mishnah

We have a teaching in our Mishnah : A Ba'al Keri meditates upon [the wording of the Shema'] in his heart and says neither the benediction before nor after. At his meal, he says the Grace after [in his heart] but not the Grace before.

Hence [the Rabbis] said : Men with a running issue, lepers and those who have had intercourse with menstruous women are permitted to read the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, to study Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, Halakot and Aggadot ; but those who are Ba'al Keri are forbidden.

R. Jose says : The Ba'al Keri may study what is familiar to him, but he must not expound the Mishnah. R. Jonathan b. Joseph says : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. R. Nathan b. Abishalom says : Also the Talmud may he expound, but he must not pronounce the name of God when it occurs. R. Johanan the Sandal-maker, disciple of R.'Akiba, said in the name of R.'Akiba : Such a man should not enter upon study at all. Another version of this statement is : Such a man should not enter a House of Study at all. R. Judah says : He may study the Halakot of Derek Eres.

R. Jose says : The Ba'al Keri may study what is familiar to him, but he must not expound the Mishnah. R. Jonathan b. Joseph says : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. R. Nathan b. Abishalom says : Also the Talmud may he expound, but he must not pronounce the name of God when it occurs. R. Johanan the Sandal-maker, disciple of R.'Akiba, said in the name of R.'Akiba : Such a man should not enter upon study at all. Another version of this statement is : Such a man should not enter a House of Study at all. R. Judah says : He may study the Halakot of Derek Eres.

The teacher stated above : "He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud." This supports the statement of R. El'ai, for R. El'ai declared that Rab Aha b. Jacob said in the name of our master : The Halakah is that he may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. This is as the Tannaim [taught] : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud ; these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hannina b. Gamaliel : Both of them are forbidden ; but [the Rabbis] said to him : Both of them are permitted.

The teacher stated above : "He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud." This supports the statement of R. El'ai, for R. El'ai declared that Rab Aha b. Jacob said in the name of our master : The Halakah is that he may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. This is as the Tannaim [taught] : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud ; these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hannina b. Gamaliel : Both of them are forbidden ; but [the Rabbis] said to him : Both of them are permitted.

The teacher stated above : "He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud." This supports the statement of R. El'ai, for R. El'ai declared that Rab Aha b. Jacob said in the name of our master : The Halakah is that he may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. This is as the Tannaim [taught] : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud ; these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hannina b. Gamaliel : Both of them are forbidden ; but [the Rabbis] said to him : Both of them are permitted.

MISHNAH If he was standing in the Tefillah and recollects that he is a Ba'al Keri, he should not interrupt [his prayer] but shorten it.

If he had gone down to bathe, should he have time to ascend, clothe himself and read [the Shema'] before sunrise, he must ascend, clothe himself and read. It is possible to say that the Mishnah states the law anonymously in agreement with R. Eliezer who declares: He may finish it any time until sunrise. Thou mayest even say that it is in agreement with R. Joshua and perhaps it is here like the Wetikin ;

He may not immerse himself in evil-smelling water, nor water of soaking, until he has poured [fresh] water therein. How much water must he proceed to add? Nay, the Mishnah must be read thus: He may not immerse himself at all in evil-smelling water, nor in water of soaking ; nor [may he read the Shema' by a vessel containing] urine, until he has poured [fresh] water therein, and then he may read it.

MISHNAH A man with a running issue who experienced emission, a menstruous woman from whom the semen has escaped, and a woman who during intercourse experiences the flow require immersion; but R. Judah exempts them therefrom.

GEMARA The question was asked : If a Ba'al Keri sees a flow, how is it according to R. Judah's view ? For although R. Judah there [in the Mishnah] exempts the man with a running issue who experienced emission — and such a man originally did not require immersion — but a Ba'al Keri who experiences a flow — and such a man originally did require immersion — does he compel to have immersion ? Or perhaps there is no difference ?

