סִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי מָבוֹי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לֶחִי – כְּשֵׁרָה.

If one placed roofing over an alleyway that has a side post, it is fit for use as a sukka .

וְאָמַר רָבָא: סִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי פַּסֵּי בִירָאוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה.

And similarly, Rava said: If one placed roofing over upright boards surrounding wells, it is fit for use as a sukka . A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. In order to permit drawing water from the well, the surrounding area must be partitioned off and rendered a private domain. For the benefit of Festival pilgrims, the Sages instituted a special leniency that full-fledged partitions need not be constructed around the well for this purpose. Rather, it is sufficient if there are four double posts at the four corners of the area surrounding the well. Since these symbolic barriers are considered partitions for the halakhot of Shabbat, they are considered partitions for the halakhot of sukka on Shabbat as well.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן מָבוֹי – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת מְעַלְּיָיתָא, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי פַּסֵּי בִירָאוֹת דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת מְעַלְּיָיתָא – אֵימָא לָא.

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for Rava to state the halakha in each of the two similar cases, as if he had taught us only that the sukka is fit in the case of the alleyway, one could say that it is due to the fact that there are two full-fledged walls; however, in the case of upright boards surrounding wells, where there are not two full-fledged walls and most of the area is breached, say no, it is not considered a fit sukka .

וְאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן פַּסֵּי בִירָאוֹת – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם אַרְבַּע דְּפָנוֹת, אֲבָל סִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי מָבוֹי, דְּלֵיכָּא שֵׁם אַרְבַּע דְּפָנוֹת – אֵימָא לָא.

And if he had taught us only the case of upright boards surrounding wells, one could say that it is due to the fact that in that case it is in the category of a sukka with four, albeit virtual, walls; however, in the case where one placed roofing over an alleyway, where it is not in the category of a sukka with four walls, say no, it is not considered a fit sukka .

וְאִי אַשְׁמַעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי – מֵחֲמִירְתָּא לְקִילְּתָא, אֲבָל מְקִילְּתָא לַחֲמִירְתָּא – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

And if he had taught us only these two cases, to teach that a partition with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat is a partition with regard to the halakhot of sukka , one could say that it is due to the fact that one can derive a halakha from a stringency, the halakhot of Shabbat, to a leniency, the halakhot of sukka ; however, to derive a halakha from a leniency to a stringency, say no. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the third halakha with regard to a sukka consisting of two walls in the standard sense and a third wall measuring a handbreadth: Since the third wall is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of sukka , a leniency, it is considered a wall with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, a stringency.

״וְשֶׁחַמָּתָהּ מְרוּבָּה מִצִּלָּתָהּ פְּסוּלָה״.

§ The mishna continues: And a sukka whose sunlight, i.e., the sunlight that passes through the roofing, is greater than its shade, is unfit.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חַמָּתָהּ – מֵחֲמַת סִיכּוּךְ, וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת דְּפָנוֹת. רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: אַף מֵחֲמַת דְּפָנוֹת.

The Sages taught in a baraita that in the statement: Whose sunlight is greater than its shade, due to sparse roofing, and not to the sunlight entering due to gaps in the walls. It is possible for a sukka to have more sunlight than shade due to sunlight passing through the sides and not the roofing, in which case the sukka is fit. Rabbi Yoshiya says: If the sunlight exceeds the shade the sukka is unfit, even if the sunlight is due to gaps in the walls.

אָמַר רַב יֵימָר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבַּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְסַכּוֹתָ עַל הָאָרוֹן אֶת הַפָּרוֹכֶת״. פָּרוֹכֶת מְחִיצָּה, וְקָא קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא סְכָכָה. אַלְמָא: מְחִיצָּה כִּסְכָךְ בָּעֵינַן.

Rav Yeimar bar Shelemya said in the name of Abaye: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya? It is as it is written: “And you shall screen [ vesakkota ] the Ark with the curtain” (Exodus 40:3). The curtain is a partition and not a covering over the Ark, and nevertheless, the Merciful One calls it roofing [ sekhakha ]. Apparently, we require the purpose of a partition to be similar to the purpose of roofing; just as the roofing must be mostly impermeable by sunlight, so must the partition.

וְרַבָּנַן: הַהוּא דְּנֵיכוֹף בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא, דְּמֶחֱזִי כִּסְכָךְ.

