Sukkah Bet (2), part 6
מיתיבי: סוכה שהיא גבוהה למעלה מעשרים אמה – פסולה, ורבי יהודה מכשיר עד ארבעים וחמשים אמה. אמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בהילני המלכה בלוד, שהיתה סוכתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה, והיו זקנים נכנסין ויוצאין לשם, ולא אמרו לה דבר. – אמרו לו: משם ראייה? אשה היתה ופטורה מן הסוכה. – אמר להן: והלא שבעה בנים הוו לה. ועוד: כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים.
They objected: A Sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits is not valid, but R. Judah declared it valid up to a height of forty or fifty cubits.
R. Judah stated, It happened with Queen Helena in Lod that her sukkah was higher than twenty cubits, and the elders nevertheless were going in and out of it and did not say a word to her .
They said to him, Is this a proof? She was a woman and [therefore] not liable to dwell in the sukkah’.
He answered them, Did she not have seven sons?
And furthermore, she did nothing except in accordance with the sages .
A baraita (a tannaitic source not found in the Mishnah) is brought as a difficulty on one of the amoraic opinions from above. Below we will clarify whom the baraita is a difficulty upon. The baraita relates the story of Queen Helena, a legendary queen from the Second Temple period who converted to Judaism. The story is told of her sitting in her sukkah that was twenty cubits high. Rabbi Judah relates this story to prove his opinion a sukkah can be more than twenty cubits high.
The other sages respond that she could sit in such a high sukkah because she is a woman and women are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah (it is a time-bound positive commandment). Thus even if the sukkah was invalid it wouldn’t matter because Helena does not need to sit in any sukkah.
Rabbi Judah has the final word in the baraita. While Helena was not obligated to observe the mitzvah of the sukkah, her sons were. Furthermore, even if she wasn’t obligated to keep the mitzvah, she still always observed the rules of the sages. Thus the height of the sukkah is conclusive proof that a 20 cubit sukkah is valid.
למה לי למיתני ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים? הכי קאמר להו: כי תאמרו בנים קטנים היו, וקטנים פטורין מן הסוכה, כיון דשבעה הוו – אי אפשר דלא הוי בהו חד שאינו צריך לאמו. וכי תימרו: קטן שאינו צריך לאמו – מדרבנן הוא דמיחייב, ואיהי בדרבנן לא משגחה – תא שמע: ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים.
Why does he have to add and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the sages ?
Thus he said to them: If you will respond that her sons were minors and minors are not obligated to dwell in 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.
And if you will say that [the duty of educating] a child who is not dependent on his mother is merely a rabbinic rule, and she did not pay attention to rabbinic rulings, come and learn and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the sages .
The gemara asks why R. Judah felt it necessary to add in the last line of his argument. Why wasn’t it sufficient to say that she had seven sons?
The gemara now reconstructs R. Judah’s response to the sages. Minors who still rely on their mothers (defined as minors who wake up in the middle of the night and scream ‘mommy’) are not liable to sit in the sukkah. So the sages might have responded that her sons were minors and therefore they too could sit in an invalid sukkah. To this R. Judah responds that she had seven sons and there is no way for a woman to have seven sons without one of them having reached the age of no longer needing his mother (he hadn’t heard of the ‘octomom’).
Still, a child under bar mitzvah is only obligated out of rabbinic law (derabanan). It is possible that Helena sat with seven minor sons in her sukkah and the oldest had not yet reached bar mitzvah. To this R. Judah responds that Helena was observant even of rabbinic law. If even one of her sons was liable to sit in the sukkah, even from the rabbis and not from the Torah, she would not have sat in an invalid sukkah.
בשלמא למאן דאמר בשאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך מחלוקת – דרכה של מלכה לישב בסוכה שאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך משום אוירא. אלא למאן דאמר בסוכה קטנה מחלוקת, וכי דרכה של מלכה לישב בסוכה קטנה?
Now this [baraita] goes well according to the authority who says that the tannaim dispute a case where the walls did not reach the skhakh, for a queen might sit in a sukkah in which the walls don’t reach the skhakh because of ventilation.
But according to the one who states that they differed only in the case of a small sukkah, is it then customary for a queen to sit in a diminutive sukkah?
The gemara now clarifies the difficulty. According to R. Yoshaya, the sages and R. Judah argued about a case where the walls don’t reach the skhakh. It is possible that Queen Helena sat in such a sukkah, for a queen might sit in a sukkah built in such a way for ventilation.
However, the other two amoraim said that the tannaitic dispute was about a small sukkah (either four cubits, or large enough for his head, most of his body and his table). It seems unlikely that a queen would sit in such a small sukkah.
אמר רבה בר רב אדא: לא נצרכה אלא לסוכה העשויה קיטוניות קיטוניות.
Rabbah b. Adda answered: The ruling was necessary only in the case of a sukkah constructed with many recesses.
The first resolution is offered by Rabbah b. Adda. He says that the sukkah was built of many recesses. Thus it was a 20 cubit sukkah, and the recess in which she sat was small, but a queen might sit in such a sukkah.
וכי דרכה של מלכה לישב בסוכה העשויה קיטוניות קיטוניות?
But is it then customary for a queen to sit in a sukkah with many recesses?
The gemara still doesn’t buy it. Would a queen sit in a small sukkah with many recesses.
אמר רב אשי: לא נצרכה אלא לקיטוניות שבה. רבנן סברי: בניה בסוכה מעליא הוו יתבי, ואיהי יתבה בקיטוניות משום צניעותא, ומשום הכי לא אמרי לה דבר. ורבי יהודה סבר: בניה גבה הוו יתבי, ואפילו הכי לא אמרי לה דבר.
R. Ashi answered: [The ruling] was necessary only in the case of the recesses in it. The rabbis hold that her sons sat in the proper sukkah, while she sat in one of the recesses for reasons of modesty, and hence they said nothing [to her], while R. Judah was of the opinion that her sons sat with her and still they said nothing.
R. Ashi refines Rabbah bar Addah’s resolution. She was sitting in one of the recesses in the sukkah, evidently a sukkah fitting for a queen.
The rabbis who argued with R. Judah held that her sons were sitting in a larger section, while she was in the smaller invalid section. Therefore it was okay for her sukkah to be more than 20 cubits high she didn’t need to be in any sukkah. The sons’ sukkah was broader in which case even a 20 cubit high sukkah is valid. That’s why the sages in the story did not say anything to her. R. Judah holds that her sons were with her, in the small section of the sukkah and nevertheless, the sages in the story said nothing to her. Thus there is conclusive proof that a sukkah may be more than 20 cubits high, even if it is narrow.
Congrats! You finished your first daf of gemara. You have tomorrow to review and prepare for the next one. Good luck!