Sukkah, Daf Het, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today’s section begins a new discussion about various forms of sukkot.

 

אמר רבי לוי משום רבי מאיר: שתי סוכות של יוצרים זו לפנים מזו, הפנימית אינה סוכה, וחייבת במזוזה, והחיצונה סוכה, ופטורה מן המזוזה.

 

R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: Two sukkot of potters one further in than the other, the inner one is not valid as a sukkah, and is obligated to have a mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is exempt from the obligation of a mezuzah.

 

 

R. Levi discusses a two-part structure that houses a potter and probably serves as his shop as well. There is an outer hut and an inner hut. The inner hut is not valid as a sukkah because this is the potter’s regular home. Even if this hut fulfills all of the requirements of a sukkah it is not valid because he lives there all year round. A person can’t just live in his sukkah all year round without doing something to make it valid for Sukkot. However, it is obligated in the mitzvah of mezuzah because it is his regular domicile (big word!).

The outer sukkah is valid as a sukkah (provided it is made of proper dimensions and material) but is exempt from the mitzvah of mezuzah because he doesn’t live there.

ואמאי? תהוי חיצונה כבית שער הפנימית, ותתחייב במזוזה! – משום דלא קביע.

 

But why should this be so? Why shouldn’t the outer one be regarded as the gate-house of the inner one, and therefore be obliged to have a mezuzah?

Because neither [booth] is of a permanent nature.

 

The Talmud now criticizes this why should the outer hut be exempt from mezuzah? After all, even a gate-house is obligated to have a mezuzah. Why can’t we say that the outer hut is like a gate-house to the inner hut and therefore should have a mezuzah?

The answer is that neither huts are permanent. A gate-house is obligated to have a mezuzah because it protects a permanent hut. But this outer hut serves an inner hut which itself is not a permanent structure. Therefore the outer hut is exempt from the mitzvah of mezuzah, even though the inner one is.

 

תנו רבנן: גנב"ך; סוכת גוים, סוכת נשים, סוכת בהמה, סוכת כותים, סוכה מכל מקום – כשרה, ובלבד שתהא מסוככת כהלכתה.

 

Our rabbis taught: ganbak (a mnemonic): a sukkah of gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

 

This baraita begins with a mnemonic device. It teaches that it doesn’t matter who built the sukkah, even a gentile or a Samaritan, or whether it was primarily built for cattle, it is valid. As long as it was "covered according to the rule."

 

מאי כהלכתה? – אמר רב חסדא: והוא שעשאה לצל סוכה.

 

What is meant by according to the rule ?

R. Hisda answered: Provided that [the covering] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the sukkah.

 

R. Hisda explains that "according to the rule" means that it was made with the intention of providing shade. Note that this doesn’t mean that it had to be built with the intention of using it as a sukkah for the festival of Sukkot. The rule is that the skhakh has to have been put up with the intention of it being used for shade. If it was made for some other reason, such as privacy, it is not a valid sukkah.