Sukkah 22b — the Talmud in English

If the distance was

less than four

tefachim,

there is no need to bring another beam.

And if the distance was

four

tefachim,

one must bring another beam.

The measure of the width of a beam is such that the beam can “receive” [bear upon it] a tile, and it is half a brick of three by three tefachim. And it is sufficient for the beam to have a width of a tefach in order to receive a tile across its width, with an excess of a fingerbreadth on each of its two sides.

And likewise two matching beams

lying side by side like twins, when

in neither one

is there a width

sufficient to receive a tile, and

also

in neither one

is there a width

sufficient to receive a tile:

If they receive a tile across its width

which is

a tefach,

there is no need to bring another beam.

And if not, one must bring another beam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If they receive a tile along its length, three tefachim,

there is no need to bring another beam; and if not, one must bring another beam.

If

the beams were

one above and one below,

one high and one low, and between the two of them there was enough to receive a tile one beside the other, except that the supports of one were higher than those of its fellow [Rashi, Eruvin]—

Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehuda says:

We say, “chavut rammi,” and therefore:

We regard the upper one as though it were below

beside the lower beam,

and the [

that is, or the]

lower one—

as though it were above

beside the upper beam.

Provided that the upper one is not above twenty cubits,

for a beam when it is above twenty cubits is invalid, [as explained in the Mishna at the beginning of Eruvin]—

and

it must not be that

the lower one is below ten

tefachim, for a beam when it is below ten tefachim is invalid, since there is no partition of less than ten tefachim [Rashi]. We have thus learned:

if

they were

both [

the upper and the lower]

within twenty

cubits, even if the upper one was adjacent to the edge of twenty cubits and the lower one was adjacent to the edge of ten tefachim,

we say, “chavut rammi”

and

even though it does not have

a width of

a tefach.

He said to him: Resolve it and say it thus:

a. “We regard [it as]” which they stated is not on account of “chavut rammi,” but on account of “lavud,” as, for example, when they were less than three tefachim close to one another.

b. What they stated, “provided that the upper one is not above twenty and the lower one below ten,” does not mean that the existence of these conditions is sufficient; rather, it is speaking of two cases, and this is what it says:

a.

Provided that the upper one is not above twenty

cubits

but within twenty, and the lower one is adjacent to it by less than three—

b.

Alternatively: provided that the lower one is not below ten

tefachim

but above ten

tefachim,

and the upper one is adjacent to it by less than three.

But

if there were

three

tefachim between them, so that you cannot say “lavud,”

since it does not have a tefach, we do not say “

chavut rammi.”

We learned in the Mishna:

and when its shade is greater than its sunlight, it is valid:

And we raise an objection: Since we learned, “and when its shade is “greater” than its sunlight, the sukka is valid,” it is implied

if they are equal [

when the shade and the sunlight are equal], the sukka is

invalid.

But did we not learn in the other chapter [

the preceding chapter]:

and when its sunlight is “

greater”

than its shade, it is invalid,

and it is implied conversely:

if they are equal,

it is

valid?!

And we answer: The rays of the sun that enter through the air in the roofing above make more sunlight below than the size of the opening through which they entered; and the two Mishnayot are not speaking of the same matter. Rather, one is speaking of the roofing and the air, and the other is speaking of the shade and the sunlight.

And consequently

there is no difficulty

from the contradiction between the Mishnayot:

For

here—

in our Mishna, “and when its shade is greater than its sunlight, it is valid”—it is speaking

from above,

in the roofing. For if the roofing is greater than the air, it is valid. But if the roofing and the air were equal, it would not be valid, for below, the sunlight is greater than the shade.

Here—

in the Mishna in the preceding chapter, “and when its sunlight is greater than its shade, it is invalid”—it is speaking

from below,

on the floor of the sukka, where the sunlight and the shade are discernible, that there is more sunlight than shade. But if the sunlight and the shade were equal, the sukka would be valid, for the roofing itself is greater than the air.

Rav Pappa said: This is what people say: Like a zuz

[a small coin of a zuz] of air

from above

at a height , it makes sunlight

like

the size of

a sela

[a large coin of a sela]

from below

on the floor.

We learned in the Mishna:

thick like a house,

even though the stars are not visible through it, it is valid:

The Sages taught: Thick like a house, even though the stars are not visible through it, it is valid.

And if

the rays of the sun

[the glimmers of the sun]

are not visible through it: Beit Shammai declare it invalid; and Beit Hillel declare it valid.

Mishna:

One who makes his sukka atop a wagon,

even though it moves and is not fixed.

Or atop a ship,

a high place of the ship, even though it is very high and the wind prevails there and uproots the sukka.

The sukka is

valid,

since the sukka is a temporary dwelling.

And one may ascend to it,

it is permitted to ascend to it

on a Festival.

But if he made his sukka

atop a tree,

he arranged his place at its top and made partitions and roofing there—

or atop a camel,

for example, he placed doors upon two camels, and they are the floor of the sukka, and he made partitions and roofing above. The sukka is

valid,

and if he ascended to it on a Festival, he fulfilled his obligation.

And

indeed,

one may not ascend to it on a Festival.

For one may not ascend or use a tree on a Festival, lest one detach something from it. And likewise it is forbidden to ride upon an animal on a Festival, lest one cut a branch to guide it.

If he made

two [

two partitions]

in a tree,

he supported most of the floor of the sukka on a tree and made two partitions around it at the top of the tree,

and

the

one [

one partition] he made

by human hands,

he set it up on the ground and supported part of the floor of the sukka in the middle of the partition, and the partition is ten tefachim higher than the ground.

Or

he made

two [

two partitions]

by human hands and one in a tree—

the sukka is

valid, and one may not ascend to it on a Festival,

for if the tree were removed, the floor of the sukka would fall even though it rests upon the two partitions that are on the ground, and it follows that he is using the tree.

But if he made

three by human hands and one in a tree,

the sukka is

valid and

also

one may ascend to it on a Festival.