By Torah law, if there is an interposition between a person and the water, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular about it and wants the interposing substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. However, if he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. The Sages, however, issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the majority of one’s body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one’s body with regard to which he is particular. And, they issued a decree that it is prohibited to immerse with a substance covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which one is particular.

The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one’s body with regard to which he is not particular an interposition, due to substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which he is particular, or alternatively, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which he is not particular.

The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree because the halakha that deems both an interposition covering the minority of his body about which one is particular and an interposition covering the majority of his body about which one is not particular an interposition is itself a decree. Shall we then arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? In any case, these details with regard to interpositions are neither written nor alluded to in the Torah; rather, they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the minimum height for partitions is ten handbreadths is as we stated earlier. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no verse in the Torah from which this halakha can be derived, as he therefore concludes that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. However, according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that all of the cubits in the Temple consist of six handbreadths and therefore the measure of ten handbreadths can be derived from verses in the Torah, what is there to say? What is the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to partitions?

When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is with regard to other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of a curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is fit even if there are up to four cubits of unfit roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the unfit roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah.

§ Among the factors listed in the mishna that render a sukka unfit is: And one that does not have three walls.

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In order to construct a fit sukka, two of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, sealing the entire length and height of the sukka, and the third wall may be even one handbreadth long. Rabbi Shimon says: Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and the fourth wall may be even one handbreadth long.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Rabbis hold: The tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the spelling of the words. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, meaning that one derives halakhot based on the pronunciation of the words, although it diverges from the spelling.

With regard to sukka, the Rabbis hold: The tradition of the verses is authoritative, as the word basukkot is written three times in the context of the mitzva of sukka. It is written twice in the verse: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (Leviticus 23:42). In both of these instances, the word in Hebrew is spelled without a vav, as are Hebrew words in the singular. And one time it is written with a vav, as are Hebrew words in the plural: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot]” (Leviticus 23:43). There is mention here of sukka four times, two singular plus one plural hinted at here in these verses.

Subtract one to teach the mitzva of sukka itself, and three remain. These three remaining sukkot teach that the sukka requires three walls; two of the three are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the third and establishes it as one handbreadth. That tradition teaches that one wall need not be any longer than one handbreadth.

On the other hand, Rabbi Shimon holds: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. Therefore, although two of the instances are written without a vav, since they are all vocalized in the plural, basukkot, basukkot, basukkot, there is mention here of sukka six times in these two verses. Subtract one verse to teach the mitzva of the sukka itself, and two mentions of basukkot, which equal four sukkot, remain and teach that the sukka requires four walls. Three of the walls are walls in the standard sense, and the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the dimension of the fourth and establishes it as one handbreadth.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that to derive its roofing requires a verse; therefore, only three of the original six sukkot remain from which walls can be derived. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai reduces the dimension of one of the three walls to one handbreadth. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that to derive its roofing does not require a verse, as the essence of sukka is its roofing. No additional source beyond the verse from which the mitzva of sukka is derived is required for the roofing. Therefore, walls are derived from four of the six sukkot: Three full-fledged walls and a fourth measuring one handbreadth.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce to one handbreadth the dimension of one of the three walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to add another wall to the three walls derived from the verses; however, the dimension of that fourth wall may be one handbreadth.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that when the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is to reduce the dimension of one of the three walls. And everyone agrees that the tradition of the verses is authoritative, and there are four mentions of sukka in the verse. And here it is with regard to whether one derives numbers for halakhic matters from the first mention of a term in the Torah that they disagree. When that total is derived from the number of instances a certain word appears in the Torah, there is a dispute whether the first instance is included in the tally, or whether the first instance is necessary to teach the mitzva itself and the number may be counted only from subsequent mentions. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives numbers from the first mention and therefore four walls derived from the verses. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that one does not derive numbers from the first mention, and therefore only three walls are derived from the verses.

Rav Mattana said that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is derived from here: “And there shall be a sukka for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge and cover from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6). A sukka without three full-fledged walls does not provide shelter nor serve as refuge.

§ The Gemara asks: According to the opinion that a sukka can be built with two full-fledged walls and a third that is one handbreadth, where does one position that third wall that measures one handbreadth? Rav said: He positions it at the end of one of the standing walls opposite the wall that emerges from the other end of that wall.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: