handbreadths

if the distance was less than three handbreadths it is valid.

Why do we say there ‘less than four cubits’, and here ‘less than three handbreadths’?

There where there is a wall, it is sufficient [if the distance is] less than four cubits; here, however, where a wall has to be made, [if the distance is] ‘less than three handbreadths’ it is[valid]; otherwise it is not.

If [a sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high and one built in it a pillar ten handbreadths high, and [the pillar] was large enough for a valid sukkah,[in this case] Abaye intended to draw the partitions upward,

ONE WHICH IS NOT TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH. How do we know this?

the ark [of the covenant] was nine handbreadths high, and the ark cover one handbreadth, making a total of ten handbreadths, and it is written, "And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the arkcover" (Exodus 25:22)

the ark [of the covenant] was nine handbreadths high, and the ark cover one handbreadth, making a total of ten handbreadths, and it is written, "And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the arkcover" (Exodus 25:22)

But did the Shechinah not descend to earth? Isn't it written, "And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai?" (Exodus 19:20)? That was above ten handbreadths [from the summit]. But is it not written, "And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives?" (Zechariah 14:4)? Above ten handbreadths.

But did the Shechinah not descend to earth? Isn't it written, "And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai?" (Exodus 19:20)? That was above ten handbreadths [from the summit]. But is it not written, "And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives?" (Zechariah 14:4)? Above ten handbreadths.

But did not Moses and Elijah ascend to Heaven? Is it not in fact written, "And Moses went up unto God?" (Exodus 19:3). [That was] to a level lower than ten [handbreadths from heaven]. But is it not written, "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven?"(II Kings 2:11) [That was] to a level lower than ten handbreadths But is it not written, "He seizes hold of the face of His throne, and He spreads His cloud upon him," (Job 26:9) and R. Tanhum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread some of the radiance of his Shechinah and his cloud upon him? That was at a level lower than ten handbreadths.

But did not Moses and Elijah ascend to Heaven? Is it not in fact written, "And Moses went up unto God?" (Exodus 19:3). [That was] to a level lower than ten [handbreadths from heaven]. But is it not written, "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven?"(II Kings 2:11) [That was] to a level lower than ten handbreadths But is it not written, "He seizes hold of the face of His throne, and He spreads His cloud upon him," (Job 26:9) and R. Tanhum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread some of the radiance of his Shechinah and his cloud upon him? That was at a level lower than ten handbreadths.

But did not Moses and Elijah ascend to Heaven? Is it not in fact written, "And Moses went up unto God?" (Exodus 19:3). [That was] to a level lower than ten [handbreadths from heaven]. But is it not written, "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven?"(II Kings 2:11) [That was] to a level lower than ten handbreadths But is it not written, "He seizes hold of the face of His throne, and He spreads His cloud upon him," (Job 26:9) and R. Tanhum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread some of the radiance of his Shechinah and his cloud upon him? That was at a level lower than ten handbreadths.

But in any case is it not written, "He seizes hold of the face of His throne"? The throne was well lowered for his sake until [it reached a level] lower than ten handbreadths [from Heaven] and then he seized hold of it.

One can understand that the ark was nine [handbreadths high] since it is written, "And they shall make an ark of acacia wood: two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height"(Exodus 25:10). But how do we know that the ark-cover was a handbreadth [high]? From that which R. Hanina taught: For all the vessels which Moses made, the Torah gave the measurements of their length and breadth and height, [except in the case of] the ark-cover, its length and its breadth are given, but not its height.

But how do we know that the height of the interior space exclusive of the skhakh, must be ten [handbreadths]. Say that it might include the skhakh!

Now what was the height of the Tabernacle? Ten cubits, as it is written, "Ten cubits shall be the length of a board" (Exodus 26:16). How much is this? Sixty handbreadths. How much is a third? Twenty handbreadths. Deduct the ten of the ark and the ark-cover, and ten handbreadths remain; and it is written, "And the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high, covering the ark-cover with their wings" (Exodus 25:20). [From which we see that] that the Merciful One calls [the wings that were stretched] above a height of ten handbreadths a ‘covering."

Now what was the height of the Tabernacle? Ten cubits, as it is written, "Ten cubits shall be the length of a board" (Exodus 26:16). How much is this? Sixty handbreadths. How much is a third? Twenty handbreadths. Deduct the ten of the ark and the ark-cover, and ten handbreadths remain; and it is written, "And the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high, covering the ark-cover with their wings" (Exodus 25:20). [From which we see that] that the Merciful One calls [the wings that were stretched] above a height of ten handbreadths a ‘covering."

Now what was the height of the Tabernacle? Ten cubits, as it is written, "Ten cubits shall be the length of a board" (Exodus 26:16). How much is this? Sixty handbreadths. How much is a third? Twenty handbreadths. Deduct the ten of the ark and the ark-cover, and ten handbreadths remain; and it is written, "And the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high, covering the ark-cover with their wings" (Exodus 25:20). [From which we see that] that the Merciful One calls [the wings that were stretched] above a height of ten handbreadths a ‘covering."

Now what was the height of the Tabernacle? Ten cubits, as it is written, "Ten cubits shall be the length of a board" (Exodus 26:16). How much is this? Sixty handbreadths. How much is a third? Twenty handbreadths. Deduct the ten of the ark and the ark-cover, and ten handbreadths remain; and it is written, "And the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high, covering the ark-cover with their wings" (Exodus 25:20). [From which we see that] that the Merciful One calls [the wings that were stretched] above a height of ten handbreadths a ‘covering."

This explanation is satisfactory according to R. Meir, who says that all the cubits [in the Sanctuary] were normal cubits, but according to R. Judah who says that the cubits of the building were six handbreadths, but of the vessels were five, what can be said?

For how much [then] were the ark and cover? Eight and a half, so that eleven and a half handbreadths are left. Shall we [therefore] say that a Sukkah must be [at least] eleven and a half [handbreadths high]?

For how much [then] were the ark and cover? Eight and a half, so that eleven and a half handbreadths are left. Shall we [therefore] say that a Sukkah must be [at least] eleven and a half [handbreadths high]?

R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) ruled: One makes [the additional wall of the width of] a loose handbreadth and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.

R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) ruled: One makes [the additional wall of the width of] a loose handbreadth and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.

R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) says, He makes a strip of slightly more than four [handbreadths] and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.

R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) says, He makes a strip of slightly more than four [handbreadths] and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.

R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) says, He makes a strip of slightly more than four [handbreadths] and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.

But why did you say in the previous case that one loose handbreadth suffices while here you say that there must be a strip of four handbreadths? There where there are two valid walls, a loose handbreadth suffices, but here where there are not two valid walls, if there is a strip of four handbreadths it is valid, otherwise, it is not [valid].

But why did you say in the previous case that one loose handbreadth suffices while here you say that there must be a strip of four handbreadths? There where there are two valid walls, a loose handbreadth suffices, but here where there are not two valid walls, if there is a strip of four handbreadths it is valid, otherwise, it is not [valid].

Abaye raised an objection against him: Do we then apply the rule of ‘since’? Was it not in fact taught: ‘[The rules relating to] a wall of a Sukkah are the same as those relating to a wall for Shabbat, as long as there is no gap of three handbreadths between any two reeds.

Since a man occupies the space of a cubit, and where the circumference [of a circle] is three handbreadths its diameter is one handbreadth, it would therefore be enough of only twelve men [can sit around it]?

R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna say: Four [handbreadths], since we do not find a place of any [legal] importance to be less than four [handbreadths]. And Shmuel says,

R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna say: Four [handbreadths], since we do not find a place of any [legal] importance to be less than four [handbreadths]. And Shmuel says,

Ten [handbreadths]. What is the reason of Shmuel? As its validity, so is its invalidity. Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths

Ten [handbreadths]. What is the reason of Shmuel? As its validity, so is its invalidity. Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths

Ten [handbreadths]. What is the reason of Shmuel? As its validity, so is its invalidity. Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths

What does it mean ‘there are no occupants’? If we say, actual occupants, are then occupants [it could be objected] a determining factor? Rather we must say that ‘there are no occupants' means that the Sukkah is unsuitable for occupation? How so? Because it is less than ten handbreadths high. We could therefore infer that the first opinion [in the Mishnah] holds that even if it is unsuitable for occupation it is still invalid?

