Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 41

" With boards of a bedstead^ Shall we assume that this is a support to R. Ammi bar Tibiumi, who said that if one covered the Succah with broken utensils it is invalid ? Nay, the Mishna can be explained as R. Hanan said in the name of Rabbi. If the side-board of the bedstead was laid with two short boards, or two short boards with the side-board, which is subject to defile- ment (as will be explained, KeHm, Chap. XIX. 9). What is meant 20 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. by broken utensils ? Said Abayi : Remnants of silken togas, that measure less than three fingers square, and are of no value to either rich or poor (Sabbath, p. 272). We have learned in a Boraitha in accordance with R. Ammi bar Tibiumi : The remain- ders of a mat of bark or reeds, although they are less than of the prescribed size to be subject to defilement, must not be used to cover a Succah. A mat of sticks, if it is large, may be used to cover it (because a large one is only made for a covering, and is not a utensil subject to defilement) ; but if small, it may not. R. Eliezer, however, said, that even a large one is subject to defile- ment, and may not be used. ''If one should hollow^' etc. R. Huna said: The case is, when there is no hole of the size of one span in length by seven in width ; but if there was, it is a Succah.* We have learned so also in a Boraitha : If one hollows out a space in a stack to use it as a Succah, it is a Succah. And this Boraitha must be explained as the decree of R. Huna to prevent the contradiction to our Mishna. MISHNA : If one suspends textile walls from the roof down- wards, if they do not reach the ground within three spans, it is invalid. If they stand on the ground and are high ten spans, it is valid. R. Jose, however, said : Even when the walls do not reach the ground by more than three spans the law of ten spans applies to both cases (and in either case it is valid). GEMARA: On what point do they differ? One holds that a hanging partition makes the Succah valid, and the other that it does not. We have learned in the Mishna in Erubin, Chap. VIII. p.2o6,concerninga wall that was between two courts and a partition was made, and R. Jehudah said there : The partition is not more effectual than the wall which is between them. Said Rabba bar bar Hana, in the name of R. Johanan : R. Jehudah's decree there is of the same system as R. Jose's in our Mishna, who says that a hanging partition makes valid. In reality, however, it is not so. R. Jehudah does not agree with R. Jose, and vice versa. Because R. Jehudah, who allows it there, does so because Erubin of the courts are rabbinical ; but here, in the case of the Succah, which is bibUcal, he would not allow it. And, on the contrary, R. Jose, * The reason is because a hole of a span constitutes a legal tent in the law of defilement, and the covering above it is called rooting. Now, if one enlarged this hole to the size prescribed for a Succah, from the base upwards, so that he diminished the covering, he is considered to have made a new roofing and thus a new tent for this purpose, and it is a valid Succah. (Rashi.) TRACT SUCCAH. 21 who allows it here, does it because the Succah is only a positive commandment ; but concerning Sabbath, where there is a capital punishment, he would not allow it. And if it be asked, What happened in Ziporeth (which will be related farther on), accord- ing to whose opinion was it? Not according to R. Jose, nor in accordance with R. Jehudah, but according to R. Ishmael bar Jose. Namely : When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he told that it happened once (in Ziporeth) that they had forgotten to bring the holy scrolls on the eve of Sabbath, and on the morrow they put sheets on the pillars and brought the holy scrolls, and read them (and these hanging partitions were made at the com- mand of R. Ishmael). R. Hisda in the name of Abimi said : A mat which is large four spans and a trifle can be used as a side-wall to the Succah. How shall it be placed? It shall be hung in the middle, less than three spans from the ground, and less than three spans from the roof, because we apply the law of Lavud to both places. Is not this self-evident ? One may say that two Lavuds in one case do not apply, he comes to teach us that we may. MISHNA: If the roof is three spans distant from the walls, the Succah is invahd. If the roof of a house was broken, and it was covered, then if there are four ells between the wall and the covering, it is invalid ; but if less it is valid. The same is the case with a court surrounded by balconies. If the top of a large Succah was covered with something unfit, if it is distant four ells it is not valid. GEMARA : Rabha said : I once found the rabbis of the col- lege sitting and declaring : Air makes the Succah invalid with three spans, but unfit covering makes it invalid only with no less than four ells ; and I said to them : Where do you find that air makes invalid with three spans ? In our Mishna, which teaches if the roof was at a distance of three spans it is invalid ? Then, learn also from it that unfit covering should not make the Succah invalid if it is less than four ells f as it teaches farther on, that a house whose roof was broken, and it was covered in the middle, if there is from the covering to the wall four ells, then it is in- valid ? And they answered : Leave alone this teaching, because Rabh and Samuel both said that this teaching is only because we consider it as a crooked wall. And I rejoined : If it is so, what would be according to your opinion ? If there would be air less than three spans, and unfit covering less than four ells, in the same place, it certainly would be valid ; but if one covered the 22 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. vacant space with iron spits, it would make it invalid. Now, the air, which is so rigorous that it makes invalid by three spans, will not be equal to an invalid covering which is so lenient that it makes invahd only by four ells ? And they said to me : And according to your theory, that unfit covering makes invahd only when it is four ells, how would the case be if empty air less than three spans were added to it ? Would it not be valid ? But if one puts iron spits over the empty place, would it not make it invalid ? Now, then, does not the same question apply to your theory also? And I rejoined again : What comparison is this ? In my opinion, unfit covering makes invalid with four ells, because that is the pre- scribed quantity, and the same is with air ; and as both quantities are not equal, they do not combine together to make the Succah invalid. But according to your opinion, that the reason is not because it is a prescribed quantity, but because the roof is sep-