MISHNAH The morning Tefillah [may be said] until midday. R. Judah says: Until the fourth hour. The afternoon Tefillah [may be said] until the evening. R. Judah says : Until the middle of the afternoon.

GEMARA I quote against the Mishnah : The obligation [of the Shema'] is at sunrise, so as to unite the Ge'ullah and the Tefillah, and consequently one says the Tefillah in the day-time!

As for the Tefillah of the evening, it has no fixed time. What means it has no fixed time? If we are to suppose that should a man so desire, he can say the Tefillah at any time during the night, then let the Mishnah teach explicitly, "The evening Tefillah [may be said] at any time during the night"! What, then, means it has no fixed time?

MISHNAH R. Nehunya h. Hakkanah, on entering and leaving the House of Study, used to offer a short prayer. They said to him : What is the nature of this prayer ? He replied : On entering I pray that no offence should occur through me; and when I leave I offer thanks-giving for my portion .

MISHNAH Rabban Gamaliel says: Every day one should pray the eighteen [benedictions]. R. Joshua says : The abstract of the eighteen [benedictions]. R. 'Akiba says: If his prayer is fluent in his mouth, he should pray the eighteen ; but if not, an abstract of the eighteen.

MISHNAH R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah says : The additional Tefillah is only to be said with the local Congregation. The Sages say: Whether with or without the local Congregation. R. Judah says in his name: In any place where there is a local Congregation, the individual is exempt from the additional Tefillah.

MISHNAH One must not stand up to say the Tefillah except in a serious frame of mind. The pious men of old used to wait an hour and then say the Tefillah, in order to direct their heart to their Father in Heaven. Even when a king greets him, he must not respond ; and though a serpent be wound round his heel, he must not interrupt.

MISHNAH We refer to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead" and the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years," and the "Division" in "Thou favourest man with knowledge." R. 'Akiba says : One should say the last mentioned as a fourth benediction by itself. R. Eliezer says : [It is to be included] in the "Thanksgiving."

MISHNAH Whoever says [in his Tefillah] "To a bird's nest do Thy mercies extend" or "For the good be Thy name remembered" or "We give thanks, we give thanks," him do we silence.

A certain man went down [to the Ark] in the presence of Rabbah and said, "Thou hast compassion on a bird's nest ; do Thou have compassion and mercy upon us." Rabbah exclaimed, "How this Rabbinical scholar knows how to find favour with his Lord!" Abbai said to him, "Lo, we have learnt in the Mishnah: We silence him!"

MISHNAH He who says in his Tefillah "The good bless Thee" behold this is the way of error. If a man step before the Ark and make a mistake [in the Tefillah], another replaces him ; and at such a time, one may not decline. From where does the latter begin? From the commencement of the benediction where the other erred.

MISHNAH If one errs while saying the Tefillah, it is a bad omen for him; and should he be the messenger of the congregation, it is a bad omen for those who deputed him, since a man's deputy is similar to himself. They declared concerning R. Hannina b. Dosa that when praying on behalf of the sick, he would say, "This one will live, that one will die." They asked him, "How knowest thou?" He replied, "If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is accepted; but if not, I know that he is rejected."

MISHNAH What benediction do we say over fruit ? Over the fruit of trees, one says, "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe] Who Createst the fruit of the tree," except over wine ; for over wine ons says, "...Who createst the fruit of the vine." Over the fruits of the earth one says : "... Who createst the fruit of the ground," except over bread; for over bread one says, "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth." Over vegetables one says, "... Who createst the fruit of the ground" ; but R. Judah declares : "... Who createst divers kinds of herbs."

we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of food" only over the five species. Moreover Rab Huna said : [The quoted Mishnah means,] Whoever declares "Everything that nourishes [I forbid] myself" —

When R. 'Akiba is in opposition to R. Eliezer, we act according to his view; but when Bet Shammai are in opposition to Bet Hillel, [the opinion of the former] is not Mishnah.