And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoshiya, interpret the term: And you shall screen [ vesakkota ]? That term teaches that we should bend the top of the curtain a bit so that it appears as roofing over the Ark.

אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: רַבִּי, וְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַאֲחֵרִים, כּוּלְהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: סוּכָּה דִּירַת קֶבַע בָּעֵינַן.

Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yoshiya, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Aḥerim all hold that we require the sukka to be sturdy and fit for dwelling like a permanent residence.

רַבִּי – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כָּל סוּכָּה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – פְּסוּלָה.

Abaye cites the relevant statements of the tanna’im listed above. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits is unfit. These are the dimensions of a permanent residence.

רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה – הָא דַּאֲמָרַן.

The fact that Rabbi Yoshiya holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence can be seen from that which we stated, that the walls must also be impermeable by sunlight like the walls of a permanent residence.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דִּתְנַן: סוּכָּה שֶׁהִיא גְּבוֹהָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה – פְּסוּלָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.

Rabbi Yehuda also holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as we learned in the mishna: A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit; Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. As explained above, in constructing a sukka more than twenty cubits high, one cannot render his residence a temporary residence; rather, he must construct a sturdy permanent residence.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן וּשְׁלִישִׁית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ כְּהִלְכָתָן, וּרְבִיעִית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח.

Rabbi Shimon agrees, as it is taught in a baraita : The dimensions of a sukka are two walls in the standard sense, and a third wall that measures even a handbreadth; Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and a fourth wall is required that measures even a handbreadth. Apparently, a sukka must be surrounded on four sides like a permanent residence.

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הָעֲגָלָה אוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַסְּפִינָה, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר.

Rabban Gamliel holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as it is taught in a baraita : In the case of one who establishes his sukka atop a wagon or atop a boat, Rabban Gamliel deems it unfit; a mobile structure is not a permanent residence. Rabbi Akiva deems it fit. Apparently, Rabban Gamliel requires that a sukka be a permanent residence.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי – דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהָיָה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בַּסּוּכָּה, וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין.

Beit Shammai agree, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem the sukka unfit, since a small sukka is unfit for use and one cannot fulfill the mitzva of sukka with it. And Beit Hillel deem it fit. Apparently, Beit Shammai require that the sukka be similar to a permanent structure.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דִּתְנַן: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ כְּמִין צְרִיף, אוֹ שֶׁסְּמָכָהּ לַכּוֹתֶל, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ גַּג, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.

Rabbi Eliezer holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut whose walls slope down from the center and has no roof, or one who rested the sukka against the wall, taking long branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall, establishing a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit. A permanent residence has a roof.

אֲחֵרִים – דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: סוּכָּה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כַּשּׁוֹבָךְ – פְּסוּלָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ זָוִיּוֹת.

Aḥerim agree, as it is taught in a baraita that Aḥerim say: A sukka built in a circular shape like a dovecote is unfit, because it does not have corners, and a permanent residence is one with corners.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סוּכָּה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כַּכִּבְשָׁן, אִם יֵשׁ בְּהֶקֵּיפָהּ כְּדֵי לֵישֵׁב בָּהּ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בְּנֵי אָדָם – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם לָאו – פְּסוּלָה.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a sukka that is shaped like a furnace and is completely round, if its circumference has sufficient space for twenty-four people to sit in it, it is fit, and if not, it is unfit.

כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: כָּל סוּכָּה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – פְּסוּלָה.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yoḥanan rule that the sukka must be so expansive? The Gemara answers: It is undoubtedly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits is unfit. Since he requires the sukka with the largest minimum dimensions, Rabbi Yoḥanan must hold in accordance with his opinion.

מִכְּדִי, גַּבְרָא בְּאַמְּתָא יָתֵיב, כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּהֶקֵּיפוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ רוֹחַב טֶפַח, בִּתְרֵיסַר סַגִּי!

However, even if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the question arises: Now, since when a person sits, he occupies one cubit of space, the circumference required by Rabbi Yoḥanan for the sukka is twenty-four cubits. However, mathematically, for every three handbreadths circumference in a circle, there is a diameter of approximately one handbreadth. Consequently, rather than requiring a sukka that holds twenty-four people, a sukka that holds merely twelve people should suffice, since a sukka with a circumference of twelve cubits has a diameter of approximately four. In that case, why does Rabbi Yoḥanan require the sukka to have double the necessary circumference?