Parallel
סוכה 4
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;
—
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
—