Sukkah, Daf Daled, Part 6

 

Introduction

This is a direct continuation of yesterday’s section which dealt with erecting four poles and putting skhakh on top of them without building walls.

 

מיתיבי: נעץ ארבעה קונדיסין בארץ וסיכך על גבן, רבי יעקב מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין.

 

An objection was raised: If one drove poles in the ground and placed the Sukkah-covering over them, R. Jacob declares [such a sukkah] valid, and the sages declare it invalid.

 

The Talmud now brings an objection against R. Huna who held that if he built such a sukkah (with poles and without walls) in the middle of the roof even R. Jacob would agree that it is invalid.

This baraita is nearly the same as the baraita above in section five, except that here they explicitly disagree about a sukkah built on the ground. R. Jacob still validates it, even though he cannot invoke the principle of "draw the partition upward."

 

 

והא ארץ, דכאמצע הגג דמי, וקא מכשיר רבי יעקב! תיובתא דרב הונא תיובתא.

 

Now the ground is like the middle of a roof and still R. Jacob validates [the sukkah]. Is this not, then, a refutation of R. Huna? It is indeed a refutation.

 

The Talmud now explains the difficulty it has raised against R. Huna. Building a sukkah on the ground is like building it in the middle of the roof. Nevertheless, R. Jacob validates it. This proves that R. Huna is wrong R. Jacob would validate even such a sukkah built in the middle of the roof.

 

ועוד: באמצע הוא דפליגי, אבל על שפת הגג – דברי הכל כשרה, לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דרב הונא בתרתי?

Moreover, they dispute concerning the middle of the roof only but if he put [poles up] on the edge of the roof they all agree that it is valid. Shall we say then that this will refute R. Huna on two points?

 

R. Huna said that the sages and R. Jacob disagree about a sukkah built on the sides of the roof. R. Jacob validates and the sages do not. However, the fact that in this baraita they disagree about a sukkah built on the ground (=middle of roof) might imply that they don’t disagree if he built the sukkah on the sides of a roof. All would validate such a sukkah.

אמר לך רב הונא: פליגי באמצע הגג, והוא הדין על שפת הגג. והאי דקמיפלגי באמצע הגג – להודיעך כחו דרבי יעקב, דאפילו באמצע הגג נמי מכשיר.

 

R. Huna could answer you: They disagree about poles in the middle of the roof, and likewise also about those on the edge. And the reason why the dispute concerns the middle of the roof is in order to show you how far R. Jacob’s view extends that even where the poles were in the middle of the roof he holds [the Sukkah] to be valid.

 

R. Huna could defend himself on this point. He seems to retreat a bit here from his position above, and now holds that the sages and R. Jacob disagree in all situations, whether the sukkah is built in the middle or the sides of the roof. The reason why the baraita specifies that they disagree if the sukkah was built on the ground or in the middle of the roof is to let you know that even in such a case, where one cannot invoke the principle of "draw the partitions upward" R. Jacob still validates it.

 

תנו רבנן: נעץ ארבעה קונדיסין בארץ וסיכך על גבן, רבי יעקב אומר: רואין, כל שאילו יחקקו ויחלקו ויש בהן טפח לכאן וטפח לכאן – נידונין משום דיומד, ואם לאו – אין נידונין משום דיומד. שהיה רבי יעקב אומר: דיומדי סוכה טפח. וחכמים אומרים: עד שיהו שתים כהלכתן, ושלישית אפילו טפח.

 

Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and covered them with the skhakh, R. Jacob says: we see: if it is found that on being planed and smoothed there would remain the width of a handbreadth on this side and on this side, they are treated as a two-sided pillar, but if not, they cannot be treated as two-sided pillars for R. Jacob used to say, the prescribed minimum width of a two-sided pillar of a sukkah is a handbreadth. But the sages say: only if two [of the adjacent walls] are proper [walls], may the width of the third be only a handbreadth.

 

In this baraita the sages and R. Jacob again disagree about using poles to build a sukkah. In this case, R. Jacob wants to pretend that if the poles are wide enough we could count them as a wall going in each direction. The pole would have to be wide enough such that if you hollowed it out, you could have a handbreadth going one way and a handbreadth going another way. This is called a דיומד in Hebrew which is a combination of the word "two" and "pillar." For such a pillar to count as two walls, it has to be at least a handbreadth in both directions.

The sages disagree. Two walls have to be proper walls and only the third wall can be fictitious.

As an aside this is the halakhah to this day. Your sukkah has to have two proper adjacent walls, but the third wall is valid even if it is only a handbreadth.