The Elliot B. Sitt edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. Masechet Sukkah has been dedicated by Celia and Isaac Jemal, Hashem aleihem yichyu amen, for the hatzlachah (success) of their dear children. May they see much nachat (pride and joy) from all of them. May they all grow up and get married at the right time, and have children healthily and happily, with berachah vehatzlachah, and may they see descendants and descendants of their descendants ad bi'at go'el tzedek amen. The masechet (tractate) has also been dedicated le'ilui nishmat Sarah bat Adele, ruach Hashem tenichena beGan Eden (in the Garden of Eden) amen, again by Celia and Isaac Jemal. Tizku lemitzvot.
Today's daf (page) has been generously sponsored by Mr. Harry Adjmi, in honor of the premier caterer, our dear friend Mr. Uri Nidam. We want to congratulate Uri on the birth of a baby girl. May he see much nachat from all his children. Becheik yereh Elohim tinaten amen. Daf Tet (Page nine). Today's daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat Avraham ben Esther, ruach Hashem tenichenu beGan Eden amen.
We begin today's daf right at the beginning of Daf Tet, at the new mishnah. The mishnah says, “Sukkah yeshanah,” which literally means an old sukkah. What does it mean, an old sukkah (booth)? Rashi says, “kidefaresh” (as explained): “she'asa'ah kodem lechag sheloshim yom” (he made it before thirty days of the festival), “velo perash shehi leshem chag” (and he did not specify that it was for the sake of the festival). You built a hut before the thirty days.
“Beit Shammai poslin” (invalidate), “uveit Beit Hillel machshirin” (validate). So what is the logic? Rashi says that Beit Shammai says the sukkah is pasul (invalid), because “deba'u sukkah lishmah” (they require a sukkah made with the proper intention). They have a shitah (approach) that says you must build the sukkah for the sake of the sukkah. “Vezu setam na'asit” (and this was made without specific intent): this was made with a blanket kavanah (intention), without intention.
Rashi explains that if they had built it within thirty days of the festival, “kevan desho'alin behilchot hachag kodem lechag sheloshim yom, setama oseh leshem chag hu oseh, aval kodem sheloshim setama lav chag” (since they inquire about the laws of the festival during the thirty days before it, when one makes it without specific intent, he makes it for the festival; but before thirty days, making it without specific intent is not for the festival). Rashi gives us a chiddush (novel insight): even Beit Shammai, who says you have to build the sukkah for the sake of the sukkah, will say that if you built it before thirty days, it is no good, but if you built it within thirty days, it is good.
Why? Because within thirty days, the spirit of the holiday is already there. How? The Gemara Pesachim said that within thirty days of the holiday, you start discussing the laws of the holiday and asking questions about it. So everybody's mind is thinking about Sukkot. Therefore, within thirty days, even if you weren't thinking about the sukkah, when you build a hut, it is as if you are thinking about the sukkah. Beit Shammai says that only if you built it before thirty days without specific intent is it no good. That means that according to Beit Shammai, if before thirty days you had kavanah for the sukkah, of course it is good. We're talking about a case where a person built it with a stam kavanah.
Obviously, Beit Hillel, who argues, says no: you don't have to build a sukkah for the sake of Sukkot (the Feast of Booths). But we learned on yesterday's daf that you do have to build a sukkah at least for the sake of shade. That means that as long as your kavanah when you put up the sechach (sukkah roofing) is leshem tzel (for the sake of shade), even if you built it six months before Sukkot, it will be kasher (valid), as we learned in the cases of Sukkat Ganbach and Sukkat Rakbash.
The mishnah says, “Ve'eizo hi sukkah yeshanah? Kol she'asa'ah kodem lechag sheloshim yom” (And what is an old sukkah? Any sukkah built before the thirty days preceding the festival). Good: a sukkah that was built prior to thirty days for the festival. “Aval im asa'ah leshem chag, afilu mitechilat hashanah kesherah” (But if he made it for the sake of the festival, even from the beginning of the year, it is valid). Beit Shammai will tell you that even if it was made at the beginning of the year, it is okay.
Now, Tosafot has a question here. Normally, we know the halachah (Jewish law) follows Beit Hillel. Why would the mishnah say at the end that if you built it before thirty days leshem chag, it is kasher according to Beit Shammai? According to Beit Hillel, I don't need that last statement. If I built it six months earlier, even without kavanah for the festival, it is kasher. This last statement, “im asa'ah leshem chag,” even Beit Shammai will agree with. But we're trying to figure out Beit Shammai's shitah? Since when do we go into Beit Shammai's shitah? That's not the halachah. Usually the Mishnah follows Beit Hillel.
Tosafot brings a big chiddush from the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi says, at the top of Tosafot, “tzarich lechadesh bah davar” (One must introduce something new in it). Even according to Beit Hillel, when you build a sukkah before thirty days without specific intent, it is kasher, but you have to do something to the sukkah. What do you have to do? The Yerushalmi says, “amri tefach” (some say a handbreadth): you have to move at least a tefach of sechach. Rabbi Yose says, “kol shehu” (any amount). Some say not even a tefach—just a minimal amount. “Uman de'amar kol shehu uvilvad shetehei al pnei kulah” (And the one who says any amount requires that it extend across all of it): even according to the opinion that says kol shehu, it can be a very thin slat of sechach, as long as it goes across the whole length of the sukkah.
So, basically, what is the Yerushalmi saying? Even according to Beit Hillel, the sukkah is kasher, but you have to shake some of the sechach and put it leshem sechach (for the sake of sukkah roofing). Even according to Beit Hillel, you have to do something. It is not kasher off the bat. An adjustment has to be made—albeit a minimal adjustment, but an adjustment has to be made.
