Sukkah, Daf Yod Daled, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today’s section begins to explain the next mishnah.

 

משנה. מסככין בנסרים דברי רבי יהודה, ורבי מאיר אוסר. נתן עליה נסר שהוא רחב ארבעה טפחים – כשרה, ובלבד שלא יישן תחתיו.

 

Mishnah: They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words or Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids.

If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it.

 

Rabbi Judah holds that one can use wooden planks as skhakh whereas Rabbi Meir holds that wooden planks cannot be used.

The second part of the mishnah goes according to Rabbi Meir who forbids using wooden planks. Rabbi Meir admits that one wooden plank, even if it were wide, would not invalidate the entire sukkah, just the area that it actually covers. Therefore, he shouldn t sleep (or eat) underneath this plank, but he may utilize other areas of the sukkah.

 

גמרא. אמר רב: מחלוקת בנסרין שיש בהן ארבעה, דרבי מאיר אית ליה גזרת תקרה, ורבי יהודה לית ליה גזרת תקרה. אבל בנסרין שאין בהן ארבעה – דברי הכל כשרה.

 

Rav said: The dispute is in a case of planks which are four [handbreadths wide], for R. Meir holds that this is forbidden as a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof, while R. Judah holds that there is not a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof.

But in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid.

 

Rav says that R. Meir and R. Judah disagree only with regard to planks that are four handbreadths wide or broader. R. Meir prohibits these broad planks from being used lest one think that one can sit under an ordinary roof, which is certainly invalid.

R. Judah allows such planks. But all of the tannaim, even R. Meir, agree that planks that are thinner than four handbreadths wide can be used as skhkakh. No one would think that since three handbreadth planks can be used, an ordinary roof would also be okay.

 

ושמואל אמר: בשאין בהן ארבעה מחלוקת, אבל יש בהן ארבעה – דברי הכל פסולה.

Shmuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.

 

Shmuel, an amora who was a contemporary of Rav, disagrees with Rav (this is common). He holds that if the planks are less than four handbreadths wide there is a dispute in the mishnah R. Judah allows and R. Meir disallows. But if they are broader than four handbreadths, even R. Judah disallows their use.

In sum, there is a dispute in the Mishnah and there is a dispute in the Talmud concerning the parameters of the mishnaic dispute.

 

אין בהן ארבעה, ואפילו פחות משלשה – הא קנים בעלמא נינהו!

אמר רב פפא, הכי קאמר: יש בהן ארבעה – דברי הכל פסולה, פחות משלשה – דברי הכל כשרה, מאי טעמא – קנים בעלמא נינהו. כי פליגי – משלשה עד ארבעה. מר סבר: כיון דליתנהו שעור מקום – לא גזרינן, ומר סבר: כיון דנפקי להו מתורת לבוד – גזרינן.

 

If they are less than four and even less than three? But [in this case] are they not mere sticks?

R. Papa answered: This is what he (Shmuel) means: If they are four [handbreadths wide] the sukkah is invalid according to all;

If they are less than three, it is valid according to all. What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks.

Over what do they dispute? [Planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide]. One master holds that since there is not in them the minimum measure of a place we do not decree against their use, and the other master holds the opinion that since the law of lavud can no longer apply to them we do decree against their use.

 

The Talmud raises a difficulty on Shmuel’s position. When he said there is a dispute if the planks are less than four handbreadths wide, did that mean that even if they are less than three handbreadths wide? Less than three handbreadths is just a stick, so why shouldn’t one use it as skhakh according to R. Meir?

R. Papa explains Shmuel more thoroughly. If they are greater than four, then everyone holds that the sukkah is invalid. If they are less than three, then everyone agrees that the planks may be used. The dispute is when they are between 3 and 4 handbreadths wide. R. Judah holds that they are valid because anything less than four handbreadths is not a "place." "Place" refers to the rules of a domain for something to be considered a "domain" it must be at least four handbreadths in each direction. R. Meir says that as long as it is broader than three handbreadths, it invalidates the sukkah because three handbreadths is the minimum size to be out of the category called "lavud." "Lavud" means that something is so small it is as if it doesn’t exist. Since the planks are not so small that we consider them "lavud" they disqualify the sukkah.