Comentario sobre Sucá 1:12

סוכה שהיא גבוהה למעלה מעשרים אמה פסולה – for a Sukkah, we require a temporary dwelling, as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:13): “[After the ingathering from your threshing floor and your vat,] you shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days,” the Torah said that you shall make a Sukkah for seven days, and higher than twenty cubits, a person does not make [for] his dwelling a temporary dwelling, but rather a permanent dwelling.

Introduction Tractate Sukkah begins with a mishnah that is remarkably similar to the first mishnah of Eruvin. It states the maximum and minimum height of a sukkah. We should note that the word “sukkah” in the mishnah sometimes refers to the “skhakh”, the dead branches used to make the sukkah’s roof. The mishnah pays far more attention to the roof of the sukkah than to its walls. The second half of the mishnah deals with an old sukkah, one which was not built to be a sukkah for the festival of Sukkot, but was built to serve as shade in general. In the Middle East many farmers build such structures in order to provide shade from the hot sun.

ור"י מכשיר – as he holds that the we require for the Sukkah a permanent dwelling. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. Rabbi Judah validates it. The roof of the sukkah cannot be more than 20 cubits higher than the ground. This is about 10 meters, which would make a very high sukkah. There are several reasons provided for this in the Talmud. At such a great height, one would not notice the skhakh, and noticing that one is sitting under skhakh is part of the experience of sitting in the sukkah. Another possibility is that if the skhakh is above twenty cubits one will be sitting in the shade of the walls and not the shade of the skhakh. Finally, a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits will of necessity have to be built stronger. As it becomes more permanent, it becomes less like a sukkah and more like a house. As Rabbi Judah did with regard to the “post and beam” in Eruvin (see the intro to Eruvin, and the first mishnah) so too with regard to the sukkah he sets no limit as to a sukkah’s height.

ושאינה גבוהה י' טפחים – it is invalid, for it is a decayed/decomposed dwelling and no person dwells in a decayed/decomposed dwelling.

One which is not ten handbreadths high, or which does not have three walls, or which has more sun than shade, is not valid. The second section of the mishnah provides three requirements that everyone agrees with. First of all, the sukkah must be 10 handbreadths high. This is equivalent to about a meter high, still quite small. Were the sukkah smaller than ten handbreadths a person could not even sit inside it. Secondly, the sukkah must have three walls. Finally, the skhakh must provide more shade than the amount of sun it allows in.

ושאין לה ג' דפנות – as it is written (defectively, without the “vav” twice in Leviticus 23:42 and once more fully in Leviticus 23:43): “in booths,” “in booths,” “in booths”. Two are defective/lacking and one is full (see Talmud Sukkah 6b); one [of them] is for the S’khakh/the cover of the festive booth/Sukkah, for the explanation of [the word] “Sukkah” is S’khakh, there remains to them three for the three walls. A traditional interpretation of a law (i.e., a usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai) is brought and we diminish one wall and establish it as a handbreadth, there remains two walls according to the traditional law and the third [wall] is a handbreadth [long]. Therefore, a Sukkah which has two walls one adjacent to the other, we make a third wall which has in it a handbreadth and a bit more and set it up at less than three [handbreadths] from one of the [other] two walls, for anything where there is a gap that is less than three handbreadths [distant] is like a legal fiction of considering separated parts as united [if the gap is less than three handbreadths], and I is considered as if it is a wall of four handbreadths and the result is that most of the wall is made, and this Sukkah has three walls, and one must make the form of an opening for it. But if the two walls are opposite each other and the between them, it is perforated, one brings a partition/barrier of four handbreadths and a bit more and establishes it no less than three-handbreadths near one of the two walls and it is considered as if there is with this barrier seven handbreadths which is the appropriate measurement of a Sukkah lengthwise and by width, for the Sukkah must have seven [handbreadths] by seven [handbreadths] in order to support one’s head, the majority of one’s body and one’s table, six [handbreadths] by six [handbreadths] for one’s head and the majority of one’s body and one’s table and one handbreadth by one handbreadth for one’s table.

