The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Massechet Sukkah, has been dedicated by Celia and Isaac Jamal, may they live and be well, amen, for the success of their dear children. May they derive much nachat from all of them; may they all grow up and marry at the appropriate time, and may they have children in health and happiness, with blessing and success. May Celia and Isaac see descendants and the descendants of their descendants, until the coming of the righteous redeemer. Amen.
The tractate has also been dedicated for the elevation of the soul of Sarah bat Adel. May her soul rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen. This dedication is also by Celia and Isaac Jamal. May they merit to perform many mitzvot.
Today’s page has been dedicated by Binyamin ben Shoshana for the complete recovery of Shlomo ben Shoshana. Today’s page is being studied in the name of Avraham ben Esther. May his soul rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen. Today’s page is also being studied in the name of Mazal bat Frida, who died at the end of a long life. May her soul rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen.
We begin today’s page at the top, with the new Mishnah. The Mishnah states: “A disordered sukkah, or one whose shade is greater than its sunlight, is valid.” We will wait for the Gemara to explain what is meant by “disordered.”
Rashi asks why the Mishnah repeats that a sukkah is valid when its shade is greater than its sunlight. We already learned in the first Mishnah of the tractate that a sukkah is invalid when its sunlight is greater than its shade. That seems to be the same point stated in reverse. The Gemara will ask this question and reconcile the apparent contradiction. Once we see the Gemara’s explanation, we will understand that the statement concerning shade and sunlight in this Mishnah has nothing to do with the first Mishnah.
The Mishnah then gives another case: “If the roofing is piled up like the roof of a house,” meaning that the roofing is very thick, like the roof of a house, the sukkah is still valid, even though one cannot see the stars through it.
The Gemara now explains all the cases in the Mishnah. What does it mean when the Mishnah refers to a disordered sukkah? According to Rav, it refers to a poor or impoverished sukkah—one with very sparse roofing, with considerable airspace between the reeds. There are not three handbreadths of airspace in any one place, since three handbreadths of airspace would invalidate the sukkah. Thus, we are speaking about very thinly scattered roofing that nevertheless provides more shade than sunlight.
The novelty of the Mishnah is that although this is borderline roofing, one might think that it is invalid because some of the roofing could fall, leaving more sunlight than shade. The Mishnah therefore teaches that even a disordered, impoverished sukkah is valid, provided that it currently has more shade than sunlight. This is how Rav understands the Mishnah.
According to Shmuel, however, “disordered” means that one reed is higher and one reed is lower. The roofing was not arranged evenly, with the reeds lying next to one another on the same level. Instead, one reed is on the first level and another is below it. Because of the resulting spaces, sunlight penetrates through, and there may be more sunlight than shade.
Nevertheless, the sukkah is valid because we apply the principle of visual assessment: if all the roofing were placed evenly and directly next to one another, it would provide more shade than sunlight. The novelty is that since there is enough roofing in principle, even though it was arranged in an unusual way and does not presently produce more shade than sunlight, the sukkah is valid.
One can picture a lower layer of roofing with airspaces between the reeds, and then beams at the sides or at the four corners supporting another layer above it. The sukkah therefore has two levels of roofing, almost like a duplex. On the upper level as well, there is a reed, then an airspace, then another reed. This is “one reed rising and one reed descending.” The word for “disordered” conveys the idea of something mixed up or jumbled.
The Gemara now distinguishes between the teachings of Rav and Shmuel. Rav taught this statement in a singular form, understanding the Mishnah as describing one case. Shmuel taught it in a plural form, understanding the Mishnah as describing two cases.
Rav understands the Mishnah as follows: “A disordered sukkah whose shade is greater than its sunlight is valid.” Rav reads the word for “disordered” as referring to a poor sukkah with sparse roofing. The first two phrases of the Mishnah therefore describe one sukkah: it is sparse and disordered, but it still has more shade than sunlight, and it is consequently valid. Rashi explains that the entire statement is discussing the same sukkah.
Shmuel, by contrast, understands the Mishnah as referring to two sukkot. The first is the disordered sukkah, in which the reeds are arranged unevenly. Although the roofing is currently arranged so that there is more sunlight than shade, we say that if the reeds were laid out evenly, there would be more shade than sunlight. The second case is a poor sukkah with sparse roofing. The novelty there is that even though there is a great deal of airspace, it is nevertheless valid because it has more shade than sunlight.
