Parallel
סוכה 17:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
MISHNAH. IF ONE REMOVED THE SUKKAH-COVERING THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE WALLS, IT IS INVALID. IF [THE ROOF OF] A HOUSE IS BREACHED, AND HE PLACED A SUKKAH-COVERING OVER IT, IF THERE IS A DISTANCE OF FOUR CUBITS FROM THE WALL TO THE COVERING, IT IS INVALID. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF A COURTYARD WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY AN EXEDRA. IF [THE COVERING OF] A LARGE SUKKAH WAS SURROUNDED WITH A MATERIAL WHICH IS INVALID FOR A SUKKAH-COVERING, IF THERE IS A SPACE OF FOUR CUBITS BENEATH IT, IT IS INVALID. GEMARA. Why are all these [rulings] needed? — It is necessary [to state them all]. For if he had only informed us of [the roof of] a house which is breached, [one would have said that the validity applied to this case only] because the partitions are made for the house, but in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by an exedra, where the partitions are not made for the exedra it does not apply; and if he had informed us of those two, [one would have said that the validity applied to these cases only] because their covering might be a valid covering, but in the case of a large Sukkah which is surrounded with a material which is invalid for a Sukkah-covering, since the very material of the covering is invalid, it does not apply, [therefore it is] necessary [to mention all]. Rabbah stated, I found the Rabbis of the College of Rab sitting and saying, ‘An air space invalidates if it is three [handbreadths wide]; an invalid covering invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]’, and I said to them, Whence do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? [Presumably] because we learned: IF THE SUKKAH-COVERING IS THREE HANDBREADTHS DISTANT FROM THE WALLS, IT IS INVALID. [But if so,] invalid Sukkah-covering too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learnt: IF [THE ROOF OF] A HOUSE IS BREACHED AND HE PLACED A SUKKAH-COVERING OVER IT, IF THERE IS A DISTANCE OF FOUR CUBITS FROM THE WALL TO THE COVERING, IT IS INVALID. And they said to me, This is no evidence since Rab and Samuel both say that the reason of its validity is because [the roof is regarded as the continuation] of a ‘curved wall’; and I said to them, What [would the law be] if the invalid Sukkah-covering were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? [Surely] it would be valid. And what if he filled in this space with spits? [Surely] it would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid covering which only invalidates with four?’ And they answered me, ‘If so, then even according to you, who say that invalid covering invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid covering of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? [Surely] it would be valid. And if he filled in this space with spits? [Surely] it would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the Sukkah-covering which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?’ And I answered them, ‘How can you compare the two cases? It is well according to me who say four cubits,
—