Sukkah, Daf Tet Vav, Part 1

 

Introduction

This daf begins with a new mishnah.

 

משנה. תקרה שאין עליה מעזיבה, רבי יהודה אומר: בית שמאי אומרים: מפקפק, ונוטל אחת מבינתים, ובית הלל אומרים: מפקפק או נוטל אחת מבינתים. רבי מאיר אומר: נוטל אחת מבינתים, ואינו מפקפק.

 

Mishnah: A [wooden] roof that has no plastering:

Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two.

And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two.

Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].

 

Rabbi Judah relates here the opinions of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai holds that in order to make this roof valid he must do two things. First of all, he must pick up every plank, loosen it and only then put it back down in its place. This seems to be a demonstrative act to show that this is a sukkah and not a house. He must also remove every other plank so that it also looks like a sukkah and not a house. Bet Hillel is more lenient and allows one to do one or the other he either loosens the planks by picking them up or he removes one from between each two. He need not do both acts.

Rabbi Meir rules differently. According to Rabbi Meir, the symbolic act of loosening the planks is not necessary nor does it help. Rather, he must remove one out of every two planks so that the sukkah does not look like a house. This is in line and somewhat modifies what Rabbi Meir said in the previous mishnah wooden planks may not be used. Here we see that they can be used, but they must not be placed right next to each other. Rather there must be gaps equal to their thickness. Assumedly, he will fill in these gaps with other types of skhakh that clearly can be used.

 

גמרא. בשלמא בית הלל – טעמייהו משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי, אי מפקפק – עביד ליה מעשה, אי נוטל אחת מבינתים – עבד בה מעשה, אלא בית שמאי מאי טעמייהו? אי משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי – בחדא סגי, אי משום גזרת תקרה – בנוטל אחת מבינתים – סגי!

 

GEMARA. It is well according to Bet Hillel; their reason is that You shall make , but not from that which is [already] made. If he loosens [the planks] he performs an action, and if he removes one from between two he performs an action. But what is the reason of Beth Shammai? If it is You shall make but not from that which is [already] made, one act only should be sufficient; if it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, it should suffice if he removes one from between two?

 

The Talmud now tries to examine the reasoning of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel’s opinion is understandable. They hold that one must actively make a sukkah. If the sukkah is already covered by a wood ceiling there would be two ways by which to "make" a sukkah either to pick up each plank and then put it down again. Or one could remove one out of every other plank.

But Bet Shammai’s opinion is more puzzling. If they too hold that one must "make" a sukkah, then either act (picking up or removing) should be sufficient. And if they hold that one can’t use a wooden roof because it looks too much like an ordinary roof, one that has plaster on it, then he shouldn’t have to do both acts. It should be enough to remove one out of every two.

 

לעולם משום גזרת תקרה, והכי קאמרי: אף על פי שמפקפק, אי נוטל אחת מבינתים – אין, אי לא – לא.

 

Indeed it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, and this is what they say: Even although he loosens them, if he removes one from between two, it is [valid], otherwise it is not.

 

The Talmud answer the question by emending Bet Shammai’s statement. Instead of saying that one needs to perform both loosening and removing, one really needs to remove one out of every two. They disallow a wooden roof lest one come to allow an ordinary roof in a sukkah, one that has plaster.

 

אי הכי אימא סיפא: רבי מאיר אומר נוטל אחת מבינתים אבל לא יפקפק. רבי מאיר היינו בית שמאי!

If so, read the concluding [part:] R. Meir ruled, he should remove one from between two, but not loosen.

Is not R. Meir’s view thus identical with that of Beth Shammai?

 

If one reads that according to the first clause of the mishnah Bet Shammai holds that one must remove one of every two, and that loosening is not sufficient, then what is the difference between Bet Shammai and R. Meir from the end of the mishnah.

 

הכי קאמר: לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה.

 

This is what he (R. Meir) means: Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute on this point.

 

The Talmud now re-explains the end of the mishnah. R. Meir doesn’t offer a different opinion. He just says that Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai don’t actually disagree about this matter. Both say that one must remove one out of every two in order to make the wooden roof valid.