סוכה 17 — parallel

17:1

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,

—

17:2

because [in this case the validity of the Sukkah depends on] whether there is the standard size or not, and here there is not the standard size, for since their standard sizes are unequal, they do not combine; but according to you, who say that the size is solely dependent on the principle of division what does it matter whether the division is made through invalid covering, or through invalid covering and space?’ Abaye said to him, And according to the Master also, admitted that their standards are unequal in a large Sukkah, but in a small Sukkah are they not equal? — He answered, The reason there is not because the standards are equal, but because there is not the [minimum] size of a Sukkah remaining. Do we not then combine standards when they are unequal? Have we not in fact learnt: A garment that is three [handbreadths] square, sacking four handbreadths square, leather five handbreadths square and matting six handbreadths square [are susceptible to uncleanness]. And it has been taught concerning this: Garments and sacking, sacking and leather, leather and matting combine with one another? — In that case the reason has been given, as R. Simeon said, ‘What is the reason? Since they are susceptible to uncleanliness if [a man with running issue] sits on them, as we have learnt: If he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’. To what use can a piece one handbreadth square be put? — R. Simeon b. Lakish in the name of R. Jannai replied, It can be used as a patch for [the saddle of] an ass. In Sura they taught this decision in the above words; in Nehardea they taught [as follows]: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, Invalid covering in the middle [of the Sukkah] invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]; at the side only if it is four cubits wide; while Rab says, Whether in the middle or at the sides, [it invalidates] only if it is four cubits wide. We have learnt: If he placed over it a plank four hand breadths wide, it is valid. It is well according to Rab who says that whether in the middle or at the sides [the invalid covering must be no less than] four cubits [to invalidate it]; for this reason it is [here] valid; but according to Samuel who says that at the middle a width of four [handbreadths invalidates], why is it here valid? — Here it is a case where [the plank was placed at] the side. Come and hear: Two sheets combine, two boards do not combine. R. Meir says, Boards are like sheets. It is well according to that version which says that Rab says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ for thus by ‘combine’ was meant, Combine to make four cubits; but, according to the version which says that Rab says that, in the middle [even, only] four handbreadths [width of invalid covering] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why need they combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks! — This is indeed a case where they are each four handbreadths wide; and what does ‘combine’ mean? That they combine to make up four cubits at the side. Come and hear: If he covered the Sukkah with planks of cedarwood which are four [handbreadths wide], according to all it is invalid; if they have not four handbreadths in their width, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah declares it valid,

—