It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah which are removed four [handbreadths from the skhakh] R. Nahman declares them valid, valid, And R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declare them invalid.

R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna once came to the house of the exilarch, And R. Nahman sheltered them in a Sukkah whose decorations were separated four handbreadths [from the skhakh]. They were silent and they didn't say a word to him. He said to them, ‘Have our rabbis retracted their teaching’? They answered him: We are messengers performing a mitzvah, and [therefore] we are free from the obligation of the Sukkah.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel, It is permissible to sleep in a canopied bed in a Sukkah, even though it has a flat roof, provided it is not ten [handbreadths] high.

Come and hear: He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? Here we are dealing with a case of one that was ten [handbreadths] high.

It was objected: He who sleeps under the bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? But, surely, Samuel has explained that [this refers to] a bed ten [handbreadths] high.

Come and hear: or if he spread [a sheet] over the frame of a four-post bed, [the sukkah] is invalid? There also it is a case where they are ten [handbreadths] high

But surely, it was not taught in this way, for it has been taught: Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles], and kinofot [means a frame with] four [poles]; If one spread a sheet over the frame of kinofot it is invalid, if over naklitin, it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed. This implies that kinofot [are invalid] even if they are less than ten [handbreadths high]?

But surely, it was not taught in this way, for it has been taught: Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles], and kinofot [means a frame with] four [poles]; If one spread a sheet over the frame of kinofot it is invalid, if over naklitin, it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed. This implies that kinofot [are invalid] even if they are less than ten [handbreadths high]?

Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Shmuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? They said: In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent.

Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Shmuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? They said: In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent.

It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed naked may not put his head out of it and read the Shema? The latter refers to a case where [the canopy] was ten [handbreadths] high.

But as to a house, even though it is not ten [handbreadths] high, since it is permanent it constitutes a valid tent, for it is no worse than the frame of a four-post bed.

Another version: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted to sleep in a bridal-bed in a Sukkah, since it has no roof, even though it is ten [handbreadths] high

Come and hear: Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles]; kinofot [means a frame with] four [poles], if he spread a canopy over the frame of kinofot it is invalid, over that of naklitin it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed. But if they are ten [handbreadths] high above the bed, it is invalid, [is it not] even though it has no roof?

Come and hear: Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles]; kinofot [means a frame with] four [poles], if he spread a canopy over the frame of kinofot it is invalid, over that of naklitin it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed. But if they are ten [handbreadths] high above the bed, it is invalid, [is it not] even though it has no roof?

Rabbah bar R. Huna expounded, It is permitted to sleep in a canopied bed [in a Sukkah] even though it has a roof and even though it is ten [handbreadths] high According to whom [does he hold]? According to R. Judah who said that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent, tent as we have learned: R. Judah said, We were accustomed to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders.

Mishnah: They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words or Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids. If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it.

Rav said: The dispute is in a case of planks which are four [handbreadths wide], for R. Meir holds that this is forbidden as a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof, while R. Judah holds that there is not a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof. But in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid. Shmuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.

Rav said: The dispute is in a case of planks which are four [handbreadths wide], for R. Meir holds that this is forbidden as a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof, while R. Judah holds that there is not a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof. But in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid. Shmuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.

Rav said: The dispute is in a case of planks which are four [handbreadths wide], for R. Meir holds that this is forbidden as a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof, while R. Judah holds that there is not a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof. But in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid. Shmuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.

Rav said: The dispute is in a case of planks which are four [handbreadths wide], for R. Meir holds that this is forbidden as a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof, while R. Judah holds that there is not a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof. But in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid. Shmuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.

