Parallel
סוכה 19:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
they only differ with regard to the opinion of Rab. Abaye agrees with Rab, while Raba can say that Rab ruled then only in that case, since the partitions are made for the exedra, but in the case here, since they are not made for this purpose [he would] not [rule thus]. We have learnt: SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF A COURTYARD WHICH IS SURROUNDED WITH AN EXEDRA. But why? Should it not rather be assumed that the edge of the roof descends and fills in [the space]? — Raba explained according to Abaye that this is a case where one made the beams level. In Sura they taught these statements in the above form. In Pumbeditha they taught [them as follows]: If a man placed a Sukkah-covering over an exedra which has no door-frames, it is invalid according to all. If it has door-frames. Abaye declares it valid, while Raba declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid, since we apply the law of labud, Raba declares it invalid, since we do not apply the law of labud; but the law is according to the former version. R. Ashi found R. Kahana placing a Sukkah-covering over an exedra which had no door-frames. He said to him, Does not the Master hold the opinion which Raba stated, that if it has door-frames it is valid, but if it has no door-frames it is invalid? — He showed him [that a door-frame] was visible within though level on the outside, or visible from without, though level from within, for it has been stated, ‘If it is visible from without and level from within, it is regarded as a valid side-post’, and a side-post is in this respect like door-frames. A Tanna taught: Laths projecting from a Sukkah are regarded as the Sukkah. What is meant by ‘laths projecting from a Sukkah’? — ‘Ulla replied, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah. But do we not need three walls? — [This refers to a case] where there were [three walls]. But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? — [This refers to a case] where there was [the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah]. But do we not need that the shade should exceed the sun? — [This refers to] where there was [more shade than sun]. If so, what need was there to state it? — One might have said that since they were made for the inside but not for the outside it is not [valid], therefore he informs us [that it is valid]. Rabbah and R. Joseph both stated: This refers to sticks projecting in front of a Sukkah one wall of which continues with them. As one might have said that it does not contain the prescribed minimum for the validity of a Sukkah, therefore he informs us [that it is valid]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan, This is necessary only in the case of a Sukkah, most of which has more shade than sun, while a minor part of it has more sun than shade. As one might have said that this small portion invalidates it, therefore he informs us [that it does not]. What then is meant by ‘going out’? [It means] going out from the validity of a Sukkah. R. Oshaia said, This is necessary only in the case of a small Sukkah which has invalid Sukkah-covering to an extent of less than three [handbreadths]; and what is meant by ‘going out’? Going out from the laws applicable to a Sukkah. R. Hoshiah demurred: Let it be regarded as no better than air space, does then air space of less than three [handbreadths] invalidate a small Sukkah? — R. Abba answered him, [The difference is that] in the former case it combines [with the rest of the Sukkah] and it is permitted to sleep under it; in the latter case it does not combine and it is forbidden to sleep under it. But is there anything which itself is invalid and yet combines [with another thing to become valid]? — R. Isaac b. Eliashib answered, Yes!
—