sukkah

R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: Two sukkot of potters one further in than the other, the inner one is not valid as a sukkah, and is obligated to have a mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is exempt from the obligation of a mezuzah.

R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: Two sukkot of potters one further in than the other, the inner one is not valid as a sukkah, and is obligated to have a mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is exempt from the obligation of a mezuzah.

Our rabbis taught: ganbak (a mnemonic): a sukkah of gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

Our rabbis taught: ganbak (a mnemonic): a sukkah of gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What is meant by ‘according to the rule’? R. Hisda answered: Provided that [the covering] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the sukkah.

What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What is meant by ‘according to the rule’? R. Hisda answered: provided [the covering] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the sukkah.

What does ‘any sukkah whatsoever’ include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic] is ganbak.

The tanna of ganbak regards these sukkot as possessing greater validity because they are permanent, and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include rakbash which are not permanent.

While the tanna of rakbash regards the rakbash sukkot possessing greater validity since they belong to those who are bound [by the commandment of sukkah] and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include the ganbak sukkot which belong to those who are not bound [by the commandment of sukkah].

While the tanna of rakbash regards the rakbash sukkot possessing greater validity since they belong to those who are bound [by the commandment of sukkah] and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include the ganbak sukkot which belong to those who are not bound [by the commandment of sukkah].

While the tanna of rakbash regards the rakbash sukkot possessing greater validity since they belong to those who are bound [by the commandment of sukkah] and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include the ganbak sukkot which belong to those who are not bound [by the commandment of sukkah].

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: 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.

Gemara. What is Beth Shammai's reasoning?... Scripture says, "The festival of Sukkot, for seven days unto the Lord" (Leviticus 23:34) we require a Sukkah made expressly for the sake of the festival.

And Beth Hillel? They need that [verse] for the statement of R. Shesheth, R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Akiba, How do we know that the wood of the Sukkah is forbidden all the seven [days f the Festival]? From Scripture which states, "The festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord."

And it was taught, R. Judah b. Batera says: Just as the name of Heaven rests upon the festival sacrifice, so does it rest upon the Sukkah, since it is said, ‘The Festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord’: just as the Festival [offering] is ‘to the Lord’, so is the sukkah also ‘to the Lord’.

And it was taught, R. Judah b. Batera says: Just as the name of Heaven rests upon the festival sacrifice, so does it rest upon the Sukkah, since it is said, ‘The Festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord’: just as the Festival [offering] is ‘to the Lord’, so is the sukkah also ‘to the Lord’.

What then is Bet Shammai's reason? -There is another Scriptural verse "You shall make the festival of Sukkoth for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13). This implies that we require a sukkah made expressly for the sake of the Festival.

And Bet Hillel? They need this verse to teach that a sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival.

And Bet Shammai? — They hold the same opinion as R. Eliezer, who said that no sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival.

When I repeated this in the presence of Shmuel he said to me: Even if from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are also not valid, because it is necessary that the weaving shall be done specifically for its purpose. Here too then we should require a sukkah be made specifically for its purpose?

That [phrase] is needed to exclude a stolen [Sukkah]. But in the other case too it is needed to exclude stolen [tzitzit]?

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.

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.

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.

Have we not learned this also: If a man trained upon it [a sukkah] vine, or a gourd, or ivy, and he covered [it with a valid covering], it is invalid But if the valid covering exceeded these in quantity, or if one cut them, it is valid.

One sukkah above another sukkah… Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?

One sukkah above another sukkah… Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?

One sukkah above another sukkah… Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?

One sukkah above another sukkah… Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?

One sukkah above another sukkah… Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?

One sukkah above another sukkah… Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?

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].

How much [space] should there be between [the roof of] one sukkah and that of the other to invalidate the lower one?

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.

until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot], but if he expressed a condition about them, all depends on [the terms of] his condition? No! It is possible [that the statement was made with reference to sheets] at the side [of the Sukkah].

It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah do not diminish [the height of] the Sukkah. R. Ashi said: But at the side, they do diminish [the size of a Sukkah].

It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah do not diminish [the height of] the Sukkah. R. Ashi said: But at the side, they do diminish [the size of a Sukkah].

