סוכה 6 — parallel

6:1

if however he was dressed in his garments, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings on his fingers, he becomes instantaneously unclean, but they remain clean unless he tarries there long enough to eat half a loaf of wheaten bread but not of barley bread, while in a reclining position and eating with condiment. ‘Barley’? As we have learnt, A barley-corn's bulk of a bone defiles by contact and by carrying, but not by ‘overshadowing’. ‘Vines’ are an allusion to the fourth part [of a log of wine which is the minimum prohibited] to a Nazirite. ‘Fig-trees’ allude to the size of a dry fig [which is the minimum measurement for transgressing the law against] the carrying out of [food] on the Sabbath. ‘Pomegranates’? As we have learnt: All [defiled wooden] vessels belonging to householders [become clean if the breaches in them] are as large as pomegranates. ‘A land of olive-trees’ [is an allusion to the] land all of whose [minima] standards [for permitted and forbidden things] is the bulk of an olive. How can it possibly mean ‘all whose [minima] standards’? Are there not those which we have just mentioned? — Say rather, ‘The majority of whose [minima] standards are the bulk of an olive’. ‘Honey’ alludes to the size of a large date, [which is the minimum size forbidden] on the Day of Atonement. Does it not then clearly follow that the [minima] standards are Pentateuchal? — Do you then imagine that the [minima] standards were actually prescribed in the Pentateuch? [The fact is that] they are but traditional laws while the Scriptural verse is merely a support. But are not [the laws of] interposition Pentateuchal, as it is written, And he shall wash his flesh in water [which implies] that nothing should interpose between him and the water? The traditional law comes [to teach] concerning one's hair, in agreement with a statement of Rabbah b. Bar Hana, for Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated: One knotted hair constitutes an interposition; three hairs do not, but I do not know [the law in the case of] two. But is not the law relating to one's hair also Pentateuchal, since it was written, And he shall wash [eth] his flesh in water and [the word] ‘eth’ includes that which is joined to his body, i.e., his hair? — The traditional law comes to teach with reference to [the ruling reported by] R. Isaac; for R. Isaac said:

—

6:2

According to the word of the Torah if most [of one's hair is covered] and one minds it, an interposition is constituted, and if one does not mind it, no interposition is constituted. [The Rabbis] however enacted a prohibition against [a covering of] most of one's hair, even if one does not mind it, as a preventive measure [against the possibility of allowing an interposition on] most of one's hair where one does mind it, and that [a covering over] the minor part of one's hair where one minds it [shall constitute an interposition] on account [of the possibility of allowing an interposition over] most of one's hair where one minds it. Then why should not a prohibition be enacted against an interposition over the lesser part of one's hair where one does not mind it as a preventive measure against [the possibility of allowing an interposition over] the lesser part where one does mind it or the major part which one does not mind? — This ruling itself is only a restrictive enactment; shall we come and institute a restrictive enactment against the possibility of infringing another restrictive enactment? [As for the laws of] partitions, these are those referred to above. That is satisfactory according to R. Judah, but according to R. Meir what can one say? — That the tradition refers to [the legal fiction] of extension, junction and the curved wall. OR WHICH HAS NOT THREE WALLS. Our Rabbis taught: Two [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions, and the third [may be] even one handbreadth. R. Simeon says: Three walls must be of the prescribed dimensions, and the fourth [may be] even one handbreadth. On what principle do they differ? — The Rabbis hold that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, while R. Simeon holds that the traditional reading is authoritative. ‘The Rabbis hold that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative’, and the word Sukkoth occurs twice defectively and once plene, making four references. Deduct one for the law itself, and three remain; two [walls at least] must be of the prescribed dimensions, and tradition came and diminished [the prescribed minimum of] the third, reducing it to only one handbreadth. ‘R. Simeon holds that the traditional reading is authoritative’. The word Sukkoth is read thrice, which equals six [references]. Deduct one Scriptural reference for the law itself and four remain; three walls at least of prescribed dimensions, and tradition came and diminished the [prescribed minimum of the] fourth and reduced it to a handbreadth. And if you wish, you can say that they are unanimous that the traditional reading is authoritative but they differ in this; that one Master holds that the covering heeds a Scriptural reference, while the other Master holds that it does not. And if you wish you can say that they are unanimous that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, but they differ on this principle; that one Master holds that the tradition comes to diminish [the implications of Scripture] while the other holds that tradition comes and adds to it. And if you wish you can say that both agree that tradition comes to diminish and that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, but they differ as to whether one uses first [references] for exegesis. One Master holds that we employ first references for exegesis, and the other Master holds that we do not. R. Mattenah said: The reason of R. Simeon is a derivation from the following verse: And there shall be a Sukkah for a shadow in the day-time from the heat, and for a refuge and for a covert from storm and from rain. Where is this handbreadth [of a wall] placed? — Rab said: It is placed at right angles to one of the projecting [walls]. R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab:

—