sukkah

Can we say that the following provides support for his view: If [the sukkah] cannot contain his head, the major part of his body and his table, or if a breach has been made in it large enough for a kid to jump in headlong, or if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, even if he puts in three handbreadths, it is invalid.

How so? Surely that he placed them on their sides? No! Here we are dealing with a case where he placed it above the entrance of the sukkah, with three [of the four handbreadths] within and one protruding outside, in which case it is considered as a waste (skhakh) protruding from the Sukkah, and every waste (skhakh) protruding from a Sukkah is regarded as [part of the] Sukkah.

How so? Surely that he placed them on their sides? No! Here we are dealing with a case where he placed it above the entrance of the sukkah, with three [of the four handbreadths] within and one protruding outside, in which case it is considered as a waste (skhakh) protruding from the Sukkah, and every waste (skhakh) protruding from a Sukkah is regarded as [part of the] Sukkah.

How so? Surely that he placed them on their sides? No! Here we are dealing with a case where he placed it above the entrance of the sukkah, with three [of the four handbreadths] within and one protruding outside, in which case it is considered as a waste (skhakh) protruding from the Sukkah, and every waste (skhakh) protruding from a Sukkah is regarded as [part of the] Sukkah.

How so? Surely that he placed them on their sides? No! Here we are dealing with a case where he placed it above the entrance of the sukkah, with three [of the four handbreadths] within and one protruding outside, in which case it is considered as a waste (skhakh) protruding from the Sukkah, and every waste (skhakh) protruding from a Sukkah is regarded as [part of the] Sukkah.

What [then] does [the Mishnah] teach us? That R. Meir holds that there is decree lest the sukkah look like ordinary roofing, while R. Judah holds that there is no such decree? But have they not already disputed this, as we have learned: Planks may be used for skhakh, the words of R. Judah; R. Meir forbids them.

But according to Rav Judah who said in the name of Rav: ‘If he covered the sukkah with plain arrowshafts, it is valid; with bored arrow-shafts, it is invalid’, and he does not decree against plain shafts on account of [the possible use of] bored ones; here also we should not restrict planed boards on account of [the possible use of] vessels?

Mishnah One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid. One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

Mishnah One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid. One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

Mishnah One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid. One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

Or the long boards of a bed. Can we say that this supports [a statement of] R. Ammi b. Tavyomi, for R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered the Sukkah with worn out vessels it is invalid?

If he hollows out a haystack: R. Huna said: This was taught only where there is not a hollow of one handbreadth [in height] extending to seven [handbreadths square], but if there is a hollow of one handbreadth extending to seven, it is a [valid] sukkah.

It has also been taught in a baraita: If he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a Sukkah, it is a [valid] Sukkah. But have we not learned, it is not a sukkah? Deduce, from it [that the explanation is] according to R. Huna. Deduce from it.

It has also been taught in a baraita: If he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a Sukkah, it is a [valid] Sukkah. But have we not learned, it is not a sukkah? Deduce, from it [that the explanation is] according to R. Huna. Deduce from it.

It has also been taught in a baraita: If he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a Sukkah, it is a [valid] Sukkah. But have we not learned, it is not a sukkah? Deduce, from it [that the explanation is] according to R. Huna. Deduce from it.

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

Gemara. What do they argue about? One master holds the opinion that a hanging partition renders [the Sukkah] valid, and the other Master holds the opinion that a hanging partition does not render it valid.

Judah speaks only there with regard to the eruv of courtyards, which is of rabbinical origin, but here, with regard to the sukkah which is from the Torah, he does not [say so]. ‘Nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah,’ for R. Yose speaks only here with regard to the Sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but with regard to Shabbat, which is a prohibition punishable by stoning, he does not say so.

Judah speaks only there with regard to the eruv of courtyards, which is of rabbinical origin, but here, with regard to the sukkah which is from the Torah, he does not [say so]. ‘Nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah,’ for R. Yose speaks only here with regard to the Sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but with regard to Shabbat, which is a prohibition punishable by stoning, he does not say so.

R. Hisda stated in the name of Abimi: A matting slightly more than four handbreadths [wide] is permitted as a sukkah wall. How does one place it? — One suspends it in the middle less than three [handbreadths] from the ground and less than three from the top, and whatever [space] is less than three handbreadths is treated as lavud.

