And this halakha that it is not sufficient to place his head out the window applies also to a house even if it is not ten handbreadths high. Since it is a fixed structure it is considered a tent in and of itself, as it is no less permanent than a bed with four posts, which is considered a tent even though the netting is less than ten handbreadths higher than the bed.

Some say another version of the previous discussion: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to sleep inside a netted bridal canopy in the sukka since it is inclined and does not have a roof, even though it is ten handbreadths high.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who sleeps in a bed with netting inside the sukka did not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? It is with a bed with netting in a case where, unlike a bridal canopy, it has a roof.

Come and hear another question from what we learned: Naklitin are two posts and kinofot are four posts. If one spread a sheet over four posts, the sukka is unfit; if he spread a sheet over two posts the sukka is fit, provided the two posts are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed. It can be inferred from here: But if they are higher than ten handbreadths the sukka is unfit even though it has no roof, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.

The Gemara answers: Two posts are different from the bridal canopy because they are fixed in the bed, and therefore the sheet over them is considered a tent even with an inclined roof. The Gemara asks: If they are fixed then let them be considered like four posts and let them render the sukka unfit even when they are less than ten handbreadths high. The Gemara answers: Vis-à-vis four posts, two posts are not considered fixed and therefore, they render the sukka unfit only when they are ten handbreadths higher than the bed. However, vis-à-vis a bed with netting, two posts are considered fixed and consequently, they render the sukka unfit even though they lack a roof.

Rabba bar Rav Huna taught: It is permitted to sleep in a bed with netting even though it has a roof and even though it is higher than ten handbreadths. In accordance with whose opinion did Rabba bar Rav Huna teach this halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said that in principle, a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: We were accustomed to sleep beneath the bed before the Elders. Since a bed is a temporary tent relative to the more permanent sukka, even one sleeping beneath a bed is considered to be sleeping in the sukka and he fulfills his obligation in that manner.

The Gemara asks: And if the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let him say simply that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara answers: If he said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said that this applies only to a bed, which is made for use atop it and not beneath it. Perhaps the reason a bed is not considered a tent in and of itself is that its primary purpose is to lie on top of it, not in the space beneath it. However, with regard to a bed with netting, which is made for use of the space within it, say that no, it is indeed considered a tent in and of itself and one who sleeps in it does not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rabba bar Rav Huna teaches us that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is that a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent, and there is no difference whether the temporary tent is a bed or whether it is the netting over a bed.

MISHNA: If one trellised climbing plants such as a grapevine, or gourd plant, or ivy [kissos], over a sukka while they were still attached to the ground, and then added roofing atop them, the sukka is unfit. If the amount of fit roofing was greater than the plants attached to the ground, or if he cut the climbing plants so that they were no longer attached to the ground, it is fit.

This is the principle with regard to the roofing of a sukka: Anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity, e.g., vessels, or its growth is not from the ground, e.g., animal hides, one may not roof his sukka with it. And anything that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground, one may roof his sukka with it.

GEMARA: Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said, citing the mishna: Or if he cut them, it is fit. He added: And Rav said that it is not enough merely to cut the climbing plants; one is obligated to move the branches, thereby performing an action with the branches in order to render the roofing fit. When he placed the climbing plants atop the sukka, they were attached and therefore unfit roofing. When he ultimately cut them, it was as if the sukka were roofed by itself. In that case, the sukka is unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, derived from the verse: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13).

Rav Huna said to Rav Yosef: Shmuel stated this halakha. Rav Yosef turned his face away in anger and said to him: Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it, and Shmuel said it as well. What is your point? Rav Huna said to him: This is what I am saying to you, that Shmuel said it and not Rav, as Rav deems the roofing fit merely by cutting them, without moving them, as in that incident where Rav Amram the Pious cast the sky-blue dye, i.e., ritual fringes, upon the garment [pirzuma] of the people of his household. However, he attached them, but did not cut the ends of their strands prior to tying them, i.e., he took a single string, folded it a number of times, and inserted it into the hole in the garment. Since the fringes were uncut when he tied them, he was uncertain whether they were fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva, due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared.

Rav Amram came before Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi and asked him about the halakhic status of the ritual fringes. He said to him that this is what Rav said: One cuts them into separate strands and they are fit. There is no need to remove them, cut them, and reattach them to the garment as separate strands. Apparently, according to Rav, their cutting is their preparation. Cutting them qualifies as active preparation of the fringes. Here too, in the case of the roofing of a sukka, Rav holds: Their cutting is their preparation, and no further action is required.

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel hold that we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation? But didn’t Shmuel teach in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: If one cast fringes upon two corners of a garment simultaneously by repeatedly inserting one strand into holes in both corners and afterward cut the ends of their strands resulting in two full-fledged fringes, the fringes are fit. What, is it not referring to a case where one ties the fringes as required and afterward cuts them? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a case where he cuts the strands and afterward ties them.

The Gemara asks: If the reference is to a case where he cuts the strands and afterward ties them, what need was there to state that the ritual fringes are fit? That is the prescribed manner of preparing ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that in addition to tying the fringes separately