Sukkah, Daf Gimmel, Part 3
Introduction
Today’s section is a response to R. Nahman b. Yitzchak from yesterday. R. Nahman claimed that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argue about where one sits in the sukkah, not the minimum size of a sukkah. Here, the Talmud argues that the two houses do indeed disagree about the minimum size of a sukkah.
ובסוכה קטנה לא פליגי? והתניא: מחזקת ראשו ורובו ושולחנו – כשרה, רבי אומר: עד שיהא בה ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות. ותניא אידך, רבי אומר: כל סוכה שאין בה ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות – פסולה, וחכמים אומרים: אפילו אינה מחזקת אלא ראשו ורובו כשרה, ואילו שולחנו לא קתני. קשיין אהדדי! אלא לאו שמע מינה: הא – בית שמאי, הא בית הלל.
But do they not dispute concerning a small sukkah? But has it not in fact been taught: [If a Sukkah can] contain his head, the greater part of his body and his table, it is valid. Rabbi says: It must be four cubits square.
While in another [baraita] it has been taught: Rabbi says: Any Sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid, while the sages say, Even if it can contain only his head, and the greater part of his body it is valid.
Whereas his table is not mentioned.
Do these two baraitot contradict one another?
Rather infer from this that one is [according to] Bet Shammai and the other according to Beth Hillel.
To prove that the two houses disagree concerning the minimum size of a sukkah, the Talmud cites two baraitot (tannaitic sources not found in the Mishnah). In both baraitot the sages disagree with Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] concerning the minimum size of a sukkah. Rabbi’s position is the same in both: the sukkah needs to be four cubits square (about 2 x 2 meters). But the sages position is different. In the first baraita they hold that it must contain his head, the greater part of his body and his table. The second baraita does not mention table.
To prevent a discrepancy between the two baraitot the Talmud infers that the first follows Bet Shammai and the second follows Bet Hillel. Thus we have proven that the two houses do indeed disagree about the minimum size of a sukkah.
אמר מר זוטרא: מתניתין נמי דיקא, מדקתני בית שמאי פוסלין ובית הלל מכשירין, ואם איתא – בית שמאי אומרים לא יצא ובית הלל אומרים יצא מיבעי ליה.
Mar Zutra said: The precise wording of the mishnah also proves it, since it says: "Bet Shammai declare it invalid, and Beth Hillel declare it valid," and if it were [speaking about position] it ought to have read: Beth Shammai say he has not fulfilled his obligation while Bet Hillel say that he has fulfilled his obligation.
Mar Zutra supports the notion that the two houses argue over minimum size of sukkah and not position within the sukkah. The mishnah uses the language "declare it invalid" and "declare it valid." These words refer to the sukkah itself: a sukkah that cannot contain his head, most of his body and table is invalid according to Bet Shammai and valid according to Bet Hillel. If the mishnah had been discussing his position within the sukkah it should have used the words, "he has fulfilled/not fulfilled his obligation."
ואלא קשיא מי שהיה! – לעולם בתרתי פליגי; פליגי בסוכה קטנה, ופליגי בסוכה גדולה, וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני: מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושולחנו בתוך הבית, בית שמאי אומרים לא יצא, ובית הלל אומרים: יצא. ושאינה מחזקת אלא כדי ראשו ורובו בלבד, בית שמאי פוסלין ובית הלל מכשירין.
But do not the words, He [whose head…] were present a difficulty? The fact is that they differ on two [points], on a small sukkah and a large sukkah, but the text is defective and is to be read thus: He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house, Bet Shammai say, he has not fulfilled his obligation and Bet Hillel say, he has; and if it is [able to] contain only his head and the major part of his body, Beth Shammai declare it invalid and Beth Hillel valid.
Finally, the Talmud concludes that the wording of the mishnah demonstrates that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel actually disagree about both issues. They disagree about a "large sukkah" meaning a sukkah large enough to hold his head, body and table but where he sits with his table in the house, and not in the sukkah. Bet Shammai says that in such a case he has not fulfilled his obligation whereas Bet Hillel holds that he has. They also disagree with regard to the minimum size of a sukkah: Bet Shammai says it must be able to hold his head, body and table, whereas Bet Hillel holds that it need not hold his table.
In any case, the halakhah is according to Bet Shammai, as we saw on the beginning of this page.