Now we know what the end of the mishnah is telling you: if you built it before thirty days for the sake of Sukkot, according to Beit Hillel you don't have to do anything. So there is a nafka minah (practical difference) in Beit Hillel for this last statement. You won't even have to make the adjustment. That's why the mishnah tells you this chiddush as well. That is the chiddush of Tosafot, and Tosafot in the second Tosafot speaks about it clearly.
Now the Gemara is going to give us the logic, the reason. It should be noted that the Yerushalmi asks: What if a person makes matzah (unleavened bread) before thirty days, without specific intent? Beit Hillel tells you that if you make your sukkah before thirty days, it is okay. Does that work for matzah as well? The Yerushalmi says no. Why? Not because of the kavanah aspect. According to this opinion, you don't have to make the matzah with a particular kavanah. The problem is that when you're making it so long before the holiday, if you don't do it leshem matzah, you won't be careful, and therefore it will probably become chametz (leavened food). It is integral to have kavanah for the matzah so that you stay focused on making sure it does not become chametz.
When it comes to a sukkah, what do I care if you had kavanah? A person is building a hut; his kavanah doesn't affect the hut. He's putting shade on top. But when you're making matzah, if you don't have kavanah for the matzah, it can affect it: you're not going to be medakdek (careful), as the Yerushalmi says.
The Gemara asks, “Mai ta'ama d'Beit Shammai?” (What is Beit Shammai's reason?) Why does he require kavanah when you're building the sukkah leshem sukkah? “Amar kra” (the verse says): “Chag HaSukkot shiv'at yamim l'Hashem” (The Feast of Booths, seven days for Hashem). “Sukkah asuyah leshem chag ba'inan” (We require a sukkah made for the festival). As Rashi says, “dichtiv Sukkot l'Hashem” (for it is written, Sukkot for Hashem): the sukkah has to be for Hashem. Rashi writes, “leshem mitzvat haMelech” (for the King's commandment). You have to build it for the directive of the King.
Again, Beit Shammai bases this on a pasuk (verse) in the Torah: “Chag HaSukkot shiv'at yamim l'Hashem.” Sukkot has to be l'Hashem. You have to do it for Hashem; you have to do it for the mitzvah (commandment).
What does Beit Hillel do with that pasuk? “Hahu miba'ei lei l'chideRav Sheshet” (he uses it for the teaching of Rav Sheshet). Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Akiva, “minayin le'atzei sukkah she'asurin kol shiv'ah” (How do we know that the wood of the sukkah is forbidden for use for seven days?). How do we know that the wood, the sechach of the sukkah, is forbidden for personal use during the seven days of Sukkot? A person might want to take a piece of the sechach and use it as a toothpick. How do we know he can't do that during the seven days of Sukkot?
“Talmud lomar” (the text teaches): “Chag HaSukkot shiv'at yamim l'Hashem.” The pasuk says, “Chag HaSukkot”—the holiday of Sukkot; “shiv'at yamim”—seven days; “l'Hashem.” The Gemara derives this. And we have a baraita (early rabbinic teaching): Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says, “keshem shechal Shem Shamayim al hachagigah” (just as the name of Heaven rests upon the festival offering). On Sukkot, as on all the other holidays, you have to bring a korban (offering) in the Beit HaMikdash (Temple), called the korban chagigah (festival offering). Just as the korban chagigah is kodesh (sanctified)—Rashi says you would not be allowed to eat its meat, because the chagigah is eaten by its owners, and that is the meat people eat on the holidays—so too the sukkah is set aside for Hashem.
“Vesamachta bechagecha” (You shall rejoice in your festival), “ve'ein simchah ela bevasar” (there is no rejoicing except with meat). What basar (meat) are we talking about? The meat of the chagigah. But you can't eat the meat of the chagigah until you bring the parts that belong on the mizbeach (altar). There are eimurim (sacrificial fats) that must be put on the mizbeach. Only then does it become permissible. Just as the korban chagigah is off-limits, so too, “kach chal shem shamayim al hasukkah” (so the name of Heaven rests upon the sukkah). The sukkah itself is also off-limits. “Shene'emar” (as it is said): “Chag HaSukkot shiv'at yamim l'Hashem, shiv'at yamim l'Hashem.” “Mah chag l'Hashem, af sukkot l'Hashem” (Just as the festival is for Hashem, so too the sukkot are for Hashem). He derives this from the pasuk: chag is like chagigah. That is Beit Hillel's derashah (scriptural interpretation), and it is the derashah of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehudah, which Beit Hillel accepts.
Therefore, the pasuk that Beit Shammai uses to say you have to build it leshem chag, for Hashem, as a gezeirat hamelech (decree of the King), is used by Beit Hillel to teach something else: the sukkah is off-limits, kodesh l'Hashem, just like the chagigah. The Gemara asks whether Beit Shammai also needs the pasuk for that derashah. Beit Shammai also agrees that you can't use the sechach for personal use, so that pasuk is already used for him. Where, then, does he learn that you have to build the sukkah for the sake of Sukkot? The Gemara says, “in hachi nami” (if so, indeed): he uses the same pasuk as Beit Hillel to teach that the sechach is off-limits.
“Ela mai ta'ameih d'Veit Shammai?” (Then what is Beit Shammai's reason?) “Ketiv kra achrina” (another verse is written): “Chag hasukkot ta'aseh lecha shiv'at yamim” (Make for yourself a festival of booths for seven days). You have to make the sukkah, and it has to be for seven days. The Gemara derives that we require “sukkah ha'asuyah leshem chag” (a sukkah made for the sake of the festival).
