Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

August 12, 2020 | 讻状讘 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 3

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Debby & Howard Jacoby Ruben in honor of our wise mothers, aunts, sisters, and daughters from whom we have learned so much. And by Joyce Bendavid in honor of Gail Stechler and Dena Levie for spearheading the Teaneck Hadran group. It was an honor to celebrate the Siyum for Masechet Shabbat with them. And by Tamar Wenocur-Hartmayer, to my chevrutah, Jeremy Rudoler, in honor of our siyum of Masechet Chagiga on Sunday. Mazal tov on starting graduate school this fall! Delaware is lucky to have you.

If Rav thought that the height was derived from the sanctuary, why aren’t other law of mavoi like those of the sanctuary? The gemara explains that the height was really for it to be noticeable and therefore why was this needed to be stated both by Sukka and by mavoi? What if the beam was partially within 20 cubits and partially above 20 cubits? What was the size of a cubit – 5 handbreaths or 6?

 

诇讗 转讬讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诪诇转专讗 讚讛讗 讛讬讻诇 讗诪诇转专讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讛讜讗 讚讙讘讜讛 讚转谞谉 讞诪砖 讗诪诇转专讗讜转 砖诇 诪讬诇讛 讛讬讜 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 讜讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜


a molded or protruding cornice [amaltera] crowning the entrance should not be effective in rendering an alleyway fit to carry within it if it is higher than twenty cubits, as the Sanctuary had a cornice, and even so it was twenty cubits high, and no more. As we learned in a mishna: Over it were five oak cornices, one protruding above the other.


讜讛讗讬 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讚讗诪诇转专讗讜转 讘讗讜诇诐 转谞讬讗


The Gemara attempts to dismiss this difficulty: And, with regard to that mishna, what is the refutation? Perhaps when that mishna with regard to cornices was taught, it was taught with regard to the Entrance Hall, whose height was forty cubits, and not with regard to the Sanctuary.


讜讛讗讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 转讘谞讬转 讛讬讻诇 讻转讘谞讬转 讗讜诇诐


The Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty with that? Perhaps the design of the Sanctuary was like the design of the Entrance Hall. Just as there were cornices in one doorway, there were cornices in the other.


讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘 专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讗诪诇转专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛讛 讬讜转专 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟


The Gemara returns to its question with regard to a cornice: Why then did Rabbi Ile鈥檃 say that Rav himself said: If the width of a cross beam is four handbreadths, even if it is not sturdy, it renders the alleyway fit for carrying within it. And if it has a cornice, even if it is higher than twenty cubits, one need not diminish its height.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪诇转专讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讛讬讗 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛


Rav Yosef said: This halakha with regard to a cornice was not actually stated by Rav, but rather it is a baraita. Who, in fact, teaches that baraita? Perhaps it is not an authoritative baraita, and Rav does not have to accept what it says.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讞诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜转讬讛讜讬 讗诪诇转专讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讜转讬拽砖讬 诇专讘


Abaye said: Isn鈥檛 it 岣ma, son of Rabba bar Avuh, who teaches it? And therefore, even if the halakha with regard to a cornice will be a baraita, it nevertheless poses a difficulty to Rav.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚诇 讗谞讗 诪讛讻讗 诪转谞讬讬转讗 诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


Rav could have said to you: Even if you eliminate me and my explanation from the discussion here, don鈥檛 the two baraitot themselves, the baraita that states that the Rabbis derive the dimensions of an entrance from the doorway of the Sanctuary and the baraita that states that in the case of a cornice, even if it is higher than twenty cubits, it need not be lowered, contradict each other? Rather, what have you to say to reconcile the contradiction? The matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m; so too, according to my opinion, it is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讘诇讗 专讘 诪转谞讬讬转讗 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 拽讜专讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讬转专 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 住讬诪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Without Rav, the baraitot do not contradict each other, as according to the Rabbis, what is the reason that a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for carrying? Because it serves as a conspicuous marker between the alleyway and the public domain. Ordinarily a cross beam more than twenty cubits high is not noticeable; however, a cornice attracts attention even at that height. And that which is taught in the other baraita with regard to the height of a beam at the entrance to an alleyway: Greater than the entrance of the Sanctuary, is merely a mnemonic device. No actual halakhot are derived from the entrance of the Sanctuary.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 讬讚注讜 讚讜专讜转讬讻诐 讻讬 讘住讻讜转 讛讜砖讘转讬 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讚专 讘住讜讻讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗


The Gemara notes: And that the explanation of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k works out well if he does not hold this opinion of Rabba; however, if he holds this opinion of Rabba, it is difficult. As Rabba said with regard to the fitness of a sukka whose roofing is higher than twenty cubits that it is written: 鈥淚n order that your generations should know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:43). When the roofing of a sukka is up to twenty cubits high, a person is aware that he is dwelling in a sukka; however, when the roofing of the sukka is above twenty cubits, a person is not aware that he is dwelling in a sukka, because the eye does not discern the sukka roofing. One does not usually raise his head to look that high, and consequently, he sees the walls and does not notice the defining feature of the sukka, its roofing.


