Parallel
סוכה 10
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
In what circumstances? When the lower one has more shade than sun, and the upper one more sun than shade, and both are within twenty cubits [from the ground]. ‘And sometimes the upper one is valid and the lower invalid’. In what circumstances? When in both of them the shade is more than the sun, and the upper one is within twenty cubits. [But is not all this] self-evident? — The statement of the case of the ‘lower one valid and the upper one invalid’ was necessary. As it might have been thought that [the lower sukkah] would be prohibited as a preventive measure lest one also joins an invalid covering to a valid covering, therefore it teaches us [that it is valid]. How much [space] should there be between [the roof of] one sukkah and that of the other to invalidate the lower one? R. Huna replied, A handbreadth, since we find a handbreadth [prescribed as the minimum size] with regard to overshadowing in cases of uncleanliness, as we have learnt. [A space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high acts as a carrier of uncleanliness and as an interposition to it, but if it is less than one handbreadth high it neither conveys nor interposes. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna [however,] say, Four [handbreadths], since we do not find a place of any [legal] importance to be less than four [handbreadths]; while Samuel says, Ten [handbreadths]. What is the reason of Samuel? — As its validity, so is its invalidity. Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths. We have learnt: R. JUDAH SAID, IF THERE ARE NO OCCUPANTS IN THE UPPER ONE, THE LOWER ONE IS VALID. Now what is the meaning of ‘THERE ARE NO OCCUPANTS’? If we say, actual occupants, are then occupants [it could be objected] a determining factor? Must [we then] not [say] that ‘THERE ARE NO OCCUPANTS means that the Sukkah is unsuitable for occupation? And how is this possible? Where it is less than ten handbreadths high. May we not, therefore, infer that the first Tanna holds the opinion that even if it is unsuitable for occupation it is still invalid? — When R. Dimi, came, he said, In the West they say, if the lower one cannot bear the weight of the bolsters and the cushions of the upper one, the lower one is valid. This implies [does it not] that the first Tanna holds the opinion that even if the lower one is not able to bear their weight, it is still invalid? -The difference between them is where it can bear the weight with difficulty. MISHNAH. IF ONE SPREAD A SHEET OVER IT BECAUSE OF THE SUN OR BENEATH IT BECAUSE OF FALLING [LEAVES], OR IF HE SPREAD [A SHEET] OVER THE FRAME OF A FOURPOST BED, [THE SUKKAH] IS INVALID. ONE MAY SPREAD IT, HOWEVER, OVER THE FRAME OF A TWO-POST BED. GEMARA. R. Hisda stated, [Our Mishnah] speaks only [of a sheet spread] BECAUSE OF FALLING [LEAVES], but if [it was spread] in order to beautify [the Sukkah], it is valid. But is not this obvious! For have we not learnt, BECAUSE OF FALLING [LEAVES]?One might have said that the law is the same even [where the sheet served the purpose] of beautifying [the Sukkah] and that the reason why it was stated, BECAUSE OF FALLING [LEAVES], is that he mentions what is the common practice, therefore he informs us this. Can we say that the following supports [R. Hisda's view]: If he covered it according to the rule, and adorned it with embroidered hangings and sheets, and hung therein nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, bunches of grapes, wreaths of ears of corn, [phials of] wine, oil or fine flour, it is forbidden to make use of them41
—
until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival, but if he expressed a condition about them, all depends on [the terms of] his condition? — No! It is possible [that the statement was made with reference to sheets] at the side [of the Sukkah]. It was stated: The adornments of a Sukkah do not diminish [the height of] the Sukkah. R. Ashi said, But at the side, they do diminish [the size of a Sukkah]. Minyamin, the servant of R. Ashi, had his shirt soaked in water, and he spread it out on their Sukkah. R. Ashi said to him, ‘Remove it, lest they say that it is permissible to use as a covering something which is susceptible to defilement’. ‘But [the other asked] can they not see that it is wet?’ ‘I mean [the first answered] when it is dry’. It was stated: The adornments of a Sukkah which are removed four [handbreadths from the roof] R. Nahman declared valid, and R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declare invalid. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna once came to the house of the exilarch, and R. Nahman sheltered them in a Sukkah whose adornments were separated four handbreadths [from the roof]. They were silent and said not a word to him. Said he to them, ‘Have our Rabbis retracted their teaching’? -"We", they answered him, are on a religious errand, and [therefore] free from the obligation of the Sukkah’. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, It is permissible to sleep in a canopied bed in a Sukkah, even though it has a flat roof, provided it is not ten [handbreadths] high. Come and hear: He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? Here we are dealing with a case of one that was ten [handbreadths] high. It was objected: He who sleeps under the bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? — But, surely, Samuel has explained that [this refers to] a bed ten [handbreadths] high. Come and hear: OR IF HE SPREAD [A SHEET] OVER THE FRAME OF A FOUR-POST BED, [THE SUKKAH] IS INVALID? — There also it is a case where they are ten [handbreadths] high. But surely, it was not taught thus, for it has been taught, naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles], and kinofoth [means a frame with] four [poles]; if one spread a sheet over the frame of kinofoth it is invalid, if over naklitin, it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed. This implies that kinofoth [are invalid] even if they are less than ten [handbreadths high]? — Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Samuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? — I will explain: In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent. R. Tahlifa b. Abimi said in the name of Samuel, He who sleeps naked in a canopied bed, may put his head out of the canopied bed and read the Shema’. It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed naked may not put his head out of it and read the Shema’? — The latter refers to a case where [the canopy] was ten [handbreadths] high. This stands to reason also, since it was stated in the final clause: To what can it be compared? To a man standing naked in a house, in which case he may not put his head out of the window and read the Shema’. This is conclusive.
—