How does he derive that? Look at Rashi: “Chag hasukkot ta'aseh, sukkot ta'aseh lechag, sarseihu lamikra vedorsheihu” (Make the sukkah for the festival, rearranging the verse and interpreting it). Sometimes in derashot, you can rearrange the words of a pasuk; you don't have to read them in their written order. The pasuk says, “Chag hasukkot ta'aseh lecha shiv'at yamim.” Rashi says to read it as, “sukkot ta'aseh lechag”: make the sukkah for the festival. You have to build the sukkah leshem chag, for the sake of Sukkot. That is Beit Shammai's derashah, and that is the ultimate source. If somebody asks you what the source is for Beit Shammai's position that you have to build the sukkah for the sake of Sukkot, it is this pasuk: “Chag hasukkot ta'aseh lecha shiv'at yamim,” as if the pasuk says, “sukkot ta'aseh lechag.” Make the sukkah for the festival.
What does Beit Hillel do with this pasuk? “Hahu miba'ei lei le'osin sukkah becholo shel mo'ed” (he needs it to teach that one may make a sukkah during Chol HaMoed, the intermediate festival days). Beit Hillel comes along and says we learn from this pasuk that you're allowed to build a sukkah on Chol HaMoed. If you didn't build it, you can build it.
How do you know from this pasuk that you can build it on Chol HaMoed? The commentators explain that the Beit Yosef says the limud (derivation) is from the words “ta'aseh shiv'at yamim”: you can make the sukkah for seven days, meaning on all the days of the holiday. The Rashash has a different derashah. He says to read the pasuk as “sukkah ta'aseh bechag” (make the sukkah during the festival). The commentators have to address the question of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel uses this pasuk to teach that you can build the sukkah on Chol HaMoed; Beit Shammai uses it to teach that you have to build the sukkah leshem chag.
What does Beit Shammai do with the Chol HaMoed issue? The Gemara says, “uVeit Shammai sevira lehu keRabbi Eliezer, de'amar ein osin sukkah becholo shel mo'ed” (Beit Shammai holds like Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one does not make a sukkah during Chol HaMoed). Rabbi Eliezer says that if you didn't build the sukkah before Yom Tov (festival day), you cannot construct a new sukkah on Chol HaMoed. Even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that if you built it on Yom Tov and it fell apart, of course you can reconstruct it on Chol HaMoed. Rabbi Eliezer's shitah is about someone who didn't build it—he was away, or whatever the reason—and now, during Chol HaMoed, wants to construct a new sukkah lechatchilah. Rabbi Eliezer says no.
Beit Shammai accepts that opinion. Therefore, when the pasuk says “Chag HaSukkot ta'aseh lecha shiv'at yamim,” it doesn't mean you can build the sukkah during all seven days; you can't build it for seven days. What is the pasuk telling you? That you have to build the sukkah leshem chag, for the sake of the holiday. That is the back-and-forth between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.
One point of note: we discussed that the atzei sukkah (sukkah wood), meaning the sechach, is asur bahana'ah (forbidden for benefit). Tosafot asks a question. We learned in Masechet Shabbat that the reason the sechach becomes forbidden for personal use is that it is muktzeh (set aside). Now that seems to contradict this Gemara, because muktzeh is only an issur derabbanan (rabbinic prohibition). Here the Gemara quotes a pasuk: “minayin le'atzei sukkah she'asurin talmud lomar Chag HaSukkot shiv'at yamim l'Hashem” (How do we know the sukkah wood is forbidden? The text teaches, “The Feast of Booths, seven days for Hashem”). Just as the chagigah is forbidden, so too the sechach is forbidden.
So make up your mind: is the sechach forbidden miderabbanan, as it says in Masechet Shabbat, or is it forbidden mide'oraita (by Torah law), as it seems here? Tosafot gives an important chilluk (distinction). In Masechet Shabbat, we were talking about sechach that fell. That sechach is forbidden only derabbanan. It is no longer functioning as sechach, but since it was designated as sechach, it has the status of muktzeh. In our Gemara, we're talking about sechach that is still functional, still attached. If a person now picks at the sechach to pick his teeth, that is already an issur de'oraita (Torah prohibition). That is one of the distinctions Tosafot points out.
Tosafot has another answer in the name of Rabbeinu Tam. We learned that the minimum size of a sukkah is two walls and a tefach, seven by seven tefachim. That is considered a small sukkah; it is the minimum size. Tosafot wants to say in the name of Rabbeinu Tam that the Torah prohibition against deriving benefit from the sechach applies to the minimum shi'ur (minimum measure). Anything beyond seven by seven is extra; I don't need it. That part is forbidden only miderabbanan because of the law of muktzeh. Those are two answers Tosafot gives to reconcile the discussion in Masechet Shabbat with this one.
The Gemara asks, “U'Veit Hillel leit lehu deRav Yehudah amar Rav?” (Does Beit Hillel not accept the teaching of Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav?) Beit Hillel holds that a sukkah does not have to be built for the sake of the sukkah. The Gemara wants to apply that rule to another law in the Torah, the law of tzitzit (fringes). We know that a person with a four-cornered garment has to put tzitzit on it. There is a big question in halachah: when you're making the tzitzit, do you have to make them leshem tzitzit? Do you need kavanah when you're making them? Or, if you just had strings that ended up haphazardly on the fringes of the beged (garment), would they be kasher?
Seemingly, according to Beit Hillel, you shouldn't need kavanah, just as you don't need kavanah for a sukkah. You built a hut; it's okay. So, lich'orah (seemingly), it should be okay for tzitzit as well. That would be against the opinion of Rav Yehudah amar Rav, who says, “No, you need kavanah for the sake of tzitzit.” There is no problem with Beit Hillel arguing with Rav Yehudah amar Rav: Beit Hillel are Tanna'im (Mishnaic sages), while Rav Yehudah amar Rav is among the Amora'im (Talmudic sages). Really, the Gemara's question is the reverse: how could Rav Yehudah amar Rav argue with Beit Hillel?
