Parallel
סוכה 4:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
even though he abandoned them since his intention is canceled by that of other men; if [he spread] straw [in order to diminish the height] and abandoned it, it is a [valid] diminution, and much more so is this the case with earth which he abandoned. [If he spread] straw which he had no intention of removing or earth concerning which his intention is unknown — this is a matter of dispute between R. Jose and the Rabbis. For we have learnt, If a house was filled with straw or gravel and the owner announced his intention to abandon it, it is duly abandoned. [Thus only if] he expressly abandoned it, is it not regarded as abandoned, but if he did not expressly do so, it is not so regarded; and with regard to this we have learnt, R. Jose ruled: Straw which he has no intention of removing is like ordinary earth and is deemed to be abandoned; earth which he intends to remove [later] is like ordinary straw and is not deemed to be abandoned. [If a Sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high but palm-leaves hung down within the twenty cubits, if the shade is more than the sun, it is valid, otherwise it is invalid. If [the sukkah] was ten handbreadths high and palm-leaves hung down within the ten cubits, Abaye intended to say that if the sun [that penetrates through them] is more than their shade, it is valid, [but] Raba said to him, This is a house [whose roof] hangs low down, and no man lives in such a dwelling. If it was higher than twenty cubits and he built a ledge at the middle wall along its whole length and it has the minimum size of a valid Sukkah, it is valid. If [he built the ledge] on a side [wall], — if from the edge of the ledge to the wall [opposite] there are four cubits, it is invalid; but if the distance was less than four cubits, it is valid. What principle does he teach us by this ruling? That we apply the rule of the ‘curved wall’? But have we not [already] learnt it: A house [the middle of whose flat roof] is missing and one placed the valid covering of a Sukkah upon it, if there are four cubits from the [top of the] wall to the covering, it is invalid; which [shows that] if the distance was less than this it is valid? — One might have thought that only there [it is valid] since [each side] is suitable [to serve] as a wall; but that here since it is unsuitable for a wall, one might say that it is invalid, [therefore] we were taught [that even here the principle is applied]. If [a sukkah] was higher than twenty cubits and one built a platform in the middle of it, if there are four cubits on every side between the edge of the platform and the wall, it is invalid; but if the distance is less than four cubits, it is valid. What principle does this teach us? That we apply the rule of the ‘curved wall’? But is not this principle identical with the former one?-One might have thought that we apply the rule of the ‘curved wall’ on one side only, but not on every side, therefore we were taught [that we apply it to all sides also]. If [a Sukkah] was less than ten handbreadths in height and one hollowed out [a hole] in order to bring it to [ten handbreadths], — if there was a distance of three handbreadths from the brim of the hollow to the wall, it is invalid;
—