roofing

Rav Huna said, three who ate each one by himself and then came together do “invite”. Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three groups. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra and his group, only if all three ate together. Rebbi Jonah on that of Rav Huna: If he dipped three stalks of hyssop each one by himself and then took them together, he may sprinkle with it. Rav Ḥisda said, only if they came from three bundles. According to the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra and his group, only if all three were dipped together. If you want to say that we do not infer rules of hyssop from rules of benedictions, do we not see the rabbis deal with sukkah and learn from pourable mud?. As we have stated (Mishnah Sukkah 1:10): “If the roofing was three hand-breadths away from the walls it is invalid.” Hence less than that is acceptable. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashib 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.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Gamliel, the son of Rebbi, went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Gamliel, the son of Rebbi, went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Gamliel, the son of Rebbi, went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Gamliel, the son of Rebbi, went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching.

Rebbi Abun and the rabbis asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? 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 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 and the rabbis asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? 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 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!

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “One does not kindle with any wood product but flax,” etc. Rebbi Simeon bar Rav Isaac said it is written: to raise permanent light. They estimated to say that nothing makes a flame like flax. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, no wood product is subject to the three-by-three rule except flax and one may use it as roofing, except flax.” Rebbi Yose said, they made it like coarse or soft, as we have stated: “the coarse and the soft are not subject to the three-by-three rule.” Rebbi Eleazar said, they learned it from the Tabernacle as it is written, the Sanctuary you shall make ten gobelins, twilled byssus; and it is written, linen turbansshall be on their heads. You learn byssus from byssus, and byssus from turbans, and turbans from turbans.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards 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; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? 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 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 Zeˋira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards 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; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? 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 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 Zeˋira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. 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: “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, “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 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 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: “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.” 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.

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there, “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 was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of] Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. 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 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.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table. 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? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena 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. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons?” 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.

It is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards 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; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? 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 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.

It is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards 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; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? 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 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.

MISHNAH: If he drew over it a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing, it is disqualified. But if the roofing was more than these or he cut them off from their roots 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.

MISHNAH: If he drew over it a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing, it is disqualified. But if the roofing was more than these or he cut them off from their roots 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.

Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemia, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he used steps of ladders for roofing it is (qualified) [disqualified]. Male parts, it is qualified. Female parts, it is disqualified. If he roofed with bundles of flax, 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; but he who said disqualified, with linen ropes.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abbaya, Rav Sheshet in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: There is no bundle with less than twenty-five. Ḥinena bar Shelemia in the name of Rav: If he cut for roofing it has no handles. If he cut as roofing and then intended it as food it follows 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. 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?

Rebbi Jacob bar Abbaya, Rav Sheshet in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: There is no bundle with less than twenty-five. Ḥinena bar Shelemia in the name of Rav: If he cut for roofing it has no handles. If he cut as roofing and then intended it as food it follows 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. 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?

Rebbi Jacob bar Abbaya, Rav Sheshet in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: There is no bundle with less than twenty-five. Ḥinena bar Shelemia in the name of Rav: If he cut for roofing it has no handles. If he cut as roofing and then intended it as food it follows 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. 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?

Rebbi Jacob bar Abbaya, Rav Sheshet in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: There is no bundle with less than twenty-five. Ḥinena bar Shelemia in the name of Rav: If he cut for roofing it has no handles. If he cut as roofing and then intended it as food it follows 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. 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?

MISHNAH: 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.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements. 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, and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same. 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 for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same.

Samuel said, this 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. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. 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. 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. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

MISHNAH: If one is roofing his sukkah with spits or with girders from the bed frame, if the distance between them is equal to their diameter it is qualified. If somebody hollows out a grain stack for a sukkah, it is no sukkah.

MISHNAH: If one drops walls down from top to bottom, if they remain higher than three hand-breadths it is disqualified. From bottom to top, 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. If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: 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.” “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.” 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. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. 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?

HALAKHAH: 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.” “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.” 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. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. 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?

HALAKHAH: 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.” “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.” 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. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. 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?

HALAKHAH: 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.” “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.” 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. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. 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?

