Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 37

explained the expression, *' Thou shalt cover it," that it means he shall fold the vail a little towards the ark, so that it shall seem as a cover. Abayi said : Rabbi, R. Joshiah, R. Jehudah, R. Simeon, and Rabban Gamaliel, the school of Shammai, R. Eliezer, and the anonymous teachers all hold that a booth must be considered not as a temporary but as a permanent dwelling. (Rashi explains that it means that it should be possible to turn it into a perma- nent dwelling.) Rabbi, as we have learned above, that a Succah that was not four ells square is invalid ; R. Joshiah, from the statement just mentioned ; R. Jehudah, as he declares valid a booth which is higher than twenty ells ; R. Simeon, as he requires four walls (three as usually, and one, one span wide) ; Rabban Gamaliel, as he declares invalid (farther on) a booth con- structed on board a vessel or on a wagon ; Beth Shammai, as they declare in a Mishna, farther on, that it is invalid if it can contain a man's head and greater part of body, while his table is in a house ; R. Eliezer, as he declared a Succah constructed in the shape of a pyramid is invalid ; and the anonymous teachers, who declare invalid a circular Succah. R. Johanan said : A booth which is made like a lime-kiln {i.e., round), if its circumference is large enough that twenty-four * The law of an entry with a side-beam is explained in Tract Erubin, Chap. I. lo THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. persons may sit at the walls, it is valid ; but if not, it is invalid.^ And this teaching is according to Rabbi, who said that a booth which is not four ells square is not considered a booth at all. R. Levi in the name of R. Meir said : Of two booths of pot- ters which are one within the other, the innermost is not valid for a legal booth, and is liable to have a Mezuzah, but the outer- most may be used as a legal booth, and needs not a Mezuzah. Why so ? Let the outer one be considered as a passage to the innermost, and a passage is not exempt from a Mezuzah ? Be- cause of both booths the outer one is only temporary, and it is exempt from a Mezuzah. The rabbis taught : The booths of strangers, made only for the summer, booths for women (to make the toilet), booths made for animals, or booths made by Samaritans for the feast, and everything whatever called a booth is valid as a religious taber- nacle, provided that it is roofed according to the Law. What is meant, '' according to the Law " ? Said R. Hisda : If it was roofed for this end, what is meant by the saying : ** Anything whatever that is called a booth is valid " ? To include the booths of shepherds, of those who watch dried figs, watchmen outside of the towns, and of those who watch fruit (all these are booths if they are roofed according to the Law, and are valid for relig- ious purposes). MISHNA: An old Succah, Beth Shammai hold, is not valid, but Beth Hillel hold it is vaHd. What is called an old Succah? One which was constructed thirty days before the festival ; but if it has been constructed on purpose for the festival, even though it be one year old, it is valid. GEMARA : What is the reason of Beth Shammai's opinion? It is written [Lev. xxiii. 34] : " The feast of the booths shall be seven days unto the Lord." From this we infer that the booths must be made for the purpose of the feast. And what would Beth Hillel say to this passage? They infer from it another theory in accordance with R. Shesheth, who says in the name of R. Aqiba : Whence do we know that the wood that was used for the booths, must not be used for another purpose all the seven days? Because it is written : ''The feast of the booths shall be seven days unto the Lord." And we have learned in a Boraitha : * The Gemara interprets this law by a geometric calculation how much space a person needs, and the relation of a circle and a square, with illustrations, which do not belong here, and therefore we omit. TRACT SUCCAH. ii R. Jehudah b. Bethyra said : In the same manner that the name of the Lord rests on the feast-offering (and this prohibits the eating of the feast-offering till the pieces are offered on the altar), so does the name of the Lord rest on the booth, to prohibit the use of the material of which it is constructed during the seven days. But did not Beth Shammai also infer this prohibition from the same passage ? Yea, we must therefore say that the reason of Beth Shammai is another passage [Deut. xvi. 13] : ''A feast of tabernacle . . . seven days." Infer from this that the booth must be made for this purpose. And what do Beth Hillel infer from the above passage ? They infer from it that a Succah may be made during the intermediate days also, while Beth Sham- mai do not allow it. MISHNA : If one constructs his Succah under a tree, it is the same as if he made it in his house (under the roof). Should he construct one Succah above another, the upper one is valid, but the lower one is not. R. Jehudah says : Should the upper one not be inhabited, the lower one is valid. GEMARA : Rabha said : The Mishna refers only to a tree under which there is more shadow than sunshine ; but if the sun- shine is more than the shadow, it is valid. And I infer this, because the Mishna teaches that a booth which was made under a tree is as if made in a house, why does it express it thus ? Let it say, it is invalid ? We must therefore assume that it means : As in a roofed house there is more shadow than sunshine, so is it also under a tree, under which the same is the case. But if there is more sunshine than shadow, what is the use, since the branches of the tree, which are invalid, will combine with the roofing of the booth to shut out the sunshine, and thus make the Succah invalid? Said R. Papa: The case is when one has cut off the branches. If they have been cut off, is it not self-evident that the booth is valid? One might say, we shall take a precau- tionary measure (lest any make it under a tree which has its branches) and he comes to teach us that such precautionary measures are not to be taken. '' One Succah above another,'' ^tc. The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 22] : " Ye shall sit in booths." We may infer, in booths, but not in a booth which is under a booth, or under a tree, or in a house. On the contrary, it is written in the " booths " in the plural (that can mean, in this and in that) ? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak : It reads plural, but it is written in the singular. 12 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. What distance must be between the upper and the lower Succah, that the second should be invalid ? Said R. Huna : One span, as we find this measure in the law of defilement (Ahaloth, Chap. in. 7) : R. Hisda and Rabba bar R. Huna both said : Four