Sukkah 15b — the Talmud in English

And therefore the Gemara asks:

But

behold,

it is possible to be exact

and to arrange that the space between the spits be exactly equal to the width of the spits themselves; and from where is it evident to the one who answers that whenever the Mishna uses the expression “like them,” its intention is not to say that the space was literally like them?!

And the Gemara answers:

Rabbi Ami said:

Actually, it is possible to be exact and to make the space precisely the measure of the spits; nevertheless, our Mishna is speaking of a case where he was not exact, but rather

where he extended,

where he intentionally made the space between the spits slightly wider than the place of the spits themselves. And what we learned—that the space was “like them”—means that it was the measure of the spits with “entering and exiting,” and not with exact equality. And all this is according to the one who says that when the open area is equal to the standing area it is invalid. But the one who declares it valid when the open area is equal to the standing area explains our Mishna according to its plain meaning: that the space was like them with exact equality.

Rava said

to resolve in another manner the difficulty against Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua from our Mishna:

Even if you say

that you should interpret our Mishna

as referring to a case where he did not extend,

and “like them” means literally like them, one should interpret our Mishna in a manner in which he does not place the valid roofing beside the invalid roofing in the space between the spits,

but

, if they were

the spits or the bed poles

placed

upon the sukka

lengthwise

[that is, along its length], he

places

the valid roofing

crosswise

[that is, along its width]. This means that he places the ends of the reeds upon the spits. And likewise, if the spits were placed upon the sukka

crosswise

[along its width], he

places

the roofing reeds

lengthwise.

And since he increased the valid roofing over the invalid roofing—for the ends of the reeds placed upon the spits join the valid portion between the spits—the minority of invalid roofing is nullified by the valid roofing, which is greater than it, and it is as though the entire sukka were roofed with valid roofing.

We learned in the Mishna: One who roofs his sukka with spits,

or with bed poles:

Bed poles are beams made square, as a base for the bed, with ropes stretched between them, upon which the pillows and quilts are placed.

Let us say

that we should state that our Mishna, which disqualifies bed poles for roofing because they are an object susceptible to ritual impurity, even though when they are not attached to the bed they are not fit for use and they do not have the status of a utensil to become susceptible to ritual impurity,

supports Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomi?

For Rabbi Ami bar Tavyomi said: If one roofs

his sukka

with worn-out utensils

[worn-out garments], which are not fit to become susceptible to ritual impurity on account of themselves, because they are not three fingerbreadths wide, as will be explained below, the sukka

is invalid.

Since, before they became worn out, they were part of a garment that had the status of a utensil susceptible to ritual impurity, therefore, even though now they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity, the Sages decreed that one may not roof with them, lest he come to roof with utensils that are susceptible to ritual impurity.

And the Gemara considered that for this reason our Mishna disqualifies bed poles for roofing, since they came from a utensil fit to become susceptible to ritual impurity.

And the Gemara rejects this: Our Mishna is not speaking of one who roofs with bed poles alone; rather, the interpretation of the Mishna is

as Rabbi Hanan said in the name of Rabbi

to interpret another Mishna [as follows], that it is speaking

of a long pole,

a beam made along the length of the bed,

and two legs

[feet] attached to it—one at its head and one at its foot. Or

of a short pole,

a beam made across the width of the bed, at its head or at its foot,

and two legs

attached to it.

And

here too,

even here, when the tanna said “with bed poles,” his intention is not the bed beams alone, but rather

a long pole and two legs,

or

a short pole and two legs.

And since the legs of the bed are attached to that beam, the designation “utensil” has not departed from it, and it is fit to become susceptible to ritual impurity.

And

where was it stated

this statement

of Rabbi Hanan in the name of Rabbi?

Concerning that which we learned

Kelim 18:9]: