Sukkah Daf Bet (2), Section Three
Introduction
In yesterday’s section we saw three different amoraic opinions as to why a 20 cubit sukkah is invalid. All three amoraim cited biblical verses to support their opinion. Today’s section asks why each amora didn’t simply accept the verse cited by the other amoraim. In other words, why do we need three different opinions supporting the exact same halakhah?
All do not agree with [Rabbah, since that [verse] refers to the knowledge of [future] generations.
כולהו כרבה לא אמרי – ההוא ידיעה לדורות היא.
Rabbah had stated that the reason a 20 cubit sukkah is invalid is from the verse, "In order that they shall know." The "knowing" according to Rabbah, refers to a person sitting in a sukkah today (or in his time). The other amoraim did not accept this text as a prooftext because the verse refers to the "knowing" of subsequent generations. In other words, subsequent generations should know that God caused Israel to dwell in Sukkot, but the one sitting in a sukkah does not need to "know" that there is skhakh above his head.
Nor do they agree with R. Zera, since that verse refers to the messianic age.
[What would] R. Zera [answer to this objection]? [He could answer], If so, the verse would have stated "And there shall be a covering for shade in the daytime."
Why then was it stated, "And there shall be a sukkah for shade in the daytime"? You can learn from it both points.
כרבי זירא נמי לא אמרי – ההוא לימות המשיח הוא דכתיב.
ורבי זירא: אם כן לימא קרא וחפה תהיה לצל יומם, ומאי וסכה תהיה לצל יומם – שמעת מינה תרתי.
R. Zera had used the verse from Isaiah which implied that a sukkah should be for shade. From here R. Zera concluded that all sukkot, even the ones we sit in today, must provide shade. Above 20 cubits and the sukkah (=skhakh) does not provide shade, the walls do. The other rabbis don’t agree with R. Zera because they read that verse as referring to a messianic sukkah, and not the everyday sukkah in which we sit in today.
The Talmud also ascribes a response to R. Zera. R. Zera says that the fact that the verse uses the word "sukkah" as opposed to "huppah" which means covering, implies that it is meant to teach two things. One of those is that the sukkah that we sit in today must be for shade.
Nor do they agree with Rava, on account of the objection of Abaye.
כרבא נמי לא אמרי – משום קושיא דאביי.
Rava said that since a 20 cubit sukkah must be permanent, it cannot be used during sukkot when one’s dwelling place must be temporary. Abaye objected that one can indeed build a permanent sukkah with iron walls. No one invalidates such a sukkah. Although Rava responded to Abaye’s objection, according to the Talmud the other sages sided with Abaye and hence they did not use this verse as proof.