סוכה 3 — parallel

3:1

because of ventilation; but according to the authority who states that they differed only in the case of a small’ Sukkah, is it then customary for a queen to sit in a diminutive sukkah? — Rabbah b. Adda answered, The ruling was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah constructed with many recesses. Is it then customary for a queen to sit in a sukkah with many recesses? — R. Ashi answered: [The ruling] was necessary only in the case of the recesses in it. The Rabbis hold the opinion that her sons sat in the proper Sukkah, while she sat in one of the recesses for reasons of modesty, and hence they made no remark, while R. Judah was of the opinion that her sons sat with her, and still they made no remark. R. Samuel b. Isaac stated, The halachah is that [the Sukkah] must be able to contain his head, the greater part of his body, and his table. R. Abba said to him, In agreement with whom is this ruling? Is it in agreement with Beth Shammai? -The other answered him,, According to whom else? Another version: R. Abba said to him, Who holds this opinion?-He answered, ‘Beth Shammai, and do not budge from it’. R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred: Whence do we know that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in dispute concerning a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, Beth Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table, while Beth Hillel hold that we do not prohibit it? This, furthermore, may be deduced also [from the wording], for it was stated, ‘If his head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah but his table was within the house, Beth Shammai declare it invalid, and Beth Hillel declare it valid;’ but if it is [as you say] it ought to read, [If the Sukkah can] contain, or cannot contain [his head etc.]. But do they not dispute concerning a small Sukkah? Has it not in fact been taught: [If a Sukkah can] contain his head, the greater part of his body and his table, it is valid. Rabbi says, It must be four cubits square. While in another [Baraitha] it has been taught: Rabbi says, Any Sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid, while the Sages say, Even if it can contain only his head, and the greater part of his body it is valid. Whereas of ‘his table’ there is no mention. Does not thus a contradiction arise between the two [Baraithas]? We must consequently infer therefrom that one is [according to] Beth Shammai, and the other according to Beth Hillel! Mar Zutra observed, The wording of this Mishnah also proves it, since it says: ‘Beth Shammai declare it invalid, and Beth Hillel declare it valid’, and if it were [as you say] it ought to read: Beth Shammai say’, He has not fulfilled his obligation while Beth Hillel say that he has. But do not the words, ‘He [whose head etc.] were’ present a difficulty? — The fact is that they differ on two [points], on a small Sukkah and a large one, but the text is defective and is to be read thus: ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house, Beth Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Beth Hillel say, He has; and if it is [able to] contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai declare it invalid and Beth Hillel valid.’ Who is the authority for that which our Rabbis taught: ‘A house which is not four cubits square is free from the obligations of Mezuzah , and parapet, does not contract levitical uncleanliness from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the dwelling houses of a walled city, nor does one return on its account from the array of war, nor need an ‘Erub be prepared for it, nor Shittuf, nor does one place therein an ‘Erub28

—

3:2

nor make of it an extension between two cities, nor can brothers or partners divide it ‘? Must we say that it agrees with Rabbi, and not with the Rabbis? — No! One can even say that it agrees with the Rabbis. The Rabbis say it only with regard to a Sukkah which is a temporary abode, but with regard to a house which is a permanent abode, even the Rabbis admit that if it has an area of four cubits square, people dwell therein, otherwise, they do not dwell therein. The Master said, ‘It is free from the obligations of Mezuzah, and parapet, does not contract levitical uncleanliness from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the houses of a walled city, nor does one return on its account from the array of war’. What is the reason? — Because the term ‘house’ occurs in all [these commandments]. ‘Nor need an ‘Erub be prepared for it, nor Shittuf, nor does one place therein an ‘Erub’. What is the reason?-Since it is unsuitable as a dwelling. Now the ‘Erub of courtyards is not placed therein, but a Shittuf may be placed therein. What is the reason? — Since it is no worse than a courtyard within an alleyway as we have learnt, ‘The ‘Erub of courtyards [are placed] in a courtyard, and the shittuf of an alley in the alley’, and the point was raised, [How can it be said that], ‘The ‘Erubs of courtyards [are placed] in a courtyard’? Have we not in fact learnt, If a man placed his ‘Erub in a gatehouse or in an exedra, or in a gallery, it is no valid ‘Erub, and he who dwells therein cannot be a cause of prohibition? — Say rather, ‘Erubs of courtyards [are placed] in a house of the courtyard, and the Shittufs of alleys in a courtyard of the alley; and this is no worse than a courtyard in an alley. ‘Nor make of it an extension between two cities’. Since it is not regarded even as an outpost. What is the reason?- Outposts are suitable for their purpose, but this is unsuitable for anything. ‘Nor can brothers or partners divide it’. The reason apparently is that it is not four cubits square, but if it were four cubits square, [presumably] they could divide it. But have we not learnt, A courtyard should not be divided unless there be four cubits to each [of the parties]? — Say rather, The law of division does not apply to it, as [it does in the case of] a courtyard. For R. Huna ruled, ‘A courtyard is divided according to the number of its doors’, and R. Hisda said, ‘Four cubits are allowed for each door and the remainder is divided equally’, but this applies only to a house which is intended to stand, [and therefore] we allow it a [share in the] courtyard; but as to this [a hovel] which is intended to be demolished, we do not allow it [a share in the] courtyard. If [a Sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high and he diminished its [height] with bolsters and cushions it is not a [valid] diminution,

—