סוכה 2 — parallel

2:1

CHAPTERI MISHNAH. A SUKKAH WHICH IS MORE THAN TWENTY CUBITS HIGH IS NOT VALID, R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. ONE WHICH IS NOT TEN HAND BREADTHS HIGH, OR WHICH HAS NOT THREE WALLS, OR WHICH HAS MORE SUN THAN SHADE, IS NOT VALID. GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere : If the [cross-beam above an] alley-entry is more than twenty cubits high, it must be lowered. R. Judah says this is unnecessary. Now wherein lies the difference [between the two cases that] with regard to the Sukkah it is declared NOT VALID, while with regard to [the cross-beam over] the alley-entry, a remedy is indicated? — With regard to the Sukkah, since it is a Pentateuchal ordinance, it [was proper categorically to] state, NOT VALID; with regard to [the cross-beam over] an alley-entry, however, since the injunction is only Rabbinical, a remedy is given. And, if you wish, you may say that even with a Pentateuchal command a remedy may be given, but with regard to the Sukkah, as the ordinances relating thereto are many it was briefly stated, NOT VALID [while in the case of a cross-beam over] an alley-entry, since the regulations thereof are not many, a remedy is indicated. Whence do we know this? — Rabbah answered: Scripture says, That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, [with a booth] up to twenty cubits [high] a man ‘knows’ that he is dwelling in a booth, but with one higher than twenty cubits he does not ‘know’ that he is dwelling in a booth, since his eye does not descry it. R. Zera replied: From the following verse, And there shall be a booth for a shadow in the daytime from the heat. [With a booth] up to twenty cubits [high] a man sits in the shade of the booth; but with one higher than twenty cubits he sits, not in the shade of the booth but in the shade of its walls. Said Abaye to him , But if so, if a man made his Sukkah in Ashteroth Karnayim’ would it also be no valid Sukkah? — He answered him: In that case, remove the ‘Ashteroth Karnayim’ and there will remain the shade of the Sukkah, but here, remove the walls, and you have no shade of a Sukkah. Raba replied: [It is derived] from the following verse, Ye shall dwell in booths seven days, the Torah declared, For the whole seven days leave thy permanent abode and dwell in a temporary abode. [With a booth] up to twenty cubits [high] a man makes his abode a temporary one; [in one] higher than twenty cubits, a man does not make his abode temporary, but permanent. Said Abaye to him, But if so, if he made walls of iron and placed the [proper] covering over them, would it also be no valid Sukkah. The other answered him, it is this that I mean to tell you: [In a booth] up to twenty cubits, which a man makes his temporary abode, even if he makes it permanent, he has fulfilled his obligation; [but in one] higher than twenty cubits, such as a man makes his permanent abode, even if he makes it temporary, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

—

2:2

All do not agree with [the deduction of] Rabbah, since that [verse] refers to the knowledge of [future] generations. Nor do they agree with R. Zera, since that verse refers to the Messianic age. [What, however, does] R. Zera [answer to this objection]?- [he could answer], If so, the verse could read ‘And there shall be a covering for a shadow in the daytime’. Why then was it stated, ‘And there shall be a booth for a shadow in the daytime’? Hence you must infer therefrom both points. Nor do they agree with Raba, on account of the objection of Abaye. Whose authority is followed in the statement made by R. Josiah in the name of Rab, that the difference of opinion is where the walls do not reach the covering, but where the walls do reach the covering the sukkah is valid, even if it is higher than twenty cubits? ‘Whose authority is followed’ [you ask]? it is in accordance with Rabbah whose reason is that the eye does not descry it, but where the walls reach the covering, the eye does descry it. Whose authority is followed in the statement made by R. Huna in the name of Rab, that the difference of opinion is where the area of the sukkah was only four cubits square but where it was more than four cubits square [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty cubits it is valid? — In agreement with whom [you ask]? In agreement with R. Zera who gives as the reason the [character of the] shade, and, since it is spacious- there is the shade of a Sukkah. Whose authority is followed in the statement made by R. Hanan b. Rabbah in the name of Rab, that the difference of opinion is only where [the Sukkah] can contain [only] a person's head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but where it is larger than this [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty cubits it is valid? — In agreement with whom [you ask]? In agreement with none. It is understandable that R. Josiah disagrees with R. Huna and with R. Hanan b. Rabbah, since they lay down a [minimum] measurement in the extent [of the Sukkah] while he does not lay down a minimum measurement as to the extent [thereof]; but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Hanan b. Rabbah, can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the validity of the Sukkah, the former holding the opinion that the validity of the sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four cubits [square] while the latter holds that the validity of the sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?- No! Both may agree that the validity of the Sukkah [depends upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but here they differ on the following principle: One master holds the opinion that they differ where the Sukkah [can] contain [only] his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but if it is larger than this both agree that it is valid, while the other master holds the opinion that they differ [about a Sukkah whose size is] between [one capable of] containing his head, the greater part of his body and his table, and one four cubits square, but if it is more than four cubits square, both agree that it is valid. It was objected: A Sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits is not valid, but R. Judah declared it valid up to a height of forty or fifty cubits. R. Judah stated, ‘It happened with Queen Helena in Lydda that her Sukkah was higher than twenty cubits, and the elders nevertheless were going in and out of it and spoke not a word to her [in disagreement]’. They said to him, ‘Is this a proof? She was a woman and [therefore] free from the obligation of the Sukkah’. He answered them, ‘Did she not have seven sons? And besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Sages’. Why does he have to add ‘and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Sages’? Thus he said to them: If you will answer [with regard to her seven sons] that her sons were minors and minors are free from [the obligation of] the sukkah, since [however] she had seven, there must have been at least one who was [old enough] not to be dependent on his mother; and if you will object that [the duty of educating] a child who is not dependent on his mother is merely a Rabbinical injunction, and she took no heed of a Rabbinical injunction, I add ‘and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Sages’. Now this [Baraitha] is well according to the authority who says that their difference of opinion was in the case where the walls did not reach the covering; since it is the custom of a queen to sit in a sukkah whose walls do not reach the roof

—