Thus, according to Shmuel, the Mishnah teaches both the case of the disordered sukkah and the case of the poor sukkah. According to Rav, the Mishnah teaches only the case of a poor sukkah, and that is the case in which the shade is greater than the sunlight.
Abaye now adds an important qualification to Shmuel’s ruling. The principle that the uneven layers of roofing can be viewed as though they were arranged together applies only when there are fewer than three handbreadths between the two levels. If the two levels are within three handbreadths of one another, we apply the principle of lavud and consider them connected. Since they are viewed as one, the combined roofing provides more shade than sunlight, and the sukkah is valid.
However, if there are three handbreadths or more between the levels, the layers are separate. Even if, when placed together, the roofing would provide more shade than sunlight, the sukkah is invalid. This is an important general rule regarding Shmuel’s case. In the illustration, the distance between the two levels is shown as 2.9 handbreadths; that sukkah would therefore be valid.
Rava now presents his own novelty. Even if there are three handbreadths between the two levels of the disordered sukkah, it may still be valid—but only if the roofing on the upper level is itself at least one handbreadth wide. If the upper boards are each a handbreadth wide, the sukkah is valid even when they are three handbreadths or more above the lower layer.
Here we are not using lavud, because the distance is at least three handbreadths. Instead, we apply another principle, chavut rameh, literally, “lower it and cast it.” We imagine taking the upper roofing and lowering it into the airspace below. Once it is lowered, the airspaces are filled, and the roofing is considered to form one continuous layer.
Rashi explains that when the upper roofing is not a handbreadth wide, it is not considered an ohel, a covering. Therefore, we cannot apply the principle of chavut rameh. But when it is a handbreadth wide, it has the status of a covering, and we may lower it and cast it into the space below.
Chavut rameh is similar to the principle of gud asik. With gud asik, when discussing the edge of a partition or wall, we imagine that the edge descends and forms a wall. Chavut rameh is different. Here, the roofing is lying horizontally, and we take its actual width and imagine lowering it into the airspace. We are not merely bringing down the thin edge of a wall; we are lowering the full width of the board in order to close the airspace.
Thus, even when there are three handbreadths between the upper and lower layers, if each upper board is a handbreadth wide, we can lower the upper roofing and place it into the spaces below. The novelty is that this works only when the board has the measure of a handbreadth, because it must have the status of a covering. Chavut rameh is not applied without the measure of a covering.
When the distance is less than three handbreadths, there is no need to rely on chavut rameh; lavud is sufficient. Rava’s novelty is that even when the distance is three handbreadths or more, chavut rameh can still be used if the roofing has the measure of a handbreadth.
There is a discussion among the early commentators as to whether the fit must be exact. If the upper roofing is one handbreadth wide, must the airspace below it also be exactly one handbreadth wide? If the lower space is less than a handbreadth while the upper board is a full handbreadth, we would not say chavut rameh, because it would not fit precisely into the space. Similarly, if the lower space is a handbreadth wide but the upper board is wider than a handbreadth, it also would not fit precisely. There is a dispute among the early commentators in such a case.
Rava then asks: From where do we know that one needs a handbreadth in order to apply chavut rameh? He answers that we can derive it from a Mishnah in Massechet Ohalot.
That Mishnah discusses two roofs, one below and one above, in a house that has not been finished with plaster. The roofs consist of boards lying across the structure, and the boards on the upper roof are directly above the boards on the lower roof. Imagine a house with a lower level and an upper level, each covered by boards, with the boards arranged directly above one another.
The Mishnah is discussing the laws of ritual impurity. If impurity is located beneath one of the lower boards, that board serves as a covering if it is at least a handbreadth wide. Everything beneath the length of that board becomes impure, because the board is considered a covering. The impurity does not spread to the sides, because those areas are not beneath that covering.
If impurity is located between the lower and upper roofs, it affects everything situated beneath the corresponding upper board and everything within the area covered by that board. The upper board serves as a covering over the impurity, and the impurity extends throughout the length of the board.
If impurity is located on the upper roof, however, it rises toward the heavens. Nothing below becomes impure, because the impurity is on top of the roof and is open to the sky.
