Sukkah, Daf Yod, Part 2
Introduction
Today’s section continues to discuss the mishnah concerning one sukkah above another sukkah.
כמה יהא בין סוכה לסוכה ותהא תחתונה פסולה?
אמר רב הונא: טפח, שכן מצינו באהלי טומאה טפח. (דתניא) +מסורת הש"ס: [דתנן]+ טפח על טפח ברום טפח מביא את הטומאה, וחוצץ בפני הטומאה. אבל פחות מרום טפח – לא מביא ולא חוצץ.
How much [space] should there be between [the roof of] one sukkah and that of the other to invalidate the lower one?
R. Huna replied: A handbreadth since we find a handbreadth [prescribed as the minimum size] with regard to overshadowing in cases of uncleanliness, as we have learned: [A space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high acts as a carrier of uncleanliness and as an interposition to it, but if it is less than one handbreadth high it neither conveys nor interposes.
The Talmud asks how much space there needs to be between the upper skhakh and the lower skhakh for the lower sukkah to be invalidated. We shall see several answers to this question.
The first answer is provided by R. Huna, who derives his answer from the laws of impurity. R. Huna says that if there is even a handbreadth of space between the two sukkot, the lower one is invalid. This is because a one handbreadth space is significant when it comes to the laws of overshadowing (ohel). If there is an empty space of one cubed handbreadth then impurity is conveyed by overshadowing. What this means is that if there is an impure thing in the space, such as a human bone, it will defile the clean things that are also in the space. It will also block the impurity from spreading above. But if the space is less than one handbreadth it neither conveys the impurity nor blocks it.
ורב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי: ארבעה, שלא מצינו מקום [חשוב] פחות מארבעה,
R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna say: Four [handbreadths], since we do not find a place of any [legal] importance to be less than four [handbreadths].
R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna say that there must be a space of four handbreadths between the two sukkot for the bottom one to be invalid, because four handbreadths is generally considered an important space. For instance, if one carries something for a distance of four handbreadths on Shabbat, he is considered as having transgressed.
ושמואל אמר: עשרה.
מאי טעמא דשמואל – כהכשרה כך פסולה; מה הכשרה בעשרה, אף פסולה בעשרה.
And Shmuel says, Ten [handbreadths].
What is the reason of Shmuel? As its validity, so is its invalidity. Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths.
Shmuel says that the bottom sukkah is invalid only if there is a gap of ten handbreadths between the top one and the bottom one. This is the same measure of a valid sukkah it must be ten handbreadths high. It’s as if Shmuel is saying that for the top sukkah to invalidate the bottom one, the top one must be a real sukkah.
תנן, רבי יהודה אומר: אם אין דיורין בעליונה – התחתונה כשרה.
מאי אין דיורין? אילימא דיורין ממש – אטו דיורין קא גרמי?
אלא לאו – מאי אין דיורין – כל שאינה ראויה לדירה, והיכי דמי – דלא גבוה עשרה, מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אף על פי שאינה ראויה לדירה – פסולה!
We have learned: R. Judah said: if there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.
What does it mean there are no occupants ? If we say, actual occupants, are then occupants [it could be objected] a determining factor?
Rather we must say that there are no occupants’ means that the Sukkah is unsuitable for occupation?
How so? Because it is less than ten handbreadths high.
We could therefore infer that the first opinion [in the Mishnah] holds that even if it is unsuitable for occupation it is still invalid?
The Talmud now raises a difficulty on Shmuel by using our very mishnah. R. Judah says that if there are no occupants in the top mishnah, then the bottom one is valid. But this can’t be taken literally why should it matter if there are actual occupants. Therefore, the interpretation must be that R. Judah says that if the top sukkah is too small to live in because it is not ten handbreadths high, the bottom one is valid.
The first opinion in the mishnah was more stringent than R. Judah’s opinion. So that opinion must hold that even if the top sukkah is unsuitable for living, the bottom one is still invalid. This contradicts Shmuel who held that if the top sukkah is less than ten handbreadths high, the bottom sukkah is valid. [It can be assumed that Shmuel does not rule like R. Judah, who is a minority opinion.]
כי אתא רב דימי אמר, אמרי במערבא: אם אין התחתונה יכולה לקבל כרים וכסתות של עליונה – התחתונה כשרה.
When R. Dimi came he said: In the West they say if the lower one cannot bear the weight of the bolsters and the cushions of the upper one, the lower one is valid.
We now get another opinion as to the interpretation of the Mishnah. R. Dimi cites a tradition from the "west" (the land of Israel, which is to the west of Bablyonia) that if the roof of the bottom one is strong enough to hold bolsters and cushions that would be used on the floor of the upper one, the bottom sukkah is valid. In other words, if the skhakh is not strong enough to be used as a floor, then it doesn’t count and we don’t have one sukkah on top of another.
מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אף על פי שאינה ראויה לקבל – פסולה?
איכא בינייהו דיכולה לקבל על ידי הדחק.
This implies [does it not] that the first opinion holds that even if the lower one is not able to bear their weight, it is still invalid?
The difference between them is where it can bear the weight with difficulty.
Again we need to understand the first opinion in the mishnah in light of our interpretation of R. Judah. The first opinion would have to be slightly stricter and rule that even if the floor couldn’t hold bolsters and cushions, the bottom sukkah would still be invalid. But why should this be so? If this skhakh is unusable as a floor for the top sukkah then we don’t really have one sukkah on top of another. We just have one sukkah!
The Talmud therefore resolves that R. Judah says that if this skhakh can bear the weight of bolsters and cushions with great difficulty the bottom sukkah remains valid. The first opinion would invalidate such as sukkah because the skhakh can hold the bolsters and cushions. But all of the rabbis agree that if the bottom one can hold bolsters and cushions without great difficulty, it is invalid. And all would agree that if it can’t hold them at all, the bottom sukkah is valid.