Sukkah, Daf Tev Vav, Part 5
Introduction
Our sugya begins with a new mishnah.
משנה. המקרה סוכתו בשפודין או בארוכות המטה, אם יש ריוח ביניהן כמותן – כשרה. החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה – אינה סוכה.
Mishnah
One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid.
One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.
Explanation
Neither iron spits nor bedposts can be used as skhakh because they are both made of metal. However, they can be put on top of the sukkah as long as there is valid skhakh between the posts or spits and the valid skakhah is of at least equal quantity to the metal.
In the second clause of the mishnah a person does not make a sukkah but rather the sukkah is made by his hollowing out a hole in a haystack. The Talmud will discuss why such a sukkah is invalid.
גמרא. לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע. דאתמר: פרוץ כעומד, רב פפא אמר: מותר, ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר: אסור. –
Gemara:
Can we say that this is a refutation of R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, since it was stated: If the breach is equal to that which is standing, R. Papa says it is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua says it is forbidden?
The Talmud tries to use our mishnah as a difficulty upon R. Huna son of R. Joshua. R. Huna implies that if the breach, the non-covered part, of the skhakh is equal to the part that is existent, the sukkah is invalid. The mishnah says that if there is valid skhakh in between the invalid metal poles equal to the metal poles, then the sukkah is valid. Thus as long as the valid skhakh is equal to the invalid part (poles or nothing) the sukkah is valid.
We should note that R. Huna and R. Papa were really arguing about walls that determine a domain for Shabbat. The Gemara is applying their dispute to a different case, that of skhakh.
אמר לך רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: מאי כמותן – בנכנס ויוצא.-
R. Huna the son of R. Joshua can answer, What is meant by equals them? That it can easily pass through them.
R. Huna could answer that when the mishnah says "equals" it doesn’t mean that the space of the valid skhakh is exactly equivalent to the poles. What it really means is that the valid skhakh of an equivalent size to the invalid poles can easily pass through the spaces left in between the poles. This would mean that there was more space for valid skhakh then for the invalid stuff.
והא אפשר לצמצם! – אמר רבי אמי: במעדיף. – רבא אמר: אפילו תימא בשאין מעדיף, אם היו נתונים שתי – נותנן ערב, ערב – נותנן שתי.
But is it not possible to measure them exactly ?
R. Ammi answered: This is a case where he makes it larger.
Rava said: one can even say that he does not make it larger, but if they were placed as the web, he places [the valid covering] as the woof; if as the woof, he places them as the web.
The Talmud continues to raise a difficulty. If they are so close in size, then it is still possible for him to measure them exactly. And if so, there again is a difficulty on R. Huna. If when the valid part is exactly the same as the invalid part the sukkah is valid, then the same would be true for a case where the open part was the same as the closed part. It too would be valid.
R. Ammi says that the mishnah refers to a case where the valid skhakh is actually greater than the invalid poles. If they are the same, the sukkah is indeed invalid.
Rava offers a different explanation. Such a sukkah could be valid if the valid and invalid skhakh were equal but placed in different directions.