An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid. Bet Hillel allows a person to use an old sukkah. For Bet Hillel the intention that went in to building the sukkah is not critical, what is critical is the use of the sukkah. In contrast, for Bet Shammai an old sukkah, one that was not made with the intent to use it on the festival, is invalid, even if it matches all of the other halakhic criteria. However, Beth Shammai agrees that any sukkah that was made thirty days before the festival is valid, since we can assume that he made it knowing that he might use it on Sukkot. The only debate is over a sukkah that was made more than thirty days before Sukkot without the intention of using it on Sukkot.

ושחמתה מרובה מצלתה פסולה – but when they are equivalent, when the sunlight is like the shade, it is valid, and specifically if they are equivalent from the bottom at the ground of the Sukkah, for it is known that above with the S’khakh/the cover of the festive booth, its shade is greater than its sunlight, for people say, like a Zuz from above like a silver coin/half-a-zuz from below.

בית שמאי פוסלין – for they require “Sukkah” (the first mention of the word) for itself, and it is made for an undefined purpose, for if it was made within thirty days of the Festival [of Sukkot] since we ask about the laws of the Festival thirty days prior to the Festival, if he is simply making a Sukkah for the purpose of the Festival, but prior to thirty days, he is not simply making it for the sake of the holiday.

וב"ה מכשירין – for they (i.e., the School of Hillel) do not require the [first use of the word] “Sukkah” for the purpose of the Festival.

כאילו עשאה בתוך הבית – and it is invalid.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who makes a valid sukkah (we will learn more about what a valid sukkah is later) but then something is placed on top of his sukkah that does not count as valid skhakh. This causes the otherwise valid sukkah to be invalid.

תחתונה פסולה – for it has two [sets of] S’khakh/coverings of the festive booth, and the Biblical verse invalidates a Sukkah that is underneath [another] Sukkah.

One who makes his sukkah under a tree, it is as if he made it within the house. A tree while still attached to the ground cannot be used for skhakh, the roofing of the sukkah. Skhakh must come from a natural source, but it must be detached from the ground. Therefore, if one puts his sukkah underneath a tree it is invalid, just as it would be invalid if one built a sukkah inside a house with the ceiling as his roof.

אם אין דיורין בעליונה – which is not appropriate for dwelling, such as [if] the lower roof is unable to endure/sustain pillows and cushions of the upper [Sukkah]. But the First Tanna/teacher and Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree if it cannot endure it all, and in that, the entire world admits that the lower [Sukkah] is valid with the S’khakh/coverings of the festive booth of the upper [Sukkah], for its roof is not considered a roof, and it is not a Sukkah that is underneath a Sukkah. But if it is healthy and cable of receiving the pillows and cushions of the upper [Sukkah], the entire world does not argue that it is invalid. But they disagree when it can receive it in an emergency/when needed, such as the case where the roof of the lower [Sukkah] shakes and vibrates from the pillows and cushions of the upper [Sukkah], where the first Tanna holds that in this case it is called a Sukkah that is underneath a Sukkah and is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that since it other than in the case of an emergency cannot accept the pillows and cushions of the upper [Sukkah], it is not considered a roof, and this is not a Sukkah that is underneath a Sukkah. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

One [who makes] a sukkah on top of another sukkah, the upper one is valid but the lower is invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid. If a person builds one sukkah on top of another, it turns out that the skhakh of the bottom sukkah is the floor of the top sukkah. Even if the skhakh meets all other halakhic requirements it is still invalid because the fact that someone is living above makes it again similar to a person who builds his sukkah inside a house. Rabbi Judah holds that if there is no one who is living in the upper one, than the bottom one is valid. The upper sukkah is not considered to be living quarters unless someone is actually living there.

נשר – that the leaves and chips would not on the table. Another explanation: that the leaves would not drop after they dry up and the Sukkah would remain where the sunlight is greater than its shade, And sheets are things that can receive ritual defilement, and is invalid as S’khakh/covering of the festive booth, and specifically because of the droppings from the branches covering the Sukkah, but to beautify it is valid.

