Parallel
סוכה 7:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Why not place it in a slanting position? Rab remained silent. It was also stated: Samuel said in the name of Levi: It is placed at right angles to one of the projecting [walls], and so it is ruled in the Beth Hamidrash that it is placed at right angles to one of the projecting [walls]. R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) ruled: One makes [the additional wall of the width of] a loose handbreadth and places it within three handbreaths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall. Rab Judah said, A Sukkah made like an [open] alley-way is valid, and this handbreadth [wall] is placed in whatever side one pleases. R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) says, He makes a strip of slightly more than four [handbreadths] and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall. But why did you say in the previous case that one loose handbreadth suffices while here you say that there must be a strip of four handbreadths? — In the previous instance where there are two valid walls, a loose handbreadth suffices, but here, where there are no two valid walls, if there is a strip of four handbreadths it is valid, otherwise, it is not [valid]. Raba ruled, It is only permitted if it has the form of a doorway. Another version is that Raba said, And it is also valid if it has the form of a doorway. Another version is that Raba said: And in addition, the form of a doorway [to the intervening part] is necessary. R. Ashi found R. Kahana making [the third wall of a Sukkah] a loose handbreadth wide and constructing also the form of a doorway. He said to him: Does not the Master hold the opinion of Raba who said that it is also valid with the form of a doorway? — He answered: I accept the other reading of [the statement of] Raba viz., that in addition [to a board of the size of a handbreadth] the form of a doorway is also necessary. ‘Two walls must be of the prescribed dimensions etc.’ Raba said, And similarly with regard to the Sabbath. Since [the handbreadth] is regarded as valid wall of the Sukkah it is also regarded as a valid wall in respect of the Sabbath. Abaye raised an objection against him: Do we then apply the rule of ‘since’? Was it not in fact taught: ‘[The rules relating to the structure of] the wall of a Sukkah are the same as those relating to that of the Sabbath, provided only that there is no gap of three handbreadths between any two reeds. And the [law relating to the] Sabbath is more [stringent] than that of Sukkah, in that the [wall for purposes of] the Sabbath is valid only if its standing portion is more than that which is broken, which is not the case with the Sukkah’. Now this means, does it not, that the law relating to the Sabbath of the Sukkah is more [stringent] than that relating to the Sukkah itself, and that we do not apply the rule of ‘since’? — No, [it means that the law relating to] the ordinary Sabbath is more [stringent in its requirements with regard to a valid wall] than [the law relating to] the Sabbath of the Sukkah. But if this is so, why was it not also stated: [The law relating to] the ordinary Sukkah is more [stringent] than [that of] the Sukkah of Sabbath, since [the validity of] the ordinary Sukkah demands a width of a loose handbreadth [for the third wall] while [the validity of] the Sukkah of Sabbath does not require the width of a loose handbreadth [for a wall] but a side-post alone is sufficient, for it is you who ruled that if one placed Sukkah-covering over an alleyway which has a side-post it is valid? — There was no need to mention this, [since it is obvious that] if we apply [the rule of ‘since’] from the less stringent to the more stringent, we certainly apply it From the more stringent to the less stringent. [Reverting to] the main subject; ‘Rab ruled:
—