Parallel
סוכה 14
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
can be rendered susceptible to uncleanliness by intention, but cannot be rendered insusceptible except by an act of change, since an act can disannul a [prior] act or intention, while an intention cannot disannul either a [previous] act or a [previous] intention? And if you will say that this refers only to vessels which are of importance but that ‘handles’ which are needed only as aids for the eating of the food, are made [susceptible to uncleanness] by intention and are also unmade by intention [it may be objected], Have we not learnt: The stalks of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to ritual uncleanliness, and R. Jose declares them susceptible? It is explicable according to the authority who says that ‘threshing’ here means loosening [the sheaves], but according to the authority who says that ‘threshing’ here really means ‘threshing’, what can one answer? — That in the previous case also, he actually threshed them. If so, what is the reason of the ‘others’? They hold the same opinion as R. Jose, as we have learnt, R. Jose declares them susceptible to uncleanness. How can you compare them? One can understand there the reason of R. Jose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, as R. Simeon b. Lakish said, Since one can [the more easily] turn them with the pitchfork, but in this case, what use have they? --To seize hold of them by their haulms when he takes it to pieces. [Reverting to] the main text, ‘The stalks of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are unsusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Jose declares them susceptible’. What is the meaning of ‘threshed’ here? — R. Johanan says, Actual threshing. R. Eleazar says, Untying the bundle. One can understand according to R. Eleazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Jose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, but according to R. Johanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Jose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? — R. Simeon b. Lakish answered, Since he can [the more easily] turn them with a pitch fork. R. Eleazar said, Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork? To teach thee that just as the pitchfork turns the corn from place to place in the barn, so the prayers of the righteous turn the mind of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the attribute of harshness to that of mercy. MISHNAH. PLANKS MAY BE USED FOR THE SUKKAH-COVERING. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. MEIR FORBIDS THEM. IF ONE PLACES OVER IT A PLANK FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE, IT IS VALID PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT SLEEP UNDER IT. GEMARA. Rab said, The dispute concerns planks which are four [handbreadths wide], in which case R. Meir holds the preventive measure against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing, while R. Judah disregards this preventive measure against [the use of] an ordinary roofing, but in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid. Samuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all. If they are ‘less than four’ [you say, does this then imply,] even less than three? But [in this case] are they not mere sticks? — R. Papa answered, He means thus, If they are four [handbreadths wide] the Sukkah is invalid according to all; if they are less than three, it is valid according to all. What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks. In what do they dispute? In [planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide]. One Master holds the opinion that since there is not in them the minimum extent of a ‘place’ we do not make a restrictive enactment, and the other Master holds the opinion that since the law of labud can no longer apply to them we make a restrictive enactment. We learned: IF ONE PLACES OVER IT A PLANK WHICH IS FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE, IT IS VALID, PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT SLEEP UNDER IT. Now it is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths] but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid; for this reason he must NOT SLEEP UNDER IT. But according to Rab who says that the dispute is where there are four [handbreadths] but where there are less than four all agree that it is valid, why, according to R. Judah, may he NOT SLEEP UNDER IT? — Do you then think that this statement is according to all? The concluding statement agrees in fact with R. Meir [only]. Come and hear: Two sheets combine,
—
two boards do not combine. R. Meir says, Boards also are like sheets. It is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four handbreadths all agree that it is invalid, [since it may be explained;] What does ‘combine’ mean? That they combine to make four [handbreadths]. But according to Rab, who says that their dispute is where there are four [handbreadths], but where there are not four handbreadths all agree that it is valid, how is it to be explained? If there are four [handbreadths] why need they combine; if there are not, why [is it invalid]? Are they not mere sticks? — Indeed [it is a case] where there are four handbreadths, and what [is meant by] combine is that they combine to form four cubits at the side. Another version: It is well according to Samuel, who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid, [since it may be explained:] What is meant by ‘combine’? That they combine to form four cubits at the side. But according to Rab, it is well according to R. Meir, since what is meant by ‘combine’ may be that they combine to form four cubits at the side, but according to R. Judah, who says that even if there are four [handbreadths] the Sukkah is valid, what could be the meaning of ‘they do not combine’? Are they not like mere sticks? — Since R. Meir said ‘they combine’, R. Judah said ‘they do not combine’. It has been taught in agreement with Rab, and it has been taught in agreement with Samuel. ‘It has been taught in agreement with Rab’, If he covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are not four [handbreadths wide], it is valid according to all. If they have four [handbreadths], R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. R. Judah said, It happened in a time of peril that we brought planks which were four [handbreadths wide] and we laid them over a balcony and sat under them. They said to him, Is this a proof? A time of peril is no proof. ‘It has been taught in agreement with Samuel’, If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they have not four [handbreadths] R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, a man may place laths between them and the Sukkah is valid, and R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation. It was stated: If he placed the planks on their sides, R. Huna declared it invalid, and R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declared it valid. R. Nahman once came to Sura and R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna came in to him and asked, If he placed them on their sides, what is the law? He said to them, It is invalid, since they are regarded as metal spits. R. Huna said to them, Did I not tell you, Say as I do? They answered him, Did then the Master give us a reason when he did not accept his ruling? He said to them, Did you ask me for a reason and I would not give you? Can we say that the following provides support for his view: If [the Sukkah] cannot contain his head, the major part of his body and his table, or if a breach has been made in it large enough for a kid to jump in headlong, or if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, even if only three handbreadths of it enter within, it is invalid. How is this [last sentence] meant? Surely that he placed them on their sides? — No! Here we are dealing with a case where he placed it above the entrance of the booth, with three [of the four handbreadths] within and one protruding outside, in which case it is considered as a lath protruding from the Sukkah, and every lath protruding from a Sukkah is regarded as [part of the] Sukkah.31
—