The teacher stated : "He who chews wheat should say the benediction '...Who createst the fruit of the ground'." But there is a teaching: [He should say] "...Who createst divers kinds of seeds"! There is no contradiction; the latter being the opinion of R. Judah, the other of the Rabbis. For our Mishnah teaches : Over vegetables one says : "...Who createst the fruit of the ground" ; but R. Judah declares: "...Who createst divers kinds of herbs."

It was necessary to have the statements of Rab and Samuel. For from that [quotation from the Mishnah] I might have said that [only when the Shattit] is intended as a food and becomes a remedy of itself [is a benediction required] ; but here, since it was from the outset intended as a remedy, no benediction is at all required. Therefore [from Rab and Samuel's statement] we are informed that since one derives enjoyment therefrom, it is necessary to say a benediction.

MISHNAH If one said the benediction "... Who createst the fruit of the ground" over fruits of the tree, he has complied with the requirements of the law. If, over fruits of the earth, he said "...Who createst the fruit of the tree," he has not so complied. If over all of them he said "...By Whose word all things exist," he has complied with the requirements of the law.

MISHNAH Over anything whose growth is not from the earth, one says "...By Whose word all things exist." Over vinegar, fruit which falls unripe from the tree and locusts, one says "...By Whose word all things exist." R. Judah declares: No benediction is to be pronounced over anything which comes under the category of a curse.

But lo, the Mishnah reads : Anything whose growth is not from the earth! Read, "Anything which does not derive nutriment from the earth,"

Our Mishnah states : R. Judah declares : No benediction is to be pronounced over anything which comes under the category of a curse. That is quite right according to him who says nobelot means "Fruit scorched by the sun," for that may be called a kind of curse ; but according to him who says it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind," how is this a kind of curse?

It is quite right according to him who maintains it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind" — then that is why he mentions here [in our Mishnah] nobelot without further specification and there [in the Mishnaic quotation] he calls it [nobelot] temarah. But according to him who says [nobelot temarah] means "Fruit scorched by the sun," let him teach in both passages either nobelot temarah or nobelot without further specification ! The question [remains unanswered].

MISHNAH If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal. If he said it over the dainty served before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty served after the meal. If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

The question was asked : How is it if wine is brought in the course of the meal — does it make the benediction over the wine after the meal unnecessary? Shouldest thou wish to quote our Mishnah : If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal — this is because both of them are for drinking ; but here, since one is for steeping and the other for drinking, it is not so ; or perhaps that makes no difference ?

When Rab died, his disciples followed his cortege. On their return they said, "Let us go and have our meal by the River Danak." After they had eaten, they sat on and the question was asked : Does our Mishnah intend that only when they recline [does one say the benediction for all] and not if they sit ; or is it perhaps that where people say, "Let us go and eat our meal in a certain place" this is to be regarded the same as reclining? They were unable [to answer the question].

turned the torn part of his garment to the rear and made a fresh tear, exclaiming, "Rab has died and we have not learnt [the regulations of] the Grace after meals!" In the meanwhile an Elder came and pointed out the disagreement between our Mishnah and the Baraita, and taught them : When men say, "Let us go and eat our meal in a certain place," it is the same as if they had reclined.

MISHNAH If they set before him salted food first and with it bread, he says the benediction over the salted food and this makes it unnecessary over the bread, because the bread is something accessory to it. This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter.

MISHNAH If one ate grapes, figs or pomegranates, he says after them the three benedictions. These are the words of Rabban Gamaliel ; but the Sages declare : One benediction which is an abstract of three. R. 'Akiba says : Even if one eats [nothing but] boiled vegetables and makes a meal of it, he pronounces thereover the three benedictions. If one drinks water to slake his thirst, he says the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist "; R. Tarphon says : "...Who createst many living beings and their wants."

MISHNAH Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. One who has eaten Demai, or the first tithe from which Terumah has been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten food the size of an olive and the Samaritan may be included for Zimmun.

Judah b. Maremar, Mar b. Rab Ashe and Rab Aha of Difti dined together, and there was not one amongst them who was more distinguished than his associates to say Grace for them. They sat on and said : The Mishnah teaches : Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. That must refer only to where there is an eminent man present, but where they are all equal, it is preferable to separate for the purpose of the Grace.

Our Rabbis have taught : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not read the Shema' evening and morning — these are the words of R. Eliezer; but R. Joshua says : Whoever does not lay Tefillin. Ben 'Azzai says : Whoever has no Sisit on his garment. R. Nathan says : Whoever has no Mezuzah on his door. R. Nathan b. Joseph says : Whoever has sons and does not rear them to the study of Torah. Others declare : Even if one has studied Torah and Mishnah but has not ministered to the disciples of the wise, he is an 'Am ha'ares. Rab Huna said : The Halakah is in accord with the last mentioned.

Rammi b. Hamma refused to include for Zimmun Rab Menashya b.Tahlifa who taught Sifra, Sifre and the Halakah. When Rammi b. Hamma departed this life, Raba said : He only died because he refused to include Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa for Zimmun. But there is a teaching : Others declare ; Even if one has studied Torah and Mishnah but has not ministered to the disciplas of the wise, he is an 'Am ha'ares ! It is different with Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa because he did minister to the Rabbis, but Rammi b. Hamma failed to make careful inquiry about him. Another version is : Rab Menashya heard the teachings from the mouth of the Rabbis and studied them, and therefore was like a Rabbinical scholar.

MISHNAH How do we [say Grace] with Zimmun ? With three persons [at table], one says "We will bless [Him of Whose bounty we have partaken]" ; with three and himself, he says "Bless ye [Him of Whose bounty]" etc. With ten, one says

Rab Huna b. Rab Joshua said : This refers only to three, where the Divine Name is not mentioned ; but with ten, where the Name is mentioned, the matter is clear. As our Mishnah teaches : As he blesses, exactly so do they respond after him: "Blessed be the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of hosts, Who is enthroned above the Cherubim, for the food of which we have partaken."

Rab Joseph said : There is no contradiction, the latter being the statement of R. Jose of Galilee, the other of R. 'Akiba. For the Mishnah declares : R. Jose of Galilee says : According to the numerical size of the assembly do they bless; as it is said, "Bless ye God in full assemblies." R. 'Akiba said : What do we find in the Synagogue ?

MISHNAH Three who have eaten together are not permitted to separate [before Grace], and, similarly with four or five. Six may divide themselves [into two parties for Zimmun] up to ten. But ten may not divide themselves up, [and similarly] up to twenty.

GEMARA What does he wish to tell us? We have already learnt in the Mishnah : Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun!

Another version : R. Abba said in the name of Samuel : This is what he teaches [in our Mishnah] : Three who sat down to eat together, although each partakes of his own loaf, are not permitted to separate [before saying Grace]. Or also [he means to inform us] the same as that which Rab Huna said : Three persons who came together from three parties are not permitted to separate [before saying Grace].

MISHNAH The following are the points of variance between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in connection with the meal. Bet Shammai say : [On a Sabbath or Festival] one pronunces the benediction over the day and then over the wine ; but Bet Hillel say : He pronounces the benediction over the wine and afterwards over the day.

That cannot enter thy mind; for it states here in our Mishnah: Bet Shammai say : [The order of benedictions is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah ; and there in the Baraita it states : "Should he have only one cup [of wine], he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards." Conclude therefore that it emanates from Bet Shammai as interpreted by R. Judah.

Do Bet Shammai hold that the Grace after meals requires a cup of wine ? For our Mishnah teaches : If wine is brought to them after the food and there is only sufficient for one cup, Bet Shammai declare : He says the benediction over the wine and then over the food. Is it not to be supposed that he says the benediction [over the wine] and then drinks it ? No ; he says the benediction and leaves it [undrunk for the Grace].

Rab Huna b. Judah visited the house of Raba and noticed that he said the benediction over the spices first. He said to him : Note that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ on the question of the light ; for our Mishnah teaches : Bet Shammai say : [The order is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah!