The Gemara says, “de'amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav, asa'an min hakotzim umin hanimin umin hagardin pesulah min hasisin kesherah” (If made from loose threads, they are invalid; from spun thread, valid). What are these items? Let's take out our picture books to make this easier. We're using HaHod VeHaHadar today, starting at picture kuf, kuf-bet.
The picture doesn't really show it, but here's what is happening. On your tzitzit, you have the threads of the garment. You have the horizontal threads that go across the garment. If some of these horizontal threads at the edge of the garment come apart, they stick out, and you might say, “You know what? I have automatic strings here. I don't have to buy tzitziyot; I don't have to buy strings.” The threads themselves came apart, and now you want to use them.
The first case is “kotzim” (thorn-like threads), because what they usually do when that happens is tie a knot, so it looks like a thorn sticking out of the garment. If you want to make tzitzit from the kotzim, that's the first case. Or from the nimin (threads): the opposite, the vertical threads—the warp—have come apart, and some are dangling at the end of the garment, and he wants to make tzitziyot from them. Or “min hagardin” (frayed threads): say the end of the garment has a fringe, with strings sticking out, and you use them for your tzitziyot. The Gemara says they're no good. Why? You didn't make the tzitziyot leshem tzitzit; you didn't make them for the mitzvah. It just happened on its own.
But “min hasisin” (spun thread): if you make the tzitzit from a ball of thread, of course you took the thread, spun it, wove it, and put it in. So you see clearly that tzitzit have to be made lishmah (with the proper intention). You can't use automatic strings dangling on the side and say, “Oh, beautiful, my tzitzit are made here. I'll tie them all up and put them on.” No, they have to be made leshem mitzvat tzitzit.
The Gemara continues, “ki amriteh kameh diShmuel” (when I said this in front of Shmuel). “Amar li” (he said to me)—who was saying this in front of Shmuel? Rashi says Rav Yehudah was a student of Rav and Shmuel. Rav died first, so many times Rav Yehudah would quote Rav's statements to his teacher Shmuel. Rav Yehudah says, “When I told this chiddush to Shmuel, he said, ‘af min hasisin nami pesulah’” (even from spun thread it is also invalid). Wow. He says that even when you take from the ball of thread, it's still pasul.
Why? “Deva'inan teviyah lishmah” (we require spinning with the proper intention). Shmuel held that when it says “ve'asu lahem tzitzit,” not only does the asiyah (making) have to be lishmah, but the teviyah (spinning) has to be lishmah. You actually have to spin the strings with the proper intention. This ball of string was kite string, string from setam, so it wasn't spun lishmah; Shmuel has a more stringent position. But you see that everybody agrees that you need asiyah lishmah. Whether you need teviyah is disputed, but everybody agrees that you need asiyah lishmah.
So you see there is a difference between sukkah and tzitzit. Why, by tzitzit, do you require lishmah—and Shmuel goes even further and requires teviyah lishmah—whereas with a sukkah, you can build it even sixty days or six months before the holiday for the sake of shade, and you're okay? The Gemara says, “No, no, no. Shani hatam” (there it is different). Tzitzit are different, because the pasuk says, “gedilim ta'aseh lach” (you have to make for yourself gedilim). Here too, you should require sukkah asiyah lishmah, just as you do by tzitzit. “Shani hatam”: it is different because the pasuk says, “gedilim ta'aseh lach.”
You have to make these fringes for yourself: “lach leshem chovcha” (for yourself, for your obligation). The point is that they have to be made for your obligation. The Gemara asks, “Ah, that's because you're using the word lach? Hacha nami chag hasukkot ta'aseh lecha” (Here too, “Make for yourself a festival of booths”). I also have the word lach by Sukkot. Make a sukkah for yourself, for your obligation to observe Sukkot.
The Gemara says, “No, hahu miba'i lei leme'utei gezulah” (that is needed to exclude a stolen one). That pasuk is coming to tell you something else: the sukkah has to belong to you. You can't sit in a stolen sukkah. “Chag hasukkot ta'aseh lecha”: make sure it's yours; don't use stolen goods. The Gemara asks whether “gedilim ta'aseh lecha” could also mean that tzitzit have to be yours, not stolen. There is another pasuk for that by tzitzit: “ve'asu lahem tzitzit” (They shall make fringes for themselves), “lahem mishelahem” (for them, from their own). It has to be theirs.
So by tzitzit I have two laws: number one, they have to belong to you; number two, you have to make them leshem tzitzit. By sukkah, no: you could build it as a hut, but make sure it's not stolen.
Now we have a chiddush: a pasuk from the Torah tells us that it is forbidden to sit in a stolen sukkah. Tosafot asks a question. We have a standing principle, “mitzvah haba'ah ba'averah” (a commandment performed through a transgression). You're not allowed to do a mitzvah if doing it is going to cause you to make an averah (transgression). That's a kelal (principle). Tosafot asks, “What do I need a pasuk for? It's obvious that I can't steal a sukkah and sit in it. That's a mitzvah haba'ah ba'averah! Why are you giving me pesukim?”
Tosafot says a chiddush: the principle of mitzvah haba'ah ba'averah is not a de'oraita principle; it is only rabbinic. Min haTorah, even if a person stole a sukkah or an item such as an etrog and used it, min haTorah he is yotzei (fulfills the obligation). Miderabbanan, mitzvah haba'ah ba'averah is not allowed. The chiddush is that by Sukkot it is even an issur de'oraita (Torah prohibition). It is on a higher madregah (level): a stolen sukkah is forbidden on the biblical level. We don't want to rely on the rabbinical gezerah (rabbinic safeguard) of mitzvah haba'ah ba'averah; the prohibition is raised to a higher level.
