Parallel
סוכה 19
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!
—
Fluid clay proves it; since it combines to make up forty se'ah, yet he who immerses in it has not undergone a proper immersion. MISHNAH. IF ONE MAKES HIS SUKKAH LIKE A CONESHAPED HUT OR LEANED IT AGAINST A WALL, R. ELIEZER INVALIDATES IT SINCE IT HAS NO [PROPER] ROOF, WHILE THE SAGES DECLARE IT VALID. GEMARA. It has been taught: R. Eliezer agrees that if he raised it one handbreadth from the ground, or if he separated it one handbreadth from the wall, it is valid. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — That the incline of a tent is like the tent itself. Abaye found R. Joseph sleeping on a bridal bed in a Sukkah. He said to him, ‘According to whom [do you act]? [presumably] according to R. Eliezer? Do you then forsake the Rabbis and act according to R. Eliezer?’ — He answered him, ‘In the Baraitha this is taught in the reverse, order, viz., that R. Eliezer declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid.’ [Abaye then asked], ‘Do you forsake a Mishnah and act according to a Baraitha?’ — He answered him, ‘The Mishnah represents an individual opinion, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah like a cone-shaped hut, or leaned it against a wall R. Nathan says that R. Eliezer invalidates it because it has no roof while the Sages declare it valid.’ MISHNAH. A LARGE REED MAT IF MADE FOR RECLINING UPON IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS AND IS INVALID AS A SUKKAH-COVERING. IF MADE FOR A COVERING, IT MAY BE USED FOR A SUKKAH-COVERING AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS. R. ELIEZER RULED, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE, IF IT WAS MADE FOR RECLINING UPON, IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS AND IS INVALID AS A SUKKAH-COVERING; IF MADE FOR A COVERING, IT IS VAlid AS A SUKKAH-COVERING AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS. GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, IF MADE FOR RECLINING UPON IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS AND IS INVALID AS A SUKKAH-COVERING. The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for a covering. And then it is taught: IF MADE FOR A COVERING IT IS VALID AS A SUKKAH-COVERING AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS. The reason then is because it was made specifically for a covering, but if it was made without specific purpose [it would be assumed that it was] made for reclining upon? — This is no difficulty. The former case refers to a large [mat], the latter to a small one. This is well according to the Rabbis, but according to R. Eliezer it still presents a difficulty, for we have learnt: R. ELIEZER SAYS, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE, IF IT WAS MADE FOR RECLINING UPON, IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS AND IS INVALID AS A SUKKAH-COVERING. The reason then is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if made with no specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was intended] for a Sukkah-covering. But read the latter portion [of the Mishnah]. IF MADE FOR A COVERING, IT IS VALID AS A SUKKAH-COVERING AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO [RITUAL] UNCLEANLINESS. The reason then is that it was made specifically for a Sukkah-covering, but if made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for reclining upon? — Rather said Raba: In the case of a large [mat] all acquiesce that if made without specific purpose [it is assumed to be intended] for a covering. They only differ in the case of a small [mat]. The first Tanna is of the opinion that ordinarily a small one is for reclining upon, and R. Eliezer is of the opinion that ordinarily a small one is for a covering as well;
—