Sukkah Bet (2), part 4

 

Introduction

At the core of today’s section are three amoraic opinions that limit the mishnah’s invalidation of the 20 cubit sukkah. These amoraim mostly claim that only a narrow 20 cubit sukkah is invalid. A broader sukhah is valid no matter how high it is.

The Talmud then takes each of these three amoraic opinions and pairs it up with one of the opinions from the previous parts of the sugya, where the three amoraim debated why a 20 cubit sukkah is invalid.

 

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבי יאשיה אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך, אבל דפנות מגיעות לסכך – אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה.

כמאן – כרבה, דאמר: משום דלא שלטא בה עינא, וכיון דדפנות מגיעות לסכך – משלט שלטא בה עינא.

 

According to whom goes the statement made by R. Yoshayah in the name of Rav: the dispute [concerning the height of a sukkah] is when the walls do not reach the skhakh, but when the walls do reach the skhakh [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty cubits, it is valid?

According to whom? It is in accordance with Rabbah whose reason is that the eye does not rule over it, and since the walls reach the skhakh, the eye does rule over it.

 

R. Yoshaya says that a 20 cubit sukkah is invalid only if the walls don’t go all the way up the skhkakh. As long as the walls of the sukkah are ten handbreadths high, the skhkakh can be much higher. But if the walls go all the way up to the skhakh, the sukkah is valid even if the sukkah is more than 20 cubits high.

The gemara explains that this follows Rabbah who held that a 20 cubit sukkah is invalid because he won’t notice the skhakh. If the walls go all the way up to the skhakh the eye will be drawn upward and one will notice the skhakh no matter how high it is.

 

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאין בה אלא ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות, אבל יש בה יותר מארבע אמות על ארבע אמות – אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה. כמאן – כרבי זירא, דאמר: משום צל הוא, וכיון דרויחא – איכא צל סוכה.

 

According to whom goes the statement made by R. Huna in the name of Rav, the dispute is when [the sukkah] is only four cubits by four cubits but where it was more than four cubits by four cubits [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty cubits it is valid?

According to whom? It is in accordance with R. Zera whose is reason is because of shade, and, since it is broad there shade from the sukkah (skhakh(.

 

R. Huna says that if the sukkah is larger than four cubits by four cubits about 2 meters by 2 meters) it is valid even if it is more than 20 cubits high. The mishnah invalidates only a 20 cubit high sukkah that is narrower than this measure.

This, according to the gemara, accords with R. Zera who holds that the skhakh must provide the shade. As long as the sukkah is at least 4 x 4 cubits, the skhakh will provide the shade, even if the sukkah is more than 20 cubits high.

 

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב חנן בר רבה אמר רב: מחלוקת בשאינה מחזקת אלא כדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו, אבל מחזקת יותר מכדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו – אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה. כמאן? דלא כחד.

 

According to whom goes the statement made by R. Hanan bar Rabbah in the name of Rav, the dispute is when [the sukkah] only fits his head, most of his body and his table but when it fits more than his head and body and table [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty cubits it is valid?

According to whom? It is in accordance with no one.

 

R. Hanan bar Rabbah says that as long as the sukkah is broad enough to fit a person’s head, most of his body and his table, the sukkah can be higher than 20 cubits. We should note that on daf gimmel (3) we shall see that according to the halakhah, this is the minimum breadth of a sukkah. Thus R. Hanan bar Rabbah holds that as long as the sukkah is even slightly broader than is minimally required, the sukkah can be as high as one wants.

R. Hanan bar Rabbah’s opinion does not match any of the opinions on the previous page. If the sukkah is this narrow, one will not notice the skhakh and the shade will come from the walls not the skhakh. Furthermore, R. Hanan bar Rabbah implies that the more permanent a sukkah is, meaning the broader it is, the more likely it is to be valid. This is opposite from Rava who held that the sukkah should be more temporary, i.e. narrower not broader.