Sukkah1

1MISHNAH: A sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits is disqualified; Rebbi Jehudah qualifies it [Since the essence of a sukkah is its roofing, סְכָךְ, which has to be temporary and made from vegetable material, giving little protection from the rain, the roofing always should be visible to any person inside the sukkah.] . It is disqualified if it is not ten hand-breadths high [Since nobody could dwell inside.] , or does not have three walls [Even though Isaias (Is. 1:8) gives the name of sukkah to a watchman’s shelter from the sun, a roof over 4 poles without any walls, this does not apply to the holiday hut which must be a dwelling place.] , or where the sunshine is larger than the shade.

2HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. [This text was copied at the beginning of Eruvin Chapter 1, explained there in Notes 31–57. A dead-end alley can be turned into the private domain of its dwellers for the rules of the Sabbath by turning its entrance into a symbolic gate. For the cross-beam which designates the gate the same measurements as for a sukkah are required for the rabbis and R. Jehudah.] Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there [Mishnah Middot3:4.] : “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there [Mishnah Eruvin9:5.] , “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the roof as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the cross-beam [Greek μέλαθρον, τό, a substantial load-bearing beam, not simply a thin plank. Cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 41.] as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they are not comparable. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed poles [Greek δίκρανον, τό.] are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus [Tosephta Sukkah1:13.] : “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing it is disqualified. [Mishnah Sukkah1:4.] ” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shade it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

3Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah [Since a sukkah is a temporary house, one has to understand why the rules for a sukkah should be different from those for a house; in particular why a sukkah can be called by this name only up to a height of 20 cubits (11m). Naturally, a sukkah needs no parapet (Deut. 22:8) since nobody can walk on its roof, and it needs no mezuzah(Deut. 6:9) since it is used only for 7 days and the obligation of mezuzah starts only with 30 days’ use.] ? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed [A house must be a permanent shelter which also protects against winter rains; this does not apply to the thin thatching covering a sukkah.] . We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there [Mishnah 1:10. Everywhere an empty space up to 3 hand-breadths width is disregarded (cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 248). This also applies to houses.] , “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch [Greek ’εξέδρα ‘η, a covered walkway. Cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 88.] was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of] [Corrector’s addition. A comparison with the text in Eruvin(Chapter 1, Note 92) shows that it is unnecessary, and could have been replaced by a comma.] Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety [While this is a well-defined space, it has no walls. In order to treat it by the rules of an alley one has to hold that the beams which form the frame for the roofing (which may be either a complete roof or simply lattice work) define virtual walls around the walkway. For the rules of the Sabbath, one should compare the porch to an enclosed alley, whose entry beam also cannot be higher than 20 cubits. The rule is waved for the porch.] ? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell [Lev. 23:42.] . Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it [The thatching. For him a low thatching in very high walls creates a qualified sukkah.] is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified. [R. Jonah’s explanation is rejected; the thatching must be on top of the walls.] ” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table [A minimal sukkah has space for one person. Since they were taking dinner lying on couches, there must be room inside for that part ot the couch on which his head and body rest; the legs may be outside. In addition there must be a small table for the food. For any sukkah larger than this, the restriction in height is not valid. Accepted in the Babli, 2b.] . But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree [Tosephta 1:1, Babli 2b.] ? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena [Of Adiabene, who moved to Jerusalem as a widow.] in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated [As a positive commandment tied to a specified time it does not apply to women, Mishnah Qiddušin1:7.] . He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons [It is spelled out in the Tosephta that they were sitting with their mother in her sukkah.] ?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter [Therefore it is accepted practice that the height restriction does not apply to a sukkah which is not minimal and whose thatching rests on the walls.] .

4Rav Hoshaia asked: If he brought a plank [A solid wooden plank. While it is of vegetable origin, it cannot be used for thatching if it is too wide since it is impermeable by both light and rain. The pillar is standing in the middle of the sukkah. One may either sit under the protruding plank or on top of it.] and put it protruding on top of a pillar. It is obvious that if he measures from the plank there are twenty cubits, if he measures from the ground it is not twenty cubits [But more than that.] . How do you treat this? As disqualified space, as disqualified thatching? If you are treating it as disqualified space, it disqualifies by three hand-breadths [If it cannot be used for thatching, cf. Note 13; Halakhah 10.] . If you are treating it as disqualified thatching, it only disqualifies by four cubits [If the roof is made of solid material, only in the center there is a skylight which can be covered by thatching; this may be a qualified sukkah if the solid material does not extend 4 cubits from the walls. The solid roof then simply is considered a horizontal part of the vertical walls.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Ḥizqiah: Disqualified thatching only disqualifies by four cubits, since it serves only to permit the sukkah [Babli 4a.] . Rebbi Miasha said, I am wondering what was Rav Hoshaia’s problem? Why does he not infer from the statement of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, since we stated there [Mishnah 1:10.] : “If one makes the wall hanging from top to bottom, if it is more than three hand-breadths higher than the ground it is disqualified [Up to three hand-breadths of empty space are disregarded both on top (Note 13) or on the bottom of a wall. The wall is considered as if standing on the ground.] ;” and Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if he does not sit and eats in the shade of the walls, but if he was sitting and eating in the shade of the walls it is qualified [If he sits on the ground in such a sukkah, it is as if he sits in the open. But if he lies on a couch or sits on a chair higher that 3 hand-breadths, he is surrounded by walls and is under a thatched roof, fulfilling the commandment to sit in the sukkah. Similarly, in the case of Rav Hoshaia, one should say that if he sits on the ground, the sukkah is disqualified, but not if he sits on the plank.] . Rebbi Yose said, that of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal is not an inference since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal learned it from another Mishnah, as we have stated there [Eruvin Mishnah 8:9.] : “From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below [The house is on a lakeshore, the balcony is built over the lake, and there is a hole in the balcony through which a pail may be lowered to draw water. While obviously water is always moving and it cannot be asserted that water drops found under the balcony on the Sabbath were there at sundown, and the water could have come from outside the house’s Sabbath domain, since the restriction is purely rabbinic it is enough that under the balcony one make a symbolic wall whose extension would enclose the water.] .” And Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water the full length of a pail [A quote from Eruvin Chapter 8 (Notes 73–80). Since water is always moving, it is impossible to know which molecules will be where at a given time. The answer is that this is irrelevant; at the time the pail is lowered it will draw water only from water on the house’s side of the partition lowered into the lake.] . But one cannot compare it. The sea is karmelit, neither private nor public domain [A technical term defined in this sentence. Cf. Šabbat1, Note 73.] . But here the Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell [Lev. 23:42.] . From the floor of the sukkah you measure twenty cubits [In all cases. R. Abba bar Mamal’s statement is disproved.] .

