Sukkah, Daf Kaf Gimmel, Part 2
Introduction
Today’s section continues to deal with the dispute between R. Gamaliel and R. Akiva about whether one can build a sukkah on a ship. Abaye limits this dispute to a situation in which the wind is of a certain nature.
אמר אביי: דכולי עלמא, היכא דאינה יכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה דיבשה – לא כלום היא, יכולה לעמוד בשאינה מצויה דיבשה – כולי עלמא לא פליגי דכשרה.
Abaye said: All agree that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze it is nothing;
If it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all agree that it is valid.
Abaye begins his statement by positing that both R. Gamaliel and R. Akiva agree on two points. If the sukkah cannot stand in a normal breeze on land, where the wind is less, than the sukkah is invalid. A sukkah must be strong enough to withstand a normal wind. And if it is super-strong, and can withstand an unusually strong land breeze (we used to get these in Atlantic City where I grew up hurricane season) then even R. Gamaliel would agree that it is valid.
Note that Abaye seems to be saying that this is true no matter where the sukkah is built even on land. Thus he has taken a dispute concerning a sukkah built on a ship and shifted it to something even more relevant how sturdy must the sukkah be when built on land.
כי פליגי – בדיכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה דיבשה, ואינה יכולה לעמוד (ברוח שאינה מצויה דיבשה) +מסורת הש"ס: [ברוח מצויה דים]+. רבן גמליאל סבר: סוכה דירת קבע בעינן, וכיון דאינה יכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה דים – לא כלום היא. רבי עקיבא סבר: סוכה דירת עראי בעינן, וכיון דיכולה לעמוד ברוח מצויה דיבשה – כשרה.
Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not a normal sea breeze;
R. Gamaliel holds that the Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing,
While R. Akiva is of the opinion that the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a normal land breeze, it is valid.
The dispute occurs with a sukkah that can withstand a normal land breeze but not an abnormally strong one. R. Gamaliel disqualifies this sukkah because it is not a "permanent abode." Just as a home should be able to withstand a strong wind so too a sukkah should be able to withstand such a wind.
R. Akiva holds that the sukkah is valid because it should be a temporary structure. A temporary structure need only withstand a normal wind.