The only question is: what is the case of a stolen sukkah? The commentators discuss it. Real estate can't be stolen, so we're not talking about stealing the man's property. “Karka einah nigzelet” (Land cannot be stolen). I can go onto a person's property and build a fence around it, but that doesn't mean anything; I haven't moved it or acquired it. So the case must be that you stole the sechach. I went to the man's lumberyard, took some of his private lumber, and stole sechach.
The commentators ask: Hold it! Later in the masechet, we'll learn about a woman who came to the Reish Galuta and screamed, “All the rabbis are sitting in a stolen sukkah! That's stolen wood!” The rabbis answered her, “It's okay. They don't have to give you back the wood. They just have to pay you what it costs, and they can continue sitting in the sukkah.” The rabbis made a takanah (enactment), called “takanat marish” (the beam enactment). If a person steals a beam and puts it in his house, the rabbis said, “If you make him take his house down and return the beam, nobody will make teshuvah (repentance), because it's very difficult.” Because of takanat hashavim (enactment for penitents), they said, “You know what? You stole it, you committed an avon (sin), so pay it back.”
So what's the case? If a person stole sechach and put it on his sukkah, the halachah says he can sit in it; he just has to pay back the money. But that's only miderabbanan. Mide'oraita, he's really considered a thief. On the Torah level, he really has to give back the beam, and therefore it is considered a sukkah gezulah (stolen sukkah). The rabbis subsequently came along and said, “Okay, just pay back the money.” That's what the Gemara is talking about. Under the original de'oraita law, you cannot sit in a stolen sukkah.
The next mishnah is on the amud bet (second side of the page). It begins, “ha'oseh sukkato tachat ha'ilan ke'ilu asah betoch habayit” (One who makes his sukkah beneath a tree is as if he made it inside a house). A person builds a sukkah under a tree. Obviously, the tree has leaves and branches. The mishnah says it's as if he built the sukkah in the house. We know that if a person builds a sukkah in his house, it is pasul, of course. So, for some reason, the Gemara compares building a sukkah under a tree to building one in a house.
The Gemara is going to ask: Why compare them? Just tell me it's pasul. How do you know a sukkah in the house is pasul? The Gemara will learn it from pesukim: you can sit under only one roof, not two. It will learn from the same pasuk why a tree over your sukkah is no good: you can sit under only one roof, not two. Both halachot are learned from the same pasuk. So the Gemara will ask why the mishnah links sitting under a tree to making a sukkah in the house. Both are independent laws learned from the same pasuk. Why is one being compared to the other, as if to say, “The house case we know, and since you can't sit in a sukkah in the house, you can't sit under a tree either”? The Gemara will ask why the tree case is linked to building the sukkah in the house. We'll wait for the Gemara.
Now, “sukkah al gabei sukkah” (a sukkah atop a sukkah). To get a picture of what we're talking about, even though it's understandable, look at picture kuf-zayin. They built a duplex: one sukkah over another. The sechach of the bottom sukkah is the floor of the second sukkah. Now we have to discuss which sukkot are kasher, which one you can sit in, and which one you can't.
The mishnah says, “sukkah al gabei sukkah, ha'elyonah kesherah” (a sukkah atop a sukkah: the upper one is valid). The top sukkah is okay, assuming it is within twenty amot (cubits), meaning the distance from the floor of the second sukkah to its roof is within twenty. “Vehatachtonah pesulah” (and the lower one is invalid). Why? From the bottom, it has two roofs. We're going to see a pasuk that tells you clearly that you can't sit under two sechachim; you have to sit under one.
Rabbi Yehudah says, “im ein diyurin ba'elyonah, hatachtonah kesherah” (if there are no residents in the upper one, the lower one is valid). That's a chiddush: if nobody is living in the top sukkah, you can sit in the bottom one. Even though you have two sechach—you have your sechach and the second sechach—it doesn't matter. As long as there is no dwelling on top, you're okay. The Gemara will explain these cases.
Think of condominiums: this is the source of these laws about whether the sukkah is kasher (valid). There it's worse, because you don't have a sukkah on top; you have a balcony on top of you. That's already a big question, because you have a double roof: your sechach as a roof, and then the sechach pasul (invalid sukkah roofing) of the balcony. This is the source of these laws.
Rava says, “lo shanu ela be'ilan shetzilato merubah mechammato” (this was taught only about a tree whose shade exceeds its sunlight). When do we say that if a person builds a sukkah under a tree, the sukkah is pasul? When the tree provides more shade than sunlight. That means that if you removed your sechach, you would receive more shade than sunlight from the tree. Then the tree is considered to be functioning as a wall, as sechach for you, and the sukkah will be pasul.
You might ask: Why? What is wrong with a tree? Doesn't our sechach come from trees? Doesn't our sechach come from wood? Why should a tree's leaves and branches become pasul? The explanation is that we learned from pesukim that sechach must be detached. This is a gezerat hakatuv (scriptural decree). We'll see it in Rashi in a moment.
“Aval chammato merubah mitzilato” (but if its sunlight exceeds its shade), “kesherah” (it is valid). If the tree provides more sunlight than shade, then it is okay, because we're assuming that the tree isn't doing anything anyway. Even without your sechach, the tree wouldn't provide proper shade. So it's a problem only when the shade is produced by the tree.