5If it was (higher) [lower] [The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. The numeral in the masculine means that the reference is to a sukkah 10 hand-breadths high, and therefore one has to accept the scribe’s text and reject the corrector’s.] than ten, and he hung there decorations which could be used for thatching; these reduce it to disqualify. Otherwise they reduce it but qualify [If the decorations could serve as thatching, the sukkah does not have the minimum height and is disqualified. Otherwise they are disregarded and the sukkah is qualified.] . If it was higher than twenty cubits and he hung there decorations which could be used for thatching they reduce it to (disqualify) [qualify]. Otherwise they reduce it to qualify [disqualify] [By the same argument as in the previous Note, here one has to accept the corrector’s text, provided that decorations which can count as thatching are hanging down below 20 cubits. Cf. Babli 4a.] . Rebbi Shammai said, what they said about above they said about below. [This text is from Eruvin Chapter 7 (Note 24). There it is noted that a ditch 10 hand-breadths deep or a wall 10 hand-breadths high separate domains for the rules of the Sabbath. If the ditch is filled with material that is easily blown away, it remains a separator; if it is filled with pebbles it disappears as Sabbath boundary. Similarly, if walls of a sukkah end higher than 3 hand-breadths from the ground, the sukkah cannot be qualified by filling the distance with straw, provender, or grasses; it is qualified if the hole is filled with dust and pebbles. Babli 4a.] Straw and provender do not diminish in it; dust and pebbles do diminish in it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if grasses grew in it, they would not diminish it.

6[This paragraph is from Šabbat Chapter 1, Notes 118 ff. While here the problem is that a roof less than 10 hand-breadths from the ground does not have the status of a cover, for the rules of the Sabbath public domain reaches only from the ground to a height of 10 hand-breadths, while private domain extends to an indefinite height. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Sukkah5a. Since the entire discussion is Amoraic, one must conclude that for earlier times the limitation of the public domain to 10 hand-breadths from the ground and the minimal height required for a sukkah was tradition not subject to verification from biblical sources.] From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover [Ex. 25:6.] . And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you [Ex. 20:22.] . Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths [1.5 cubits (Ex. 25:10).] ? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth [In the Babli 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit) (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined.. If we take a small hand-breadth of 8.5 cm, cubit 51 cm, then a cover 2 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, and one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 108(hand-breadths) = 66 (dm). Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1260 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of 1.26 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.] . Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around49 [This cryptic statement is explained in the Babli (in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Jacob’s teacher Rav Huna) as referring to Lev. 16:2 where Aaron is warned not to appear before the face of the cover except on the day of Atonement. This implies that the cover was not simply a sheet lying over the Ark but had a face, a vertical dimension which is not negligible.] . Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it refers only to: make a golden wreath as its frame all around [It is impossible to say that in general a new domain starts at 10 hand-breadths since it is commonly accepted that a private domain remains private to an indeterminate height. The Ark was standing in the private domain of the Sanctuary; a reference to it seems to be irrelevant.] ? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth [In the desert, the Ark was travelling in front of the people (Num. 10:33) while the Sanctuary was carried in the middle (v. 17). At the resting place, the Ark automatically assumed a West-East direction so that the Sanctuary could be placed around it and the tribes camped correctly in the four directions of the compass (Num.2). The Ark had functions outside the Sanctuary; the reference is legitimate.] .

7Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to move anything from in it into the house or from the house into it [In Mishnaic times, the building cubit was a standard 6, the vessel cubit 5 hand-breadths. If the Ark was built to vessel standards, it cannot be used to define domains. Whether the vessel standard was used in the Temple is a matter of controversy in the Babli, Menaḥot98a.] ? But we are dealing with the case when it was indicating to them the geographic directions [In Ex. 31:12–18 and 35:1–3 the observation of the Sabbath is emphasized in the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. One concludes that the work forbidden on the Sabbath is exactly work needed in building or transporting the Tabernacle. The wagons mentioned here are the 6 wagons donated by the tribal chiefs for the transport of the Sanctuary (Num. 7:3).] . This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six {hand-breadths} [Nine hand-breadths of the Ark and one of the cover.] . But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons. [We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons.] [Corrector’s addition from Šabbat.] It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, [the ark was nine and] [Corrector’s addition.] the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten {hand-breadths} high [There are no biblical indications about the height of the wagons’ platforms above ground.] ? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola [Greek καμάρα, Latin camara, -ae, f. (also camera) “arched or vaulted roof or ceiling, distinct from an outer roof”. The wagons are called עֶגְלֹ֥ת צָב֙. Now צָב means “turtle”; from this comes the usual translation “covered wagon”, using the image of the domed back of the turtle. The expression really is a technical term “freight-wagon”, Accadic ṣubbum, ṣūbum.] ? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to move anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it [This is a side remark. A hole in the public domain 10 hand-breadths deep and 4 by 4 wide creates a new domain for the rules of the Sabbath and is considered a private domain from which nothing may be transported to the public domain. This cannot be derived by comparison either to the Ark or to the wagons.] ? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight [Whether the wagons were covered with a convex covering or not is irrelevant since at the moment of loading the planks and the gobelins of the Sanctuary they were uncovered and certainly had flat loading areas. For the meaning of “straight” for תְּרוּטוֹת cf. Mishnah Middot2:5.] .

8[The paragraph is copied from Ma`serot3:8 (Notes 126–129, ע). It is a general rule that agricultural produce is subject to tithe at the latest when it is brought into a house for use or storage. R. Jehudah stated that a sukkah qualifies as a house for the rules of tithes while the other authorities disagree.] It was stated: Rebbi says, four cubits even though there are not four walls [For him a minimal sukkah must have a thatched roof of at least 4-by-4 cubits surface area but may have less than 4 walls.] . Rebbi Simeon says, four walls even though there are not four cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says, four walls and four cubits [This paragraph explains why R. Jehudah holds that a sukkah counts as a house for the rules of tithes; for him a sukkah must be a complete house since one is required to dwell in it. Rebbi’s standpoint is quoted in the Babli 3b, Yoma10a, Tosephta 2:2.] . Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah requires it to have a mezuzah[even though it has neither four cubits nor four walls.] [Corrector’s addtion, to be deleted.] It is reasonable that Rebbi Jehudah agrees with these rabbis [He does not agree but he requires everything any other authority requires.] , but these rabbis will not agree with Rebbi Jehudah, for even if it has four cubits and four walls it is not required to have a mezuzah [Since it must be temporary.] and it does not create ṭevel [Ṭevel is the state of agricultural produce from which heave and/or tithes are required but which were not yet taken.] for tithes.