It was objected: A matting slightly more than seven [handbreadths] is permitted as a Sukkah wall! That was taught with reference to a large Sukkah; and what does it inform us? That walls may be suspended from above downwards in agreement with R. Yose.

It was objected: A matting slightly more than seven [handbreadths] is permitted as a Sukkah wall! That was taught with reference to a large Sukkah; and what does it inform us? That walls may be suspended from above downwards in agreement with R. Yose.

R. Ammi said: A board which is slightly more than four [handbreadths] wide is permitted for a sukkah wall when he places it less than three [handbreadths] from the adjacent wall, since a space less than three [handbreadths] is treated as lavud

What does he inform us? — He informs us this: That the minimum extent of a small sukkah is seven [handbreadths].

Similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns. A large sukkah which was surrounded with material which is invalid for skhakh, if there is a space of four cubits beneath it, it is invalid.

And if he had informed us of those two, [one would have said that the validity applied to these cases only] because their skhakh is valid, but in the case of a large sukkah which is surrounded with a material which is invalid for a sukkah covering, since the skhakh itself is invalid, it does not apply [therefore it is] necessary [to mention all].

And if he had informed us of those two, [one would have said that the validity applied to these cases only] because their skhakh is valid, but in the case of a large sukkah which is surrounded with a material which is invalid for a sukkah covering, since the skhakh itself is invalid, it does not apply [therefore it is] necessary [to mention all].

because [in this case the validity of the sukkah depends on] whether there is the standard size or not, and there is not the standard size, for since their standard sizes are unequal, they do not combine;

because [in this case the validity of the sukkah depends on] whether there is the standard size or not, and there is not the standard size, for since their standard sizes are unequal, they do not combine;

Abaye said to him: But also according to the master, while we can admit that their measures are unequal in a large sukkah, but in a small sukkah are they not equal?

Abaye said to him: But also according to the master, while we can admit that their measures are unequal in a large sukkah, but in a small sukkah are they not equal?

He answered, he reason there is not because the measures are equal, but because there is not the [minimum] size of a sukkah remaining.

In Sura they taught this passage in the above words; In Nehardea they taught [as follows]: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: invalid skhakh in the middle [of the sukkah] invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]; at the side only if it is four cubits wide; While Rav says, whether in the middle or at the sides, [it invalidates] only if it is four cubits wide.

Come and hear: if he covered the sukkah with planks of cedarwood which are four [handbreadths wide], according to all it is invalid; If they are not four handbreadths: R. Meir disqualifies and R. Judah validates.

It is well according to him who says that whether in the middle or at the sides it needs four cubits [of invalid covering to invalidate a sukkah], for this reason it is here valid; but according to him who says that in the middle four [handbreadths of invalid skhakh invalidate] why is it valid?

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,

so that there are two sections of valid skhakh in the middle, and thus a valid sukkah is formed in the middle.

Abaye ruled: An air space of three handbreadths in a large sukkah which is diminished with either sticks or spits is a [valid] diminution; in a small Sukkah, with sticks it is a [valid] diminution, with spits an invalid one.

Abaye ruled: An air space of three handbreadths in a large sukkah which is diminished with either sticks or spits is a [valid] diminution; in a small Sukkah, with sticks it is a [valid] diminution, with spits an invalid one.

— Beams are different [from a sukkah] since [they are only] a measure.

And [what does] the other [say]? The laws of uncleanliness differ [from those of sukkah] since they have a tradition about them.

Rava said to Abaye: according to you who say that the edge of the roof [is regarded as though it] descends and fills in [the space, is a sukkah valid] even if the middle wall is missing? .He answered him, In that case I agree with you [that the Sukkah is invalid] since it would be like an alley-way that is open on two opposite sides.

Rava said to Abaye: according to you who say that the edge of the roof [is regarded as though it] descends and fills in [the space, is a sukkah valid] even if the middle wall is missing? .He answered him, In that case I agree with you [that the Sukkah is invalid] since it would be like an alley-way that is open on two opposite sides.

A Tanna taught: kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah is regarded as the Sukkah. What is meant by ‘kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah’? ‘Ulla said, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah.

A Tanna taught: kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah is regarded as the Sukkah. What is meant by ‘kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah’? ‘Ulla said, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah.

A Tanna taught: kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah is regarded as the Sukkah. What is meant by ‘kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah’? ‘Ulla said, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah.