Let's read Rashi. Actually, we have to go further for a moment, and then we'll read the Rashis. The Gemara asks, “mimai?” (from where). Rava, you came along and made a chilluk. The mishnah didn't tell us what kind of tree we're talking about; it just said that making a sukkah under a tree is no good. Rava comes along on his own and says it depends: if the tree provides more shade, it's a problem; if it provides more sunlight, it's okay. The Gemara asks where Rava got this distinction.
Rava says, “Midekatani” (from what the mishnah teaches). What does the mishnah say? “Ke'ilu asahah betoch habayit”—if you remember, the mishnah didn't just say that if you build it under a tree it's pasul. It said that if you build a sukkah under a tree, it's like building a sukkah in the house. Rava analyzes: “Lamah li lemitni ke'ilu asahah betoch habayit?” (Why did the mishnah need to teach that it's as if he made it inside a house?) It could just say “pesulah.” As I told you, both laws are learned from the same pasuk. Why does the mishnah have to link sukkah under a tree to making a sukkah in a house? Either quote the pasuk or just say it's pasul. Why say “ke'ilu betoch habayit”?
“Ela ha ka mashma lan” (rather, it teaches us): “de'ilan dumya debayit” (that the tree is like the house). Just as in a house the roof provides more shade than sunlight, so too, the tree we're talking about provides more shade than sunlight. That's why it will be pasul. The analogy in the mishnah is telling us the scenario: we're talking about a tree that, like the roof of a house, provides more shade than sunlight.
The Gemara asks, “Vekhi chammato merubah mitzillato mai haveh?” (If its sunlight exceeds its shade, what follows?) You're telling me that if the tree gives more sunlight than shade, it's okay, Rava? No problem? The Gemara says, “Ha ka mitztaref sechach pasul bahadi sechach kasher” (invalid roofing is combining with valid roofing). Hold it: I have a mixture of good sechach and bad sechach. The sechach on the tree is pasul because it's attached. Underneath, the sechach on my sukkah is sechach kasher. So you're telling me that if the tree provides more sunlight, there's no problem? How can it be okay? You have a mixture of sechach kasher and sechach pasul.
This question needs to be defined. We have a fantastic dispute among the Rishonim (early authorities) about how to understand this case. Rashi, Tosafot, and other Rishonim understand it as follows: the bottom sukkah (there's only one sukkah here) has more sunlight than shade on its own, and the tree has more sunlight than shade on its own, but together they provide more shade than sunlight. So the sukkah alone gives more sunlight, and the tree alone gives more sunlight; together they give more shade. Rava says the sukkah is kasher. The Gemara asks: How can it be kasher? The sukkah is made from sechach kasher and sechach pasul. That's how Rashi and Tosafot understand the question. We can see it in Rashi.
Rashi explains, “Ha ka mitztaref sechach pasul.” It's the sixth line down in Rashi. You're combining sechach pasul. “Mechubar” (attached): Rashi says it is invalid sechach. The pasuk says, “be'osepkha” (when you gather), “migornekha” (from your threshing floor; from the wheat, from the straw actually and the hay), “umiyikvekha” (and from your winepress; the husks of the grapes that you get from the vineyard). You can use sechach from something you gather from your threshing floor. “Aseh sukkatekha bipsolet goren” (Make your sukkah from the residue of the threshing floor). The residue of the threshing floor includes “kegon kashin,” such as straw and hay, and the residue of the winepress, “kegon eshkolot ukaniyot” (such as clusters and stalks; the empty husks), and “uzmorot” (and branches).
“Alma talush ba'inan” (we learn that it must be detached). From the words “be'osepkha,” when you gather it, you learn that it is detached. From the words about gathering the residue of your fields and vineyards, you learn the chiddush that mechubar, something attached, is pasul.
Here are the key words of Rashi: “umehanei tzila ilan letzel hasechach lehashlim tziltah shel sukkah.” Rashi's language is that the shade of the tree combines with the shade of the sukkah to complete the sukkah's shade. That implies that each one on its own provides more sunlight than shade, but together they provide more shade. That is what the Gemara is saying: you're combining sechach kasher with sechach pasul.
Rav Pappa answers, “beshichavtan” (when he lowered them). You lowered the branches onto the sechach itself. You didn't detach them. In your picture books, it's not the best picture, but look at kuf-yud. In kuf-tet, the tree is over the sechach; in kuf-yud, the branches have been lowered onto it.
Now, what does “beshichavtan” do? The branches are still attached. How does that solve any of the problems? Look at Rashi: “hishpil anafav lematah” (he lowered its branches downward), “me'oravin” (mixed together) with the sechach kasher, “ve'ein nir'in ba'ayin” (and they are not visible to the eye). It is now a mixture, and it's no longer noticeable. We're talking about a case where there is more sechach kasher than tree, “vesechach kasher rabah alav,” and there is bitul (nullification). We know that when something valid and something invalid get mixed together, and the valid part is the majority, mide'oraita, we have a rule called bitul berov (nullification in a majority): the bad is nullified in the majority of good.
The Gemara's chiddush is that when the branches are hanging over separately, you can't say bitul. They are two separate things, like something kasher and something forbidden; how can you say bitul? This is here, and that is there. But by lowering the branches down, they become mixed, and when you're looking at the sukkah, you really can't tell which is sechach and which is tree. So now you apply the rule of bitul, and it is okay. Again, this applies only when there is more sechach kasher from your sukkah than there is from the tree. If the tree has more sechach, the sukkah is pasul, because there is no bitul: the pasul is greater than the kasher.