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.
This mishnah teaches that if there is a roof-like structure underneath or above the sukkah it invalidates the skhakh.
Section one: 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.
Section two: 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.

או שפירס על גבי הקינוף – that is to say, or even if he did not spread it because of the droppings, but for beauty on his bed on the canopy, which are four poles for the four legs of his bed which are high and he places beams from one to the other on top of them and spreads a sheet over them and distances them from the S’khakh/covering of the festive booth, for now, he does not cover [the Sukkah] with something that can receive ritual defilement, for it is not to fence in there his area.

פסולה – because he is not sitting in the Sukkah as a tent separates between them.

אבל פורס הוא ע"ג מטה שיש לה נקליטין - which are not other than two, and they go out in the middle of the bed, one at its head and one at its feet, and we place from this one to the other [a beam and spread over it a sheet] and because it lacks a roof that is a handbreadth wide from above, it is not called a tent.

הדלה עליה – he lifted on its back.

Introduction This mishnah teaches a few general rules regarding what can be used as skhakh, the covering on top of the sukkah.

קיסום – In a foreign language IDRA, and it grows like a grape-vine and like a gourd.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. In this section we learn several important rules governing skhakh. The first is that the skhakh must be detached from the ground. If one takes living vines and trains them on top of his sukkah, the sukkah is invalid. This is true even if he put some valid skhakh on top of the vines that were still attached to the ground. The sukkah becomes valid only if he puts more valid skhakh than the invalid attached vines, or if he cuts down the vines. This is an important point. The only thing that makes the vines invalid is that they are still attached to the ground.

פסולה – because we don’t cover [the Sukkah] with something attached [to the ground].

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh. There are two general rules presented here. The first is that the skhakh has to be something that cannot receive ritual impurity. This means that clothing, chairs, tables, dishes, sheets, etc. cannot be used as skhakh. Basically, this includes most things that have been “made” or “fashioned” by human hands. Branches of trees cannot become impure and hence can be used for skhakh. Secondly, it has to be something that originally grew from the ground. This rules out metal, stone, clay, plastic etc. Interestingly, these two rules, and that in the previous section, are in a sense foils for one another. The skhakh must be dead, but it must be something that was once alive. Something has to have been done to it by human hands it has to be cut from the ground, but not too much can be done with it humans can’t turn it into useful instruments. The skkakh is then “liminal” it mediates between the natural world and the humanly created world. So too it is above us, mediating between God and humanity.

אם היה הסכוך הרבה מהם – if there was there S’khakh/covering of the festive booth that is much greater than the grape-vines and gourds, it is valid, and it is the case where they press down on them and combine them with the S’khakh it is valid and it is not apparent to the eye, for valid S;khakh is greater than them and cancels them out when they are combined.

או שקצצן – even after he covered the roof with them, it is valid. And it is when he shakes them after cutting the, for if it this were not the case, it would be invalid, for the Torah stated (Deuteronomy 16:13): “You shall hold the Feast of Booths [for seven days], and not from what was done, that is to say, that it shall be done so that it would be appropriate for a Sukkah, and not from what is made which is invalid, for that which is not worthy of a Sukkah and you repair it, that you make it valid with cutting and did not go back and destroy it, but when you shake them, it is like destroying and you go back and cover it again, and raise up each one alone and place it and go back and raise its neighbor and place it [on the roof].

כל דבר שאינו כו' – to exclude a wooden utensil and flax coting and matting, for even though they grow in the ground, we don’t cover the Sukkah with them since they [are receptive] to receiving defilement.

וגידוליו מן הארץ וכו' – as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:13): “[After the ingathering] from your threshing floor and your vat, [you shall hold] the Feast of Booths for seven days,” the verse speaks of the refuse/worthless matter of the granary and the vat, that is to say, from what remains after you have gathered the granary and the vat such as the hard/strong grain and the vine-shoots, from them, make the Sukkah.

