Sukkah, Daf Tet, Part 5
Introduction
In yesterday’s section Rava said that if the tree lets in more sun than the shade it provides, the skhakh underneath is valid. Today’s section questions this.
וכי חמתו מרובה מצלתו מאי הוי? הא קא מצטרף סכך פסול – בהדי סכך כשר!
But even where the sun is more than the shade, so what? Behold he joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh?
The Talmud raises the problem that even if the tree lets in more sun, still the tree’s leaves and branches are invalid as skhakh. Therefore, he is joining invalid skhakh to valid skhakh, which should invalidate the sukkah.
אמר רב פפא: בשחבטן.
R. Papa answered: [This is a case] where he interwove [the branches of the tree].
R. Papa answers that for the sukkah to be valid, he must weave the invalid live branches with the valid skhakh (cut off from the ground). This would serve to make it look as if it was all valid because one wouldn’t notice the difference between the valid and invalid branches. And as long as at least 50 per cent of the skhakh is indeed valid, the sukkah is indeed kosher.
אי בשחבטן, מאי למימרא? –
If the branches were interwoven, why mention the case at all?
The Talmud now raises a typical difficulty: this is obvious! If he wove the valid skhakh in with the invalid live branches, it is obviously valid. So why would we even need to teach this?
מהו דתימא: ניגזור היכא דחבטן אטו היכא דלא חבטן, קא משמע לן דלא גזרינן.
One might have thought that it should be prohibited where it is interwoven lest he regard it as valid even where it was not interwoven, [therefore the mishnah] informs us that we don’t decree against it.
The Mishnah has to teach that if he interweaves the valid and invalid skhakh. If it had not explicitly taught that it is valid we might have thought that we would decree that such a sukkah is invalid lest he validate even a case where he didn’t interweave the valid and invalid skhakh. In other words, we might have thought that we would be stringent and not allow this type of sukkah (the interwoven) to be valid, so the mishnah taught that it is valid.
הא נמי תנינא: הדלה עליה את הגפן ואת הדלעת ואת הקיסוס, וסיכך על גבן – פסולה. ואם היה סיכוך הרבה מהן, או שקצצן – כשרה. היכי דמי? אילימא בשלא חבטן – הא קא מצטרף סכך פסול עם סכך כשר, אלא לאו – כשחבטן, ושמע מינה דלא גזרינן!
Have we not learned this also: If a man trained upon it [a sukkah] vine, or a gourd, or ivy, and he covered [it with a valid covering], it is invalid. But if the valid covering exceeded these in quantity, or if one cut them, it is valid.
Now to what case does this refer? If I say where he did not interweave them, then behold he joins the invalid covering to the valid one?
Rather it refers to a case where one did interweave them; and we learn from here that we don’t decree against this?
The Talmud now raises another difficulty haven’t we already taught that if a person weaves together valid and invalid skhakh it is valid. The mishnah teaches that if one takes vegetation still attached to the ground and puts it on the sukkah, the sukkah is still valid as long as there is more valid (unattached) skhakh than invalid skhakh.
We then have to ask whether this mishnah describes a case where he wove them together or didn’t. If he didn’t weave them together, then we have the same problem we discussed above he joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh.
Therefore, the mishnah must refer to a case where he did interweave the valid and invalid skhakh. So if this mishnah teaches that we don’t decree that such a sukkah is invalid, why would we need our mishnah to teach the same thing.
מהו דתימא: הני מילי – בדיעבד, אבל לכתחילה לא, קא משמע לן.
What might you have thought? That [this is permissible] only ex post facto but not ab initio, hence we were informed [that even ab initio it is permissible].
There is a subtle difference between the two mishnayot. The mishnah about the vine teaches that ex post facto, if this situation arises, the sukkah is valid. Our mishnah teaches that ab initio one is allowed to intentionally build a sukkah in this way. Thus both mishnayot are necessary.