R. Papa answered: This is what he (Shmuel) means: If they are four [handbreadths wide] the sukkah is invalid according to all; If they are less than three, it is valid according to all. What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks. Over what do they dispute? [Planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide]. One master holds that since there is not in them the minimum measure of a ‘place’ we do not decree against their use, and the other master holds the opinion that since the law of lavud can no longer apply to them we do decree against their use.

R. Papa answered: This is what he (Shmuel) means: If they are four [handbreadths wide] the sukkah is invalid according to all; If they are less than three, it is valid according to all. What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks. Over what do they dispute? [Planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide]. One master holds that since there is not in them the minimum measure of a ‘place’ we do not decree against their use, and the other master holds the opinion that since the law of lavud can no longer apply to them we do decree against their use.

We learned: If one places over it a plank which is four handbreadths wide, it is valid, provided that he does not sleep under it. Now it is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths] but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid; for this reason he must not sleep under it. But according to Rav who says that the dispute is where there are four [handbreadths] but where there are less than four all agree that it is valid, why, according to R. Judah, may he not sleep under it?

We learned: If one places over it a plank which is four handbreadths wide, it is valid, provided that he does not sleep under it. Now it is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths] but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid; for this reason he must not sleep under it. But according to Rav who says that the dispute is where there are four [handbreadths] but where there are less than four all agree that it is valid, why, according to R. Judah, may he not sleep under it?

We learned: If one places over it a plank which is four handbreadths wide, it is valid, provided that he does not sleep under it. Now it is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths] but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid; for this reason he must not sleep under it. But according to Rav who says that the dispute is where there are four [handbreadths] but where there are less than four all agree that it is valid, why, according to R. Judah, may he not sleep under it?

It is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four handbreadths all agree that it is invalid, [since it may be explained;] What does ‘combine’ mean? That they combine to make four [handbreadths].

It is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four handbreadths all agree that it is invalid, [since it may be explained;] What does ‘combine’ mean? That they combine to make four [handbreadths].

It is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four handbreadths all agree that it is invalid, [since it may be explained;] What does ‘combine’ mean? That they combine to make four [handbreadths].

But according to Rav, who says that their dispute is where there are four [handbreadths], but where there are not four handbreadths all agree that it is valid, how is it to be explained? If there are four [handbreadths] why do they need to combine; if there are not, why [is it invalid]? Are they not mere sticks?

But according to Rav, who says that their dispute is where there are four [handbreadths], but where there are not four handbreadths all agree that it is valid, how is it to be explained? If there are four [handbreadths] why do they need to combine; if there are not, why [is it invalid]? Are they not mere sticks?

But according to Rav, who says that their dispute is where there are four [handbreadths], but where there are not four handbreadths all agree that it is valid, how is it to be explained? If there are four [handbreadths] why do they need to combine; if there are not, why [is it invalid]? Are they not mere sticks?

Indeed [it is a case] where there are four handbreadths, and what [is meant by] "combine" they combine to form four cubits at the side

Another version: goes well according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid. What is meant by ‘combine’? That they combine to form four cubits at the side.

But according to Rav it goes well according to R. Meir, since what is meant by ‘combine’ may be that they combine to form four cubits at the side, but according to R. Judah, who says that even if there are four [handbreadths] the Sukkah is valid, what could be the meaning of ‘they do not combine’? Are they not like mere sticks? Since R. Meir said ‘they do combine’, R. Judah said ‘they do not combine’.

It has been taught in agreement with Rav: If he covered the sukkah with planks of cedar which are not four [handbreadths wide], it is valid according to all. If they have four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.

It has been taught in agreement with Rav: If he covered the sukkah with planks of cedar which are not four [handbreadths wide], it is valid according to all. If they have four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.

R. Judah said: It happened in a time of danger that we brought planks which were four [handbreadths wide] and we laid them over a balcony and sat under them. They said to him, They said to him A time of danger is no proof.