A Tanna taught: kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah is regarded as the Sukkah. What is meant by ‘kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah’? ‘Ulla said, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah.

But do we not need three walls? [This refers to a case] where there were [three walls]. But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need that the shade should exceed the sun? [This refers to] where there was [more shade than sun].

But do we not need three walls? [This refers to a case] where there were [three walls]. But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need that the shade should exceed the sun? [This refers to] where there was [more shade than sun].

Rabbah and R. Joseph both stated: This refers to sticks projecting in front of a Sukkah, one wall of which continues with them. What might one have said? That it does not contain the prescribed minimum for the validity of a Sukkah, therefore he informs us [that it is valid].

Rabbah and R. Joseph both stated: This refers to sticks projecting in front of a Sukkah, one wall of which continues with them. What might one have said? That it does not contain the prescribed minimum for the validity of a Sukkah, therefore he informs us [that it is valid].

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: it was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah, most of which has more shade than sun, while a minor part of it has more sun than shade. What might one have said? That this small portion invalidates it, therefore he informs us [that it does not]. What then is meant by ‘going out’? [It means] going out from the validity of a Sukkah.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: it was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah, most of which has more shade than sun, while a minor part of it has more sun than shade. What might one have said? That this small portion invalidates it, therefore he informs us [that it does not]. What then is meant by ‘going out’? [It means] going out from the validity of a Sukkah.

R. Oshaia said: This is necessary only in the case of a small sukkah which has invalid skhakh to an extent of less than three [handbreadths]. And what is meant by ‘going out’? Going out from the laws governing a Sukkah.

R. Oshaia said: This is necessary only in the case of a small sukkah which has invalid skhakh to an extent of less than three [handbreadths]. And what is meant by ‘going out’? Going out from the laws governing a Sukkah.

R. Hoshiah raised a difficulty: Let it be regarded as no better than air space, does then air space of less than three [handbreadths] invalidate a small sukkah?

R. Abba answered him, [The difference is that] in the former case it combines [with the rest of the Sukkah] and it is permitted to sleep under it; in the latter case it does not combine and it is forbidden to sleep under it.

Mishnah: One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid.

Abaye found R. Joseph sleeping on a bridal bed in a Sukkah He said to him ‘According to whom [do you act]? According to R. Eliezer? Do you then forsake the Rabbis and act according to R. Eliezer?’

— He answered him, ‘The Mishnah represents an individual opinion, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah like a cone-shaped hut, or leaned it against a wall R. Natan says that R. Eliezer invalidates it because it has no roof while the Sages declare it valid.'

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

May we return to you chapter “Sukkah.”

He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us.

Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

And if you like[you may say that] R. Judah follows his own view that a Sukkah must be a permanent abode; and since a bed is but a temporary abode, while a Sukkah is a permanent ‘tent’, a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent one.

And if you like[you may say that] R. Judah follows his own view that a Sukkah must be a permanent abode; and since a bed is but a temporary abode, while a Sukkah is a permanent ‘tent’, a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent one.

But does not R. Shimon also say that a Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and yet [he holds that] a temporary tent does annul a permanent tent? It is in this that they differ One Master holds that a temporary tent can come and annul a permanent tent, while the other Master holds that a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent tent.

R. Shimon said: It happened that Tabi the slave etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon said: From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learned two things. We learned that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we learned that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation.

R. Shimon said: It happened that Tabi the slave etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon said: From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learned two things. We learned that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we learned that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation.

Mishnah: One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid.

GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Judah? R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree. One says, It is because the Sukkah has no permanence, and the other says, It is because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

Mishnah. A disarranged sukkah and one whose shade is more than its sun is valid. If [the skhakh] is thick like that of a house, it is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it.

Gemara. What is meant by "disarranged? Ravs said: a poor sukkah; And Shmuel said, one whose reeds are not all on the same level.

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

Mishnah 1) One who makes his sukkah on the top of a wagon, or on the deck of a ship, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival. 2) If he made it on the top of a tree, or on the back of a camel, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival.

This is the general rule: in any case in which if the tree was removed the [sukkah] could stand on its own, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival.

GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? According to R. Akiva, as it has been taught, He who builds his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva

valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, Akiva, where is your Sukkah?

valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, Akiva, where is your Sukkah?

Abaye said: All agree that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze it is nothing; If it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all agree that it is valid. Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not a normal sea breeze; R. Gamaliel holds that the Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing, While R. Akiva is of the opinion that the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a normal land breeze, it is valid.

