In Succah 8b I noticed two different wordings regarding a Succah:

א"ר לוי משום ר"מ שתי סוכות של יוצרים זו לפנים מזו -
הפנימית אינה סוכה
R' Levi said in the name of R' Meir: two craftsmen’s booths, one within the other, the inner one is not a Succah

And two lines down:

תנו רבנן גנב"ך: סוכת גוים, סוכת נשים, סוכת בהמה, סוכת כותים, סוכה מכל מקום - כשרה
The Sages taught:.. a Succah of gentiles, a Succah of women, a Succah of domesticated animals, a Succah of Samaritans, a Succah of any sort, is Kosher

Literally, in the first case, a booth is not called a Succah at all, in the second it is a Succah, but not Kosher. This pattern seems common in other Halachic realms also and, according to the way of common interpretations, is used interchangeably.

However, I was told that we should put close attention to the Sages' wording and there's a reason for such a difference.

So is there a difference and, if yes, what does it mean?

  • 3
    +1 This isn’t unique to Sukkah; you find throughout Gittin a difference between אינו גט vs. גט פסול/גט בטל, and likewise in various sugyos a difference between אינו תנאי vs. תנאי בטל. In the Gittin cases it’s easier to differentiate based on context, but I’m not sure how to extend that to Sukkah.
    – DonielF
    Dec 11, 2019 at 19:01
  • 2
    In the 2nd case it is kosher
    – wfb
    Dec 12, 2019 at 0:40
  • The Rambam's fantastic shorthand of "Get Batel" vs "Get Pasul" -- if it doesn't meet the biblical criteria it's "null and void"; if it doesn't meet some the rabbis' additional criteria it's "flawed." (Tremendous nafka mina on that -- we wouldn't call the new kids mamzerim, and would let her stay married to the new husband, just go get a Gett when/if you can.)
    – Shalom
    Dec 12, 2019 at 1:05
  • @Shalom Please post it as an answer.
    – Al Berko
    Dec 12, 2019 at 12:22

1 Answer 1


The Gemorah seems to go on to make the following distinction.

The first case is not a sukkah because it is not a temporary dwelling. The Gemora continues to say that therefore as a permanent structure it is obligated in a Mezuza

The second case is a sukkah (temporary dwelling) so therefore it not is obligated in a Mezuza. The only question remaining is if it meets the criteria of a Kosher Sukka.

IOW It would be similar to saying: An apple is not an Esrog. An Esrog that someone took a bite out of is not a Kosher Esrog

  • Interesting +1, 1. you're saying it's just to the opinion that Succah must be temporary - what would the other (R' Yehuda) that demand permanent dwelling, say? 2. How about one that only opens the roof of one's house and puts Schach - the house is permanent and it can be a Succah.
    – Al Berko
    Dec 12, 2019 at 12:21
  • Rashi on the Gemora explains that since he lives there all year in a permanent manner there is nothing making it into a Sukka, Once you take off the roof you are clearly changing the structure and making it into a Sukka
    – Schmerel
    Dec 12, 2019 at 14:45
  • Why can’t you do the same with סוכת יוצרים? Just לפקפק את הסכך?
    – Al Berko
    Dec 12, 2019 at 18:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .