Parallel
סוכה 22:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
MISHNAH. A DISARRANGED SUKKAH AND ONE WHOSE SHADE IS MORE THAN ITS SUN IS VALID. IF [THE COVERING] IS CLOSE KNIT LIKE THAT OF A HOUSE, IT IS VALID, EVEN THOUGH THE STARS CANNOT BE SEEN THROUGH IT. GEMARA. What is meant by medubleleth? — Rab replied, It means a beggarly Sukkah; and Samuel says, One whose reeds are not all on the same level. Rab taught the [first part of the Mishnah as] one [statement], while Samuel taught it as two. Rab taught it as one: A Sukkah which is medubleleth, (what is medubleleth? Beggarly) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; while Samuel taught it as two: What is medubleleth? Disarranged; and [the Mishnah] teaches two [laws,] that a disarranged Sukkah is valid and that a Sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid. Abaye stated, This applies only where there are not three handbreadths of distance between one reed and another, but if there are three handbreadths between one and another, it is invalid. Raba says, Even if there are three handbreadths between one and another we also do not say [that it is invalid] unless the upper reed is not a handbreadth wide but if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide, it is valid, since we apply to it the law of ‘Beat and throw it down’. Raba said, Whence do I say that if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide we apply to it the law of ‘Beat and throw it down’, and if it is not so wide we do not apply it? From what we have learnt: If the beams of [the roof of] a house and of its upper chamber have no plaster-work, and they lie exactly one above the other, and there is uncleanliness under one of them, only the space beneath this one is unclean; if between a lower and an upper [beam], the space between them is unclean; if upon an upper beam, what is above it as far as the sky is unclean. If the upper beams were opposite the gaps between the lower beams, and uncleanliness lay beneath one of the beams, the space beneath them all is unclean; if it lay above one of the beams, what is above them as far as the sky is unclean. And on this it was taught, When do these apply? When the beams are each a handbreadth [wide] and there is [a gap] of a handbreadth between them, but if there is not [a gap] of a handbreadth between them, if there is uncleanliness under one of them, whatever is under that beam is unclean while the space between them and above them is clean. Thus it clearly follows that if there is a handbreadth we apply the law of ‘Beat and throw it down’, but if there is not a handbreadth we do not apply this law. This is conclusive. R. Kahana was sitting at his studies and enunciated this statement. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana, Do we then not apply the law of ‘Beat and throw down’ where an object is not a handbreadth wide? Has it not in fact been taught: If a beam was protruding from one wall, but was not touching the opposite wall, and similarly if two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other, were not touching each other, and [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to supply another beam, but if it was three [handbreadths] it is necessary to supply another beam. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled,
—