9Rebbi Simeon says four, but the rabbis say three [Since it was established that according to the majority opinion a sukkah does not have to be a complete dwelling, the problem remains to find biblical support for a decision about the number of walls the sukkah must have.] . What is the rabbis’ reason? סֻכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת, these are three [In Lev. 23:42,43 the word is used three times.] . One for the top, and two for the bottom, and the third from their words [Since the verses define the obligation to live in huts, the first mention is needed to establish the fact that the essence of a sukkah is its roofing, סְכָךְ, which has to be temporary and thatched from vegetable material. Since then only two occurrences of the word are remaining, in this opinion only two complete walls are required by biblical standards; the third wall is rabbinic or conventional usage.] . What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? סוּכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת plene [In fact, in v. 42 one reads twice סֻכֹּת, in v. 43 once סֻכּוֹת. The first two follow the spelling standards of Moses’s time, the second one that of Ezra who copied the Torah from Hebrew into Aramaic letters (Babli Sanhedrin21b, cf. Sotah7:3 Note 57, Megillah1:11). It is presumed that Ezra incorporated here an oral tradition from earlier times. Babli 6b.] , these are four. One for the top, and three for the bottom, and the fourth from their words. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, two Amoraim. One explained the rabbis’ reason, the other explained Rebbi Simeon’s reason. What is the rabbis’ reason? A sukkah shall be for shade during daytime against dryness [Is. 4:6. A verse from prophets or hagiographs never can prove a commandment but is valid to verify common usage. Babli 6b] , that is one for the top. [סוּכּוֹת סוּכּוֹת [סוּכּוֹת, these are three. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? A sukkah shall be for shade during daytime against dryness, that is one for the top. סוּכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת plene, these are four. The rabbis of Caesarea understand the reason of Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis’ reason from this verse: a sukkah shall be for shade during daytime against dryness, that is one. For shelter and hiding, that is two. From stream and rain. The rabbis consider from stream and rain as one, Rebbi Simeon considers from stream and rain as two [In all three derivations, the requirement of 3 or 4 walls is “rabbinic”, i. e., an old common usage.] .

10And it was stated thus [Tosephta Sukkah1:13.] : “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle [Normally one would expect that the two large walls form a right angle Γ with the third (rabbinic) rudimentary wall parallel to one of the larger ones. He asks whether the two large ones may be parallel and the third at right angles to them: ׀ _ ׀. Since up to three hand-breadths open space are disregarded, the distance between the two parallel walls can be up to 7 hand-breadths, qualified according to everybody. Therefore the answer has to be positive.] ? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle [That the shape is ׀ _׀. In this case there are three walls of 4 cubits each but the missing part is larger than 3 hand-breadths.] , how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus [Tosephta 1:8. Since later the rule is compared to those for eruvin and kilaim, one has to assume that on each side the total length of the open space is less than the sum of the diameters of the columns (cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 246.)] : “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle [That “not according to the rules” means the small (rabbinic) wall in the middle.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those [A configuration like _ ׀ is disqualified.] . Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth [As explained in Note 74, with the permitted empty spaces the theoretical space covered by the one hand-breadth wall must be 7 hand-breadths.] . Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant [It is enough if one has one hand-breadth and adjacent three empty ones.] . Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel [Since the answer is not given, we do not know Rav’s real position.] . Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe [In order to be able to carry in a dead-end street (bordered by the walls of houses) with an eruv, the dead-end street must be separated from the public domain by a visible entrance. This can be effected either by making a symbolic door by putting a horizontal beam over the entrance (Note 6) or creating a symbolic entrance post by putting up a vertical lathe. As door-post it has to be on the wall bordering the street. According to our rules, “on” always means “within three hand-breadths.”] .

11[The following text is both in Kilaim4:4 (Notes 51–81) and in Eruvin Chapter 1 (Notes 256–283). Cf. Babli Eruvin11a.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence [In Tractates Kilaim and Eruvin the word פֵּיאָה does not mean “corner” as in biblical Hebrew and in Tractate Peah but a wire or string strung as a symbolic fence around a field or a vineyard to separate it from the neighboring one, or around a town to make it a “walled” town for the rules of the Sabbath. The imaginary fence represented by the string “saves” from the prohibition of kilaim.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim [In the Babli Eruvin11a/b, the statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of R. Jehudah (not Yose) ben Ḥaninah explicitly excludes the expedient of the bast rope as peah for the Sabbath, but R. Joḥanan excludes it also for kilaim. R. Simeon ben Laqish is reported there to accept for himself the statement attributed here to R Joḥanan, that the rules for Sabbath and kilaim are identical, whereas R. Joḥanan rejects this in general. The position of the Babli is that R. Simeon ben Laqish only reports the opinion of R. Judah ben Ḥaninah without accepting it himself, and that R. Joḥanan prohibits the use of a rope for openings wider than 10 cubits. The Yerushalmi accepts R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement as describing his own position.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar [A place in lower Galilee of unknown location.] ; he showed him a field called Bet Rata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles [Greek δίκρανον, τό.] to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten [The string represents a gate, not a wall. The maximum size of a gate accepted for the rules of the Sabbath is 10 cubits wide.] . Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient [This refers to Mishnah Eruvin1:9. A caravan which is preparing to rest for the Sabbath marks a rectangular domain by putting camel loads at four corners and drawing ropes around it. There must be three ropes, distant not more than 3 hand-breadths one from the next, which together constitute a wall of 10 hand-breadths hight. The caravan clearly wants more space for animals and people than 10 by 10 cubits; they need a surrounding wall, not a surrounding gate. If it is possible to symbolize a wall with one rope, why does one need three?] .

