skhakh

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood they do not use them as skhakh. But all of them, if he untied them, are valid. And they are all valid for the walls.

They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words of 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.

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 distances the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid.

If [the roof of] a house is opened, and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the covering, it is invalid. Similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns. A large sukkah which was surrounded with material which is invalid for skhakh, if there is a space of four cubits beneath it, it is invalid.

If [the roof of] a house is opened, and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the covering, it is invalid. Similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns. A large sukkah which was surrounded with material which is invalid for skhakh, if there is a space of four cubits beneath it, it is invalid.

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. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a 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.

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. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a 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.

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. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a 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.

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. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a 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.

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. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a 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.

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. A disorderly sukkah (and whose shade is more than its sun is valid. One whose [skhakh] is thick like [the roof] of a house is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it.

Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah. It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor.

Abaye said to him: If so, if he made walls of iron and placed the [proper] skhakh over them, would it also not be a valid Sukkah.

Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and put skhakh on top of them: R. Jacob declares it valid and the sages declare it invalid.

Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and covered them with the skhakh, R. Jacob says: found that on being planed and smoothed there would remain the width of a handbreadth on this side and on this side, they are treated as a two-sided pillar, but if not, they cannot be treated as two-sided pillars for R. Jacob used to say, the prescribed minimum width of a two-sided pillar of a sukkah is a handbreadth. But the sages say: only if two [of the adjacent walls] are proper [walls], may the width of the third be only a handbreadth.

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!

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!

And if you wish you can say that they all agree that the traditional reading is authoritative but they differ on this; .one Master holds that. the skhakh needs a Scriptural reference, while the other Master holds that it does not.

for it is you who ruled that if one placed skhakh over an alleyway which has a side-post it is valid?

If one placed skhakh over an alley-way which has a side-post it is valid.

And Rava further said: If one placed skhakh over the [upright] boards around wells it is valid [as a sukkah].

And if we had been informed of the boards around wells only, one would have assumed [that there the sukkah is valid] because there are four walls, but that if one placed skhakh over an alleyway, where there are not four walls, it is not [valid].

Our rabbis taught: Sunshine due to the [lack] of skhakh, not sunshine due to [the gaps in] the wall. R. Yoshayah says: Even where it is due to [the gaps in] the walls.

But even where the sun is more than the shade, so what? Behold he joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh? R. Papa answered: [This is a case] where he interwove [the branches of the tree].

But even where the sun is more than the shade, so what? Behold he joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh? R. Papa answered: [This is a case] where he interwove [the branches of the tree].

This is obvious! The statement: "the lower one is valid and the upper one is invalid" was necessary. For what might you have said: we should invalidate [the lower sukkah] as a preventive measure lest one also joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh, therefore it teaches us [that it is valid].

This is obvious! The statement: "the lower one is valid and the upper one is invalid" was necessary. For what might you have said: we should invalidate [the lower sukkah] as a preventive measure lest one also joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh, therefore it teaches us [that it is valid].

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.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

They objected: If he inserted them and then cut their ends, they are invalid. And it was also taught concerning a Sukkah: (Deuteronomy 15:13) "You shall make" but not from that which is already made. From here they said: If one trained a vine or a gourd or ivy [over the walls of a sukkah] and then covered them with skhakh it is invalid.

Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood—one may not use them as skhakh. But all of them, if he untied them, are valid. And they are all valid for the walls.

R. Yirmiyah said: Let us see: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Why did they say that bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood may not serve as skhakh? Because it may happen that a man returns in the evening from the field with his bundle on his shoulder, and he raises it up and places it on his sukkah to dry it, and then he might decide to leave it there as a skhakh, but the Torah said, "You shall make," [which implies], but not from that which is made. Now since this is a decree lest one use his store-house [as a Sukkah] the other must have been forbidden on the ground of ‘you shall make’ [which implies], but not from that which is made.

R. Yirmiyah said: Let us see: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Why did they say that bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood may not serve as skhakh? Because it may happen that a man returns in the evening from the field with his bundle on his shoulder, and he raises it up and places it on his sukkah to dry it, and then he might decide to leave it there as a skhakh, but the Torah said, "You shall make," [which implies], but not from that which is made. Now since this is a decree lest one use his store-house [as a Sukkah] the other must have been forbidden on the ground of ‘you shall make’ [which implies], but not from that which is made.

And R. Yohanan could say to you that here where it states, "One may not use them as skhakh" it means that only at the outset it is invalid,

Rav Judah ruled: One may use fern or wormwood as skhakh. Abaye ruled: One may use fern as skhakh, but not wormwood. What is the reason?

Rav Judah ruled: One may use fern or wormwood as skhakh. Abaye ruled: One may use fern as skhakh, but not wormwood. What is the reason?

R. Hanan b. Rava said: Izma and hegeh (two types of prickly shrubs) may be used as skhakh. Abaye said: Izma may be used, but not hegeh. What is the reason? Since their leaves fall off, one might leave the Sukkah and depart.

R. Gidal said in the name of Rav: The forked portion of a palm tree may be used as skhakh, even though [the branches] are joined together, [since] a natural joining is not considered a joining; and even if one later joined them [the skhakh is valid, since] joining of one thing [to itself] is not considered a joining.

R. Gidal said in the name of Rav: The forked portion of a palm tree may be used as skhakh, even though [the branches] are joined together, [since] a natural joining is not considered a joining; and even if one later joined them [the skhakh is valid, since] joining of one thing [to itself] is not considered a joining.

R. Hisda said in the name of Ravina b. Shila: Forked reeds may be used as skhakh even though they are joined, [since] a natural joining is not considered a joining; and even though one later joins them, the joining of one thing [to itself] not considered as a proper joining.

It was also taught in a baraita: Reeds and forked reeds may be used as skhakh. As to reeds, this is obvious? — Say: Forked reeds may be used as a Sukkah-covering.

Meremar expounded: The bundles of [twigs] made in Sura are valid as skhakh. Although [the seller] binds them together he does so merely to facilitate their counting.

R. Abba said: These cone-shaped bundles of willows, as soon as the top-knots are untied they are valid [as skhakh]. But are they not still tied at the bottom? R. Papa answered, [This is a case] where he loosens them.

While R. Menashia b. Gada said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests [ears of grain] for skhakh does not render their handles susceptible to uncleanliness.

The one that said this with regard to harvesting [grain] certainly holds it with regard to harvesting grapes, since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one's wine; But the one that said this with regard to harvesting grapes, that he does not render their stalks susceptible to uncleanliness, holds that the harvesting [ears of grain] does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the skhakh in order that [the grains] be not scattered.

Shall we say that the [ruling of] R. Menashya b. Gada is a dispute between tannas? For it has been taught: Boughs of fig-trees on which there are figs, branches of vines on which there are grapes, or straws on which there are ears of grain, palm-branches on which there are dates, all these, if the inedible part is greater than the edible are valid [for skhakh], otherwise, they are invalid. ‘Others’ say, [they are not valid] unless the straw is more than both the ‘handle’ and the food.

To R. Abba this is certainly a tannaitic dispute. But shall we say that it is also a tannaitic dispute according to R. Menashye bar Gada? All agree that he who harvests grain for skhakh does not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness, but here we are dealing with a particular case where he harvests them for food, and then changed his mind [and used them] for skhakh.

To R. Abba this is certainly a tannaitic dispute. But shall we say that it is also a tannaitic dispute according to R. Menashye bar Gada? All agree that he who harvests grain for skhakh does not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness, but here we are dealing with a particular case where he harvests them for food, and then changed his mind [and used them] for skhakh.

But if he cut them for food, what is the reason [for the view] of the rabbis? And if you will answer that the rabbis are of the opinion that since he changed his mind about them [to use them] for skhakh, his original intention becomes annulled, [it may be objected], does then one's intention become annulled in such a case? Have we not learned: All vessels

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It has been taught in agreement with R. Ammi b. Tavyomi: Matting of rushes or straw, its remnants, even if diminished from the minimum measure, may not be used for skhakh.

A mat of reeds, a large one may be used for skhakh, a small one may not be used for skhakh. R. Eliezer said: It too is susceptible to impurity and may not be used as skhakh.

