MISHNA: With regard to one who establishes his sukka beneath a tree, it is as though he established it inside the house and it is unfit. If one established a sukka atop another sukka, the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no residents in the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit.

§ The mishna continues: If one established a sukka atop another sukka, the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: “In sukkot shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42), and not in a sukka that is beneath another sukka, and not in sukka that is beneath a tree, and not in a sukka that is inside a house.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: There are times when both of the sukkot one atop the other are fit; there are times when both of the sukkot are unfit; there are times when the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit; and there are times when the lower sukka is unfit and the upper sukka is fit.

The Gemara elucidates this halakha. How much space shall there be between the roofing of the upper sukka and the roofing of the lower sukka for the lower sukka to be considered a discrete entity and therefore disqualified as a sukka beneath a sukka?

Rav Huna said: There must be a handbreadth of space, as we likewise find in tents of ritual impurity the measure of a handbreadth. With regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, the legal status of the space of one handbreadth beneath a roof is that of a tent, as we learned in a mishna: A space measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth with a height of one handbreadth transmits ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse is in that space, the impurity is transmitted to all people, vessels, and food in that space. And a space that size serves as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity beyond that space. However, if the space measures less than the height of one handbreadth, it does not transmit impurity to the objects in that space, and it does not serve as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity. The impurity breaches the confining walls and rises upward as if there were no covering over it.

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: For this to be considered a sukka beneath a sukka, the space between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least four handbreadths, as we do not find a significant area that measures less than four handbreadths, e.g., with regard to the domains of Shabbat.

And Shmuel said: The space between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least ten handbreadths. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara explains: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness; just as its fitness is only in a sukkaten handbreadths high, so too, its unfitness as a sukka is engendered only by a sukkaten handbreadths high.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: There are no residents? If we say that it means that there are no actual residents, the question arises: Is that to say that residents cause it to be unfit? If the upper sukka is a fit sukka, is there any difference whether or not people reside there? Rather, what is the meaning of: There are no residents? Is it not referring to any sukka that is not suitable to serve as a residence? And what are the circumstances of that case? It is a case where the sukka is not ten handbreadths high, as anything less than ten handbreadths high is not considered a residence. From the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda who distinguishes between whether or not the upper sukka is at least ten handbreadths high, conclude by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that the lower sukka is unfit even if the upper sukka is less than ten handbreadths high and therefore not suitable to serve as a residence. This is contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that the Sages say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in explanation of the mishna: If the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, then the lower sukka is fit, as the upper sukka is not suitable to serve as an independent residence. According to this explanation, the mishna does not discuss the height of the upper sukka; it discusses the quality of the roofing.

The Gemara notes: Is that to say by inference that the first tanna holds that even though the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, the lower sukka is unfit? In that case, the upper sukka is not a suitable residence. Why should the lower sukka be unfit?

MISHNA: With regard to an old sukka, Beit Shammai deem it unfit for the mitzva of sukkaand Beit Hillel deem it fit. And which is considered an old sukka? It is any booth that one established thirty days or more prior to the Festival without expressly designating that it was for the mitzva of sukka. In that case, the assumption is that he constructed it for some other purpose. However, if he established it expressly for the sake of the festival of Sukkot, even if he constructed it at the beginning of the previous year, it is fit for use in the fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka, even according to Beit Shammai.

Rather, what is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Shammai with regard to an old sukka? Another verse is written: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days” (Deuteronomy 16:13), from which it is derived that we require a sukka established for the sake of the Festival.

The Gemara asks: And from where do Beit Shammai derive this halakha? They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: One may not establish a sukka during the intermediate days of the Festival. Therefore, the requirement to build the sukka for the sake of the mitzva may be derived from this verse.

§ The mishna continues: Or if one establishes his sukkaatop a camel, the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka atop an animal, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers that it is as the verse states: “You shall prepare for yourself the festival of Sukkot for seven days” (Deuteronomy 16:13), from which Rabbi Yehuda derives: A sukka that is suitable for seven days is called a sukka, while a sukka that is not suitable for seven days is not called a sukka. It is prohibited to climb upon an animal on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, and therefore a sukka atop an animal is unfit, as it cannot be used all seven days.

And Rabbi Meir, who holds that the sukka is fit, would say: By Torah law, this sukka is also suitable for use on a Festival and on Shabbat, as there is no Torah prohibition against using an animal on those days, and it is the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting it. The fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic decree does not render the sukka unfit.

The Gemara answers: Four posts are different because they are fixed in the bed and constitute a significant space even without the requisite height. The Gemara asks: But a sukka atop another sukka is fixed, and yet Shmuel said: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness. The upper sukka renders the lower sukka unfit only if it is ten handbreadths high. The Sages say in distinguishing between the cases: There, in the case of a sukka atop another sukka, where the measurement is in order to disqualify the lower sukka, ten handbreadths are required to render the upper sukka a separate entity. However, here, in the case of the four-post bed, in order to consider the covering a tent, less than ten handbreadths is also considered to be a tent, as it is fixed.

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 sukkaas 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.

Abaye said: In the case of residing in a sukka a special verse was necessary to exempt women, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “In sukkot you shall reside,” this means that you should reside as you dwell in your permanent home: Just as a man and his wife live together in a residence, so too, a man and his wife are obligated to reside together in a 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.