Parallel
סוכה 4:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
if the distance was less than three handbreadths it is valid. Why do we say there ‘less than four cubits’, and here ‘less than three handbreadths’?In the former case where there is a wall, it is sufficient [if the distance is] ‘less than four cubits’; in the latter case, however, where a wall has to be made, [if the distance is] ‘less than three handbreadths’ it is [valid]; otherwise it is not. If [a sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high and one erected in it a pillar ten handbreadths high, and large enough for a valid sukkah, [in this case] Abaye intended to say the partitions are deemed to be continued upward, [but] Raba said to him: Recognizable partitions are necessary, which these are not. Our Rabbis taught: If a man drove four poles into the ground and put the sukkah-covering on them, R. Jacob declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid. R. Huna stated: The dispute relates only [to poles erected] on the edge of a roof, where R. Jacob holds that we apply the rule of ‘the partition continues upward’ while the Sages hold that we do not apply the rule of ‘the partition continues upward’; but [if they were erected] in the middle of the roof, all agree that [the Sukkah is] invalid. R. Nahman, however, maintained that the dispute relates only [to poles erected] in the middle of the roof. It was asked: [Does he mean that] the dispute concerns only [poles that were erected] in the middle of the roof, but if such were erected on the edge of the roof all agree that it is valid, or is it possible [that he means that] the dispute concerns both cases? — The question remains undecided. An objection was raised: If one drove poles in the ground and placed the Sukkah-covering over them, R. Jacob declares [such a sukkah] valid, and the Sages declare it invalid. Now the earth, surely, is [in respect of partitions] like the middle of a roof and still R. Jacob regards [the Sukkah] as valid. Is this not, then, a refutation of R. Huna? — It is indeed a refutation. Moreover, [presumably] they dispute concerning the middle of the roof, only, but where [poles are put up] on the edge of the roof they all agree that it is valid. Must it then be said that this will refute R. Huna on two points? -R. Huna could answer you: They disagree about poles in the middle of the roof, and likewise also about those on the edge, and the reason why the dispute concerns the middle of the roof is in order to show you how far R. Jacob's view extends viz., that even where the poles were in the middle of the roof he holds [the Sukkah] to be valid. Our Rabbis taught: If a man drove four [round shaped] poles into the ground and covered them with the Sukkah-covering, R. Jacob ruled, We see: If it is found that on being planed and smoothed there would remain the width of a handbreadth on two adjacent sides, they are treated as deyomads, but if not, they cannot be treated as deyomads for R. Jacob used to say, The prescribed minimum width of the deyomads of a Sukkah is a handbreadth; but the Sages say, Only if two [of the adjacent walls] are proper [walls], may the width of the third be only a handbreadth. ONE OF WHICH IS NOT TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH. Whence do we know this?- It was stated, Rab, R. Hanina, R. Johanan and R. Habiba learnt: (throughout all Seder Mo'ed when these pairs are mentioned together [some] substitute the name of R. Jonathan for that of R. Johanan), the ark [of the covenant] was nine handbreadths high, and the ark cover one handbreadth, making a total of ten handbreadths, and it is written, And there I will meet with thee, and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover;27
—