Sukkah, Daf Yod Daled, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today’s section continues yesterday’s section in which Rav and Shmuel argued over the parameters of the dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah in the Mishnah.

 

תנן: נתן עליה נסר שהוא רחב ארבעה טפחים – כשרה, ובלבד שלא יישן תחתיו.

בשלמא לשמואל דאמר בשאין בהן ארבעה מחלוקת, אבל יש בהן ארבעה – דברי הכל פסולה, משום הכי לא יישן תחתיו.

אלא לרב, דאמר בשיש בהן ארבעה מחלוקת, אבל אין בהן ארבעה דברי הכל כשרה, לרבי יהודה אמאי לא יישן תחתיו?

 

We learned: If one places over it a plank which is four handbreadths wide, it is valid, provided that he does not sleep under it.

Now it is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths] but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid; for this reason he must not sleep under it.

But according to Rav who says that the dispute is where there are four [handbreadths] but where there are less than four all agree that it is valid, why, according to R. Judah, may he not sleep under it?

 

The Talmud raises the second half of the mishnah as a difficulty against Rav. Shmuel can interpret the end of the mishnah, which clearly disqualifies a sukkah with a four handbreadth plank, as representing both R. Judah and R. Meir. Both disqualify a plank that is four handbreadths or wider.

However, according to Rav, R. Judah allows planks even if they are wider than four handbreadths. So how could R. Judah not allow one to sleep under such a plank?

 

מי סברת דברי הכל היא? סיפא אתאן לרבי מאיר.

 

Do you then think that this statement is according to all? The concluding statement agrees in fact with R. Meir [only].

 

The Talmud basically accepts this difficulty. The second half of the mishnah accords only with R. Meir, at least according to Rav’s explanation of the mishnah.

 

תא שמע: שני סדינין – מצטרפין,שני נסרין – אין מצטרפין. רבי מאיר אומר: אף נסרין כסדינין.

בשלמא לשמואל, דאמר בשאין בהן ארבעה מחלוקת, אבל יש בהן ארבעה דברי הכל פסולה; מאי מצטרפין – מצטרפין לארבעה.

אלא לרב, דאמר בשיש בהן ארבעה מחלוקת, אבל אין בהן ארבעה דברי הכל כשרה.

היכי דמי? אי דאית בהו ארבעה – למה להו לאיצטרופי? אי דלית בהו ארבעה – אמאי? והא קנים בעלמא נינהו!

 

Come and hear: Two sheets combine, two boards do not combine. R. Meir says: Boards also are like sheets.

It is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four handbreadths all agree that it is invalid, [since it may be explained;] What does combine mean? That they combine to make four [handbreadths].

But according to Rav, who says that their dispute is where there are four [handbreadths], but where there are not four handbreadths all agree that it is valid, how is it to be explained? If there are four [handbreadths] why do they need to combine; if there are not, why [is it invalid]? Are they not mere sticks?

 

The Talmud now brings another baraita as a difficulty on Rav. According to the baraita two sheets whose breadth is minimal can combine together to invalidate a sukkah. But two boards placed next to each other are considered individually. As long as each is not of the measure that disqualifies a sukkah, they are both valid. R. Meir disagrees and says that boards also combine. The Talmud here is concerned with R. Meir’s opinion.

Shmuel can easily interpret R. Meir’s opinion in this baraita. He would say that two boards can combine together to add up to a four handbreadth board, which all tannaim disallow.

Rav, on the other hand, cannot easily interpret the baraita. Rav holds that all tannaim allow boards that are less than four handbreadths. If the boards are each more than four handbreadths, then they are already invalid (according to R. Meir) and wouldn’t need to combine. But if they are less than four handbreadths, then clearly they are valid. They are considered nothing more than mere sticks.

 

לעולם דאית בהו ארבעה, ומאי מצטרפין – מצטרפין לארבע אמות מן הצד.

 

Indeed [it is a case] where there are four handbreadths, and what [is meant by] "combine" they combine to form four cubits at the side.

 

The Talmud reinterprets the whole baraita. The planks are indeed four handbreadths and if in the middle of the sukkah, they would invalidate the whole sukkah according to R. Meir. The "combining" refers to a situation where they are at the side of the sukkah. Invalid skhakh at the sukkah’s side invalidates the entire sukkah only if they are four cubits wide (there are 6 handbreadths per cubit). So if there are several four handbreadth planks at the side of the sukkah, these planks would combine to invalidate the whole sukkah if there are four cubits worth of them.