Sukkah, Daf Yod Aleph, Part One

 

Introduction

The previous daf ended with a comparison between a house and a canopied bed. Today’s section continues with this comparison.

 

ובית נמי, אף על פי שאין גבוה עשרה, כיון דקביע – אוהלא הוא, דלא גרע מקינופות.

 

But as to a house, even though it is not ten [handbreadths] high, since it is permanent it constitutes a valid tent, for it is no worse than the frame of a four-post bed.

 

A house is also not like a bed because a house is permanent. Therefore, even if the house is less than ten handbreadths high, it counts as a tent. A person could not poke his head out of a window while naked and say the Shema (I like the idea of someone being in a house that is less than ten handbreadths high, and being naked and then poking his head out the window to say the Shema. Pretty crazy!). This is the same rule that would apply to a four-post bed, as we learned in yesterday’s baraita. Even though it is not ten handbreadths high, since it has a flat roof, it counts as a permanent structure.

 

לישנא אחרינא, אמרי לה, אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: מותר לישן בכילת חתנים בסוכה, לפי שאין לה גג, אף על פי שגבוהה עשרה.

 

Another version: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted to sleep in a bridal-bed in a Sukkah, since it has no roof, even though it is ten [handbreadths] high.

 

This is an alternative version of Rav Judah’s statement. Here he allows one to sleep in a bridal-bed inside a sukkah, even if it is ten handbreadths high. The reason that this is allowed is that the bridal-bed has two posts. Since the roof is slanted, it doesn’t count as a roof and there is nothing imposing between him and the skhakh above.

 

מיתיבי: הישן בכילה בסוכה – לא יצא ידי חובתו! –

 

It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligations?

 

As we have seen many times on these pages, the Talmud raises an objection from a baraita that says the exact opposite of what Shmuel says. According to the baraita, one who sleeps in a canopied bed in a sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation.

הכא במאי עסקינן – בשיש לה גג.

 

Here we are dealing with the case of one which has a roof.

 

The resolution is that the baraita was referring to a canopied bed that has a roof. The roof forms a barrier to the skhakh. But if it doesn’t have a roof, one can sleep in it in a sukkah.

 

תא שמע: נקליטין שנים וקינופות ארבעה. פירס על גבי קינופות – פסולה, על גבי נקליטין – כשרה, ובלבד שלא יהו נקליטין גבוהין מן המטה עשרה טפחים. הא גבוהין מן המטה עשרה – פסולה, אף על פי שאין לה גג!

 

Come and hear: Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles]; kinofot [means a frame with] four [poles], if he spread a canopy over the frame of kinofot it is invalid, over that of naklitin it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed. But if they are ten [handbreadths] high above the bed, it is invalid, [is it not] even though it has no roof?-

 

This is the same baraita we encountered as a difficulty on the first version of Shmuel’s statement. See yesterday’s section for an explanation. The implication is that sleeping under any bed that is ten handbreadths high in a sukkah means that one cannot fulfill one’s obligation. So how could Shmuel have said that as long as the canopy did not form a roof, he has fulfilled his obligation?

שאני נקליטין דקביעי. –

 

Naklitin are different, since they are permanent.

 

The answer is that naklitin, two post-beds, are permanent and therefore if they are also ten handbreadths high, one cannot sleep under them. But the bridal-canopy bed is not permanent, so therefore, as long as it doesn’t have a roof, one can sleep under it in a huppah.

 

אי קביעי – להוי כקינופות! – לגבי קינופות לא קביעי, לגבי כילה – קביעי.

 

If they are permanent, why are they not [subject to the same law as] kinofoth?

As compared to kinofot they are not [considered] permanent, but compared to the bridal-bed they are [considered] permanent.

 

The Talmud asks another question. If naklitin, the two-post bed, are permanent, then why don’t they have the same status as kinofot, the four-post bed. The baraita said that one can sleep in a two-post bed as long as it’s not ten handbreadths high but not in a four-post bed, even one that is less than ten handbreadths. But if both are permanent why should they have different statuses.

The answer is that permanency exists on a scale. A four-post bed is more permanent than a two-post bed. Therefore one can never sleep in a sukkah in a four post bed. But a two post bed is more permanent that a bridal-bed. Therefore, if the two-post bed is ten handbreadths high, one cannot sleep in it in a sukkah. But one can always sleep in a bridal bed.