Sukkah, Daf Yod Zayin, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today’s section has an extended discussion between Rabbah and the other rabbis concerning the mishnah with which we began the daf.

 

אמר רבה: אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי: אויר פוסל בשלשה, סכך פסול פוסל בארבעה.

 

Rabbah stated: I found the rabbis of the house of Rav sitting and saying, an open air space invalidates if it is three [handbreadths wide]; an invalid covering invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide] ,

 

Rabbah finds the rabbis in the house of Rav, which is probably a house of study of some sort, and they say the following halakhah. If there is an open gap of three handbreadths in the skhakh, it is invalid. If there is a strip of invalid skhakh that is four handbreadths in size, it disqualifies the sukkah.

 

ואמינא להו אנא: אויר דפוסל בשלשה מנא לכו – דתנן: הרחיק את הסיכוך מן הדפנות שלשה טפחים – פסולה, סכך פסול נמי – לא ליפסיל אלא בארבע אמות, דתנן: בית שנפחת וסיכך על גביו, אם יש בין הסיכוך לכותל ארבע אמות – פסולה.

 

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid.

[But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

 

Rabbah responds by assuming that they derive this halakhah from our mishnah. The mishnah states that if he distances the skhakh from the walls by three handbreadths, the sukkah is not valid. From here you could learn that open air space invalidates if it is three handbreadths.

The problem is that the very same mishnah teaches that invalid skhakh only invalidates if it is four cubits, not four handbreadths. A cubit is equivalent to five handbreadths. So it is much larger.

 

ואמרו לי: בר מינה דההיא, דרב ושמואל אמרי תרוייהו. משום דופן עקומה נגעו בה.

 

And they said to me, this is no evidence since Rav and Shmuel both say that the reason it is valid is because [the roof is regarded as the continuation] of a curved wall.

 

The rabbis respond by citing Rav and Shmuel’s explanation of that mishnah. The mishnah allows four cubits of invalid skhakh because this was the skhakh adjacent to the wall. This skhakh is considered to be part of the wall as it is a "curved wall" extending up and over. If the invalid skhakh is found in the middle of the sukkah, then four handbreadths of it invalidates the whole sukkah.

 

ואמינא להו אנא: מה אילו איכא סכך פסול פחות מארבעה, ואויר פחות משלשה, מאי כשרה. מלייה בשפודין מאי – פסולה, ולא יהא אויר הפוסל בשלשה כסכך פסול הפוסל בארבעה? –

 

And I said to them: what [would the law be] if the invalid skhakh were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? It would be valid. And what if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid skhakh which only invalidates with four?

 

Rabbah challenges them by presenting them with the following scenario. There is invalid skhakh that is less than four handbreadths next to an open space that is less than three handbreadths. This sukkah is valid. If he fills in the empty space with metal spits (invalid skhakh) then the sukkah is invalid. Thus air space is treated more leniently than invalid skhakh even though generally the rules regarding open spaces in the sukkah are more stringent.

 

ואמרו לי: אי הכי, לדידך נמי דאמרת סכך פסול פוסל בארבע אמות, מה אילו איכא סכך פסול פחות מארבע אמות, ואויר פחות משלשה, מאי – כשרה, מלייה בשפודין מאי – פסולה, לא יהא אויר הפוסל בשלשה כסכך פסול הפוסל בארבע אמות?

 

And they answered me, If so, then even according to you, who says that invalid skhakh invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid skhakh of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? It would be valid. And if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the skhakh which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?

 

The other rabbis point out that the same problem occurs with Rabbah’s halakhah (invalid skhakh invalidates the sukkah only if there is 4 cubits of it). If there is invalid skhakh less than four cubits next to open air less than three handbreadths, the sukkah is valid. Just as above, if he fills it in with invalid skhakh, the total invalid skhakh is now over four cubits and the sukkah is invalid. But again, why should the rules regarding invalid skhakh be more stringent than those regarding open air.

 

ואמינא להו אנא: האי מאי? בשלמא לדידי, דאמינא ארבע אמות משום שיעורא ולאו שיעורא הוא, האי – לאו שיעורא הוא כיון דלא שוו שיעורייהו להדדי – לא מצטרפי. אלא לדידכו, דאמריתו שיעור משום הפלגה – מה לי איתפלג בסכך פסול, מה לי אתפלג בסכך פסול ואויר!

 

And I answered them, how so? It is well according to me who says four cubits, because [in this case the validity of the sukkah depends on] whether there is the standard size or not, and there is not the standard size, for since their standard sizes are unequal, they do not combine;

But according to you, who say that the size is solely dependent on the principle of division what does it matter whether the division is made through invalid covering, or through invalid covering and space?

 

Rabbah responds by differentiating between the reasoning lying behind his halakhah and the reasoning behind the halakhah of the other rabbis. Rabbah explains that four cubits is the "standard size" it is the accepted measure of invalid skhakh that invalidates a sukkah. Rabbah knows that this is the measure of invalid skhakh because it is found in the mishnah. If there isn’t this measure, and there is less than four cubits of invalid skhakh next to less than three handbreadths of open air, the sukkah is still valid.

But the other rabbis who say four handbreadths of invalid skhakh invalidates the sukkah hold that the reasoning is that four handbreadths is sufficient to divide the sukkah. Four handbreadths is the minimum measure for something to count as a place unto itself. Therefore, if there is a "place" large enough to divide the sukkah, then the skhakh cannot all be counted as part of one sukkah. If this is so, then why should three handbreadths of invalid skhakh next to two handbreadths of open air, which is valid, be different from four handbreadths of invalid skhakh, which is invalid.