וחבילי זרדין – kind of reeds, and while they are still moist, animals eat them, and when they dry out, they are readied for kindling.

Introduction This mishnah deals with material that fits all of the criteria brought up in yesterday’s mishnah it comes from the ground, it is detached from the ground and it is not receptive to impurity and yet still cannot be used as skhakh.

אין מסככין – when they are tied together, and not because they are invalid, but sometimes a person comes with his package on his shoulder and he raises and places it on the Sukkah to dry and he decides to use it as S’khakh/festive covering for the Sukkah, but the Torah stated, “you shall make/hold” (Deuteronomy 16:13) and not from what is already made, with that which is invalid, and this is not made even from the shade, but rather to dry out and it is already made with something invalid.

Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood they do not use them as skhakh. The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that these bundles cannot be used as skhakh because it might look as if he is putting them up there for storage or to dry them out and not to use them for shade.

וכולן – those invalid things that we taught regarding the festive covering for the Sukkah.

But all of them, if he untied them, are valid. However, if he unties them, it no longer looks like he put them up there to dry or to store them and therefore the sukkah is valid.

כשרים לדפנות – that Sukkah implies the festive covering, but not the walls. Therefore, “After the ingathering from your threshing floor and your vat, you shall hold the Feast of Booths…’, the festive covering of the Sukkah is implied and not the walls.

And they are all valid for the walls. Everything that is invalid for the skhakh is valid for the walls. When it comes to the walls all we are concerned about is that there are walls we are not at all concerned with the material of the walls. We should note that the word “sukkah” itself means “to cover” and the word “skhakh” is from the same root as the word for “sukkah.” A “sukkah” is defined by its skhakh but not by its walls.

מסככין בנסרים דברי ר' יהודה – with boards that have four [handbreadths] which is the measure of an important place, according to everyone, it is invalid. Less than three [handbreadths], everyone says, is valid, for it is considered like reeds. Where they disagree is from three until four. Rabbi Yehuda holds that since they lack the measurement of an important place, we should not make a decree lest a person sits underneath the ceiling of the house. But Rabbi Meir holds that since they go outside from the law of a legal fiction of considering separated parts as united, if the gap is less than three handbreadths, we make a decree lest a person should say, what does it matter to me with the S’khakh of these, what difference does it make if I sit under the ceiling of my house. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss things that meet the requirements for skhakh as listed in mishnayot 3-4 (comes from the ground, is detached from the ground and is not receptive to impurity) but are still not valid to use as skhakh.

They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words or Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids. Rabbi Judah holds that one can use wooden planks whereas Rabbi Meir holds that these cannot be used. In the Talmud they debate how wide these planks are some say that they are four handbreaths wide and others say that they are only three handbreadths wide. All agree that planks thinner than three handbreadths can be used. In any case, Rabbi Meir rejects the use of broad wooden planks because the sukkah will look too much like a house. Rabbi Judah accepts them and seems to simply be unconcerned if the sukkah looks like a house. We have seen that Rabbi Judah allows very strong and stable structures to be valid sukkot above in mishnah one he allowed a sukkah that was over 20 cubits high. We shall also see Rabbi Judah with a similar type of opinion in 2:2.

If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it. This section goes according to Rabbi Meir who forbids using wooden planks. Rabbi Meir admits that one wooden plank, even if it were wide, would not invalidate the entire sukkah, just the area that it actually covers. Therefore, he shouldn’t sleep (or eat) underneath this plank, but he may utilize other areas of the sukkah.

תקרה – a roof made of beams or boards.

Introduction Roofs were usually made by first putting on a layer of wooden planks and then covering them with plaster to seal out the rain. Plaster on a roof would render the sukkah invalid because it does not come from vegetation. This mishnah discusses a house that has a roof made of wood but there is no plaster on top of it.

מעזיבה – the plaster or lime that they would regularly put on the beams and the boards is called a concrete of stone-chippings as a pavement covering the ceiling of the lower story and serving as flooring for he upper story.

A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Judah relates here the opinions of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai holds that in order to make this roof valid he must do two things. First of all, he must pick up every plank, loosen it and only then put it back down in its place. This seems to be a demonstrative act to show that this is a sukkah and not a house. He must also remove every other plank so that it also looks like a sukkah and not a house. Bet Hillel is more lenient and allows one to do either he either loosens the planks by picking them up or he removes one from between two. He need not do both acts.

מפקפק – tear down and shake all of them.

Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks]. Rabbi Meir rules differently. Assumedly, he believes that this is what Bet Hillel actually said and not as Rabbi Judah related. According to Rabbi Meir, the symbolic act of loosening the planks is not necessary nor does it help. Rather, he must remove one out of every two planks so that the sukkah does not look like a house. This is in line and somewhat modifies that which Rabbi Meir said in yesterday’s mishnah wooden planks may not be used. Here we see that they can be used, but they must not be placed right next to each other. Rather there must be gaps equal to their thickness. Assumedly, he will fill in these gaps with other, less controversial, types of skhakh.

או נוטל אחת בינתים – and place fit festive covering for the Booth/S’khakh in its place. Rabbi Yehuda, according to his reasoning, who declares fit for S’khakh on the boards, therefore, tearing down is sufficient. But without tearing down, it is impossible because making something that is not from that which is already made.

ר"מ אומר – The Schools of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree in this matter, as all of them admit tha tone must take one of the boards between each two and tearing down and shaking them does not have any effect. But Rabbi Meir, according to his reasoning who said that we do not place festive covering for the Booth on boards. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda who said in the name of the School of Hillel.

שפודין – which is not appropriate for S’khakh/festive covering for the Booth, since it is not that which grows in the ground.

Introduction The first section of this mishnah is concerned with someone who uses metal objects as skhakh. The second section deals with the strange case of one who carves out room in a haystack to make a sukkah.

[בארוכות] המטה – utensils that [are susceptible] to receiving ritual defilement.

One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid. Neither iron spits nor bedposts can be used as skhakh because they are both made of metal. However, they can be put on top of the sukkah as long as there is valid skhakh between the posts or spits and the valid skakhah is of great quantity than the metal.

אם יש ריוח ביניהן כמותן – not exactly actually equivalent to their own breadth but not more, for the place of the spit is considered like breached/broken through part, and when one places appropriate S’khaha/festive covering for the Booth between each spit and there isn’t between them other than their own breadth, it is breached as it stands and is invalid, but by force, the space that is between them a bit more than their breadth.

One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah. In this case a person does not make a sukkah but rather the sukkah is made by his hollowing out a hole in a haystack. This is not valid because instead of making a sukkah, the sukkah has been made on its own. In other words, one must make his sukkah by taking skhakh and putting it on top of a framework of walls. The one who hollows out the haystack has made an absence of space, a negative act, but not the positive act of creating a sukkah. Hence the sukkah is not valid.

החוטט בגדיש – he took from the sheaves of grain below near the earth and made a cavity/space like the measure of a Sukkah and its festive covering, resulting that it is made and stands on its own. But the Torah stated, “do/make the holiday of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13) but not from what is already made, but if there was a cavity within of a handbreadth among the seven [handbreadths], it is made for the purpose of the festive covering, and if he hallowed it out until he raised the cavity.opening to the measurement of the height of the Sukkah of ten-handbreadths, this [is not] the way it it is made, for he is not repairing/fixing anything other than the walls, and regarding the walls, we don’t say, “do/make” and not from something already made, for it is like a Sukkah that is less than ten [handbreadths] and he hallowed it out in order to complete it for the ten [handbreadths required].

המשלשל – lowers, when he began to plait/weave the walls near the festive covering/S’khakh and weaved/plaited and came towards the bottom.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the height of the walls as well as the proximity of the skhakh to the walls.

שלשה טפחים פסולה – that is the measurement that the young kid/animal will pierce at one time and enter, as we say in such a manner that it is not a divider/separation.

