Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 42

arated from the wall, then the question is, what is the difference whether it be separated from the wall by air less than three spans and unfit covering, or by iron spits and unfit covering ? Said Abayi to him : And even according to the Master's opinion, that because the quantities are not equal they do not combine, this can be said only of a large Succah, where unfit covering makes not invalid unless it is four ells ; but in a small Succah, where unfit covering makes it invalid with three spans, are not the quantities then equal ? Consequently they must combine, even in a large Succah. Answered Rabha : In a small Succah it is not because the prescribed quantities are equal, but because the pre- scribed size for a Succah does not remain. Abayi said : If there was air three spans wide in a large Suc- cah, and one diminished it by sticks or iron spits, it is considered as diminished ; but if it was a small Succah, if with sticks it is lawful, but with iron spits it is not. But this is the case only when it is near the wall. If in the middle of the roof, however, R. A'ha and Rabina differed : According to one, the law of Lavud applies also in the middle, and according to the other it can only be applied when they are at the side. R. Jehudah bar Ilai lectured : If the roof of a house was bro- ken, and one covered it with fit covering, it is valid for a Succah. Said R. Ishmael bar Jose to him : Rabbi, explain your decision, because my father had explained thus : If it is less than four ells from the wall, then it is valid ; but if four or more, it is invalid. Again lectured the same : An abruma (a small fish not distin- guishable from prohibited reptiles) is permitted. Said R. Ish- TRACT SUCCAH. 23 mael to him : Rabbi, explain the decision, for so said my father: From one place it is permitted, from another it is not. Accord- ingly, Abayi said : The small fish called Tza'hntha (smelt), of the river Bab, are permitted (and from another not). It was taught : If one has covered a balcony which has small pillars (less than three spans one from the other), it is valid for a Succah : but if it has no pillars, Abayi said it is valid, because the edge of the roof downward may be considered as making (forming) a wall ; but Rabha said it is invalid, because he does not hold this theory. Said Rabha to Abayi : According to thee, who boldest this theory, even if the middle wall of the Succah was broken, let it also be valid, as the edge of the roof is considered to descend and make a wall. Said Abayi: I yield to thee in this point, because it looks like an open entry. An objection was raised from our Mishna: If a court is surrounded by bal- conies, etc., why ? Let it also be considered that the edge of the roof makes it a wall? Rabha explained, in accordance with Abayi's opinion, that the case is that the edge projected not over the wall, but was even with it. R. Ashi found R. Kahna, who had roofed a balcony that had no small pillars, and he asked him : Does not the Master hold what Rabha said, that when there are no pillars the Succah is invalid ? And he took him outside and showed him that there were pillars not visible inside, but only outside ; and it was taught in Erubin (p. 17), if it was seen from outside, and not from inside, it is regarded as a side-beam, and a side-beam is the same as a small pillar. A Boraitha taught : A vestibule, outside of the booth, is con- sidered as the booth itself. What is meant by this ? Said Ullah : A vestibule formed by sticks projecting beyond the Succah. Are not three walls needed? When there are. But is it not needed that there be more shadow than sunshine? If there was. But is not a prescribed size needed ? If it was. If so, what comes he to teach us? Lest one say, that because the Succah was made for sitting inside, shall the outside not be considered a Succah at all, he comes to teach us it is not. MISHNA: If one makes a Succah in the form of a cone, or leans the roof against a wall, R. Eliezer says it is not valid, because it has no roof ; but the sages declare it is valid. GEMARA : A Boraitha taught : R. Eliezer admits, if one placed it one span over the ground, or separated it one span from the wall, the Succah is valid. What is the reason of the sages? 24 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. for the theory of Lavud applies to them, and they are regarded as upright. They hold that the slanting parts of a tent are con- sidered as the tent itself. Abayi found R. Joseph sleeping in a nuptial bed in a Succah. Said Abayi to him : According to whom do you do so ? According to R. Eliezer ? Then you left the majority of rabbis, and followed an individual. Answered he : The Boraitha teaches the contrary : That R. Eliezer makes it valid, but the sages say it is invalid. Rejoined Abayi : Then you leave a Mishna, and act according to a Boraitha. And he an- swered : The Mishna is written according to an individual's opinion, as we have learned in a Boraitha : if one makes a booth in the form of a cave, or leans the roof on a wall, R. Nathan said that R. EHezer makes it invalid, because it has no roof, but the sages permit this. MISHNA: A large reed mat made for sleeping on is subject to defilement, and a Succah must not be covered with it ; but if it was made to cover a booth, it may be used, and is not subject to defilement. R. Eleazar said : There is no difference whether it is large or small, but only the use for which it was made is consid- ered ; if for sleeping, then it is subject to defilement, and must not be used ; but in the other case, if for covering, it is not sub- ject to defilement, and may be used. GEMARA: Did not the Mishna contradict itself? In the first part it says, if it was made for sleeping, then it is subject to defilement, etc., but if the purpose for which it was made was not expressed, it must be considered as for a covering. And the second part says, " If it was tnade for a cover " ; from this we may infer, if the purpose was not expressed we consider it for sleeping? Said R. Papa: In case of a small one, if the purpose was not expressed, all agree it may be considered as for sleeping ; but in case of a large one, the first Tana holds that where no pur- pose was expressed it is considered to have been made for cover- ing. But R. Eliezer holds, that even a large one is also usually made for sleeping, and the expression in the Mishna, " if it was made for sleeping," is to be explained so : if it was made, say it is for the purpose of sleeping, unless he expressed another purpose. The rabbis taught : A mat made of bark or papyrus, if large, may be used for a cover; but if small, it may not. If it is of reeds, or hilatk, a large one may be used for covering ; but if they