It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid. And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation

It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid. And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation

It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid. And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation

Can we say that the following provides support for his view: If [the sukkah] cannot contain his head, the major part of his body and his table, or if a breach has been made in it large enough for a kid to jump in headlong, or if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, even if he puts in three handbreadths, it is invalid.

Can we say that the following provides support for his view: If [the sukkah] cannot contain his head, the major part of his body and his table, or if a breach has been made in it large enough for a kid to jump in headlong, or if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, even if he puts in three handbreadths, it is invalid.

How so? Surely that he placed them on their sides? No! Here we are dealing with a case where he placed it above the entrance of the sukkah, with three [of the four handbreadths] within and one protruding outside, in which case it is considered as a waste (skhakh) protruding from the Sukkah, and every waste (skhakh) protruding from a Sukkah is regarded as [part of the] Sukkah.

This is correct according to Rav who says that the dispute is where the planks are four [handbreadths wide], since in such a case R. Meir holds that we decree lest one come to use ordinary roofing while R. Judah says we don't decree lest one use ordinary roofing But according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where the planks are not four [handbreadths wide], but that where they are four handbreadths wide all agree that it is invalid, on what principle do they dispute in the latter [Mishnah]?

This is correct according to Rav who says that the dispute is where the planks are four [handbreadths wide], since in such a case R. Meir holds that we decree lest one come to use ordinary roofing while R. Judah says we don't decree lest one use ordinary roofing But according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where the planks are not four [handbreadths wide], but that where they are four handbreadths wide all agree that it is invalid, on what principle do they dispute in the latter [Mishnah]?

This is correct according to Rav who says that the dispute is where the planks are four [handbreadths wide], since in such a case R. Meir holds that we decree lest one come to use ordinary roofing while R. Judah says we don't decree lest one use ordinary roofing But according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where the planks are not four [handbreadths wide], but that where they are four handbreadths wide all agree that it is invalid, on what principle do they dispute in the latter [Mishnah]?

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered with discarded vessels it is invalid’. What are discarded vessels? Abaye said, Small strips of cloth less than three [handbreadths] square which are unfit to be used either by rich or by poor.

If he hollows out a haystack: R. Huna said: This was taught only where there is not a hollow of one handbreadth [in height] extending to seven [handbreadths square], but if there is a hollow of one handbreadth extending to seven, it is a [valid] sukkah.

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice

We learned there A cistern between two courtyards—they do not fill up from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, below or from its rim. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:

R. Hisda stated in the name of Abimi: A matting slightly more than four handbreadths [wide] is permitted as a sukkah wall. How does one place it? — One suspends it in the middle less than three [handbreadths] from the ground and less than three from the top, and whatever [space] is less than three handbreadths is treated as lavud.

R. Hisda stated in the name of Abimi: A matting slightly more than four handbreadths [wide] is permitted as a sukkah wall. How does one place it? — One suspends it in the middle less than three [handbreadths] from the ground and less than three from the top, and whatever [space] is less than three handbreadths is treated as lavud.

R. Hisda stated in the name of Abimi: A matting slightly more than four handbreadths [wide] is permitted as a sukkah wall. How does one place it? — One suspends it in the middle less than three [handbreadths] from the ground and less than three from the top, and whatever [space] is less than three handbreadths is treated as lavud.

It was objected: A matting slightly more than seven [handbreadths] is permitted as a Sukkah wall! That was taught with reference to a large Sukkah; and what does it inform us? That walls may be suspended from above downwards in agreement with R. Yose.

R. Ammi said: A board which is slightly more than four [handbreadths] wide is permitted for a sukkah wall when he places it less than three [handbreadths] from the adjacent wall, since a space less than three [handbreadths] is treated as lavud

R. Ammi said: A board which is slightly more than four [handbreadths] wide is permitted for a sukkah wall when he places it less than three [handbreadths] from the adjacent wall, since a space less than three [handbreadths] is treated as lavud

R. Ammi said: A board which is slightly more than four [handbreadths] wide is permitted for a sukkah wall when he places it less than three [handbreadths] from the adjacent wall, since a space less than three [handbreadths] is treated as lavud