The Gemara says, “I beshichavtan, mai lemmeimra?” (What is there to teach?) Look at Rashi: “Lamah li lemeimar kesherah?” Why does it need to say that it's kasher? The Gemara assumes that this is a no-brainer. Of course! If you lower the sechach and it becomes mixed, and there's bitul, is that your chiddush, Rava? We know the laws of bitul. This is what you came to tell me? That if you lower it, it will be kasher? The Gemara is saying, “We know that already.”
Furthermore, why did the mishnah go out of its way to say that it's like building a sukkah in the house? We said that it teaches us that the tree must be providing more shade. But if it provides more sunlight, that's also obvious. What could the problem be? There are two possible problems. First, there might be two layers of sechach—but here there aren't, since the tree provides more sunlight. Second, the sechach might be pasul—but it is nullified. So the chiddush of Rava seems unnecessary, and the mishnah didn't need to go out of its way to bring this to light. It should be obvious that if the tree provides more sunlight and you lowered it and mixed it into the sechach kasher, it should be okay.
The Gemara answers, “mahu d'teima” (you might have thought): “nigzor ... atu” (let us decree one case because of the other). Here is the chiddush. I would have thought you're right: lowering it is muttar (permitted), because of bitul, and the laws allow it. But I might have said that even so, we should make a gezerah (rabbinic safeguard) for a case where you're not going to lower it. If we tell people, “Take this tree and lower it into your sechach; it's okay,” someone might say, “This person is using a tree, so I can use the tree too,” and he won't lower it. You might have thought that even though lowering it is straightforwardly permitted, it is still forbidden as a safeguard against the serious problem of someone not lowering it.
That's why the Gemara has to say, “No, no, no, we don't make this gezerah. If you lower it, it is kasher, and we do not make rabbinical restrictions.” The Gemara asks, “ha nami tanina” (This too we have learned). Is that the chiddush? I already know that we don't make a gezerah.
We have a mishnah: “Hiddlah aleha et hagefen ve'et hadela'at ve'et hakissom” (He trained the vine, gourd, and ivy over it). You have a sukkah with sechach on it, next to a gefen (vine), “ve'et hadela'at” (and the gourd), and “ve'et hakissom” (and a kind of plant). Rashi doesn't identify the kissom. He says, “esev hamitpashet me'od” (grass that spreads greatly): it grows wild. “Ve'ikaro ke'ilan vekorin lo idra umitpashet ve'oleh al hachomot” (its base is like a tree; it is called idra and spreads over walls). It also grows on the walls.
The common denominator is that you have a sukkah with sechach, and this shrubbery, grass, or whatever you call it is attached and hanging over the sukkah. “Vesikech al gaban” (and he roofed over them): you put sechach over it. Some change the word “al gaban.” Here you have double sechach: your sechach plus the ivy and all the other growth. The mishnah says it's pasul. “Ve'im hayah sikuch harbeh mehen” (but if there was more valid roofing than them), “o sheketzatzan” (or he cut them off), “kesheirah” (it is valid).
We don't know what case this is talking about, so the Gemara asks, “Heichi dami?” (What is the case?) If the case is one in which you did not lower it, “ha ka mitztaref sechach pasul im sechach kasher?” How could the mishnah say that if you have a majority of good sechach, it's okay? What do you mean, a majority of good sechach? There's no bitul if it is still hanging up and you didn't lower it. The law of bitul isn't being applied. So it can't be talking about a case where it is hanging from above.
“Ela lav keshechavtan?” (Rather, must it be when he lowered them?) The case must be one where you actually lowered it. We have a mishnah teaching that if you lower a vine into your sechach and have a majority of sechach kasher, then, together, they produce more shade than sunlight. Since the majority is kasher, the other material becomes batel (nullified), and it is okay. “Ushma minah delo gazrinan” (we learn from it that we do not decree): what do you see from this mishnah? Lowering it is okay. Obviously, we don't make a gezerah for the case where you lower it because of the case where you don't.
The Gemara is asking: Rava, you went out of your way to tell me this big chiddush—that if there is more sunlight than shade, as Rashi explained, the sukkah's sechach also has more sunlight than shade, and you lowered the tree so that together they produce more shade, it is okay. What's the chiddush? That lowering it is kasher and we use bitul? And that we don't make a gezerah? I have a Mishnah that says so explicitly. The plain Mishnah says that you can take the vine and use the vine together with the sechach. The case has to be one where you lowered it, because the Mishnah says that if the majority is good, it's okay. So why did Rava have to tell me something explicitly written in a Mishnah?
The Gemara answers, “Mahu deteima hanei milei bedi'avad aval lechatchilah lo, ka mashma lan” (you might have thought this applies after the fact, but not initially; it teaches us otherwise). What is the language of the Mishnah? “Hiddlah.” It means that you did it: you lowered the tree or vine into the sechach. That's bedi'avad, after the fact. How do I know you can do it lechatchilah? How do I know you can tell a person, “You see that tree over there? You have sechach? Go lower it”? That's why Rava comes along and tells us his case: you can do it lechatchilah.
That is the bottom line of this sugya (Talmudic discussion) for now, but the commentators ask one question. We have a principle, “ein mevatlin issur lechatchilah” (one may not nullify a prohibition initially). Can I take milk, pour it into a pot of meat sixty times its size, and say, “Hey, sixty times, no problem, batel”? That's only if it fell in. Here it seems we're saying to do it lechatchilah.
I saw some commentators answer like this: when do you say “ein mevatlin issur lechatchilah”? When it's an item from which you derive hana'ah (benefit). With milk and meat, you're going to eat it. But here it's a mitzvah, and we have a rule, “mitzvot lav lehanot nitnu” (commandments were not given for benefit). Mitzvot are not for hana'ah. So there is no prohibition against nullification lechatchilah here, by the mitzvah. With the milk and meat, the person is getting away with murder: he's putting the milk in, nullifying it, and then eating it. “Hey, cousin, you want me to allow nullifying a prohibition initially so you can eat such a thing? Asur!” You're getting benefit. Here, what is my benefit? What do you mean, your benefit? You're getting a kosher sukkah. That's not a benefit; it's a spiritual mitzvah. That's considered lav lehanot nitnu, and that's how this answer works.
