Sukkah, Daf Daled, Part 2
Introduction
Today’s section continues to deal with reducing the height of a 20 cubit high sukkah.
היתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה, והוצין יורדין בתוך עשרים אמה, אם צלתם מרובה מחמתם כשרה ואם לאו פסולה.
[If a sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high but palm-leaves hung down within the twenty cubits, if the shade is more than the sun, it is valid, otherwise it is invalid.
If palm leaves were coming down from the roof of the sukkah, and they reduced its height to less than 20 cubits, the sukkah is valid as long those palm leaves provide more shade than the sun they let in. In other words, we’d have to estimate what would occur if we removed the upper skhakh. If the palm-leaves that are within 20 cubits would themselves constitute valid skhakh by providing more shade than sun, the sukkah is kosher.
היתה גבוהה עשרה טפחים והוצין יורדין לתוך עשרה, סבר אביי למימר: אם חמתם מרובה מצלתם – כשרה. – אמר ליה רבא: הא דירה סרוחה היא, ואין אדם דר בדירה סרוחה.
If [the sukkah] was ten handbreadths high and palm-leaves hung down within the ten handbreadths, Abbaye intended to say that if the sun [that penetrates through them] is more than their shade, it is valid,
Rava said to him: This is a lousy dwelling, and no one lives in a lousy dwelling place.
The Talmud now examines whether these palm-branches coming down off the roof would serve to invalidate a sukkah that was 10 handbreadths high by making it too small.
Abbaye tried to apply the same principle from above. If the lowered-down palm branches don’t provide shade, meaning they let in more sun than shade, then they don’t count and the sukkah is valid.
Rava counters that such a sukkah is a "lousy dwelling place." One couldn’t even sit in such a sukkah because the branches would bother him. Therefore it is invalid.
היתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה, ובנה בה איצטבא כנגד דופן האמצעי על פני כולה, ויש בה הכשר סוכה – כשרה.
If it was higher than twenty cubits and he built a ledge at the middle wall along its whole length and it has the minimum size of a valid Sukkah, it is valid.
In this case he builds a ledge in the middle of the 20 cubit high sukkah. If he builds it out from the middle wall of three walls and the ledge goes out at least for the minimum breadth of a sukkah, then the sukkah is valid. Note that the entire sukkah is valid, not just the part over the ledge. Since the ledge comes out of the middle wall, it joins all three walls.
ומן הצד, אם יש משפת איצטבא לכותל ארבע אמות – פסולה, פחות מארבע אמות – כשרה.
If [he built the ledge] on a side [wall], if from the edge of the ledge to the wall [opposite] there are four cubits, it is invalid; but if the distance was less than four cubits, it is valid.
If he built the ledge from a side wall, the sukkah is kosher only if it’s within four cubits of the opposite wall. If it is further than that, the entire sukkah is invalid.
מאי קא משמע לן – דאמרינן דופן עקומה? תנינא: בית שנפחת וסיכך על גביו אם יש מן הכותל לסיכוך ארבע אמות – פסולה. הא פחות מכאן – כשרה! –
What principle does it come to teach us? That we apply the rule of the curved wall ?
But have we not [already] learned it: A house [the middle of whose flat roof] is missing and one placed skhakh upon it, if there are four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid. If the distance was less than this it is valid?
The Talmud now asks a typical question couldn’t we have known that which we just taught from elsewhere. We just learned that if there are less than four cubits from the valid part of the sukkah, where the ledge is, to the invalid part (higher than 20 cubits), then the sukkah is valid. This principle is called a "curved wall." What it means is that one can fictitiously imagine a wall that is not directly adjacent to the skhakh as if it was curved in to meet the skhakh.
The same is taught in Mishnah Sukkah 1:10 if one opens a hole in the ceiling of his house and puts skhakh on the hole, under the skhakh is a valid sukkah as long as there are less than four cubits between the valid skhakh and the walls of the house.
מהו דתימא: התם הוא דחזיא לדופן, אבל הכא דלא חזיא לדופן – אימא לא, קא משמע לן.
What might you have said? There [it is valid] since [each side] is suitable [to serve] as a wall; but that here since it is unsuitable for a wall, one might say that it is invalid, [therefore] we were taught [that even here the principle is applied].
The Talmud now explains why we needed this baraita about the ledge. In the case of the house, all of the walls were proper walls. But here with the 20 cubit high sukkah, one wall is 20 cubits high because it has not been reduced by the ledge. We might have thought that such a wall could not be used. Therefore, we needed this baraita to teach us that even if the wall itself is invalid because it is too high, we can invoke the principle of the "curved wall."