סוכה 9 — parallel

9:1

[MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE AN OLD SUKKAH INVALID, BUT BETH HILLEL PRONOUNCE IT VALID. WHAT IS AN OLD SUKKAH? ONE MADE THIRTY DAYS BEFORE THE FESTIVAL; BUT IF ONE MADE IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FESTIVAL, EVEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, IT IS VALID. GEMARA. What is Beth Shammai's reason? -Scripture says, The festival of Sukkoth, for seven days unto the Lord, [implying therefore] a Sukkah made expressly for the sake of the Festival. And Beth Hillel? - They need that [verse] for the same deduction as that of R. Shesheth, R. Shesheth having said in the name of R. Akiba, Whence do we know that the wood of the Sukkah is forbidden all the seven [days of the Festival]? From Scripture which states, ‘The Festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord’; and it was taught, R. Judah b. Bathyra says: Just as the Name of Heaven rests upon the Festival offering, so does it rest upon the Sukkah, since it is said, ‘The Festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord’: just as the Festival [offering] is ‘to the Lord’, so is the sukkah also ‘to the Lord’. And Beth Shammai also, do not they need the verse for this deduction?-Yes, indeed. What then is Beth Shammai's reason? -There is another Scriptural verse. Thou shalt make the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days. This implies a sukkah made expressly for the sake of the Festival. And Beth Hillel? -They need this [verse for the deduction] that a sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival. And Beth Shammai? — They hold the same opinion as R. Eliezer, who laid down that no sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival. Do not Beth Hillel, however, agree with the statement Rab Judah cited in the name of Rab: If a man made [zizith] from the hanging web or woof, or sewing threads, they are invalid; but if he made them from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are valid. When I repeated this in the presence of Samuel, he said to me, Even if made from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are also not valid, because it is necessary that the weaving shall be done specifically for its purpose? Here too then we should require a Sukkah to be made specifically for its purpose? — [Zizith are] different, since Scripture says, Thou shalt make to thee twisted cords: ‘to thee’ [means] for the specific purpose of thy obligation. But here also [Scripture says], ‘The Festival of Sukkoth thou shalt make to thee’, ‘to thee’ meaning for the specific purpose of thy obligation? That [phrase] is needed to exclude a stolen [Sukkah]. But in the other case too it is needed to exclude stolen [zizith]? — In that case there is another verse, [that serves the purpose], And they shall make to them, i.e., of their own.

—

9:2

MISHNAH. IF ONE MADE HIS SUKKAH UNDER A TREE, IT IS AS IF HE MADE IT WITHIN THE HOUSE. IF ONE SUKKAH IS ERECTED ABOVE ANOTHER, THE UPPER ONE IS VALID BUT THE LOWER IS INVALID. R. JUDAH SAID, IF THERE ARE NO OCCUPANTS IN THE UPPER ONE, THE LOWER ONE IS VALID. GEMARA. Raba said, [Our Mishnah] was taught only in respect of’ a tree whose shade is greater than the sun [shining through its branches] but if the sun is more than its shade, it is valid. Whence [do we know this]? Since it states, IT IS AS IF HE MADE IT WITHIN THE HOUSE. Now for what purpose does it state IT IS AS IF HE MADE IT WITHIN THE HOUSE? Let it simply state ‘it is invalid’? But the fact is that he taught us this, that the tree [referred to is] like a house, just as in a house the shade is more than the sunshine, so the tree has more shade than sunshine. But even where the sun is more than the shade, what is the advantage, seeing that all invalid covering is joined to a valid one? — R. Papa answered: [This is a case] where [the branches of the tree] were interwoven. If the branches were interwoven, why mention the case at all? — One might have thought that it should be prohibited where it is interwoven as a preventive measure against the possibility of regarding it as valid even where it was not interwoven, [therefore the Mishnah] informs us that no such preventive measure has been enacted. Have we not learnt this also: If a man trained upon it [a sukkah] vine, or a gourd, or ivy, and he covered [it with a valid covering], it is invalid. But if the valid covering exceeded these in quantity, or if one cut them, it is valid. Now to what case does this refer? Shall I say where he did not interweave them, then obviously the invalid covering is joined to the valid one? Must it not then refer to a case where one did interweave them; and hence it may be inferred that no preventive measure was in such a case deemed necessary? — One might have presumed that [this is permissible] only ex post facto but not ab initio, hence we were informed [that even ab initio it is permissible]. IF ONE SUKKAH IS ERECTED ABOVE ANOTHER. Our Rabbis taught, Ye shall dwell in Sukkoth, but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! Does not the word Sukkah imply two? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered, The word is written defectively. R. Jeremiah said: Sometimes both are valid, sometimes both invalid; sometimes the lower one is valid and the upper invalid, and sometimes the lower one is invalid and the upper one valid. ‘Sometimes both are valid’. In what circumstances? When in the lower one the sun is more than the shade, and in the upper the shade is more than the sun, and the upper one is within twenty [cubits from the ground]. ‘Sometimes both are invalid’. In what circumstances? When in both of them the shade is more than the sun, and the upper one is more than twenty cubits [high]. ‘Sometimes the lower one is valid and the upper invalid’.

—