Shiur summary (draft from the recording)
One Sukkah for All Seven Days: R' Eliezer vs Chachamim
אין יוצאין מסוכה לסוכה
Sukkah 27a · Tuesday, January 20, 2026
The sugya
The shiur reviewed yesterday's chiddush of R' Eliezer that one must use a single sukkah for all of Yom Tov, which we do not pasken like. It then learned the two questions of Agrippas' steward. Next came the braisa where R' Eliezer forbids going from sukkah to sukkah and building a sukkah on Chol HaMoed, while the Chachamim permit both and both agree a fallen sukkah may be rebuilt. The Gemara gives the pasuk behind each side, the Rebbi discussed a girsa question, and the shiur ended with the Gemara's pshita on rebuilding a fallen sukkah and Rashi there.
Step by step (shakla v’tarya)
- ChazarahReview: yesterday we saw the strange-sounding concept that one must have one sukkah for the whole Yom Tov. We do not pasken like it.
- ChazarahOn the steward's second question, R' Eliezer did not tell him what to do. The Rebbi suggested he would have to choose one house.
- The chabura discussed whether a man having two households was normal then, and how he would manage on the regel. This was informal discussion with no conclusion.
- The Rebbi explained this second part again at 04:13 below.
- GemaraLine 33: the steward of Agrippas asks R' Eliezer: someone like me, who only eats one meal a day, may I eat one meal in the sukkah and be patur?
- The RebbiThis question follows R' Eliezer's original shita that one needs 14 meals.
- TeirutzReconciling this with R' Ami, who said R' Eliezer retracted: one possibility is that the conversation happened before he retracted. The Gemara then recorded both the 14 meals and his answer, since at one point he certainly held it.
- GemaraLine 37: R' Eliezer answers that every single day you draw out many parparaos, palate openers, for your own honor. Now you cannot draw out one parperes for the honor of your Creator?
- The RebbiThe Rebbi said to read this with a question mark and exclamation point. It is like a kid who comes with an excuse for homework, trying to get out on a technicality, when by the time the conversation is over he could have done it.
- GemaraSecond question: I have two wives, one in Teveria and one in Tzippori, and two sukkos. May I go from sukkah to sukkah and be patur?
- The RebbiThe steward asks already knowing R' Eliezer's shita. Otherwise, why would he think he cannot?
- GemaraR' Eliezer answers no, for I say that whoever goes from one sukkah to another is mevatel the mitzvah of the first.
- The RebbiWe will see that, for R' Eliezer, the kiyum of mitzvas sukkah has everything to do with where you start. Even from the beginning, if you plan to be here, then there, it is not the mitzvah.
- ShitahBraisa, line 45: R' Eliezer says one may not go from sukkah to sukkah, and one may not build a sukkah on Chol HaMoed. Both rulings rest on the same reasoning.
- ShitahChachamim say one may go from sukkah to sukkah and may build a sukkah on Chol HaMoed, for example if one could not sit in a sukkah on the first days.
- GemaraBoth agree that if it fell, one may go back and rebuild it on Chol HaMoed.
- The RebbiThe 'shavin' is really R' Eliezer giving in to the Chachamim. His extreme side is one sukkah for all seven days and no building on Chol HaMoed.
- Clarification: this does not mean building a new sukkah. That very sukkah that fell may be rebuilt.
- The braisa runs from line 45 to line 5 on the next amud.
- GemaraMai taama d'R' Eliezer: both of his rulings come from the same source.
- Ra'ayahThe pasuk says 'Chag haSukkos ta'aseh lecha shivas yamim': make a sukkah for seven days. This is read very literally.
- The RebbiGirsa: many printings lack the word for 'fit' (הראויה), and the Rebbi read it without it. With the word, it sounds as though as long as the sukkah is fit for seven days you need not sit in it, which takes away from R' Eliezer's point. Without it the meaning is: a sukkah for seven, all or none. The Rebbi suggested putting the word in brackets and noted the marking at the top left.