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. The walls of the sukkah must be ten handbreadths high. However, there is a special rule according to which a gap of less than three handbreadths is not considered sufficient to render a sukkah invalid. Therefore, if he suspends the walls on a pole above the ground and the walls do not fully reach the ground but they are less than three handbreadths from the ground, the sukkah is valid. In other words, we look at those three handbreadths as if they don’t exist. Of course, the total height of the walls must be ten handbreadths, as we learn in the next section. But if the gap is larger than three handbreadths, then we can't count the walls as having reached the ground.

כיון שהגיע לעשרה כשרה – and even if they do not reach the festive covering and are removed from it a great deal.

If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid. If he raises the walls from the ground upwards, the walls do not have to go all the way up to reach the skhakh. It is sufficient for the walls to be ten handbreadths high, when measured from the ground. Ten handbreadths is about one meter high. This is the standard minimum height for matters which require a wall.

רבי יוסי אומר כשם שמלמטה למעלה – it is enough in the weaving/plaiting of the ten [handbreadths].

Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice]. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the opinion in section one. He says that the same rule concerning raising the walls from the floor to the skhakh applies if he suspends the walls from the skhakh. As long as the walls are ten handbreadths they are valid, even if they don’t reach within three handbreadths of the ground. To reiterate: the debate between Rabbi Yose and the other sages is with regard to a ten handbreadth wall hanging down from the skhakh (assumedly from a pole upon which the skhakh rests) which does not reach to within three handbreadths of the ground. Rabbi Yose says this is valid whereas the other sages say it is not. According to the sages it must reach within three handbreadths of the ground.

כך מלמעלה למטה – and even if hey are higher than the ground a lot, for he holds that a hanging separation is permissible. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

If he distances the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. This section discusses how close the walls must be horizontally to the skhakh; the previous discussions were about their vertical distance from the skhakh. The walls must be no less than three handbreadths from the skhakh. Otherwise there is a three handbreadth gap in the roof of the sukkah, which would mean that that wall could count as one of the walls of the sukkah.

הרחיק את הסיכוך – it is not spoken about the height, but its width, when he left space between the wall and the festive covering of the Booth, in he length of the Sukkah or its width.

בית שפחת – its roof is in the middle, and the walls are distant from the festive covering of the Sukkah, it is valid.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if there is a three handbreadth horizontal gap between the skhakh and the walls the sukkah is invalid. Today we learn that this is only true if there is a gap. If there is material in this gap separating the wall from the skhakh and the material is not valid for skhakh, then the sukkah is invalid only if the invalid skhakh is greater than four cubits.

אם יש מן הכותל לסכך שכר ארבע אמות פסולה – less than this is valid, and it is a traditional interpretation of a written law (dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai) that a curved wall (Talmud Sukkah 4a) [is valid] up to four cubits, and we see the roof of the house as if the top of the wall is crooked/curved and comes up to the valid festive covering of the Sukkah, but he should not sleep underneath it.

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 covering, it is invalid. In this case a person opened a hole in the roof of his house and covered the hole with valid skhakh. This is a valid sukkah as long as the hole is less than four cubits from the walls. This space between the walls and skhakh is not open, but rather has a regular roof (plaster and wood). The roof is considered as if it is part of the walls, at least for a distance of four cubits. As an aside, I have heard of people who actually do this. They have a retractable roof, less than four cubits from the walls and they open it up on Sukkot and have a sukkah in their house!

וכן בחצר שהיא מוקפת אכסדרה – and he made the festive covering over the air-pace of the courtyard, far from the walls of the peristyle/covered place in front of the house, and the peristyle is a place surrounded by three divisions.

Similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns. The mishnah notes another possible circumstance in which this halakhah is applicable. A courtyard is surrounded by a section of columns and covered with a roof. In such a case, the open space is slightly removed from the walls. If he covers the open space with valid skhakh and the walls are no more than four cubits from the skhakh, then the sukkah is valid.

סוכה גדולה – all where if he would take the festive covering of the Sukkah, it would be invalid, for there would remain seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths of festive covering, it would be valid. This is a large Sukkah.