The Mishnah then discusses another arrangement, in which the boards alternate. On the upper level, a board is positioned above an airspace below it; then an airspace on the upper level is above a board on the lower level. The boards and airspaces are therefore not parallel to one another.
In that case, if impurity is on the lower floor beneath one of the boards, the entire floor becomes impure with respect to the vessels located there. Since the upper boards are positioned over the spaces below, we apply chavut rameh: we lower the upper boards and cast them into the spaces. The gaps are thereby filled, and the entire area is considered covered.
This is true when the upper boards are a handbreadth wide and the airspaces below are also a handbreadth wide, so that the boards fit precisely into the spaces. If the boards or the spaces do not have the measure of a handbreadth, we do not apply chavut rameh. Since the boards are more than three handbreadths apart, we cannot apply lavud either. They therefore remain unconnected, and the impurity affects only the area beneath the particular board, not the entire area.
Rava’s proof is therefore based on the law of a covering. In the case where impurity is beneath one of the boards in the alternating arrangement, the entire floor becomes impure. This indicates that the upper boards are being lowered through the airspaces by means of chavut rameh. The Mishnah is clearly referring to a case in which the upper boards have the width of a handbreadth and the spaces below are also a handbreadth wide, allowing the boards to fit into them.
The Gemara records that Rav Kahana was sitting and repeating Rava’s ruling. Rav Ashi asked him whether chavut rameh is not applied when there is no handbreadth. Rav Kahana had already explained that it is not, and the Gemara now brings another source, dealing with the laws of a mavoi.
A mavoi is an alleyway into which courtyards open. According to the Sages, an adjustment must be made at the entrance of the alleyway, so that people will remember the relevant restriction or so that the entrance to the alleyway will be distinguished from the public domain. One way to make this adjustment is with a crossbeam placed across the entrance.
The first case in the teaching is a crossbeam that extends from one wall but does not reach all the way across the entrance. Similarly, there may be two crossbeams, each extending from its respective wall, with an airspace between them in the center. The Sages say that if the gap is less than three handbreadths, lavud applies. Nevertheless, in these cases, another crossbeam must be brought to complete the adjustment. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if the gap is less than four handbreadths, another crossbeam is not necessary. His position is that lavud applies up to four handbreadths. That is the first case of the teaching, but it is not the proof relevant to our discussion.
The teaching then discusses two parallel crossbeams placed on the entranceposts of the mavoi. Each one individually is not wide enough to carry the required measure of a half-brick. We learned in Massechet Eruvin that the minimum width of a crossbeam is the width necessary to carry a half-brick.
A full brick is three handbreadths by three handbreadths, so a half-brick is three handbreadths long and one and a half handbreadths wide. Therefore, the crossbeam must be at least one and a half handbreadths wide. The case before us is one in which two parallel beams together do not individually have that minimum width.
The teaching states that if the two beams together can carry a handbreadth of the half-brick, they are sufficient. The brick overlaps each side by a quarter of a handbreadth, so the beams are considered capable of carrying the half-brick, even though neither beam individually has the full width of one and a half handbreadths. If they cannot carry a handbreadth of the brick, another crossbeam must be brought.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient in a different way. If the beams can carry the half-brick along its length of three handbreadths, another crossbeam is not required. One separates the two beams slightly and places the length of the brick across them. However, the beams must be strong enough to bear the weight of a three-handbreadth brick. If they are too thin or weak to support it, another crossbeam must be brought.
Rashi explains that the crossbeam must be strong enough to carry a half-brick, whose width is one and a half handbreadths. The required measure is not that the beam itself be one and a half handbreadths wide; rather, it must be wide enough to support a half-brick of that measure.
According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, even if neither beam is a full handbreadth wide, the beams may be separated and the half-brick placed across them along its length of three handbreadths. They are sufficient provided that they are strong enough to bear the weight of the brick. If they are not strong enough, another crossbeam is required.
The teaching then presents another case: “If one was above and one was below.” One crossbeam is placed at the top of the entrance to the mavoi and another lower down. Neither one individually has the required measure, but together they have the necessary measure. Since they are one above the other, the question is whether we may consider them joined.
Rabbi Yose says that we view the upper beam as though it were lowered to the level of the lower beam, or the lower beam as though it were raised to the level of the upper beam. In either way, the two beams are considered to meet, and together they have the required measure.