- KashaLine 7: V'Rabbanan? Read it with a question mark: what do the Rabbanan do with 'shivas yamim'?
- TeirutzHachi ka'amar Rachmana: make a sukkah ba'Chag. The holiday is a seven-day holiday, but the pasuk does not mean the sukkah must last seven days, starting at the very beginning and going to the very end.
- The chabura discussed how to split the pasuk. One reading: the sukkah must literally be for seven days. The other: the holiday is seven days and you must sit in a sukkah.
- The RebbiThe machlokes really plays out on Chol HaMoed. Why does R' Eliezer allow rebuilding a fallen sukkah if he is so tight on seven days? Only because you started in it.
- GemaraThe Gemara asks pshita on the 'shavin'. You built the sukkah properly for seven days, even according to R' Eliezer, so why would we think otherwise?
- TeirutzMahu d'teima: I would have thought the rebuilt sukkah counts as another one (achrisi), not one for seven days, so there would be no kiyum of seven according to R' Eliezer. Kamashma lan: even according to R' Eliezer, the fact that you sat in it the first day makes it ok.
- MaskanaThis does not mean R' Eliezer drops the problem of jumping from sukkah to sukkah. Going to another sukkah is still achrisi and still a problem.
- RashiRashi says it is the same sukkah because you sat in it the first day. Rashi uses the word 'tashlumin', the same word R' Eliezer uses in the Mishnah.
- This whole issue is only according to R' Eliezer. The Rabbanan are not concerned with it.
Kashas
- V'Rabbanan: what do they do with 'shivas yamim' in the pasuk?
- Pshita: why would one think a fallen sukkah built for seven days cannot be rebuilt on Chol HaMoed?
- The Rebbi's question: if R' Eliezer is so tight on one sukkah for seven days, why does he allow rebuilding a sukkah that fell?
Teirutzim
- Hachi ka'amar Rachmana: make a sukkah ba'Chag. The seven days describe the holiday, not a requirement that the sukkah last from beginning to end.
- Mahu d'teima: the rebuilt sukkah might be considered another one, not one for seven days. Kamashma lan: since you sat in it the first day, it is ok even according to R' Eliezer.
- R' Eliezer allows rebuilding only because you started in that sukkah.
- The steward's conversation may have taken place before R' Eliezer retracted the 14 meals.
Rashi & Tosafos
- Rashi: It is the same sukkah since you sat in it the first day. Rashi uses the word 'tashlumin', the same word R' Eliezer uses in the Mishnah.
Mareh mekomos
- Pasuk 'Chag haSukkos ta'aseh lecha shivas yamim': R' Eliezer's source for one sukkah fit for seven days, and for both of his rulings.
- R' Ami's statement that R' Eliezer retracted the 14 meals, used in reconciling the steward's question.
- Printings lacking the word הראויה in R' Eliezer's derivation.
The Rebbi’s chiddushim
- R' Eliezer's answer about the parparaos is like answering a kid with a homework excuse: you are trying to get out on a technicality when you could already have done it.
- The steward asked about two sukkos already knowing R' Eliezer's shita.
- For R' Eliezer, the kiyum of mitzvas sukkah depends on where you start.
- The 'shavin' is R' Eliezer conceding to the Chachamim, against his extreme side.
- The derivation reads better without הראויה: a sukkah for seven, all or none.
- The practical ground of the machlokes is Chol HaMoed.
Unclear in recording
- The first suggested way of reconciling R' Ami's statement with the steward story is unclear in recording.
- A discussion about the word 'shani' having three meanings is unclear in recording.
- A chabura question about eating in someone else's sukkah while having one's own is unclear in recording.
- A comparison to an earlier sugya with a similar derivation is unclear in recording.
- A remark comparing the 'dirah' structure of two meals a day to sukkah is unclear in recording.
Drafted from the recording of the shiur, for chazarah. Torah terms follow the Rebbi’s own words; anything that could not be made out is marked “unclear in recording”. Tap a time to hear that point. Corrections welcome.