher than twenty amos and one built a platform in the middle of it, if there are four amos on every side between the edge of the platform and the wall, it is pasul; but if the distance is less than four amos, it is kosher.

If [a Sukkah] was less than ten handbreadths in height and one hollowed out [a hole] in order to bring it to [ten handbreadths], — if there was a distance of three handbreadths from the brim of the hollow to the wall, it is pasul;

If [a sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high and one built in it a pillar ten handbreadths high, and [the pillar] was large enough for a valid sukkah,[in this case] Abaye intended to draw the partitions upward,

If [a sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high and one built in it a pillar ten handbreadths high, and [the pillar] was large enough for a valid sukkah,[in this case] Abaye intended to draw the partitions upward,

R. Huna stated: The dispute relates only [to poles erected] on the edge of a roof: R. Jacob holds that we apply the rule of ‘draw the partition upward’ while the sages hold that we do not apply the rule of ‘draw the partition upward’. But [if they were] in the middle of the roof, all agree that [the sukkah is] invalid. R. Nahman said: there is a dispute if [the poles are] in the middle of the roof.

An objection was raised: If one drove poles in the ground and placed the Sukkah-covering over them, R. Jacob declares [such a sukkah] valid, and the sages declare it invalid.

An objection was raised: If one drove poles in the ground and placed the Sukkah-covering over them, R. Jacob declares [such a sukkah] valid, and the sages declare it invalid.

Now the ground is like the middle of a roof and still R. Jacob validates [the sukkah]. Is this not, then, a refutation of R. Huna? It is indeed a refutation.

R. Huna could answer you: They disagree about poles in the middle of the roof, and likewise also about those on the edge. And the reason why the dispute concerns the middle of the roof is in order to show you how far R. Jacob's view extends that even where the poles were in the middle of the roof he holds [the Sukkah] to be valid.

Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and covered them with the skhakh, R. Jacob says: found that on being planed and smoothed there would remain the width of a handbreadth on this side and on this side, they are treated as a two-sided pillar, but if not, they cannot be treated as two-sided pillars for R. Jacob used to say, the prescribed minimum width of a two-sided pillar of a sukkah is a handbreadth. But the sages say: only if two [of the adjacent walls] are proper [walls], may the width of the third be only a handbreadth.

For how much [then] were the ark and cover? Eight and a half, so that eleven and a half handbreadths are left. Shall we [therefore] say that a Sukkah must be [at least] eleven and a half [handbreadths high]?

Or a sukkah which does not have three walls.

R. Matanah said: The reason of R. Shimon is a derivation from the following verse: "And there shall be a Sukkah for shade during the day from the heat, and for a refuge and for a cover from storm and from rain" (Isaiah 4:6).

Rav Judah said: A sukkah made like an [open] alley-way is valid, and this handbreadth [wall] is placed in whatever side one pleases.

R. Ashi found R. Kahana making [the third wall of a Sukkah] a loose handbreadth wide and constructing also the form of a doorway. He said to him: Does not the Master hold the opinion of Rava who said that it is also valid with the form of a doorway? He answered: I hold like the other reading of [the statement of] Rava that in addition [to a board of the size of a handbreadth] the form of a doorway is also necessary.

‘Two walls must be of the prescribed dimensions etc.’ Rava said: And similarly with regard to the Shabbat. Since [the handbreadth] is regarded as a valid wall of the Sukkah it is also regarded as a valid wall in respect of the Sabbath.

Abaye raised an objection against him: Do we then apply the rule of ‘since’? Was it not in fact taught: ‘[The rules relating to] a wall of a Sukkah are the same as those relating to a wall for Shabbat, as long as there is no gap of three handbreadths between any two reeds.