It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah do not diminish [the height of] the Sukkah. R. Ashi said: But at the side, they do diminish [the size of a Sukkah].

Minyamin, the servant of R. Ashi, had his shirt soaked in water, and he spread it out on their Sukkah. R. Ashi said to him, ‘Remove it, lest they say that it is permissible to use as a covering something which is susceptible to impurity. ‘But can they not see that it is wet?’ ‘I mean [the first answered] when it is dry.'

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligations? Here we are dealing with the case of one which has a roof.

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

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.

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.

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.

They thought that everyone agrees that a lulav must be tied together, and that we deduce [the law of] lulav from that of Sukkah, for it is written concerning the sukkah "You shall make" -- but not from what which is already made.

They thought that everyone agrees that a lulav must be tied together, and that we deduce [the law of] lulav from that of Sukkah, for it is written concerning the sukkah "You shall make" -- but not from what which is already made.

Do they [then] not dispute this principle? That the one who declared it valid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we say that ‘their cutting is their making', and[therefore] with regard to lulav we also say that their plucking is their making; while the one who declares it invalid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that ‘their cutting is their making, and [therefore] with regard to lulav also we do not say that their plucking is their making?

Do they [then] not dispute this principle? That the one who declared it valid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we say that ‘their cutting is their making', and[therefore] with regard to lulav we also say that their plucking is their making; while the one who declares it invalid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that ‘their cutting is their making, and [therefore] with regard to lulav also we do not say that their plucking is their making?

No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.

No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.

No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.

No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.

And if you wish you may say hat if we were of the opinion that the [components of the] lulav must be tied together, [we must admit that] all agree that we do deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. But here they dispute on the following: One Master holds the opinion that it must be tied together while the other holds that it need not be tied together; and their dispute is the same as that of the following tannaim as it has been taught: A lulav, whether [its components] be tied together or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If tied together it is valid, if not, it is invalid.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan, Scripture says, "The Festival [hag] of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves. The Sukkah is thus compared to the Festival [offering]. Just as the Festival offering is a thing which is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grows from the soil, so the Sukkah must be unsusceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grow from the soil.

When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan, Scripture says, "The Festival [hag] of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves. The Sukkah is thus compared to the Festival [offering]. Just as the Festival offering is a thing which is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grows from the soil, so the Sukkah must be unsusceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grow from the soil.

But just as the festival offering is a live animal so the Sukkah must be [of something which is] alive.

R. Zera answered: It is written winepress and it is impossible to cover the Sukkah with this!

Are not myrtle-branches, the same as branches of thick trees? R. Hisda said: The wild myrtle [were to be fetched] for the Sukkah, while the branches of thick trees, for the lulav.

GEMARA. R. Yaakov said: I heard from R. Yohanan [the explanation of] two things, this one, and the following: If one hollows out a haystack to make of it a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

GEMARA. R. Yaakov said: I heard from R. Yohanan [the explanation of] two things, this one, and the following: If one hollows out a haystack to make of it a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

The reason for one of them is a decree lest one make his sukkah into a storehouse, and the reason for the other is, "'You shall make’, [implying] but not from that which is made;" but I do not remember which of them is on account of a ‘store-house’, and which on account of "'you shalt make' 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.

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.

it is invalid, because of the possible use of a storehouse, but according to Toraitic law it is valid; While in the other case where it is stated "it is not a sukkah," it implies that even when he has made it, it is not a sukkah, even from the Torah.

it is invalid, because of the possible use of a storehouse, but according to Toraitic law it is valid; While in the other case where it is stated "it is not a sukkah," it implies that even when he has made it, it is not a sukkah, even from the Torah.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If one covered a Sukkah with male arrow-shafts, it is valid; with female arrow shafts, it is invalid.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: ‘If one covered a Sukkah with flax-stalks that had been soaked and baked, it is invalid; with flax stalks in their natural state it is valid; with flax-stalks in an intermediate stage of preparation, I do not know [whether it is valid or not]’.

Since they give an unpleasant odor, one might leave [the Sukkah] and depart.

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.

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.

R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Herbs concerning which the sages said that a person fulfills with them his obligation on Pesah, convey ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and invalidate a sukkah in the same manner as an air space What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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