Raba said : [The statement of the Mishnah means] one must actually use the illumination.

This is obvious, because the Mishnah states "and forgot"!

Still there is a contradiction! No, there is not; [the formula in the Mishnah] applies when he heard [that it had been raining], the other when he actually sees it.

But if he heard [that it had been raining] it is good tidings, and our Mishnah states : For good tidings one says, "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good"!

Nay, they both refer to when he actually sees it ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying when little rain fell, the other when there was a heavy downpour. Or if thou wilt I can say that both refer to a heavy downpour ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying to a landowner, the other to one who is not.

Nay, they both refer to when he actually sees it ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying when little rain fell, the other when there was a heavy downpour. Or if thou wilt I can say that both refer to a heavy downpour ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying to a landowner, the other to one who is not.

If he be a landowner, does he say the benediction "Who art good and dispensest good"? For lo, our Mishnah teaches : He who has built a new house or bought new vessels says, "Blessed... Who hast kept us in life, preserved us and caused us to reach this season." [If, however, the house had been built or the vessels bought] for himself and others, he says "Who art good and dispensest good"!

Then prayer [in such circumstances] is of no avail ! Rab Joseph quoted in objection : "And afterwards she bore a daughter and called her name Dinah" (Gen. xxx. 21). What means "and afterwards"? Rab said: After Leah passed judgment on herself, saying, "Twelve tribes are destined to issue from Jacob — six have issued from me and four from the handmaids, that makes ten ; if this child [which is expected from me] be a male, my sister Rachel will not even be like one of the handmaids." Immediately [the child in the womb] was changed to a daughter; as it is said, "And she called her name Dinah [judgment]"! We may not quote a miraculous event [against the Mishnah].

A man is in duty bound, etc. What means : A man is in duty bound to utter a benediction for the bad even as he utters one for the good? Are we to suppose that as for the good he says the benediction "...Who art good and dispensest good," he is to make the same benediction for the bad? For lo, our Mishnah teaches : For good tidings he says "Who art good and dispensest good" and For bad tidings he says "Blessed be the true Judge"! Raba said : It is only necessary that he should receive [the bad] with gladness.

Rab Safra entered a privy. R. Abba came and emitted a sound at the door. Rab Safra said to him, "Let the master enter." After leaving, R. Abba said to him, "So far thou hast not brought in the demon ; but thou hast received the tradition about the demon. Have we not learnt thus in the Mishnah : There was an open fire-place there [in the Temple-court], and a splendid privy ; and this was its splendid feature : if it was found locked, it was known that somebody was in there, but if it was found open, it was known that it was vacant. Hence infer that it is not proper [to speak in a privy]!

Mar Zutra said: The wording of this Mishnah also proves it, since is says: ‘Bais Shammai declare it pasul, and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher’, and if it were [as you say] it should read Bais Shammai say’, He has not fulfilled his obligation while Bais Hillel say that he has.

Straw that he intends not to remove, and earth without thought to removal: It is an argument between Rabbi Yose and the Rabbis, as we learn in a Mishnah: A house that he filled with straw or stones, and he nullified them: they are nullified.

What does this teach me? That we can say that the wall bends? We already learned this in a Mishnah: A house [where some of the roof] is removed, and sekhakh is placed above it. If the distance from the wall to the sekhakh is four amah, then it is invalid. See, less than [four amah] is valid!

Mishnah: An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.

Mishnah. One who makes his sukkah under a tree, it is as if he made it within the house. One [who makes] a sukkah on top of another sukkah, the upper one is valid but the lower is invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.

Gemara. Rava said: [Our mishnah] was taught only in respect of’ a tree whose shade is greater than the sun [shining through its branches] but if the sun is more than its shade, it is valid.

If the branches were interwoven, why mention the case at all? One might have thought that it should be prohibited where it is interwoven lest he regard it as valid even where it was not interwoven, [therefore the mishnah] informs us that we don't decree against it.

