סוכה / בית

The verse equated a woman to a man with regard to all punishments and prohibitions in the Torah. The mitzvot of Yom Kippur include prohibitions, as well as the punishment of karet. Why, then, was this additional derivation necessary? Abaye said: Actually, sukka is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach that a woman is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, as it might enter your mind to say: “Shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42) indicates that you reside in the sukka as you dwell; just as dwelling is typically performed by a man and his wife, so too, the mitzva of sukka is performed by both a man and his wife. Therefore, it teaches us that women are exempt. Rava said a different reason: A halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai was necessary to teach that a woman is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, as it might enter your mind to say: Derive a verbal analogy with regard to Sukkot, about which it is written: “On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot” (Leviticus 23:34), from Passover, about which it is written: “And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the festival of matzot” (Leviticus 23:6). Just as there, women are obligated to eat matza on Passover even though it is a time-bound mitzva, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, women are obligated. Therefore, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai teaches us that they are exempt. The Gemara asks: And now that you said that women’s exemption from the mitzva of sukka is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need the definite article stated in the verse in the term “the homeborn”? The Gemara answers: This verse comes to include converts, as it might enter your mind to say that the Merciful One says: “The homeborn in Israel,” indicating that only homeborn Jews are included and not the converts. Therefore, the verse teaches us that converts are also obligated. The Gemara asks: The obligation of women to fast on Yom Kippur is derived from the statement that Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said. In that case, why do I need the definite article in the term: The homeborn? The Gemara answers: That phrase was needed only to include women in the extension of the period of affliction on Yom Kippur eve, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the Merciful One excludes one who violates the obligation to afflict himself during the extension of the period of affliction from the punishment of karet and from the Torah prohibition, women should not be obligated to observe that period at all. Their obligation to observe Yom Kippur is based on the principle: The verse equated a woman to a man with regard to all punishments and prohibitions in the Torah. Since there is neither punishment nor Torah prohibition during that period, women should be exempt. Therefore, the verse teaches us that since they are obligated to observe Yom Kippur, they are obligated to observe the extension of Yom Kippur as well. The Master said in the baraita: “All the homeborn” comes to include the minors capable of performing this mitzva. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: Women and slaves and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the baraita where it is taught that minors are included, it is referring to a minor who reached the age of training, whose parents are commanded to train him in the performance of mitzvot and to accustom him to fulfill them. Here, in the mishna where it stated that the minor is exempt, it is referring to a minor who did not yet reach the age of training. The Gemara asks: The obligation of a minor who reached the age of training to perform mitzvot is by rabbinic law, and therefore it is not derived from a verse. The Gemara answers: Indeed, the obligation of the minor is by rabbinic law as part of his training, and the verse is a mere support alluding to that obligation. The mishna continues: A minor who does not need his mother any longer is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a minor who does not need his mother? In the school of Rabbi Yannai they said: This is referring to any child who defecates and his mother does not need to wipe him. Rabbi Shimon says: It is any child who awakens from his sleep and does not call: Mother, mother. The Gemara asks: Older children also call for their mother when they arise; what, then, is the criterion? The Gemara answers: Rather, say that any child who awakens and does not call: Mother, mother, repeatedly until his mother comes is characterized as one who does not need his mother. An older child will cry once. However, if his mother does not come, he will tend to himself. The mishna relates: There was an incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and he removed part of the roof so the baby would be in a sukka. The Gemara asks: Does the mishna cite an incident to contradict the preceding halakha that minors that are not independent are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, and it teaches the following: And Shammai is stringent even with very small children; and there was also an incident and the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and Shammai removed the coat of plaster from the roof and left the beams and roofed with the beams over the bed for the newborn minor. MISHNA: All seven days of Sukkot, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. If rain fell, from when is it permitted to vacate the sukka? It is permitted from the point that it is raining so hard that the congealed dish will spoil. The Sages told a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a servant who comes to pour wine for his master, and he pours a jug [kiton] of water in his face to show him that his presence is not desired. So too, in the sukka, rain is an indication that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not want the person to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. GEMARA: The Sages taught: All seven days of Sukkot, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he has beautiful vessels, he takes them up to the sukka, which was typically built on the roof. If he has beautiful bedding, he takes it up to the sukka. He eats and drinks and relaxes in the sukka. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains that it is as the Sages taught: “In sukkot shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42), and they interpreted: Reside as you dwell in your permanent home. From here they said: All seven days, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he has beautiful vessels, he takes them up to the sukka; if he has beautiful bedding, he takes it up to the sukka; he eats and drinks and relaxes in the sukka and studies Torah in the sukka. With regard to studying Torah in the sukka, the Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rava say: Studying Bible and studying Mishna are undertaken in the sukka; however, analyzing the Mishna must be undertaken outside the sukka. This indicates that one should not analyze Torah in the sukka. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that one studies in the sukka, is with regard to extensive study, i.e., broad study and memorization. That statement of Rava that one should study outside the sukka is with regard to intensive study; such study requires an environment where one can concentrate properly in order to engage in analysis of the Mishna.

One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid. A disorderly sukkah (and whose shade is more than its sun is valid. One whose [skhakh] is thick like [the roof] of a house is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it. One who makes his sukkah on the top of a wagon, or on the deck of a ship, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival. If he made it on the top of a tree, or on the back of a camel, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival. If the tree [formed] two [walls] and one was made by the hands of man, or if two were made by the hands of man and one was formed by the tree, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival. If three walls were made by the hands of man and one was formed by the tree, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival. This is the general rule: in any case in which if the tree was removed the [sukkah] could stand on its own, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival.