Sukkah, Daf Yod Het, Part 6
Introduction
Today’s section continues to deal with the "exedra" an open but covered area usually found inside a courtyard, outside of the house. In yesterday’s section we learned that Abaye holds that the edge of the roof of the exedra can fictitiously be extended below such that the sukkah found in the courtyard can be considered as if it has walls. Rava disagreed.
לימא אביי ורבא בפלוגתא דרב ושמואל קמיפלגי,
דאתמר: אכסדרה בבקעה, רב אמר: מותר לטלטל בכולו, דאמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם.
ושמואל אמר: אין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע אמות, דלא אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם.
Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree on the same principle as that on which Rav and Shmuel differed for it was stated:
If an exedra was in a field: Rav declares that it is permitted to carry [on Shabbat] over the whole extent of it, since we say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in the space;
While Samuel said that it is forbidden to carry in it except within four cubits, since we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in [the space]?
The Talmud attempts to correlate between Abaye and Rava’s dispute concerning the sukkah in the exedra with a similar dispute between Rav and Shmuel concerning carrying on Shabbat in an exedra found in a field. Rav and Shmuel’s dispute concerns an "exedra" in the field. Clearly this cannot be at all similar to the structure found in Roman-style courtyards. Rather, it seems that these amoraim have used this word to refer to a covered structure without walls standing in a field. The cover was probably made for shade. Rav holds that one can carry throughout the entire exedra on Shabbat because we can consider this to be a closed area. Shmuel says we do not consider the roof to be extended to the ground. Therefore, this is an open area and on Shabbat one can carry only up to four cubits.
אליבא דשמואל – כולי עלמא לא פליגי. כי פליגי אליבא דרב; אביי כרב. ורבא אמר לך: עד כאן לא אמר רב התם אלא דמחיצות לאכסדרה הוא דעבידי, אבל הכא דלאו להכי עבידי – לא.
[No!] With regard to the opinion of Shmuel neither of them disagrees.
They only differ with regard to the opinion of Rav.
Abaye agrees with Rav, while Rava can say that Rav ruled then only in that case, since the partitions are made for the exedra, but in the case here, since they are not made for this purpose [he would] not [rule thus].
Both Rava and Abaye agree that Shmuel holds that one cannot fictitiously extend the roof to the ground. Therefore, Abaye would be forced to admit that only Rav would agree with him. However, Rava could argue that not only Shmuel but even Rav would agree with him in the case of the sukkah. Rav allowed one to fictitiously extend the roof of the exedra found in the field because the beams that form the edges of the roof were made for the exedra. However, in the case of the exedra in the courtyard the beams that are over the exedra were not made for the sukkah which was placed in the area in between the sides of the exedra. Since these beams were not made for the sukkah, they cannot be fictitiously extended to count as the sukkah’s walls.