Parallel
סוכה 7
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:
—
If one placed Sukkah-covering over an alley-way which has a side-post it is valid’. Rab further ruled: If one placed Sukkah-covering over the [upright] boards around wells it is valid [as a Sukkah]. And the enunciation of [all the three laws was] necessary. For if he had mentioned only [the law relating to] the alley-way one would have assumed [that there the Sukkah is valid] because it had two proper walls, but that in the case of partitions of wells, which have not two proper walls, the Sukkah is not valid. And if we had been informed of the boards around wells only, one would have assumed [that there the sukkah is valid] because there are four walls, but that if one placed sukkah-covering over an alleyway, where there are no walls, it is not [valid]. And if we had been informed of both those laws [but not of the third,] one would have assumed that from the more stringent to the less stringent [we apply the rule of ‘since’] but not from the less stringent to the more. [Therefore all the three enunciations were] necessary. OR WHICH HAS MORE SUN THAN SHADE IS NOT VALID. Our Rabbis taught: [This applies only where] the sunshine is due to the scanty covering, but not where it is due to [interstices in] the walls, while R. Josiah says, Even where it is due to [interstices in] the walls. R. Yemar b. Shelemiah said in the name of Abaye, What is the reason of R. Josiah? — Because it is written: And thou shalt cover the ark with the veil. Now since the ‘veil’ was a partition and the Divine Law nevertheless called it a ‘covering’ it is evident that a wall must be as [close] as the covering. And [how do] the Rabbis [explain this verse]? — It means that the veil should bend over a little [at the top] so that it might look like a covering. Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Josiah, R. Judah, R. Simeon, R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer and ‘Others’ -all hold the opinion that the Sukkah must be constructed like a permanent abode. ‘Rabbi’? — As it has been taught: Rabbi said, A sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid. ‘R. Josiah’? — As we have [just] stated. ‘R. Judah’? — As we have learnt: A SUKKAH WHICH IS MORE THAN TWENTY CUBITS HIGH IS NOT VALID, R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. ‘R. Simeon’? — As it has been taught: Two [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions and the third [may be] even one handbreadth. ‘R. Gamaliel’? — As it his been taught: If a man erects his Sukkah on the top of a waggon or on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiba declares it valid. ‘Beth Shammai’? — As we have learnt: If his head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table was within the house, Beth Shammai declare it invalid, and Beth Hillel declare it valid. ‘R. Eliezer?-As we have learnt: If a man makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or if he propped it up against a wall, R. Eliezer declares it invalid, since it has no roof’, and the Sages declare it valid. The ‘Others’? As it has been taught: Others Say: A Sukkah made like a dovecote is invalid, since it has no corners. R. Johanan said: If a sukkah was [round shaped] like a furnace, provided twenty-four men can sit around its circumference, it is valid, otherwise it is invalid. According to whom [is this state — ment made]? Obviously according to Rabbi who says that a sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid. But consider: A man occupies the space of a cubit, and where the circumference [of a circle] is three handbreadths, its diameter is one handbreadth, should it not then suffice if only twelve men [can sit around it]?28
—