Parallel
סוכה 11:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But as to a house, even though it is not ten [handbreadths] high, since it is permanent it constitutes a valid tent, for it is no worse than the frame of a four-post bed. Another version is that Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, It is permitted to sleep in a bridal-bed in a Sukkah, since it has no roof, even though it be ten [handbreadths] high. It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligations? — Here we are dealing with the case of one which has a roof’. Come and hear: Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles]; kinofoth [means a frame with] four [poles], if he spread a canopy over the frame of kinofoth it is invalid, over that of naklitin it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed. But if they are ten [handbreadths] high above the bed, it is invalid, [is it not] even though it has no roof?-Naklitin are different, since they are permanent. If they are permanent, why are they not [subject to the same law as] kinofoth? — As compared to kinofoth they are not [considered] permanent, but compared to the bridal-bed they are [considered] permanent. Rabbah son of R. Huna expounded, It is permitted to sleep in a canopied bed [in a Sukkah] even though it has a roof and even though it is ten [handbreadths] high. According to whom [is this opinion expressed]?-According to R. Judah who said that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent one, as we have learnt: R. Judah said, We were accustomed to sleep under a bed in the presence of the Elders. Why then does he not say, The halachah is as R. Judah?-If he had said, The halachah is as R. Judah, I might have presumed that this applies only to a bed which is made [to be slept] upon, but not to a canopied bed which, is made [to be slept] within, hence he informs us that the reason of R. Judah is that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent one, no matter whether it be an ordinary bed or a canopied bed. MISHNAH. IF HE TRAINED A VINE OR A GOURD OR IVY OVER [THE SUKKAH] AND COVERED IT WITH THE COVERING OF A SUKKAH, IT IS NOT VALID. IF [HOWEVER] THE SUKKAH-COVERING EXCEEDS THEM IN QUANTITY, OF IF HE CUT THEM, IT IS VALID. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE. WHATEVER IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS AND DOES NOT GROW FROM THE SOIL MAY NOT BE USED FOR SUKKAH-COVERING, BUT WHATEVER IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS AND GROWS FROM THE SOIL MAY BE USED FOR SUKKAH-COVERING. GEMARA. R. Joseph sat before R. Huna, and in the course of the session he stated, [with reference to the ruling] OR IF HE CUT THEM, IT IS VALID, Rab said, But he must shake them. Said R. Huna to him, This has been said by Samuel! R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I then tell you that Samuel did not say it? Rab said it and Samuel also said it. It is this that I say, said R. Huna to him, As to that, Samuel said it, and not Rab, since Rab declares it valid [without shaking], as in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but did not cut off the ends of the threads. When he came before R. Hiyya b. Ashi the latter said to him, Thus said Rab, [In such a case the threads] may be cut and they are valid. Thus it is obvious that their cutting is their [valid] preparation, so here also, their cutting is their [valid] preparation. But does Samuel hold the opinion that we do not say that their cutting is their [valid] preparation? Did not Samuel in fact teach in the name of R. Hiyya, If one attached [zizith] to two corners in one and then cut the ends of these threads, the zizith are valid. Does not this mean that he first knotted them and then cut them? -No, he cut them first and afterwards knotted them. If he cut them first and then knotted them, why mention it? -One would have thought
—