12Rebbi Jonah said: Rebbi Hoshaia asked, what do you say about that symbolic fence, on top or at the sides [If four poles are put up at the four sides of the vineyard, does the string have to go from top to top, to create the impression of a gate, or is it strung at half height between the poles, to give the impression of a wall?] ? If you say on top, so much more on the sides. If you say on the sides, then not on the top. If you say on the top, Rebbi Ḥaggai said it correctly [Since Mishnah Eruvin1:9 does not require the lowest rope to be within three hand-breadths of the ground, it is clear that even if the rows are strung high one needs three ropes rather than just one.] . If you say from the sides, Rebbi Ḥaggai did not say anything [If the rope must be low, the case of פֵּיאָה is different from that of the Mishnah.] . The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Explain it if they were strung on forked poles [If the poles have separate hooks so that each side has a complete arrangement of poles and rope, then even R. Ze`ira will admit that the rope forms a valid enclosure for the Sabbath. In this case, by necessity the rope is only on top. In this, the Yerushalmi parallels the final explanation of the Babli 11b, rejecting symbolic walls but accepting symbolic gates.] , [Greek δίκρανον, τό.] .

13Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits [If a rope is drawn from the top of one pole to the next, there are no height limitations (except, naturally, that it cannot be lower than 10 hand-breadths.)] . Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards (Peah) [For “peah” read with the parallels: “the Sabbath”.] , a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction [Beam or lath are needed only at the entrance to the alley.] ; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides [The problem is not discussed in the Babli.] .

14It is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers [Greek τετράπυλον, τό, “archway entered from four sides.” Bowers erected at the crossing of two paths, with only the posts and the connecting beams built, and the roof formed by plants climbing on the poles. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal considers these beams as cross beams under which one may not carry in a dead-end street on the Sabbath.] in vineyards [The vineyard in question is not enclosed by a wall, or it is enclosed but too large (larger than 5000 square cubits) to be considered a courtyard for the rules of Sabbath; hence, one may carry under the roof of the bower but not outside.] since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams [Greek ’επιστύλιον, τό, “architrave.”] ; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun [In Kilaim“R. Bun and the rabbis.” S. Liebermann points out that in Terumot11:4 (Note 88) for the Leiden text “R. Abun asked (verb in plural)” the Rome ms. reads: “R. Abun and R. Abbin asked”. This probably should be read here also, as it is later in this Chapter.] asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah [The sukkah must have roofing of plant material. The walls may be made of any material. The question is whether a virtual wall is permitted.] ? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah [Since the roofing must have some support, the four corner posts of the sukkah must have some connection on which the roofing may rest. Can these connections be considered as peah, following R. Jeremiah in the preceding case?] ? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things [The rulings of R. Ze`ira. Building a sukkah is a positive commandment but neglecting it is not punishable in court. But desecrating the Sabbath is a capital crime.] are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna [Hence, in regard to the Sabbath this is the opinion of a minority of one, which cannot be operational practice.] .

15[This paragraph from Kilaim4:4 (Notes 82–87) also is found in Eruvin Chapter 1 Notes 246–251 The baraita is similar to Tosephta Kilaim4:6 quoted also in Babli Eruvin16a. The main difference between Yerushalmi and Babli-Tosephta is that in the latter source, each breach has to be smaller than the surrounding wall whereas in the Yerushalmi only the total length of standing wall has to be larger than the total length of the missing parts. The problem of kilaim addressed here is that grain must be separated from vines by at least 4 cubits. If the farmer wants to sow grain close to his vineyard, he has to fence off the vineyard by a wall. The question is, what is called a wall?] It turns out that concerning kilaim everything less than three {hand-breadths} is considered closed [As noted before, an opening of less than three hand-breadths in a wall is disregarded; in computing the total length of the torn-down parts, breaches smaller than three hand-breadths in width are disregarded.] . From three to four, if what is standing is more than what is torn down it is permitted, but if what is torn down is more than what is standing, it is forbidden. From four {hand-breadths} to ten {cubits}, if what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted; but if what is torn down is more than what is standing it is permitted where it is standing [The Babli notes that not only are breaches up to three hand-breadths long disregarded as holes, but also standing pieces of wall up to three hand-breadths wide are disregarded as walls. This is the background of the discussion later in this paragraph.] , forbidden where it is torn down.

16Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three {hand-breadths} is considered closed. From three to four, and from four {hand-breadths} to ten {cubits}, it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from three to four. [R. Joḥanan wants to eliminate the middle part of the baraita, the one dealing with breaches of between three and four hand-breadths, in case that the standing walls also are in pieces less than four hand-breadths wide. While a hole wider than three hand-breadths is considered a breach, a wall narrower than four hand-breadths is not a wall. In that case, there are only holes and no wall at all; the entire wall should be considered as non-existent! He requires in this case that any sown field should be at least four cubits distant from the vineyard.] ” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state [Mishnah Eruvin1:10. The caravan instead of using horizontal ropes may use vertical sticks on condition that the distance between two sticks not be larger than 3 hand-breadths.] : “One surrounds with sticks,” does a stick form a place [Since the sticks are counted and no stick is even one hand-breadth wide, any piece of wall should be considered a wall. The answer is that as long as no two sticks are three hand-breadths distant from each other, the entire dividing fence is considered one solid wall.] ? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three hand-breadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted [This explicitly rejects the text of Babli/Tosephta, that no single hole may be wider than both adjacent pieces of standing wall; the wall is valid as long as the combined length of standing wall (of at least 4 hand-breadths length) is larger than the combined length of the breaches.] .

17Excess sticks that exceed the sukkah are considered part of the sukkah [Babli 19a.] . Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Only if it is on the entire front [The sukkah has three regular walls, II; the fourth side forms the entrance door with a rod on top supporting the thatching. Sticks forming the roof stick out over this rod in a uniform way. Sitting under the rods outside the rod is counted as sitting in the sukkah.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even at a wall. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even not at a wall [If the sukkah does not have parallel walls of equal length, ׀_׀ and the sticks complete the rectangle.] . In the opinion of Rebbi Yasa it is understandable [This is the case discussed earlier, Note 74.] . In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, how could you be lenient in this if its sunshine is more than its shade [The people sitting outside are not sheltered by any walls and may be exposed to the sun.] ?