And the [law relating to] Shabbat is more [stringent] than that of Sukkah, in that a [wall for purposes of] the Sabbath is valid only if its standing portion is greater than its gaps, which is not the case with the Sukkah’

And the [law relating to] Shabbat is more [stringent] than that of Sukkah, in that a [wall for purposes of] the Sabbath is valid only if its standing portion is greater than its gaps, which is not the case with the Sukkah’

And the [law relating to] Shabbat is more [stringent] than that of Sukkah, in that a [wall for purposes of] the Sabbath is valid only if its standing portion is greater than its gaps, which is not the case with the Sukkah’

And the [law relating to] Shabbat is more [stringent] than that of Sukkah, in that a [wall for purposes of] the Sabbath is valid only if its standing portion is greater than its gaps, which is not the case with the Sukkah’

No, [it means that the law relating to] an ordinary Shabbat is more [stringent] than [the law relating to] the Sabbath of the Sukkah.

But if this is so, let it also be stated: [The law relating to] the ordinary Sukkah is more [stringent] than [that of] the Sukkah of Shabbat since [the validity of] an ordinary Sukkah demands a width of a loose handbreadth [for the third wall] while [the validity of] the Sukkah of Sabbath does not require the width of a loose handbreadth [for a wall] but a side-post alone is sufficient,

But if this is so, let it also be stated: [The law relating to] the ordinary Sukkah is more [stringent] than [that of] the Sukkah of Shabbat since [the validity of] an ordinary Sukkah demands a width of a loose handbreadth [for the third wall] while [the validity of] the Sukkah of Sabbath does not require the width of a loose handbreadth [for a wall] but a side-post alone is sufficient,

But if this is so, let it also be stated: [The law relating to] the ordinary Sukkah is more [stringent] than [that of] the Sukkah of Shabbat since [the validity of] an ordinary Sukkah demands a width of a loose handbreadth [for the third wall] while [the validity of] the Sukkah of Sabbath does not require the width of a loose handbreadth [for a wall] but a side-post alone is sufficient,

But if this is so, let it also be stated: [The law relating to] the ordinary Sukkah is more [stringent] than [that of] the Sukkah of Shabbat since [the validity of] an ordinary Sukkah demands a width of a loose handbreadth [for the third wall] while [the validity of] the Sukkah of Sabbath does not require the width of a loose handbreadth [for a wall] but a side-post alone is sufficient,

And Rava further said: If one placed skhakh over the [upright] boards around wells it is valid [as a sukkah].

And [all the three laws were] necessary. For if he had mentioned only [the law relating to] the alleyway one would have assumed [that there the sukkah is valid] because it had two proper walls, but that in the case of partitions of wells, which do not have not two proper walls, the sukkah is not valid.

And [all the three laws were] necessary. For if he had mentioned only [the law relating to] the alleyway one would have assumed [that there the sukkah is valid] because it had two proper walls, but that in the case of partitions of wells, which do not have not two proper walls, the sukkah is not valid.

And if we had been informed of the boards around wells only, one would have assumed [that there the sukkah is valid] because there are four walls, but that if one placed skhakh over an alleyway, where there are not four walls, it is not [valid].

Rav Yemar b. Shelemiah said in the name of Abaye: What is the reason of R. Yoshayah? As it is written: "And you shall cover the ark with the veil" (Exodus 40:3). Now since the ‘veil’ was a partition and the Torah called it a ‘covering’ it is evident that a partition [for the sukkah] must be as [close] as the covering.

Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Josiah, R. Judah, R. Shimon, R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer and ‘others’ -all hold the opinion that the Sukkah must be constructed like a permanent abode.

‘Rabbi’? — As it has been taught: Rabbi said: A sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid.

‘R. Judah’? — As we have learned:... A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid, R. Judah declares it valid.

‘R. Gamaliel’? — As it has been taught: One who builds his sukkah on the top of a wagon or on the deck of a ship. R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiba declares it valid.

‘Beth Shammai’? As we have learned: If his head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table was within the house, Beth Shammai declare it invalid, and Beth Hillel declare it valid

‘R. Eliezer? As we have learned: One who builds his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or if he propped it up against a wall, R. Eliezer declares it invalid, since it has no roof’, and the sages declare it valid.

The ‘others’? As it has been taught: Others say: A sukkah made like a dovecote is invalid, since it has no corners.

R. Yohanan said: A sukkah which was [round shaped] like a furnace: If twenty-four men can sit around its circumference, it is valid, and if not it is invalid

According to whom [is this statement]? According to Rabbi who says that a sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid.