Sukkah, Daf Yod Daled, Part 5
Introduction
Today’s section contains a baraita that agrees with Rav and one that agrees with Shmuel.
To remind ourselves: Rav holds that if the boards are four handbreadths, then R. Meir disallows and R. Judah allows. But both agree that smaller than four is valid.
Shmuel holds that they dispute about boards which are smaller than four handbreadths, but that if the boards are four or more, then all agree that they are invalid.
תניא כוותיה דרב, תניא כוותיה דשמואל.
תניא כוותיה דרב: סככה בנסרים של ארז שאין בהן ארבעה – דברי הכל כשרה, יש בהן ארבעה – רבי מאיר פוסל, ורבי יהודה מכשיר. אמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בשעת הסכנה שהביאנו נסרים שהיו בהן ארבעה וסיככנו על גבי מרפסת, וישבנו תחתיהן. אמרו לו: משם ראיה? אין שעת הסכנה ראיה.
It has been taught in agreement with Rav, and it has been taught in agreement with Samuel.
It has been taught in agreement with Rav: If he covered the sukkah with planks of cedar which are not four [handbreadths wide], it is valid according to all.
If they have four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.
R. Judah said: It happened in a time of danger that we brought planks which were four [handbreadths wide] and we laid them over a balcony and sat under them.
They said to him, Is this a proof? A time of danger is no proof.
This baraita clearly agrees with Rav. The debate between R. Meir and R. Judah is specifically over planks/boards that are four handbreadths in width. We can deduce that they would both agree that smaller planks are valid.
You might ask what this time of danger is. There are several sources that mention the "time of danger." Most scholars assume that if these sources are historically reliable (some believe that they are not) they refer to the Bar Kochva revolt. The problem with our source is that R. Judah lived well after this time period.
תניא כוותיה דשמואל: סככה בנסרים של ארז שיש בהן ארבעה – דברי הכל פסולה, אין בהן ארבעה – רבי מאיר פוסל ורבי יהודה מכשיר, ומודה רבי מאיר שאם יש בין נסר לנסר כמלא נסר – שמניח פסל ביניהם וכשרה. ומודה רבי יהודה שאם נתן עליה נסר שהוא רחב ארבעה טפחים – כשרה, ואין ישנים תחתיו, והישן תחתיו לא יצא ידי חובתו.
It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel: If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.
But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid.
And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation.
This version of the baraita agrees with Shmuel. The debate is only over planks that have a width of less than four handbreadths. If the plank is larger, everyone agrees that it is invalid.
There are two additional clauses to this baraita. R. Meir says that one may not cover his entire sukkah with planks. But he agrees that one can put planks up on top of the sukkah and leave space in between each plank for valid skhakh (called here by-product because it is the unusable portions of vegetation).
R. Judah’s clause is slightly harder to explain. In the first part of the baraita R. Judah says that one can’t use a plank that is four handbreadths wide. R. Meir also holds this position. So how can he say that the sukkah is valid? Rashi explains that he agrees that while one can place a four handbreadth wide plank on the side of a sukkah, where we can fictitiously consider it part of the wall, he agrees that one may not sleep under this plank.