A mat of reeds, a large one may be used for skhakh, a small one may not be used for skhakh. R. Eliezer said: It too is susceptible to impurity and may not be used as skhakh.

A mat of reeds, a large one may be used for skhakh, a small one may not be used for skhakh. R. Eliezer said: It too is susceptible to impurity and may not be used as skhakh.

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

[A roof of] a house which was opened, and he placed skhakh over it: if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the covering, it is invalid.

Similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns. A large sukkah which was surrounded with material which is invalid for skhakh, if there is a space of four cubits beneath it, it is invalid.

And if he had informed us of those two, [one would have said that the validity applied to these cases only] because their skhakh is valid, but in the case of a large sukkah which is surrounded with a material which is invalid for a sukkah covering, since the skhakh itself is invalid, it does not apply [therefore it is] necessary [to mention all].

And if he had informed us of those two, [one would have said that the validity applied to these cases only] because their skhakh is valid, but in the case of a large sukkah which is surrounded with a material which is invalid for a sukkah covering, since the skhakh itself is invalid, it does not apply [therefore it is] necessary [to mention all].

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

And I said to them: what [would the law be] if the invalid skhakh were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? It would be valid. And what if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid skhakh which only invalidates with four?

And I said to them: what [would the law be] if the invalid skhakh were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? It would be valid. And what if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid skhakh which only invalidates with four?

And they answered me, If so, then even according to you, who says that invalid skhakh invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid skhakh of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? It would be valid. And if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the skhakh which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?’

And they answered me, If so, then even according to you, who says that invalid skhakh invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid skhakh of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? It would be valid. And if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the skhakh which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?’

And they answered me, If so, then even according to you, who says that invalid skhakh invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid skhakh of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? It would be valid. And if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the skhakh which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?’

In Sura they taught this passage in the above words; In Nehardea they taught [as follows]: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: invalid skhakh in the middle [of the sukkah] invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]; at the side only if it is four cubits wide; While Rav says, whether in the middle or at the sides, [it invalidates] only if it is four cubits wide.

It is well according to that version which says that Rav says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ What does it mean by ‘combine'? They combine to make four cubits. But, according to the version which says that Rav says that, in the middle [even] four handbreadths [width of invalid skhakh] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why do they need to combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks!

R. Meir admits that if there is the space of one plank between every two planks that one may place valid skhakh between them and it is valid.

It is well according to him who says that whether in the middle or at the sides it needs four cubits [of invalid covering to invalidate a sukkah], for this reason it is here valid; but according to him who says that in the middle four [handbreadths of invalid skhakh invalidate] why is it valid?

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,

so that there are two sections of valid skhakh in the middle, and thus a valid sukkah is formed in the middle.

R. Judah b. Ila'i expounded: If [the roof of] a house is breached, and he placed skhakh over it, it is valid. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said to him Master, explain [your words]. Thus my father explained it: If there are four cubits it is invalid, if less than four cubits, it is valid.

It was stated: If one placed skhakh over an exedra which has pillars, it is valid If it has no pillars: Abaye declares it valid and Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid [since]

In Sura they taught these statements in the above form. In Pumbedita they taught [it as follows]: If a man placed skhakh over an exedra which has no pillars, it is invalid according to all. If it has pillars: Abaye declares it valid, while Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid, since we apply the law of lavud. Rava declares it invalid, since we do not apply the law of lavud. And the law is according to the former version.

R. Ashi found R. Kahana placing skhakh over an exedra which had no pillars He said to him: Does not the master hold the opinion which Rava stated, that if it has pillars it is valid, but if it has no pillars it is invalid? He showed him [that a pillars] was visible within though level on the outside

A Tanna taught: kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah is regarded as the Sukkah. What is meant by ‘kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah’? ‘Ulla said, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah.

A Tanna taught: kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah is regarded as the Sukkah. What is meant by ‘kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah’? ‘Ulla said, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah.

R. Oshaia said: This is necessary only in the case of a small sukkah which has invalid skhakh to an extent of less than three [handbreadths]. And what is meant by ‘going out’? Going out from the laws governing a Sukkah.

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.

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.