Sukkah, Daf Yod Daled, Part 6
Introduction
Today’s section is about a person who tries to use planks for his skhakh but turns them on their side, such that the way they are placed is not by their width.
אתמר הפכן על צידיהן. רב הונא אמר: פסולה, ורב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי: כשרה.
It was stated: If he placed the planks on their sides: R. Huna declared it invalid, and R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declared it valid.
R. Huna says that planks that are four handbreadths wide are invalid as skhakh even if they have been placed on their side where they are thinner than four. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna say that they are valid.
איקלע רב נחמן לסורא, עול לגביה רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא, אמרי ליה: הפכן על צידיהן מהו? אמר להו: פסולה, נעשו כשפודין של מתכת. אמר להו רב הונא: לא אמרי לכו אמרו כוותי? – אמרו ליה: ומי אמר לן מר טעמא ולא קבלינן מיניה? – אמר להו: ומי בעיתו מינאי טעמא ולא אמרי לכו?
R. Nahman once came to Sura. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna came in to him and asked: If he placed them on their sides, what is the law? He said to them: It is invalid, since they are regarded as metal spits.
R. Huna said to them: Did I not tell you, say like me?
They answered him: Did then the Master give us a reason and we did not accept it from him?
He said to them: Did you ask me for a reason and I would not give you?
The Talmud now brings an interesting story related to the previous halakhah. R. Nahman, a sage from Nehardea, comes to Sura, where R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna are. They ask him his opinion on this issue, hoping that he will agree with them, that if he places the planks on their sides, the sukkah is valid. R. Nahman disagrees and says that they are invalid because they are like metal spits, which are always invalid for a sukkah.
R. Huna, who also holds that they are invalid, now rebukes them for not agreeing with his opinion. They shouldn’t have bothered asking R. Nahman, for R. Huna already told them that such a sukkah is invalid.
R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna respond that since R. Nahman explained his reasoning to them, they accepted his opinion. To this, R. Huna responds that had they asked him for his reasoning, he would have given it to them as well.
I think we can see from here that it is better to explain one’s reasoning than to simply state the halakhah. Had he explained his reasoning to R. Hisda and his son from the outset, maybe they would have accepted it.
לימא מסייע ליה: אינה מחזקת כדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו, או שנפרצה בה פרצה כדי שיזדקר בה גדי בבת ראש, או שנתן עליה נסר שהוא רחב ארבעה טפחים, אף על פי שלא הכניס לתוכה אלא שלשה טפחים – פסולה. היכי דמי? (מאי) לאו כגון שהפכן על צידיהם? –
Can we say that the following provides support for his view: If [the sukkah] cannot contain his head, the major part of his body and his table, or if a breach has been made in it large enough for a kid to jump in headlong, or if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, even if he puts in three handbreadths, it is invalid. How so? Surely that he placed them on their sides?
The Talmud now tries to use a baraita to support R. Huna and R. Nahman who say that even if the planks are put on their sides, the sukkah is invalid. The baraita lists several sukkot that are invalid:
1) A sukkah that is not large enough to hold his head, most of his body and table.
2) A sukkah with a hole in the wall large enough for a goat to jump through.
3) Or if a four handbreadth plank has been put on it, even if he puts in only three handbreadths.
It seems that the third clause refers to a four handbreadth plank that has been placed on its side, which is only three handbreadths. This would mean that the baraita agrees with R. Huna and R. Nahman. A four handbreadth plank is always invalid, even if laid on its three handbreadths’ side.
לא, הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון דאנחה אפומא דמטללתא, דעייל תלתא לגיו ואפיק חד לבר, דהוה ליה פסל היוצא מן הסוכה וכל פסל היוצא מן הסוכה נידון כסוכה.
No! Here we are dealing with a case where he placed it above the entrance of the sukkah, with three [of the four handbreadths] within and one protruding outside, in which case it is considered as a waste (skhakh) protruding from the Sukkah, and every waste (skhakh) protruding from a Sukkah is regarded as [part of the] Sukkah.
The Talmud reinterprets the last clause from the baraita such that it no longer deals with the case of laying the planks down on their side. The baraita refers to a four handbreadth plank that was placed on the side of the sukkah (not on the plank’s side, on the sukkah’s side), with one handbreadth beyond the wall. The fact that one handbreadth was beyond the wall doesn’t mean that we consider it to be a three handbreadth plank for there is a principle that any skhakh protruding from the sukkah is judged as if it were part of the sukkah. This is a case of four handbreadths of plank being in the sukkah and therefore it is invalid.