Sukkah, Daf Tet Vav, Part 4
Introduction
This section continues to discuss the dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah in this mishnah about a wooden roof that has no plastering. Why does R. Meir make one remove one out of every two planks while R. Judah says it is sufficient to merely loosen the boards?
הניחא לרב, דאמר מחלוקת בשיש בהן ארבעה, דרבי מאיר אית ליה גזרת תקרה ורבי יהודה לית ליה גזרת תקרה.
This is correct according to Rav who says that the dispute is where the planks are four [handbreadths wide], since in such a case R. Meir holds that we decree lest one come to use ordinary roofing while R. Judah says we don’t decree lest one use ordinary roofing.
Rav says that R. Meir and R. Judah disagree concerning planks that are four handbreadths wide. He can interpret both mishnayot as being about whether we prohibit using planks lest one come to use ordinary roofing, as we did at the end of yesterday’s section.
אלא לשמואל, דאמר בשאין בהן ארבעה מחלוקת, אבל יש בהן ארבעה דברי הכל פסולה – סיפא במאי פליגי? –
But according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where the planks are not four [handbreadths wide], but that where they are four handbreadths wide all agree that it is invalid, on what principle do they dispute in the latter [Mishnah]?
But Shmuel holds that the dispute is about smaller planks, and such planks are not generally used to make a ceiling. If so, what then is the dispute in the second mishnah?
בביטולי תקרה קא מיפלגי, מר סבר: בטלה בהכי, ומר סבר: בהכי לא בטלה.
They dispute on [the question of] the annulment of a roof. One master holds the opinion that by this means it becomes annulled, while the other master holds the opinion that by this means it does not become annulled.
The sugya ends with a different interpretation of the second mishnah, about the roof with no plaster. Rashi explains that Shmuel could hold that if one was coming to make new skhakh even R. Judah would agree that he couldn’t use planks that are four handbreadths wide, because he decrees lest one sit under ordinary roofing. But the second mishnah deals with a roof that’s already built, and the question is how does one annul it from becoming a roof. According to R. Judah, if one loosens the planks, it shows that he knows that he is using them for his sukkah and that is sufficient to make the sukkah valid, at least according to Bet Hillel. Such a person knows that he can’t sit under ordinary roofing, so there is no reason to be strict. R. Meir disagrees and holds that even if he demonstrates that he is using them for a sukkah, it is still not valid until he removes one out of every two.