A large sukkah which was surrounded with material which is invalid for skhakh, if there is a space of four cubits beneath it, it is invalid. This final case is pretty much the same halakhic situation as that in the first two. Again, a person has a sukkah in which there is some distance from the skhakh in the middle to the walls on the side. If he fills in this gap with material that is invalid for a sukkah (perhaps he does not have enough kosher material which he can use) than the sukkah is valid. Obviously, in all three cases in the mishnah, when he goes to sit or dwell in the sukkah, he must sit underneath valid skhakh.

שהקיפוה בדבר שאין מסככין בו – and especially from the side we say that invalid S’khakh does not invalidate other than four cubits, for we require that the wall is curved, but in the middle of the Sukkah, it invalidates if it is four cubits, but the empty space where there is no festive covering at all whether in the middle or from the side, invalidates at three handbreadths.

כמין צריף – which has no roof and the heads/tops of the walls touch each other from above [like the upside down letter “V”] and become distanced from each other from below.

Introduction This mishnah contains two debates between Rabbi Eliezer and the other sages. The first concerns one who makes his sukkah by leaning one wall against the other. The second concerns the validity of reed mats as skhakh.

או שסמכה – or inclined the heads of the poles/reeds on the wall and they continue downwards slanting towards the ground.

One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid. In this case a person made a sukkah in a cone-shape, somewhat like a teepee. It seems that the upper sections of the walls must have been made of valid skhakh. Alternatively, he leaned a wall made of skhakh against another wall not made of skhakh, somewhat like a lean-to. Rabbi Eliezer rules that this is invalid since a sukkah needs to have a roof. The sages rule that it is valid. In the Talmud, they claim that the positions should be reversed, Rabbi Eliezer ruling that it is inivalid and the sages that it is invalid. The halakhah is that these types of sukkot are invalid.

מפני שאין לה גג – and it is not recognized what is a roof and what is a wall, and a slanting tent is not called a tent, unless it has a roof of a handbreadth, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer [who declares it invalid].

A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. This section requires a few words of introduction concerning the susceptibility of objects to impurity. Objects are susceptible to impurities if they are “vessels”. This halakhic category includes most objects that have been fashioned to be of use for people, but not things that are used for building. For instance a cup is susceptible to impurity but a brick is not. In the case under discussion here, a reed mat made to be sat upon is susceptible to impurities whereas a reed mat made to be used as skhakh is not. According to the sages, all small mats may have been made to be sat upon and hence they are all susceptible to impurity. We learned above in mishnah four that anything that is receptive to impurity cannot be used as skhakh. Hence, small reed mats cannot be used for skhakh. A large reed mat may have been made either to sit upon or to use as skhakh. Hence, its susceptibility to impurity and its validity as skhakh depend upon the intent in which it was made. If it was made to be used for sitting it cannot be used as skhakh, but if it was made to be used as skhakh then it is valid.

מחצלת של קנים וכו' – a small mat, everyone does not argue that if it is merely for lying, they do not cover it with festive covering. But they argue regarding a large one. The first Tanna/teacher thinks that a mere large mat is made for covering and a mere small mat is made for lying. And this is how it should be understood: A large mat is made for covering, and if he expressed that he made it for lying, it [is liable] to receive ritual defilement and we don’t make the festive covering of the Sukkah with it, but for the festive covering, we cover the Sukkah with it. This is how it should be understood – that the mere small mat is used for lying, but if he expressed that it is for the Sukkah covering, he covers the Sukkah with it.

Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says that the size of the skhakh does not matter. All that matters is whether the mat was made for sitting or for skhakh. As long as it was made for skhakh it can be used as such, no matter its size.

רבי אליעזר אומר אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה – undefined for lying, but if he made it for lying, as he stated, that is to say, they were made at their outset as undefined for lying, therefore, even the large one receives ritual defilement and we don’t cover [the Sukkah] with it. But if he expressed that it is for the festive covering [of the Sukkah], we do cover [the Sukkah] with it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.