Parallel
סוכה 15
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
MISHNAH.IF A ROOF [OF TIMBER] HAS NO PLASTERING, R. JUDAH SAYS THAT BETH SHAMMAI RULED THAT HE SHOULD LOOSEN [ALL THE PLANKS] AND REMOVE ONE FROM BETWEEN EACH TWO, WHILE BETH HILLEL RULED HE SHOULD EITHER LOOSEN [THE PLANKS] OR REMOVE ONE FROM BETWEEN TWO. R. MEIR RULED, HE SHOULD REMOVE ONE FROM BETWEEN TWO, BUT NOT LOOSED. GEMARA. It is well according to Beth Hillel; their reason is that ‘Thou shalt make’, [implies] but not from that which is [already] made, so that if he loosens [the planks] he performs an action, and if he removes one from between two he performs an action; but what is the reason of Beth Shammai? If it is that ‘Thou shalt make’ [implies] but not from that which is [already] made, one act only should be sufficient; if it is because of a restriction on account [of the possible use] of all ordinary roofing, it should suffice if he removes one from between two? — Indeed it is because of a restriction on account [of the possible use] of an ordinary roofing, but they mean thus: Even although he loosens them, if he removes one from between two, it is [valid], otherwise it is not. If so, read the concluding [part:] R. MEIR RULED, HE SHOULD REMOVE ONE FROM BETWEEN TWO, BUT NOT LOOSEN. Is not R. Meir's view thus identical with that of Beth Shammai? — He means thus: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute on this point. What [then] does [the Mishnah] teach us? That R. Meir holds that a preventive measure [has been enacted] against the possible use of an ordinary roofing, while R. Judah disregards the preventive measure against [the use of] an ordinary roofing? But have they not already disputed on this point, seeing that we have learnt, Planks may be used for the Sukkah covering, these are the words of R. Judah; R. Meir forbids them? — R. Hiyya b. Abba answered in the name of R. Johanan, The former Mishnah deals with planed boards and they forbade them as a preventive measure against [the possible use of] vessels. But according to Rab Judah who citing Rab said, ‘If he covered the Sukkah with plain arrowshafts, it is valid; with bored arrow-shafts, it is invalid’, and he does not restrict plain shafts on account of [the possible use of] bored ones; here also we should not restrict planed boards on account of [the possible use of] vessels? You are consequently obliged to say that the dispute in the former [Mishnah] is on the question whether a preventive measure against the possible use of an ordinary roofing has been enacted and that the dispute in the latter Mishnah is also on the same question; but why should they dispute the same question twice? — The latter [Mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why [he said in effect] do you forbid planks? As a preventive measure against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not enact any preventive measure’. To this R. Meir answers that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not dispute this point at all. This is correct according to Rab who says that the dispute is where the planks are four [handbreadths wide], since in such a case R. Meir holds that a preventive measure [has been enacted] against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing while R. Judah disregards the preventive measure against all ordinary roofing; but according to Samuel, who says that the dispute is where the planks are not four [handbreadths wide], but that where they are four handbreadths wide all agree that it is invalid, on what principle do they dispute in the latter [Mishnah]? They dispute on [the question of] the annulment of a roof. One Master holds the opinion that by this means it becomes annulled, while the other Master holds the opinion that by this means it does not become annulled. MISHNAH. IF ONE ROOFS HIS SUKKAH WITH IRON SPITS OR THE LONG BOARDS OF A BED, AND THE SPACE BETWEEN THEM EQUALS THEM, IT IS VALID. IF HE HOLLOWS OUT A HAYSTACK TO MAKE FOR HIMSELF A SUKKAH, IT IS NO VALID SUKKAH. GEMARA. Can we say that this is a refutation of R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, since it was stated, If the breach is equal to that which is standing, R. Papa says it is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua says it is forbidden? — R. Huna the son of R. Joshua can answer, ‘What is meant by EQUALS THEM? That it can easily pass through them.38
—
But is it not possible to measure them exactly’? — R. Ammi answered, This is a case where he makes it larger. Raba said, one can even say that he does not make it larger, but if they were placed as the web, he places [the valid covering] as the woof; if as the woof, he places them as the web. OR THE LONG BOARDS OF A BED. Can we say that this confirms [a statement of] R. Ammi b. Tabyomi, for R. Ammi b. Tabyomi said, If he covered the Sukkah with discarded vessels it is invalid? — [No,] as R. Hanan said elsewhere in the name of Rabbi, ‘With the long board and two legs, or with the short board and two legs’, so here also it may refer to the long board and two legs, or the short board and two legs. Where was this statement of R. Hanan in the name of Rabbi stated? — In connection with what we have learnt:
—