Parallel
סוכה 20:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and it is this that was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as a Sukkah-covering. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as a Sukkah-covering. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as a Sukkah-covering. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] and R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as a Sukkah-covering. Abaye said to him, If so, [instead of] R. ELIEZER SAYS, WHETHER IT IS SMALL OR LARGE, it ought to read, Whether it is large or small? Furthermore, is it not in fact with regard to a large mat that they are in dispute, and it is R. Eliezer who takes the stricter view, for it was taught: A large mat of reeds is valid for a Sukkah-covering. R. Eliezer says, If it is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, it is valid for a Sukkah-covering? Rather said R. Papa, ‘With regard to a small [mat], all acquiesce that ordinarily it is intended for reclining upon. In what do they dispute? In the case of a large one. The first Tanna is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended for a covering, while R. Eliezer is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended for reclining upon also’. And what is meant by ‘IF IT WAS MADE FOR RECLINING UPON? It is this that was meant: Ordinarily also its manufacture is assumed to be for the purpose of reclining upon unless one made it specifically for a covering. Our Rabbis taught, A mat of wicker or of straw, if large, is valid for a Sukkah-covering,if small it is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. One of reeds or of helath, if plaited, is valid for a Sukkah-covering, if woven, it is invalid. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said in the name of his father, Both the one and the other, are valid for a Sukkah-covering; and R. Dosa also ruled according to his view. We have learnt elsewhere: All reed mats are susceptible to corpse uncleanliness. These are the words of R. Dosa. The Sages, however, say, They are susceptible to the uncleanliness of midras. [Can it mean] to the uncleanliness of midras but not to that of a corpse seeing that we have learnt: Whatever is susceptible to [primary] uncleanliness of midras is also susceptible to [primary] uncleanliness from a corpse? — Say rather also to the uncleanliness of midras. What is meant by hozloth? — R. Abdimi b. Hamduri said marzuble. What is marzuble? — R. Abba said, Bags filled with foliage. R. Simeon b. Lakish said, Real matting. And Resh Lakish is consistent [in this view], since Resh Lakish said, May I be an expiation for R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it. And thus said R. Hiyya and his sons: R. Dosa and the Sages did not dispute about reed-mats of Usha, 25
—