Sukkah, Daf Yod, Part 3
Introduction
We begin a new section of the mishnah.
משנה. פירס עליה סדין מפני החמה, או תחתיה מפני הנשר, או שפירס על גבי הקינוף פסולה, אבל פורס הוא על גבי נקליטי המטה.
Mishnah. If he spread a sheet over it because of the sun or beneath it because of falling [leaves];
Or if he spread [a sheet] over the frame of a four-post bed, [the sukkah] is invalid.
But he may spread it over the frame of a two-post bed.
If he spread a sheet on top of the sukkah to keep out the sun, or a sheet underneath the skhakh to keep out the falling leaves, the sheet invalidates the sukkah. This is because a sheet cannot be used for skhakh, so in essence he is using invalid skhakh to form his sukkah.
Similarly, if he spreads a sheet over a four-post bed, the sheet invalidates his skhakh, because the sheet forms a roof. However, the sheet does not invalidate the skhakh if it was spread over a two-post bed. This is because the sheet forms a tent-like structure, one that slopes to the sides and is not considered a roof. Since there is no roof made of a sheet, the only roof is the skhakh and the sukkah is valid.
גמרא. אמר רב חסדא: לא שנו אלא מפני הנשר, אבל לנאותה – כשרה.
Gemara. R. Hisda stated: [Our mishnah] speaks only [of a sheet spread] because of falling [leaves], but if [it was spread] in order to beautify [the sukkah], it is valid.
R. Hisda limits the applicability of the mishnah. The sheet put under the skhakh invalidates the skhakh only if it was put there to stop the leaves from falling into the sukkah. But if it was put there just as decoration then the sukkah remains valid.
פשיטא, מפני הנשר תנן!
מהו דתימא הוא הדין דאפילו לנאותה, והאי דקתני, מפני הנשר – אורחא דמילתא קתני, קא משמע לן.
But is not this obvious! For did we not learn in the mishnah, "because of falling [leaves]?
One might have said that the law is the same even [where the sheet was intended] to beautify [the sukkah] and that the reason why it was stated, because of falling [leaves], is that he mentions what is the common practice, therefore he [R. Hisda] teaches us this.
The Talmud raises the difficulty that R. Hisda’s statement is obvious. After all, the mishnah itself states that if one puts the sheet there because of "falling leaves" the sukkah is invalid. This implies that if one puts it there for another reason, the sukkah remains valid. So why would R. Hisda have needed to state what was already obvious?
The answer is that without R. Hisda’s statement we might have thought that the words "because of falling leaves" were taught in the mishnah because that is common reason to put a sheet under the skhakh. It is not there to teach that if one puts the skhakh under the sukkah for other reasons it is valid. To combat this interpretation R. Hisda says that the sukkah is invalid only if the sheet is put there to stop falling leaves, but if it is to beautify the sukkah, it is valid.
לימא מסייע ליה: סיככה כהלכתה ועיטרה בקרמין ובסדינין המצוירין, ותלה בה אגוזין, שקדים, אפרסקין ורימונים, פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבולין, יינות שמנים וסלתות – אסור להסתפק מהן עד מוצאי יום טוב האחרון של חג. ואם התנה עליהם – הכל לפי תנאו.
Can we say that the following supports [R. Hisda’s view]: If he covered it according to the rule, and adorned it with embroidered hangings and sheets, and hung in it nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, bunches of grapes, wreaths of ears of corn, [vials of] wine, oil or fine flour, it is forbidden to make use of them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot], but if he expressed a condition about them, all depends on [the terms of] his condition?
The Talmud now tries to bring support for R. Hisda from a baraita (a tannaitic source). The source teaches that one can hang various fruits and food items from one’s sukkah and the sukkah remains valid. These were clearly here for decoration, which means that this baraita supports R. Hisda.
דלמא מן הצד.
No! It is possible [that the statement was made with reference to sheets] at the side [of the Sukkah].
The Talmud rejects this support for R. Hisda. The baraita might refer to decorations placed on the side of the sukkah, and not placed right under the skhakh. This means that there is no tannaitic support for R. Hisda who holds that anything can be put under the skhakh as long as it is only there for decoration. Note that it doesn’t mean that R. Hisda has been proven wrong.