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?

Mishnah. If he spread a sheet over it because of the sun or beneath it because of falling [leaves]; Or if he spread [a sheet] over the frame of a four-post bed, [the sukkah] is invalid. But he may spread it over the frame of a two-post bed.

Gemara. R. Hisda stated: [Our mishnah] speaks only [of a sheet spread] because of falling [leaves], but if [it was spread] in order to beautify [the sukkah], it is valid But is not this obvious! For did we not learn in the mishnah, "because of falling [leaves]? One might have said that the law is the same even [where the sheet was intended] to beautify [the sukkah] and that the reason why it was stated, because of falling [leaves], is that he mentions what is the common practice, therefore he [R. Hisda] teaches us this.

Gemara. R. Hisda stated: [Our mishnah] speaks only [of a sheet spread] because of falling [leaves], but if [it was spread] in order to beautify [the sukkah], it is valid But is not this obvious! For did we not learn in the mishnah, "because of falling [leaves]? One might have said that the law is the same even [where the sheet was intended] to beautify [the sukkah] and that the reason why it was stated, because of falling [leaves], is that he mentions what is the common practice, therefore he [R. Hisda] teaches us this.

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.

Mishnah: A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].

What [then] does [the Mishnah] teach us? That R. Meir holds that there is decree lest the sukkah look like ordinary roofing, while R. Judah holds that there is no such decree? But have they not already disputed this, as we have learned: Planks may be used for skhakh, the words of R. Judah; R. Meir forbids them.

R. Hiyya b. Abba answered in the name of R. Yohanan, The former mishnah deals with planed boards and they forbade them as a decree lest he comes to use vessels

Rather to say that the dispute in the former [mishnah] is on the question whether a we decree against something [that might lead to] the possible use of an ordinary roofing and that the dispute in the latter mishnah is also on the same question; but why should they dispute the same question twice?

Rather to say that the dispute in the former [mishnah] is on the question whether a we decree against something [that might lead to] the possible use of an ordinary roofing and that the dispute in the latter mishnah is also on the same question; but why should they dispute the same question twice?

The latter [mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why do you forbid planks? As a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not decree [against planks]. To this R. Meir said that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not dispute this point at all.

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]?

Mishnah One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid. One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

Mishnah. If one removed the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid.

Mishnah: One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid.

He answered him, ‘In the baraita this is taught in the reverse, R. Eliezer declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid.’ [Abaye then asked], ‘Do you forsake a Mishnah and act according to a baraita?’

— He answered him, ‘The Mishnah represents an individual opinion, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah like a cone-shaped hut, or leaned it against a wall R. Natan says that R. Eliezer invalidates it because it has no roof while the Sages declare it valid.'

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, if made for reclining upon is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for skhakh.

But read the latter portion [of the Mishnah]. R Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that he made it for reclining, but if made without a specific purpose it can be used as skhakh

But [again] read the later portion [of the Mishnah] If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. The reason then is that it was made specifically for covering, but if made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for reclining upon?

Mishnah: One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid.

Mishnah. A disarranged sukkah and one whose shade is more than its sun is valid. If [the skhakh] is thick like that of a house, it is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it.

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

Mishnah 1) One who makes his sukkah on the top of a wagon, or on the deck of a ship, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival. 2) If he made it on the top of a tree, or on the back of a camel, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival.

GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? According to R. Akiva, as it has been taught, He who builds his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva

Or on the back of a camel etc. According to whom is [this part of] our Mishnah? According to R. Meir, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah upon the back of an animal, R. Meir declares it valid and R. Judah invalid. What is the reasoning of R. Judah? Scripture says, "You shall keep the festival of Sukkot for seven days:" a Sukkah which is suitable for seven days is called a Sukkah; if it is unsuitable for seven days it is not called a Sukkah.

Mishnah. If he makes his sukkah between trees, and the trees form its walls, it is valid.