Sukkah, Daf Tet Zayin, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today’s sugya deals with the next clause in the mishnah, concerning one who hollows out a haystack to make a sukkah. Is such a sukkah always disqualified?

החוטט בגדיש. אמר רב הונא: לא שנו אלא שאין שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה, אבל יש שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה – הרי זה סוכה. תניא נמי הכי: החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה – הרי זה סוכה. והאנן תנן: אינה סוכה! אלא לאו שמע מינה כדרב הונא, שמע מינה.

 

If he hollows out a haystack: R. Huna said: This was taught only where there is not a hollow of one handbreadth [in height] extending to seven [handbreadths square], but if there is a hollow of one handbreadth extending to seven, it is a [valid] sukkah.

It has also been taught in a baraita: If he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a Sukkah, it is a [valid] Sukkah.

But have we not learned, it is not a sukkah? Deduce, from it [that the explanation is] according to R. Huna. Deduce from it.

 

R. Huna says that the sukkah is invalid only if there is not an empty space of at least one handbreadth high by seven handbreadths wide. But if the empty space is of this minimum size, the sukkah is valid because it is wide enough.

The Talmud finds support for R. Huna’s position in the contradiction between a baraita that says that such a sukkah is valid and the mishnah says that it is not a valid sukkah. The resolution is that the baraita refers to a case where the empty space is one handbreadth by seven handbreadths whereas the mishnah refers to a case without such an empty space.

 

איכא דרמי ליה מירמא; תנן: החוטט בגדיש לעשות לו סוכה אינה סוכה, והא תניא! הרי זו סוכה! – אמר רב הונא: לא קשיא; כאן – בשיש שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה, כאן – בשאין שם חלל טפח במשך שבעה.

 

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah.

But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah?

R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

 

This section is the same as the previous one just structured differently. This section begins by noting the contradiction between the baraita and the mishnah. R. Huna’s statement resolves this difficulty. This is different from the previous version where R. Huna’s statement was independently corroborated by the baraita and the mishnah.