To understand the novelty, we must recall that a crossbeam at the entrance of a mavoi has both a maximum and a minimum height. The maximum height is twenty cubits; if it is higher than twenty cubits, it is invalid. The minimum height is ten handbreadths, because according to one opinion the crossbeam functions as a partition, and the minimum measure of a partition is ten handbreadths.
Rabbi Yose therefore teaches that the beams can be viewed as meeting one another. Either the beam at the height of ten handbreadths is considered to rise, or the beam near the height of twenty cubits is considered to descend. In either case, they can be viewed as having the required measure of a handbreadth.
The Gemara now asks: If both beams are within the twenty-cubit limit and above the minimum height of ten handbreadths, how does this work? We are saying chavut rameh—lower one beam and cast it toward the other—even though the beam itself does not have the measure of a handbreadth. The entire discussion up to this point established that chavut rameh requires a handbreadth. Here, however, we seem to be using it to complete a handbreadth.
The Gemara answers that the case is not necessarily an extreme one in which the upper beam is at the twenty-cubit limit and the lower beam is exactly ten handbreadths from the ground. Rather, there are two possible cases. In one case, the upper beam is within twenty cubits and the lower beam is within three handbreadths of it. In that case, we are using lavud, not chavut rameh.
Alternatively, the lower beam may be higher than ten handbreadths, while the upper beam is within three handbreadths of it. Again, the two beams are being joined through lavud. The statement that we view the upper beam as though it descends, or the lower beam as though it rises, is therefore referring to cases in which the beams are within three handbreadths of one another. We are not required to invoke chavut rameh without a handbreadth.
Thus, the final conclusion is that chavut rameh is applied only when there is at least a handbreadth of roofing and the airspace into which it is lowered can accommodate that measure. When the gap is less than three handbreadths, lavud can be used instead.
The Mishnah then states: “If its shade is greater than its sunlight, it is valid.” The Gemara infers that if the shade and sunlight are equal, the sukkah is invalid. However, in the first chapter we learned that a sukkah is invalid when its sunlight is greater than its shade, implying that if the sunlight and shade are equal, it is valid. The implications of the two Mishnayot appear to contradict one another.
The Gemara answers that the two Mishnayot are discussing different locations. One is speaking about the roofing above, and the other is speaking about the ground below. The inference from our Mishnah—that when the shade and sunlight are equal the sukkah is invalid—concerns the roofing above. When there is an airspace between every reed equal to the width of the reed, there is technically an equal division: half roofing and half airspace. Nevertheless, the sukkah is invalid, because the sunlight that passes through the spaces spreads out on the ground and produces more sunlight than shade.
The inference from the first Mishnah—that an equal division is valid—concerns the ground below. If the sunlight and shade are equal on the ground, then above, there must actually be more roofing than airspace. Therefore, the sukkah is valid.
The Gemara confirms this with a popular expression: “A zuz becomes a sela.” A zuz is a smaller coin, while a sela is larger. In the same way, an airspace on top the size of a small coin can produce sunlight on the ground the size of a larger coin. A small amount of open space can therefore create a larger area of sunlight below.
Rashi explains that this is another way of expressing the same idea. The small openings in the roofing allow the sunlight to spread as it enters the sukkah, so the amount of sunlight visible on the ground is greater than the size of the original openings.
The Mishnah further states that if the roofing is piled up like the roof of a house, it is valid even though one cannot see the stars through it. The Gemara discusses whether the stars must be visible through the roofing. The conclusion presented is that one does not necessarily have to see the stars. Rather, the roofing must not be cemented or plastered into a permanent roof. Even if it is very thick, like the roof of a house, and the stars cannot be seen through it, the sukkah is still valid.
There is a further distinction concerning sunlight. If one cannot see the rays of sunlight entering the sukkah through the roofing, that may indicate that the roofing is excessively thick. Nevertheless, according to the explanation given, the requirement is not that one must see the sunlight or the stars. The requirement is that the roofing consist of valid, unattached roofing rather than a permanent roof that has been nailed down, cemented, or plastered. In that case, even though the roofing is as thick as a house roof, the sukkah is valid.
When illustrations are mentioned in connection with Massechet Sukkah, reference is being made to several books. One is HaMaor HaMevoar, the illustrated book on Massechet Sukkah. Another is a newer book called HaHod VeHaHadar. Reference will also be made to Perush Hai on Massechet Sukkah.