סוכה 8 — parallel

8:1

— That applies only to a circle, but in the case of a square, a greater perimeter is required. But consider: By how much is a square greater than its [inscribed] circle? By a quarter. Should it then not suffice if only sixteen [men can be seated around it]? -That is so in the case of a circle inscribed within a square, but if a square is to be inscribed within a circle a greater circumference is required on account of the projection of the corners. But consider: If the side of a square is a cubit, its diagonal is approximately one and two fifths cubits. Should not then [a circumference equivalent to] sixteen and four fifths [cubits] suffice? — [R. Johanan] gave only an approximate figure. But is it not to be maintained that one may be assumed to give all approximate figure only [where the discrepancy is] small, but could such all assumption be made [where the discrepancy is] big? — Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: Do you think that a man occupies one cubit? [The fact is that] three men occupy two cubits. How much then does this [amount to for twenty-four men]? Sixteen cubits; and we [really] demand here sixteen and four fifths, [because, as has been said, R. Johanan] gave only an approximate figure. But is it not to be maintained that one may be assumed to give approximate figures only when the law is thereby restricted, but could such an assumption be made where a law is thereby relaxed?-R. Assi answered R. Ashi: In truth, a man occupies a cubit-space, but R. Johanan does not include the space occupied by the men. How many [cubits] does this [amount to]? Eighteen; while sixteen and four-fifths suffice. That is [then] what was meant [when it was stated] that he only gave an approximate figure; and in this case it is in the direction of stringency. The Rabbis of Caesarea (and some say, The judges of Caesarea) maintain, The circumference of a circle inscribed in a square is a quarter; 15

—

8:2

but the square inscribed within that circle is a half. But this is not correct, for we see that these are not so much bigger. R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: If the two booths of the potters are one within the other, the inner one is not valid as a Sukkah, and is obliged to have a Mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is free from the obligation of a Mezuzah. But why should this be so? Why should not the outer one be regarded as the gate-house of the inner one, and therefore be obliged to have a Mezuzah? — Because neither [booth] is of a permanent nature. Our Rabbis taught: [Mnemonic,] Ganbak. A booth of Gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans and any booth whatever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule. What is meant by ‘according to the rule’? — R. Hisda answered: Provided that [the covering] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the Sukkah. What does ‘any booth whatever’ include? — It includes the booths [whose mnemonic is] Rakbash, as our Rabbis taught: The booth of shepherds, the booth of field-watchers, the booth of city guards, and the booth of orchard-keepers, and any booth whatever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule. What is meant by ‘according to the rule’? — R. Hisda answered: Provided [the covering] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the Sukkah. What does ‘any booth whatever’ include? — It includes the booths [whose mnemonic] is Ganbak. The Tanna of Ganbak regards these booths as possessing greater validity because they are permanent, and therefore he used the expression, any booth whatever’ to include Rakbash which are not permanent, while the Tanna of Rakbash regards the latter as possessing greater validity since they belong to those who are bound [by the commandment of Sukkah] and therefore he used the expression, ‘any booth whatever’ to include the Ganbak booths which belong to those who are not bound [by the commandment of Sukkah].

—