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah as a shed or that he supported it on a wall, 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 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.

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah as a shed or that he supported it on a wall, 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 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.

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah as a shed or that he supported it on a wall, 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 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.

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah as a shed or that he supported it on a wall, 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 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.

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah as a shed or that he supported it on a wall, 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 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.

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah as a shed or that he supported it on a wall, 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 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.

Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They formulated this for Usha mats. Rebbi Eliezer said, [normally] Usha mats are impure unless made for tents. Normally Tiberian mats 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. Rebbi Immi instructed that woven ones are impure. May one use them for roofing? The disagreement of Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar instructed in distress to untie the knots and use them as roofing. We have stated: “And similarly if one unties the knots it is pure,” and you are saying so?

Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They formulated this for Usha mats. Rebbi Eliezer said, [normally] Usha mats are impure unless made for tents. Normally Tiberian mats 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. Rebbi Immi instructed that woven ones are impure. May one use them for roofing? The disagreement of Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar instructed in distress to untie the knots and use them as roofing. We have stated: “And similarly if one unties the knots it is pure,” and you are saying so?

“Both are forbidden to put a grindstone or an oven up there, or to raise chickens there.” This is needed for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for what he states about “partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another.” Because they mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another, does this imply that if they had not made vows not to have usufruct from one another, they would be presumed to concede one to the other? Rebbi Jeremiah said, partners have the custom to concede one to the other in these matters. There, we have stated: “The following establish presumption of ownership.” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raises chickens in a courtyard in which he does not dwell, this establishes presumption of ownership. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you look at it, if he had the right to raise them, he raised them. If he had no right to raise them, he established a presumption of ownership. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Partners can veto any activity of the other party in a courtyard except for washing, for the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, at a place where women wash, but not at a place where men wash. And what you say except for washing in the courtyard [applies to] the entire courtyard except for the four cubits of that party where one cannot hinder anything. But if the place was at an incline, one can veto even within the four cubits of another party since one might say to him, you pour out and it flows down to my place. It was stated: The place of an oven or a hearth does not establish a presumption of ownership, but roofing of any size on top of them establishes a presumption of ownership. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, only if the wall is useful for the oven.

MISHNAH: The ground floor and the upper floor belong to two different persons; if the upper floor sprang a leak and the owner of the ground floor does not want to fix it, the owner of the upper floor descends and dwells below until he fixes the upper floor for him. Rebbi Yose says, the lower one gives the roofing and the upper one the roof covering.

“Rebbi Yose says, the lower one contributes the roofing and the upper one the roof covering,” etc. Rebbi Justus in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish:: The bottom dweller contributes the logs and the planks; the dweller on the upper floor contributes the roof covering. Which kind of roof covering? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: heavy roof covering. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: medium roof covering, since they only spoke about rinsing cups. But if he wanted to wash clothing, also Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar will agree that the roof covering has to be heavy. Rebbi Ḥanina instructed those of Sepphoris that both of them should contribute the logs and the plates since they expect to bring up there their wine and their produce.

MISHNAH: Somebody’s [property] surrounded another’s on three sides. If he fenced in the first, and the second, and the third sides, one does not hold [the other] liable. Rebbi Yose said, if the latter then fenced in the fourth side, one rolls everything over to him. If the wall of a courtyard collapsed, one obligates him to rebuild up to four cubits. There is a presumption that he gave, unless he brings proof that he did not give. Higher than four cubits one does not obligate him, but if he built an adjacent wall, even though he did not put on roofing, one rolls everything over to him. There is a presumption that he did not give, unless he brings proof that he gave.

GEMARA. It is well according to Bet Hillel; their reason is that ‘You shall make’, but not from that which is [already] made. If he loosens [the planks] he performs an action, and if he removes one from between two he performs an action. But what is the reason of Beth Shammai? If it is ‘You shall make’ but not from that which is [already] made, one act only should be sufficient; if it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, it should suffice if he removes one from between two?

Indeed it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, and this is what they say: Even although he loosens them, if he removes one from between two, it is [valid], otherwise it is not.

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.

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]?

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]?