18“Or where the sunshine is larger than the shade is disqualified;” therefore half and half is qualified. “A wilted sukkah [Arabic ד̇בל “wilting”. Probably it does not mean actually wilting but apt to wilt.] whose shade is more than its sunshine is qualified. [Mishnah 2:3. If it only is qualified if the shade is more than the sunshine, half and half is disqualified.] ” Here you are saying it is qualified, there you are saying it is disqualified. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is different for a tree which usually is spreading [If the material used for the thatching is apt to wilt, one has to be restrictive from the start.] .

19MISHNAH: The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it. What is an old sukkah? Any which he made [I. e., putting up the roofing.] thirty days before the holiday. But if he made it for the holiday it is qualified even from the beginning of the year [Since the festival of Tabernacles starts on Tishre 15, two weeks after New Year’s day, this “beginning of the year” refers to the preceding year.] .

20HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it.” It was stated: One has to renew something in it. The colleagues say, one hand-breadth; Rebbi Yose says, anything. He who says anything, but along the entire length. Is it the same with an old mazzah? Is an old mazzah a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he was not careful about it [An old mazzah is one baked before Passover. Tosephta Pesaḥim2:21 permits the use of old mazzah if it was baked for Passover use. Cf. Pesaḥim2:4, Note 240.] . A sukkah of shepherds [Is disqualified in Tosephta 1:4, but as the Babli 8b explains for potter’s sukkah, if the thatching of the roof was made expressly for the holiday, every kind of sukkah is qualified.] , a sukkah of potters is qualified. A sukkah of Samaritans, if it is made according to the rules [For the thatching of the roof. Babli 8b.] is qualified, not according to the rules is disqualified.

21One [The first sentences are also in Berakhot9:3 (Notes 182–184). There is a similar statement in Tosephta Berakhot6:9 which is quoted in Babli Sukkah46a; the note about the benediction when making a sukkah for somebody else is found only here. Hence, the source here is not the Tosephta which also starts with a general declaration that: "A person performing any commandment recites a benediction over it." The practice of the Babli does not follow the discussion in Sukkah46a but a statement in Menaḥot42b that no benediction is due for a preparatory action, such as making the sukkah, but only for the required act itself such as living in the sukkah.] who makes a sukkah for himself, says: “He Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a sukkah.” For others: “to make a sukkah in that one’s name [One has to pronounce the recipient’s name at the place reserved for “that one’s name.”] .” If he enters it, he says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to dwell in a sukkah.” After he recited the benediction in the first night of the holiday he does not have to recite it again [In the Babli (loc. cit.), this is the opinion of the Babylonian Samuel, supported by the Tosephta. In the name of the Galilean R. Joḥanan, it is reported that one has to recite the benediction every day. Since R. Johanan is a higher authority than Samuel, Babylonian practice followed what there is declared to be Galilean.] . Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Does one have to mention the time after nightfall [The benediction required on all holidays, “Who has kept us alive, maintained us, and enabled us to reach this festive time.”] ? Rav Hoshaia said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ila said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Zevida said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada formulated it as a tradition: Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Oshaia: After nightfall one has to mention the time.

22MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah under a tree it is as if he made it in the house [It is disqualified since part of the shade comes from the leaves of the tree which still are connected to the ground and vegetal matter connected to the ground is disqualified (Mishnah 5.)] . One sukkah on top of the other, the upper one is qualified and the lower one disqualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.

23HALAKHAH: Two thatched roofs one on top of the other, the upper one has more sunshine than shade, the lower one has not more sunshine than shade [This is not the case of the Mishnah, since there one must presume that both roofs are qualified with more shade than sun. Here the question is when thatching in layers is considered to constitute one roof.] . Together, their shade is more than their sunshine. How much may be between them so that they combine? Two Amoraim, one said, ten, the other one said, four [Since the numerals are in the masculine, all measures are hand-breadths.] . The one who said ten objected to the one who said four: because of a tent? We find a tent which is one hand-breadth [Mishnah Ahilut3:7. In matters of impurity of the dead, one cubic hand-breadth is considered a tent. The minimum height of a sukkah is ten hand-breadths. Therefore we find 1 or 10 units as legitimate requirements, but not 4. Babli 10a.] .

24“Rebbi Jehudah says, if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.” What? Really dwellers or even appropriate for dwellers [Does R. Jehudah disqualify the lower sukkah only if there are people in the upper one or even if there are none but they could be (i. e., if somehow the upper one has a floor)?] ? Since an old man stated before Rebbi Ze`ira, “even the lower one is qualified,” there is nobody who says “even” if he does not agree with the preceding. This implies really dwellers [Rejected by the Babli 10a.] .

25MISHNAH: If he spread a sheet over it because of the sun, or under it because of fallen leaves [Nothing which may become impure can be used as material for thatching the roof, Mishnah 1:12. Therefore a textile sheet spread either on top or below the thatched roof disqualifies.] , or if he spread it over the posts of a four-post bed [Greek κωνωπεών, τό, Latin conopium, a bed with mosquito curtains. The ceiling of a four-post bed is horizontal; it creates a ceiling below the roof and disqualifies all space below it.] , it is disqualified. But one may spread it over single posts [Greek ’ανάκλιτα “things to lean on”. Poles in the middle of headboard and foot-end of the bed with a rod connecting them. The mosquito net spread over them forms on both sides a slanting roof which is disregarded since for the majority a slanting roof is not qualified for the sukkah, Mishnah 1:12.] of the bed.

26HALAKHAH: It was stated: if he hung there quilts [Sheets sewn together from rectangular pieces of cloth.] it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that you are saying on the sides [Decorating the walls, not under the roofing. Babli 10b.] , but on top it is disqualified.

27“Or under it because of fallen leaves.” Rebbi Yose said, they only said, “because of fallen leaves.” Therefore if not because of fallen leaves it is qualified [For decoration, not utility. He disagrees with R. Ḥanina. Explained otherwise Babli 10a.] .

28“But one may spread it over single posts of the bed.” Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Since so he makes space with the extremities of his hands [Since when he sleeps in the sukkah he may lift the sheet, or the mosquito net, with his fingers, it is not different from the net hanging down in an incline.] .

29MISHNAH: If he drew over it a vine, or squash, or ivy [Greek κισσός, ‘ο.] , and used it as roofing, it is disqualified. But if the roofing was more than these [If cut vegetal material was more than 50% of the thatching and the remainder still connected to the ground.] or he cut them off from their roots [Even after the roof is finished.] it is qualified. This is the principle: One does not thatch with anything which may become impure or is not grown from the earth. But with anything which may not become impure and is grown from the earth one does thatch.

30HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if he drew them (on the spot) [for this purpose]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: He needs to move it. Rebbi Yose said, both of them are for leniency. If he drew them (on the spot) [for this purpose] even if he did not move it; if he moved it even if he did not draw them (on the spot) [for this purpose] [Creepers used for roofing become qualified after being cut from their roots only if either they were put there for this purpose or were moved after cutting.] .

31Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemia, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he used steps of ladders for roofing it is (qualified) [disqualified] [Wooden ladders are implements and as such subject to impurity. Steps are shaped at the ends; while they have no concavity which would make them susceptible to impurity, they are implements not to be used.] . Male parts, it is qualified [Wooden parts which are straight rods are impervious to impurity.] . Female parts, it is disqualified [Wooden parts with cavities are subject to impurity.] . If he roofed with bundles of flax [Bleached flax is subject to impurity as textile.] , it is disqualified, with raw flax it is qualified. If he roofed it with ropes, there are Tannaim who state, qualified, and there are Tannaim who state, disqualified. He who said qualified, with bast ropes [Made from palm bast which is not considered textile.] ; but he who said disqualified, with linen ropes.

32Rebbi Joḥanan said, when you collect from your threshing floor and your wine press [Deut. 16:13.] . From the waste of the threshing floor and the wine press you make your thatching [The verse in Deut. describes the festival of Tabernacles which, as the name indicates, is characterized by the obligation to dwell in a sukkah. The verse hints at the rule of the Mishnah that the roof of the sukkah has to be made from agricultural waste (which is grown from the earth but as waste is not subject to impurity even if cut and wetted. It is possible that R. Joḥanan reads אספ like Arabic “to have regret” to have waste rather than usable produce.) Babli 12a.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, and mist rose from the earth [Gen. 2:6. This refers to the standard interpretation of Lev. 23:43 that the Children of Israel dwelt in huts in the desert, when in reality they dwelt in tents. Therefore the ‘huts” are taken as the Divine cloud cover which shielded the encampment (as spelled out in the Targumim to Lev. 23:43), which R. Simeon ben Laqish takes as formed by mist from the earth; thatching has to imitate the cloud cover arising from the earth. Babli 11b.] . Rebbi Tanḥuma said, each of them follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan who said that the clouds were above infers it from when you collect. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that the clouds were below infers it from the clouds. Rebbi Abbin said, each of them follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan compares it to one who sends to another an amphora and its pitcher. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish compares it to one who says to another, bring your box and take wheat for yourself [R. Joḥanan also agrees that the roof of the sukkah has to symbolize clouds. He does not agree that clouds are generated by mist from the earth but are sent by God to give rain to the farmers. R. Simeon ben Laqish is presumed to think that clouds are generated by the earth and then filled with rain by God. Both agree that the sukkah is a charm to assure abundant rain in the coming wet season. Detailed argument Gen. rabba13(10).] .

33MISHNAH: One does not thatch with bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of shoots [The soft shoots of vines which are edible, in contrast to wood which is hard and inedible.] ; but all of them are qualified if untied. All of them are qualified as walls.

34HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because it looks like storage [Tied straw and wood is as impervious to impurity as is untied. The reason one may not use bundles is that this is the way the materials are stored; the prohibition is rabbinic because it makes the roof look like a depository and not like a roof or, as the Babli 12a explains, one might use the space as depository and later change one’s mind and make it the roof of a sukkah; then the roof was not made for the holiday and as such is disqualified.] .

35Rebbi Jacob bar Abbaya, Rav Sheshet in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: There is no bundle with less than twenty-five [Therefore small bundles may be used as roofing when still tied.] . Ḥinena bar Shelemia in the name of Rav: If he cut for roofing it has no handles [In general, only edible produce can become impure. But inedible stems to which produce is attached transmit impurity to the produce; the detailed rules are given in Tractate Uqeṣin. It is stated here that if grain is cut as roofing, the straw only has to be more than the grain kernels. No inedible part of the stalk has to be compensated for. Babli 13b.] . If he cut as roofing and then intended it as food it follows his thought [And become disqualified as roofing by his thought.] . If he cut for food and then intended it as roofing? Others say, only if the straw is more than the food and the handles [The shells and the ends of the stalk also have to be compensated for by straw. Babli 13b.] . Rav follows the others. Where do we hold? If he cut for roofing but it became prepared and he said, after they will have fulfilled the commandment I shall bring them back to the threshing floor, do they need preparation a second time or are they already prepared [In general, produce becomes susceptible to impurity only by contact with fluid desired by or desirable for the owner. This is called “preparation for impurity”, cf. Demay2:3, Note 141. The question is not answered. Therefore it is possible that the material is susceptible for impurity, disqualified as roofing, and prepared for impurity as food. No answer is support for the second alternative. Babli 13b.] ?

36Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: You shall cover the Ark with the cover [Misquote of Ex. 40:3; scribal error. Instead of “cover” it must be “gobelin”. Since the gobelin was the dividing wall between the Ark and the interior of the Tent, the intended meaning is: You shall hide the Ark behind the gobelin.] . From here that the wall is called cover. From here that one makes walls with matter susceptible to impurity [Since the root סכך is used, it follows that all that is acceptable as roofing a sukkah is acceptable as wall. Since the gobelin is mentioned which is susceptible to impurity, walls may be made from matter susceptible to impurity. Babli 7b.] .

37MISHNAH: One may use planks as roofing, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Meïr forbids. If he put there a plank four hand-breadths wide it is qualified on condition that he not sleep under it [Everybody agrees that a plank 4 hand-breadths wide, while impervious to impurity, is regularly used in roofing permanent housing, should not be used for the sukkah. But if it is put on the sides, along a wall, it is considered extension of the wall and not part of the roof and therefore disqualifies the roof only if 4 cubits wide (Note 30). The sukkah is qualified but sitting under the plank is not counted as sitting in it.] .