There is another shitah in this Gemara about how to understand the case of the tree with the sechach underneath it. We'll wait until we get to the next daf, and we'll see that Rashi seems to make an about-face from the way he learned this sugya on this amud. We'll wait for the coming cases.
The Gemara says, “sukkah al gabei sukkah.” We said that if you have a sukkah atop a sukkah, “Tanu rabanan” (the Rabbis taught): “basukkot teishvu” (you have to sit in sukkot). How do we know you can't sit under two sukkot? Seemingly, what do I care if I have another sukkah on top of me? We know this because we know it, but now we need the source. I have a sukkah on top of a sukkah, the duplex. The Mishnah says you can't sit in the bottom sukkah. Why not? Because I have another sukkah on top of me? Who says? Maybe I can have thirty sukkot on top of me. Why should it be asur? Am I sitting in a four-wall structure with sechach on top of me? Yes. So there's some more sechach on top. Big deal.
The Gemara says the pasuk says, “basukkot teishvu,” and from it we learn, “velo besukkah shetachat sukkah” (and not in a sukkah beneath another sukkah), “velo besukkah shetachat ilan” (and not in a sukkah beneath a tree), and “velo besukkah shebetoch habayit” (and not in a sukkah inside a house). We learn all three cases from this pasuk.
This is very strange, the Gemara says. “Addaraba” (on the contrary), “basukkot tartei mashma” (Sukkot implies two). If you look at the pasuk, what does it say? Sit in sukkot. Sukkot is plural. If anything, it is the opposite: I should learn from this pasuk that you can sit in two sukkot.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says, “baskat ketiv” (it is written baskat, in the singular). Remember, “yesh eim lamikra, yesh eim lamasoret” (there are two ways of learning). We read the word “basukkot.” When the ba'al korei (Torah reader) reads the Sefer Torah (Torah scroll), the word is read “basukkot.” But if you look at how it is spelled, it is spelled “baskat,” which is singular. So in this derashah, everyone learns from the way it is spelled and gives priority to the masoret (tradition). Since the tradition is singular, the Torah is hinting to you by writing it in the singular: one roof, not two roofs; not a second roof of another sukkah on top of you, not the roof of your house, and not the roof of a tree. That's ultimately where you learn it from.
Rabbi Yirmeyah says, “pe'amim sheshtehen kesherot, pe'amim sheshtehen pesulot, pe'amim shetachtonah kesherah ve'elyonah pesulah, pe'amim shetachtonah pesulah ve'elyonah kesherah” (sometimes both are valid, sometimes both are invalid, sometimes the lower is valid and the upper invalid, and sometimes the lower is invalid and the upper valid). Every scenario is possible with two sukkot on top of each other. Sometimes they're both kasher, sometimes they're both pasul; sometimes the top is kasher and the bottom pasul; sometimes the bottom is kasher and the top pasul. All four options are viable. Now the Gemara has to go through each one and explain it.
“Pe'amim sheshtehen kesherot”: sometimes they're both kasher. What's the case? “Kegon shetachtonah chamatta merubah mitzilatah” (for example, the lower sukkah's sunlight exceeds its shade), “ve'elyonah tzilatah merubah mechamatah” (and the upper sukkah's shade exceeds its sunlight), “vekaimah elyonah betoch esrim” (and the upper one is within twenty). The top sukkah is within twenty, meaning the distance from its floor to its roof is less than twenty. So the top sukkah is kasher.
A person sitting in the bottom one is okay. The sechach he has above him—the upper sukkah—is not providing more shade than sunlight. He can use the top roof. A person who wants to sit in the duplex, on the second level, is okay as well. Why? He's still within twenty, and the top sechach for him provides more shade than sunlight. So in that case, both sukkot are kasher.
It's better to say that from the floor of the bottom sukkah to the top sechach is less than twenty. I correct myself: from the floor of the bottom sukkah to the top sechach is less than twenty.
Now, “pe'amim sheshtehen pesulot”: sometimes both sukkot are pasul. What's the case? “Kegon detarvaihu tzilatan merubah mechamatan” (for example, both provide more shade than sunlight), “vekaimah elyonah lemalah me'esrim amah” (and the upper one is above twenty amot). The top sukkah is above twenty, meaning from its floor to its roof is over twenty, so you can't sit in the top sukkah. You can't sit in the bottom sukkah either. Above the bottom sukkah there is more shade, and above it there is more shade as well. So you're sitting under two roofs, and therefore both are pasul.
We'll stop here, but let's review the two scenarios we gave. When both are kasher, the bottom sukkah provides more sunlight than shade, the top provides more shade than sunlight, and everything is within twenty. Then you can sit in the bottom one, and you can sit in the top one as well. By contrast, when both provide more shade and the top one is above twenty, both are pasul. If the top one were within twenty, you could sit in the top one; it would be kasher. So the top one has to be above twenty: you can't sit in that sukkah because it's above twenty, and you can't sit in the bottom sukkah because you have two roofs. Therefore, both are pasul.
Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen. For the benefit of our listeners to Masechet Sukkah, when we refer to illustrations and pictures, we're referring to several books. One is Hamaor Hamevo'ar, the picture book on Masechet Sukkah, and another is a new book called HaHod VeHaHadar. We'll refer to both of those books on the tapes and in the audio, as well as Perush Chai on Masechet Sukkah.