Sukkah, Daf Zayin, Part 3

 

Introduction

This section is based on another statement by Rava concerning the status of a one handbreadth wall on Shabbat.

 

שתים כהלכתן כו’.

אמר רבא: וכן לשבת. מגו דהויא דופן לענין סוכה – הויא דופן לענין שבת.

 

Two walls must be of the prescribed dimensions etc.

Rava said: And similarly with regard to the Shabbat. Since [the handbreadth] is regarded as a valid wall of the Sukkah it is also regarded as a valid wall in respect of the Sabbath.

 

Rava says that since the one handbreadth wall is effective in making the sukkah valid, so too it is effective in allowing one to carry within the walls on Shabbat.

 

איתיביה אביי: ומי אמרינן מגו? והתניא: דופן סוכה כדופן שבת, ובלבד שלא יהא בין קנה לחברו שלשה טפחים. ויתירה שבת על סוכה, שהשבת אינה נתרת אלא בעומד מרובה על הפרוץ, מה שאין כן בסוכה. מאי לאו: יתירה שבת דסוכה אסוכה, ולא אמרינן מגו!

 

Abaye raised an objection against him: Do we then apply the rule of since ?

Was it not in fact taught: [The rules relating to] a wall of a Sukkah are the same as those relating to a wall for Shabbat, as long as there is no gap of three handbreadths between any two reeds. And the [law relating to] Shabbat is more [stringent] than that of Sukkah, in that a [wall for purposes of] the Sabbath is valid only if its standing portion is greater than its gaps, which is not the case with the Sukkah .

Does this not mean that the law relating to the Shabbat of Sukkot is more [stringent] than that relating to the Sukkah itself, and that we do not apply the rule of since ?

 

Rava above implied that any time a wall is kosher for use in the sukkah it is also kosher for allowing one to carry on Shabbat. Abbaye however brings a baraita that shows that sometimes the law differs. Both walls cannot have gaps of greater than three handbreadths. But the laws of Shabbat are more stringent in that there must be more wall than empty space.

This means that if we have a sukkah standing on Sukkot whose gaps are greater than the standing portion the sukkah is valid as a sukkah but one could not carry within it. This proves that we don’t say, "since it is valid as a sukkah it is valid to allow carrying on Shabbat."

 

לא, יתירה שבת דעלמא על שבת דסוכה.

 

No, [it means that the law relating to] an ordinary Shabbat is more [stringent] than [the law relating to] the Sabbath of the Sukkah.

 

Rava now responds, or at least the Talmud responds on his behalf. During Sukkot, if a wall is valid for the purpose of the sukkah, it is valid to allow carrying within the sukkah on the Shabbat of the festival. But during the rest of the year, one would not be able to rely upon such a wall to carry. Strangely, there can be a sukkah in which one could carry on Sukkot, but not during the remainder of the year.

 

אי הכי ליתני נמי: יתירה סוכה דעלמא אסוכה דשבת, דאילו סוכה דעלמא – בעיא טפח שוחק, ואילו סוכה דשבת – לא בעיא טפח שוחק, וסגי בלחי. דהא את הוא דאמרת: סיכך על גבי מבוי שיש לו לחי כשר!

 

But if this is so, let it also be stated: [The law relating to] the ordinary Sukkah is more [stringent] than [that of] the Sukkah of Shabbat since [the validity of] an ordinary Sukkah demands a width of a loose handbreadth [for the third wall] while [the validity of] the Sukkah of Sabbath does not require the width of a loose handbreadth [for a wall] but a side-post alone is sufficient, for it is you who ruled that if one placed skhakh over an alleyway which has a side-post it is valid?

 

Abbaye now responds against Rava. As a background we need to understand a statement made elsewhere by Rava that if one puts skhakh up on an alleyway that has a post on its end, the sukkah is valid. This post is part of the eruv system and it allows one to carry from the courtyard to the alleyway. So if Rava is correct that a wall that allows one to carry on Shabbat should also be valid as a Sukkah wall, then the sukkah shouldn’t require a third wall that is a full handbreadth. Even the "post" which is less than a handbreadth should be sufficient.

The fact that the baraita does not say this implies that there are different laws for Shabbat walls than there are for sukkah walls.

 

ההוא לא אצטריכא ליה, השתא מקילתא לחמירתא – אמרינן, מחמירתא לקילתא – לא כל שכן?

 

There was no need to mention this, [since it is obvious that] if we apply [the rule of since ] from the less stringent to the more stringent, all the more so apply it from the more stringent to the less stringent.

 

Rava responds that the baraita did not even need to state that. If the lenient case of the sukkah (it’s a positive commandment which are considered more lenient than negative ones) can dictate to the stringent case of Shabbat (whose penalty is the death penalty) that a wall is valid to allow carrying, then all the more so a wall that we allow carrying on Shabbat should be able to dictate what counts as a wall for the issue of Sukkot.