38HALAKHAH: Rebbi [As the quote later in the paragraph (Note 144) and chronology imply, everywhere one has to read Rav Jeremiah (the first generation Babylonian colleague of Rav) instead of Rebbi Jeremiah (the fourth generation head of the Academy of Tiberias.)] Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] [Corrector’s addition, rectifying a scribal omission. In the argument later the numeral is in the masculine (hand-breadths); it seems necessary to consider the feminine form here as sloppy spelling, not referring to cubits.] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements [Even if they qualify as פְּשׁוּטֵי כְלֵי עֵץ “wooden implements without concavities” which are impervious to impurity. These are excluded by tradition, as they could be seen as finished implements, not by any biblical standard. Babli 15a.] . But was not Rebbi Jeremiah {saying} in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is four wide? Therefore if they have been polished for implements everybody agrees that it is permitted. Since Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, if he used steps of ladders for roofing it is disqualified [Wooden ladders are implements and as such subject to impurity. Steps are shaped at the ends; while they have no concavity which would make them susceptible to impurity, they are implements not to be used.] , and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same [Since Rav stated that planks four {hand-breadths} wide are disqualified but also that non-concave wooden parts turned into parts of implements do disqualify, for him both his and R. Joḥanan’s statements are operative.] . Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements, therefore if it is four {hand-breadths} wide everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Now Rebbi Yasa ruled at the big assembly that one may use a cross-beam [Greek μέλαθρον, τό, a substantial load-bearing beam, not simply a thin plank. Cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 41.] for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same [Since the beam need not be polished, the ruling cannot be based on his statement in the name of R. Joḥanan. He also admits Rav’s description of the description of the disagreement between RR. Jehudah and Meïr.] .

39Samuel said, this [The last statement in the Mishnah, that one may not sleep under a plank four hand-breadths wide. Babli 15a.] you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified [If the plank is on the side along a wall it becomes part of the walls, not of the roofing. But if it lies crosswise it is disqualified roofing. If on both sides there is qualified roofing of more than 4 hand-breadths, the 4 hand-breadths wide plank is disregarded and the entire roofing is qualified. The last sentence of the Mishnah is undisputed.] . Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there [In his opinion, the last sentence of the Mishnah follows R. Jehudah and is denied by R. Meïr.] . Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits [In the Babli 17b this is Rav’s opinion, disputed by Samuel.] . A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there [Even if only 3 hand-breadths were used, the plank is four wide and therefore disqualified.] . So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible [The usual Yerushalmi meaning of איפשר. Since in such a minimal sukkah it is impossible to lie down without part of one’s body being under the plank.] not to sleep under it.

40MISHNAH: A roof without insulation [The roof is formed by wooden logs without mortar or any insulation against the rains from non-vegetal sources.] , Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of the House of Hillel either he moves or he lifts one in the middle [Either one re-arranges the logs or one lifts the middle one of any three parallel logs and fills the space by qualified thatching.] , but the House of Shammai say, he moves and lifts one in the middle. Rebbi Meïr says, he lifts one in the middle and does not need to move.

41HALAKHAH: But if he moved he does not have to lift one in the middle [Following Rebbi Meïr.] .

42MISHNAH: If one is roofing his sukkah with spits [Which are metal and therefore disqualified.] or with girders from the bed frame [Which are susceptible to impurity even if wooden.] , if the distance between them is equal to their diameter [If the space between the girders is filled with qualified vegetal material, the sukkah is qualified.] it is qualified. If somebody hollows out a grain stack for a sukkah, it is no sukkah [As explained in the Halakhah.] .

43HALAKHAH: It was stated, more than their diameter [The only way one can be sure that the diameters of the disqualified girders are not larger than the intervals covered by qualified thatching is if the qualified intervals actually are somewhat larger than the measured diameters of the girders. Babli 15b.] . The colleagues say, because no hand-breadth enters into a hand-breadth [Since hand-breadth is not an objectively defined measure, there is no way of making sure that two hand-breadths applied to two different places are absolutely equal.] . Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, is not for glass vessels one hand-breadth equal to another hand-breadth [It is difficult to make sense of this statement. But if it refers to the glass maker, Tosephta Kelim Bava Meṣia` 3:11 states that the glass-maker’s container (καλύβη) is pure if split exactly in the middle. If it were impossible to exactly compare measurements then a statement requiring a 50–50 split never would be applicable.] ? Rebbi Yose said, there it enters and leaves, here it enters and does not leave [It is easy to check equality of length of solid objects that can be superimposed on one another; it is impossible to do so for unrelated distances.] .

44Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because it looks like a storage [And not like a sukkah made expressly for the holiday. In his opinion the prohibition is purely rabbinic.] . Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, you shall make for yourself [Deut. 16:13.] , not from what already was made for you [The sukkah is invalid by biblical standards.] . What is the difference between them? If it is in it [There is a hollow in the stack before he starts making a sukkah(Babli 17a). Carving out the sukkah means making walls. Since the essence of the sukkah is its roofing, being preexisting it is disqualified for R. Ḥiyya. It may be qualified for R. Joḥanan since one does not remove parts in the middle from a stack used as storage.] . In Rebbi Ḥiyya’s opinion it is disqualified, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is qualified.

45MISHNAH: If one drops walls down from top to bottom, if they remain higher than three hand-breadths it is disqualified [But walls starting less than 3 hand-breadths from the ground are equivalent to walls standing on the ground.] . From bottom to top [Standing on the ground, even if the roofing is less than 10 hand-breadths from the ground.] , if it reaches ten hand-breadths it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, just as from bottom to top ten hand-breadths so from top to bottom ten hand-breadths [For him a wall 10 hand-breadths high always is qualified, irrespective of vertical distances from ground or roof.] . If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified [The sukkah is disqualified if along any wall the roofing is not within 3 horizontal hand-breadths.] .

46HALAKHAH: [A parallel text is Eruvin8, Notes 110–117. Since the reference to the rules of Sukkah is formulated there differently from here, the texts in their second parts are different versions, rather than straight copies.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose said it only for Tabernacles, but in the matter of the Sabbath even Rebbi Yose agrees [For the Sabbath and Eruvin, R. Yose will not admit cleavages wider than 3 hand-breadths.] . The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it is even for the Sabbath, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a ruler came to Sepphoris and they suspended quilts [Greek κωνωπεών, τό, Latin conopium, a bed with mosquito curtains. The ceiling of a four-post bed is horizontal; it creates a ceiling below the roof and disqualifies all space below it.] ; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose permitted carrying under them following his father’s argument. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina comes like Rebbi Ḥanania and both disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument, as Rebbi Joḥanan [It seems that one should read: R. Yose ben Ḥanina but both texts have “R. Joḥanan.”] said, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Ḥanania bar Aqabia all three said the same. Rebbi Jehudah of the open bridges [Mishnah Eruvin9:5, where R. Jehudah defines the space under a bridge as private domain if the underpinning of the bridge structure extends 10 hand-breadths below the roadway.] , Rebbi Yose that of tabernacles, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia as it was stated [Šabbat3, Notes 101–103; Babli 87b.] Rebbi Ḥanania permitted three things, he permitted a balcony, and seaweed, and bringing bathtowels [Mishnah Šabbat22:5, Note 21.] .

