Sukkah, Daf Tet Zayin, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today’s section starts with another new mishnah.

 

משנה. המשלשל דפנות מלמעלה למטה, אם גבוה מן הארץ שלשה טפחים – פסולה. מלמטה למעלה, אם גבוה עשרה טפחים – כשרה. רבי יוסי אומר: כשם שמלמטה למעלה עשרה טפחים, כך מלמעלה למטה עשרה טפחים.

 

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid.

If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid.

Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice].

 

The walls of the sukkah must be ten handbreadths high. However, there is a special rule according to which a gap of less than three handbreadths is not considered sufficient to render a sukkah invalid. Therefore, if he suspends the walls on a pole above the ground and the walls do not fully reach the ground but they are less than three handbreadths from the ground, the sukkah is valid. In other words, we look at those three handbreadths as if they don t exist. Of course, the total height of the walls must be ten handbreadths, as we learn in the next section. But if the gap is larger than three handbreadths, then we can’t count the walls as having reached the ground.

If he raises the walls from the ground upwards, the walls do not have to go all the way up to reach the skhakh. It is sufficient for the walls to be ten handbreadths high, when measured from the ground. Ten handbreadths is about one meter high. This is the standard minimum height for matters which require a wall.

Rabbi Yose disagrees with the opinion in section one. He says that the same rule concerning raising the walls from the floor to the skhakh applies if he suspends the walls from the skhakh. As long as the walls are ten handbreadths they are valid, even if they don t reach within three handbreadths of the ground. To reiterate: the debate between Rabbi Yose and the other sages is with regard to a ten handbreadth wall hanging down from the skhakh (assumedly from a pole upon which the skhakh rests) which does not reach to within three handbreadths of the ground. Rabbi Yose says this is valid whereas the other sages say it is not. According to the sages it must reach within three handbreadths of the ground.

 

 

גמרא. במאי קמיפלגי? מר סבר: מחיצה תלויה מתרת, ומר סבר: מחיצה תלויה אינה מתרת.

 

Gemara. What do they argue about?

One master holds the opinion that a hanging partition renders [the Sukkah] valid, and the other Master holds the opinion that a hanging partition does not render it valid.

 

The first opinion in the mishnah holds that a hanging partition, one that doesn’t reach within three handbreadths of the ground, does not render the sukkah valid. R. Yose holds that it does. This is the Talmud’s way of basically creating an abstract principle from the concrete debate in the mishnah. It is also the way of segueing to the next section, where we will see tannaim who dispute the same issue.

 

תנן התם: בור שבין שתי חצירות אין ממלאין ממנה בשבת אלא אם כן עשה לה מחיצה עשרה טפחים, בין מלמעלה בין מלמטה, בין בתוך אוגנו. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, בית שמאי אומרים: מלמעלה, ובית הלל אומרים: מלמטה. אמר רבי יהודה: לא תהא מחיצה גדולה מן הכותל שביניהן!

 

A cistern between two courtyards they do not fill up from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, below or from its rim.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:

Bet Shammai say: below,

And Bet Hillel say: above.

Rabbi Judah said: the partition could not be more effective than the wall between the two courtyards.

 

The Talmud now cites Mishnah Eruvin 8:6. My interpretation here is taken from my mishnah commentary.

Without a partition, it is forbidden for residents of either courtyard to draw from the cistern on Shabbat, since it belongs partly to other people, since half of the cistern is in other people s domains. The only way that both sides can use the cistern on Shabat is if they make a special partition, more than just the wall that separates the two courtyards. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, it doesn t matter whether or not the partition is above or below the water, it is effective. In the Talmud, Rav Judah explains that below the water means that most of the partition is below the water, whereas above the water means that most of the partition is above the water, but there is at least some partition, at least one handbreadth, in the water.

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, this question was debated by Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. Bet Shammai holds that the partition must be below the water, a more stringent position. The partition must actually divide the water between the two courtyards so that the residents of different courtyards are not really sharing any of the water. In contrast, Bet Hillel is lenient and allows the partition to be above or below the water. The anonymous opinion in section one was according to Bet Hillel.

According to Rabbi Judah, the wall that separates the two courtyards is sufficient in and of itself to allow the residents of both courtyards to draw from the cistern. The wall which is above the cistern is fictionally drawn down through the cistern and is considered as if it divides the cistern in half, even if in reality it does not.

 

 

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן: רבי יהודה בשיטת רבי יוסי אמרה, דאמר: מחיצה תלויה מתרת.

 

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: R. Judah spoke according to the view of R. Yose who said that a hanging partition validates.

 

Rabbah b. Bar Hana matches the opinion of R. Judah from this mishnah in Eruvin with R. Yose in our mishnah from Sukkah. Both hold the abstract concept that a hanging partition validates. R. Judah spoke about a hanging partition above the cistern, which allowed both courtyards to draw water on Shabbat. R. Yose spoke about the wall of the sukkah suspended from above. It validated the sukkah.