Abaye said: All agree that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze it is nothing; If it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all agree that it is valid. Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not a normal sea breeze; R. Gamaliel holds that the Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing, While R. Akiva is of the opinion that the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a normal land breeze, it is valid.

Or on the back of a camel etc. According to whom is [this part of] our Mishnah? According to R. Meir, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah upon the back of an animal, R. Meir declares it valid and R. Judah invalid. What is the reasoning of R. Judah? Scripture says, "You shall keep the festival of Sukkot for seven days:" a Sukkah which is suitable for seven days is called a Sukkah; if it is unsuitable for seven days it is not called a Sukkah.

Or on the back of a camel etc. According to whom is [this part of] our Mishnah? According to R. Meir, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah upon the back of an animal, R. Meir declares it valid and R. Judah invalid. What is the reasoning of R. Judah? Scripture says, "You shall keep the festival of Sukkot for seven days:" a Sukkah which is suitable for seven days is called a Sukkah; if it is unsuitable for seven days it is not called a Sukkah.

Or on the back of a camel etc. According to whom is [this part of] our Mishnah? According to R. Meir, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah upon the back of an animal, R. Meir declares it valid and R. Judah invalid. What is the reasoning of R. Judah? Scripture says, "You shall keep the festival of Sukkot for seven days:" a Sukkah which is suitable for seven days is called a Sukkah; if it is unsuitable for seven days it is not called a Sukkah.

Or on the back of a camel etc. According to whom is [this part of] our Mishnah? According to R. Meir, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah upon the back of an animal, R. Meir declares it valid and R. Judah invalid. What is the reasoning of R. Judah? Scripture says, "You shall keep the festival of Sukkot for seven days:" a Sukkah which is suitable for seven days is called a Sukkah; if it is unsuitable for seven days it is not called a Sukkah.

And R. Meir? According to Torah law this [Sukkah] is also suitable [for seven days], and it is only the rabbis who decreed against it

If he used an animal as a wall of the Sukkah: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid, for R. Meir used to say, Whatever contains the breath of life cannot be used as a wall for a Sukkah, nor a side-post for an alley nor boards around wells, nor a covering stone for a grave n the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said, Nor may a get be written upon it.

If he used an animal as a wall of the Sukkah: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid, for R. Meir used to say, Whatever contains the breath of life cannot be used as a wall for a Sukkah, nor a side-post for an alley nor boards around wells, nor a covering stone for a grave n the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said, Nor may a get be written upon it.

What is the reason of R. Meir? Abaye said: Lest it die. R. Zera said: Lest it escape. Concerning an elephant securely bound, all agree [that the Sukkah is valid], since even ifs it die, there is still ten [handbreadths height] in its carcass. Regarding what then do they dispute? Regarding an elephant which is not tied up. According to the one who says: Lest it die, we are not concerned; According to him who says, We fear lest it escape, we are concerned.

But according to him who says, Lest it die, let us be concerned lest it escape? Rather regarding an elephant which is not tied up, all agree [that the Sukkah is invalid]; Regarding what do they dispute? Regarding an [ordinary] animal which is tied up: According to him who says, Lest it die, we are concerned. According to him who says, Lest it escape, we are not concerned. But according to him who says: Lest it escape, let us be concerned lest it die?

Transpose [the statement:] R. Meir is concerned for death, while R. Judah disregards is not concerned for death, as it was taught, If he used an animal as a wall for a Sukkah, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.

What [practical difference] is there between [the two versions]? The practical difference between them is where he set up a Sukkah wall with an inflated skin. According to the one who which says a partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition, [this one is invalid] since it is upheld by wind; According to the version which says ‘not made by the hands of man’ it is valid,

Mishnah. If he makes his sukkah between trees, and the trees form its walls, it is valid.

We have learned, if he makes his sukkah between trees, so that the trees form its walls, it is valid. But do they not sway to and fro? We are dealing here with solid [trees].

Mishnah: Messengers to do a mitzvah are exempt from sukkah. The sick and their attendants are exempt from sukkah. Non-established [meals] are eaten and drunk outside of the sukkah.

Mishnah: Messengers to do a mitzvah are exempt from sukkah. The sick and their attendants are exempt from sukkah. Non-established [meals] are eaten and drunk outside of the sukkah.