47MISHNAH: If a house partially collapsed [A one story building of which part of the roof collapsed while all of the walls are standing. The only part of a sukkah for which R. Ḥiyya biblically requires new material expressly for the holiday is the roof. Therefore the remaining house may be used as a sukkah if the hole in the middle of the roof is patched over.] and he thatched over it, it is disqualified if from the walls to the thatching it is four cubits [As was stated earlier, a solid roof adjacent or connected to the walls is considered part of the wall, not of the roof. But this is accepted only up to a distance of 4 cubits from the nearest wall. Empty space is acceptable only up to 3 hand-breadths, disqualified material up to 4 cubits.] . The same holds for a courtyard which is surrounded by a walkway [The entire courtyard may be turned into a sukkah using qualified thatching, with the walls of the houses bordering the courtyard forming its walls, on condition that the roof of the walkway be less than 4 cubits wide.] [Greek ’εξέδρα ‘η, a covered walkway. Cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 88.] . A large sukkah is disqualified if it [The qualified roofing. The makers of the sukkah did not have sufficient material to extend the qualified roof from wall to wall. Then it is much better to fill the remaining space to the walls by disqualified material which disqualifies only by 4 cubits than to leave it empty which disqualifies by 3 hand-breadths.] was surrounded by material which cannot be used for thatching covering four cubits [The sukkah is qualified only if no place 4 cubits away from the nearest wall is directly below disqualified material.] .

48HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths; disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated both. “Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths,” as we have stated: “If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified [The sukkah is disqualified if along any wall the roofing is not within 3 horizontal hand-breadths.] .” “Disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits,” as we have stated: “If a house partially collapsed and he thatched over it, it is disqualified if from the walls to the thatching it is four cubits [As was stated earlier, a solid roof adjacent or connected to the walls is considered part of the wall, not of the roof. But this is accepted only up to a distance of 4 cubits from the nearest wall. Empty space is acceptable only up to 3 hand-breadths, disqualified material up to 4 cubits.] .” Therefore less is qualified. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv answered: pourable mud completes a miqweh but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it [The answer is to a question asked not here but in Berakhot7:1 (Notes 19–29) about the interconnection between rules referring to distinct domains. A miqweh can be used to remove impurities only if it contains 40 se`ah of water, about 135 gallons. If there is not enough clear water, the required volume can be obtained by adding mud which is so moist that it can be poured from a bucket (Mishnah Miqwaot7:1.) R. Eliezer forbids to immerse oneself in mud (Mishnah Miqwaot2:10) but R. Joshua permits. The argument has to be rejected here since R. Joshua will agree that disqualified roofing adjacent to a wall is considered wall, not roofing. Babli 19a.] . Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall [In his opinion the ruling is a later rabbinic one based on an explicit argument.] . Rebbi Hoshaia stated, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Cahana, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, why do we not say, because disqualified roofing only disqualifies in four cubits [In his opinion, this belongs to the traditional rules of sukkah, predating any rabbinic establishment.] ?

49MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah as a shed [More like a tent in that it has no solid walls but the walls are slanting and serve as a roof.] or that he supported it on a wall [The roof is rectangular, one end is supported by a wall, the other on the ground. The Sages hold that walls are not required by the biblical text; they accept a sukkah which is all roof.] , Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies because it has no roof but the Sages qualify it. A large reed mat made to lie on is susceptible to impurity [Any implement of any kind made to sit or lie on is biblically susceptible to severe impurity; this includes reed and bast mats (Mishnah Kelim20:7). The majority holds that small mats always are made to lie on; these are always disqualified from being used as roofing; only mats too large to be used as mattresses are possible candidates for roofing materials of a sukkah which must be impervious to impurity.] and one may not use it as roofing; if made as roofing it is not susceptible to impurity and one may use it as roofing. Rebbi Eliezer says either large or small if made to lie on it is susceptible to impurity and one may not use it as roofing; if made as roofing one may use it as roofing and it is not susceptible to impurity.

50HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that it is qualified if it is built on four stones or otherwise elevated from the ground at least one hand-breadth [Babli 19b; Tosephta 1:10.] . It was stated: If one builds his sukkah like the house of the Lebanon Forest [1K. 7:2–5, built on cedar pillars with a slanting transparent roof.] it is qualified. For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Eliezer.

51Abba bar bar Ḥana [His father was Abba bar Ḥana. One refrains from calling a posthumous child by his real name, A ben A, not to publicize his unlucky fate.] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They formulated this [The Mishnah is formulated only for mats which may be presumed to be made for sitting or lying on, which may become impure even before being used. In all statements about implements being pure or impure, “impure” means susceptible to impurity, “pure” means impervious to impurity.] for Usha mats. Rebbi Eliezer [Probably one should read “R. Eleazar.”] said, [normally] [Corrector’s addition from the following sentence. The word is missing in the Babli, 19a/b.] Usha mats are impure unless made for tents. Normally Tiberian mats [Usha mats were made to sit on, Tiberias mats were made to be used on walls or as door fillers.] are pure unless made for sitting. Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi instructed about those on the doors of stores that they are pure [Since they are used as part of a building, they must be impervious to impurity irrespective of the way they are made.] . Rebbi Immi instructed that woven ones are impure. May one use them for roofing? The disagreement of Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages [The disagreement about small mats mentioned in Note 209.] . Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar instructed in distress to untie the knots [Woven mats whose loose ends are tied together instead of a seam. If these are untied, the entire mat will slowly disintegrate; therefore it is considered no longer usable for its original purpose, and susceptibility to impurity induced by this intended use is eliminated.] and use them as roofing. We have stated [Mishnah Kelim20:7.] : “And similarly if one unties the knots it is pure,” and you are saying so [There is no reason to forbid these mats as roofing even if there is no emergency situation.] ?