Sukkah, Daf Zayin, Part 2
Introduction
Today’s section deals with a statement by Rava that for the sukkah to be valid it needs to have "the form of a doorway."
אמר רבא: ואינה נתרת אלא בצורת הפתח.
Rava ruled: It is only permitted if it has the form of a doorway.
Rava rules that for the sukkah with this third wall that is only a handbreadth to be valid it must also have the "form of a doorway." Rashi explains that this is accomplished by dividing a handbreath into halves each half is placed on opposite sides and a pole is put across them to create the form of a doorway.
איכא דאמרי, אמר רבא: וניתרת נמי בצורת הפתח.
There are others that say: Rava said: And it is also valid if it has the form of a doorway.
Above in the previous section R. Simon had said that the handbreadth wall must be a "loose handbreadth" placed within three handbreadths of the other wall. In this way he could fictionally create a full seven handbreadth wall. According to this version of Rava’s statement if there is the form of a doorway on the third wall, he doesn’t need the handbreadth wall to be within three handbreadths of the other wall. Note that according to this version, Rava offers a leniency.
איכא דאמרי, אמר רבא: וצריכא נמי צורת הפתח.
There are others that say: Rava said: And it also requires the form of a doorway.
According to this version Rava supplements R. Simon’s requirement that this type of sukkah, one whose third wall is a handbreadth. Rava says that even after he puts the handbreadth wall up and places it within three handbreadths of the other wall, he still needs to make the form of a doorway. According to this version, Rava is a stringency upon R. Simon’s ruling.
רב אשי אשכחיה לרב כהנא דקא עביד טפח שוחק, וקא עביד צורת הפתח.
R. Ashi found R. Kahana making [the third wall of a Sukkah] a loose handbreadth wide and constructing also the form of a doorway.
We now have a story related to the above discussion. R. Ashi, a late Babylonian amora sees R. Kahana his teacher, building a sukkah where he made the third wall a loose handbreadth, as R. Simon said in yesterday’s section. R. Kahana was also making the form of a doorway. This seems to accord with the third of Rava’s statements, that this sukkah also requires a doorway.
אמר ליה: לא סבר מר להא דרבא, דאמר רבא: ונתרת נמי בצורת הפתח?
He said to him: Does not the Master hold the opinion of Rava who said that it is also valid with the form of a doorway?
R. Ashi now asks R. Kahana why R. Kahana doesn’t hold like the more lenient of Rava’s opinion, according to which if he has the form of a doorway, he doesn’t need the "loose handbreadth."
אמר ליה: אנא כאידך לישנא דרבא סבירא לי, דאמר רבא: וצריכא נמי צורת הפתח.
He answered: I hold like the other reading of [the statement of] Rava that in addition [to a board of the size of a handbreadth] the form of a doorway is also necessary.
R. Kahana answers that he follows the other statement of Rava, the more stringent one. This type of sukkah requires both the loose handbreadth placed within three handbreadths of the other wall and the form of a doorway.
Thus we can see that there was a debate among these late amoraim as to whether Rava ruled stringently (R. Kahana) or leniently (R. Ashi).