Parallel
סוכה 16
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
A bed can become unclean [only] when it is assembled and be rendered clean only when it is assembled, these are the words of R. Eliezer, but the Sages say, it can become unclean when it is in parts and become clean when in parts. What are [these parts]? — R. Hanan said in the name of Rabbi, The long board and two legs or the short board and two legs. For what is it fit? — For placing against a wall and sitting upon it, and for tying it with ropes. [Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Ammi b. Tabyomi said, If he covered with discarded vessels it is invalid’. What are discarded vessels? — Abaye said, Small strips of cloth less than three [handbreadths] square which are unfit to be used either by rich or by poor. It has been taught in agreement with R. Ammi b. Tabyomi: In the case of a matting of rushes or straw, the remnants thereof, even if diminished, may not be used for a Sukkah-covering; in that of a mat of reeds, a large one may be used for a Sukkah-covering, a small one may not be used for a Sukkah-covering. R. Eliezer said, The former also is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and may not be used as a Sukkah-covering. IF HE HOLLOWS OUT A HAYSTACK. R. Huna said, This only refers to where there is not a hollow of one handbreadth [in height] extending to seven [handbreadths square], but if there is a hollow of one handbreadth extending to seven, it is a [valid] Sukkah. So it has also been taught; If he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a Sukkah, it is a [valid] Sukkah. But have we not learnt, IT IS NO SUKKAH? Deduce, therefore, therefrom [that the explanation is] according to R. Huna. This is conclusive. Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learnt: IF HE HOLLOWS OUT A HAYSTACK TO MAKE FOR HIMSELF A SUKKAH, IT IS NO SUKKAH. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? — R. Huna answered, There is no difficulty. The latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths]. MISHNAH. IF ONE SUSPENDS THE WALLS FROM ABOVE DOWNWARDS, IF THEY ARE HIGHER THAN THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND, IT IS INVALID. IF HE RAISES THEM FROM THE BOTTOM UPWARDS, IF THEY BE TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, IT IS VALID. R. JOSE SAYS, JUST AS FROM THE BOTTOM UPWARDS A HEIGHT OF TEN HANDBREADTHS SUFFICES SO FROM THE TOP DOWNWARDS DOES A HEIGHT OF TEN HANDBREADTHS [SUFFICE]. GEMARA. On what principle do they differ? — One Master holds the opinion that a hanging partition renders [the Sukkah] valid, and the other Master holds the opinion that a hanging partition does not render it valid. We have learnt elsewhere, If there be a cistern between two courtyards, they may not take water therefrom on the Sabbath, unless a partition ten handbreadths high be made either from above, or from below, within its rim. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says,
—
Beth Shammai say, [The partition may be suspended] from above, and Beth Hillel say, Only from below. R. Judah said, A partition should not be [subjected to] greater [restrictions] than the wall between them. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan, R. Judah spoke according to the view of R. Jose who said that a hanging partition validates. But in fact it is not so! Neither does R. Judah hold the opinion of R. Jose, nor does R. Jose hold the opinion of R. Judah. ‘R. Judah does not hold the opinion of R. Jose’, for R. Judah speaks only there with regard to the ‘erub of courtyards, which is a Rabbinical injunction, but here, with regard to the Sukkah which is a Pentateuchal commandment, he does not [say so]. ‘Nor does R. Jose hold the opinion of R. Judah,’ for R. Jose speaks only here with regard to the Sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but with regard to the Sabbath, the interdiction of which involves stoning, he does not say so. And if you will retort with regard to the incident which occurred at Sepphoris, on whose authority was it done? Not on the authority of R. Jose, but on that of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose. What was this incident? — [That concerning which] when R. Dimi came he related that on a certain occasion they forgot to bring a Scroll of the Law on the eve of the Sabbath. On the morrow, they stretched sheets over the pillars and brought the Scroll of the Law and read therein. Can it mean that they [really] spread them out? Whence then did they bring them on the Sabbath? — Rather they found sheets [already] spread over the pillars, and therefore they brought the Scroll of the Law and read therein. R. Hisda stated in the name of Abimi, A matting slightly more than four handbreadths [wide] is permitted as a Sukkah wall. How does one place it? — One suspends it in the middle less than three [handbreadths] from the ground and less than three from the top, and whatever [space] is less than three handbreadths is treated as labud. But is not this obvious? — One might have said that we apply the law of labud once, but we do not apply labud twice [to the same wall], therefore he informed us of this. It was objected: A matting slightly more than seven [handbreadths] is permitted as a Sukkah wall! — With reference to what was this taught? With reference to a large Sukkah; and what does it inform us? That walls may be suspended from above downwards in agreement with R. Jose. R. Ammi said, A board which is slightly more than four [handbreadths] wide is permitted for a Sukkah wall when he places it less than three [handbreadths] from the termination of the adjacent wall, since a space less than three [handbreadths] is treated as labud. What does he inform us? — He informs us this: That the minimum extent of a small Sukkah is seven [handbreadths].
—