סוכה 22 — parallel

22:1

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,

—

22:2

If the space was less than four [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to bring another beam, if not, it is necessary to bring another beam. And so in the case of two parallel beams neither of which can support a half-brick, if they can support a half-brick on their joint width of a handbreadth, it is not necessary to bring another beam; if not, it is necessary to bring another beam. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, If they can support a half-brick in its length of three handbreadths, it is not necessary to bring another beam; if not, it is necessary to bring another beam. If one was above and the other below, R. Jose son of R. Judah said, We regard the upper one as though it were lower down or the lower one as though it were higher, provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground] nor the lower one less than ten [cubits from the ground]. From which it follows that if both of them were within twenty [cubits] we do apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’ even although none of them is a handbreadth [wide]? — The other replied, Explain thus: Provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground], but within the twenty [cubits], and the lower one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], or else: Provided that the lower one is not less than ten [cubits from the ground] but more than ten, and the upper one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], but if they were three [handbreadths apart] since [the upper beam] is not a handbreadth [wide], we do not apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’. WHOSE SHADE IS MORE THAN ITS SUN IS VALID. But if they are equal it is invalid? But have we not learnt in the other chapter, ‘or whose sun is more than its shade, is invalid’, from which it follows that if they are equal it is valid? — There is no difficulty, since the former refers to above and the latter to below. R. Papa observed, This bears on what people say, ‘The size of a zuz above becomes the size of an issar below’. IF CLOSE TOGETHER LIKE A HOUSE. Our Rabbis have taught, If it is close together like a house, even though the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid. If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it, Beth Shammai invalidate it, and Beth Hillel declare it valid. MISHNAH. IF ONE ERECTS HIS SUKKAH ON THE TOP OF A WAGGON, OR ON THE DECK OF A SHIP, IT IS VALID AND THEY MAY GO UP INTO IT ON THE FESTIVAL. IF HE MADE IT ON THE TOP OF A TREE, OR ON THE BACK OF A CAMEL, IT IS VALID, BUT THEY MAY NOT GO UP INTO IT ON THE FESTIVAL. IF THE TREE [FORMED] TWO [WALLS] AND ONE WAS MADE BY THE HANDS OF MAN, OR IF TWO WERE MADE BY THE HANDS OF MAN AND ONE WAS FORMED BY THE TREE, IT IS VALID, BUT THEY MAY NOT GO UP INTO IT ON THE FESTIVAL. IF THREE WALLS WERE MADE BY THE HANDS OF MAN AND ONE WAS FORMED BY THE TREE, IT IS VALID AND THEY MAY GO UP INTO IT ON THE FESTIVAL.

—