讗诇诪讗 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 谞诪讬 讘讛讬讻专讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 讘转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara explains the difficulty: Apparently, with regard to sukka as well, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree whether or not an item more than twenty cubits high is conspicuous. According to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, why do I need them to disagree about the same point in two cases, that of sukka and that of an alleyway? That the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to sukka revolves around this issue indicates that their dispute with regard to an alleyway revolves around a different point, as asserted by Rav.


爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬砖讬讘讛 注讘讬讚讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗 讗讘诇 诪讘讜讬 讚诇讛讬诇讜讱 注讘讬讚 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 爪专讬讻讗


The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach both disputes, as had the mishna taught us only with regard to sukka, one might have thought that only in this case does Rabbi Yehuda say that an object is conspicuous even above twenty cubits; since a sukka is designed for extended dwelling, the eye undoubtedly discerns the roofing at some point. However, in the case of an alleyway, which is designed for walking, say that he concedes to the Rabbis that a person walking in an alleyway does not notice objects at so significant a height. And had the mishna taught us only with regard to that case of an alleyway, one might have thought that only in that case do the Rabbis say that people do not notice objects at so significant a height; however, in that case of sukka, say that they concede to Rabbi Yehuda, for the above-stated reason. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both disputes.


诪讗讬 讗诪诇转专讗 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽讬谞讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 驻住拽讬 讚讗专讝讗


The Gemara seeks to arrive at a precise definition of amaltera, translated above as cornice. What is an amaltera? Rav 岣ma, son of Rabba bar Avuh, said: It refers to decorative wood carvings in the shape of birds鈥 nests. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, it is referring to cedar poles.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住拽讬 讚讗专讝讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 拽讬谞讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬谞讬 讗讘诇 驻住拽讬 讚讗专讝讗 诇讗


The Gemara explains: The one who said that amaltera refers to cedar poles would all the more so permit use of carvings of birds鈥 nests, as a cross beam engraved with images attracts attention and is noticeable even at a great height. However, the one who said that amaltera refers to carvings of birds鈥 nests would say that the halakha with regard to a cornice applies only to them, but not to cedar poles.


讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住拽讬 讚讗专讝讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖 诪砖讻讬讛 讜讛讗 住讜讻讛 讚谞驻讬砖 诪砖讻讬讛 讜拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗


The Gemara clarifies the opinion of the one who said cedar poles. What is the reason for his opinion? He holds that since its length is great, a cedar pole attracts attention. But isn鈥檛 the length of a sukka great as well, and nevertheless, the Rabbis say that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is not fit?


讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗:


Rather, the reason is as follows: Since a cedar pole is of significant value, it generates publicity. People passing through an alleyway stop and stare at a cross beam of that kind, even when it is higher than twenty cubits, leading others to do so as well.


诪拽爪转 拽讜专讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讜诪拽爪转 拽讜专讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 诪拽爪转 住讻讱 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讜诪拽爪转 住讻讱 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘诪讘讜讬 讻砖专 讘住讜讻讛 驻住讜诇


The Gemara raises a question: If part of the cross beam of an alleyway is within twenty cubits of the ground, and part of the cross beam is above twenty cubits, and similarly, if part of the roofing of a sukka is within twenty cubits, and part of the roofing is above twenty cubits, what is its legal status? Rabba said: In the case of an alleyway, it is fit; in the case of a sukka, it is unfit.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘诪讘讜讬 讚讻砖专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜砖 住讜讻讛 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 拽诇讜砖


The Gemara asks: What is different in the case of an alleyway that the ruling is that it is fit? It is because we say: Thin the part of the cross beam that is beyond twenty cubits, i.e., consider it as if it were not there. If so, in the case of sukka too, say: Thin the roofing that is beyond twenty cubits.


讗讬 拽诇砖转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪讬诇转讛


The Gemara answers: If you thin the roofing beyond twenty cubits, it will result in a sukka whose sun is more than its shade. Were the section of the roofing above twenty cubits removed, the roofing that remained would not provide sufficient shade for the sukka.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 拽诇砖转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 拽讜专讛 讛谞讬讟诇转 讘专讜讞 讗诇讗 注诇 讻专讞讱 谞注砖讜 讻砖驻讜讚讬谉 砖诇 诪转讻转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讻专讞讱 谞注砖讬转 爪讬诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛


The Gemara rejects this argument: Here too, in the case of a cross beam, if you thin the section above twenty cubits, it would become a weak and unstable cross beam that is removed by the wind, which does not render the alleyway fit for carrying within it. Rather, perforce, the status of the remaining parts of those cross beams becomes like that of metal skewers [shefudin], which, although they are thin, are not removed by the wind. Here too, in the case of a sukka, perforce, even after the upper roofing is removed, the status of the sukka becomes like that of a sukka whose shade is more than its sun.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 住讜讻讛 讚诇讬讞讬讚 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讚讻专 诪讘讜讬 讚诇专讘讬诐 诪讚讻专讬 讗讛讚讚讬


The Gemara explains Rabba鈥檚 distinction differently. Rava from Parzakya said: A sukka, which is generally erected for an individual, if the portion of the roofing below twenty were removed and only the portion above twenty remained, he would not be reminded to lower the remaining roofing and would dwell in a sukka that is unfit. An alleyway, in contrast, which is used by many people, if the section of the cross beam below twenty cubits were removed, they would remind each other to remedy the situation.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讞诪讬专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 诪讘讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讞诪讬专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉


Ravina said a different explanation: With regard to a sukka, since its mitzva is by Torah law, the Sages were stringent. However, with regard to an alleyway, since the entire requirement to place a cross beam across the entrance in order to permit carrying in an alleyway is only by rabbinic law, the Sages were not stringent.


专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘诪讘讜讬 驻住讜诇 讘住讜讻讛 讻砖讬专讛


The Gemara cites a different version of Rabba鈥檚 distinction: Rav Adda bar Mattana taught this halakha of Rabba in the opposite manner. Rabba said: In the case of an alleyway, it is unfit; in the case of a sukka, it is fit. As a result, all the previous explanations must be reversed.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讜讻讛 讚讻砖讬专讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜砖 讘诪讘讜讬 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 拽诇讜砖


The Gemara asks: What is different in the case of a sukka that it is fit? Because we say: Thin the roofing that is beyond twenty cubits. If so, then in the case of a cross beam as well, let us say: Thin the part of the cross beam that is beyond twenty cubits.


讗讬 拽诇砖转 讛讜讬 诇讛 拽讜专讛 讛谞讬讟诇转 讘专讜讞 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 拽诇砖转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪讬诇转讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讻专讞讱 谞注砖讬转 爪讬诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讻专讞讱 谞注砖讜 讻砖驻讜讚讬谉 砖诇 诪转讻转


The Gemara answers: If you thin the part beyond twenty cubits, it will become a weak and unstable cross beam that moves in the wind. The Gemara rejects this argument: Here too, in the case of a sukka, if you thin the upper section of the roofing, it would become a sukka whose sun is more than its shade. Rather, perforce, even after the upper roofing is removed, the status of the sukka becomes like that of a sukka whose shade is more than its sun; here too, in the case of an alleyway, perforce, the status of the remaining parts of those cross beams becomes like that of metal skewers, which, although they are thin, do not move in the wind.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 住讜讻讛 讚诇讬讞讬讚 讛讬讗 专诪讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪讚讻专 诪讘讜讬 讚诇专讘讬诐 讛讬讗 住诪讻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讚讻专讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 拽讚专讗 讚讘讬 砖讜转驻讬 诇讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讜诇讗 拽专讬专讗


The Gemara offers a different explanation of Rabba鈥檚 distinction: Rava from Parzakya said: In the case of a sukka, which is generally erected for an individual, he casts responsibility upon himself and is reminded to make certain that the roofing is fit. In the case of an alleyway, which is used by many people, they are likely to rely upon each other and are not reminded to check the height of the cross beam. As people say: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold. When responsibility falls upon more than one person, each relies on the other, and ultimately the task is not completed.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讞讬讝讜拽 诪讘讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 讘注讬 讞讬讝讜拽


Ravina offered a different explanation and said: The mitzva of sukka, which is by Torah law, does not require reinforcement by the Sages, and consequently, they were lenient in that case. However, since the entire requirement to place a cross beam across the entrance to an alleyway is by rabbinic law, it requires reinforcement, and therefore the Sages were stringent.


诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 驻住讜诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讻砖专


Since there are two contradictory versions of Rabba鈥檚 statement, the Gemara inquires: What practical conclusion was reached about this problem, if part of the roofing of the sukka or the cross beam was above twenty cubits? Rabba bar Rav Ulla said: In that case, both this, an alleyway, and that, a sukka, are unfit. Rava said: Both this and that are fit,


讞诇诇 住讜讻讛 转谞谉 讞诇诇 诪讘讜讬 转谞谉


as that which we learned in the mishna, with regard to the unfitness of a sukka higher than twenty cubits, is referring to the interior space of the sukka; and that which we learned in the mishna, that a cross beam spanning an alleyway that is more than twenty cubits must be lowered, is referring to the space at the entrance of the alleyway beneath the cross beam.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 转谞讬讗 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讱 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬讜转专 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讬诪注讟 讜讛讬讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讞诇诇讜 注砖专讬诐


Rav Pappa said to Rava: A baraita was taught that supports your opinion: If the cross beam spanning the entrance of an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits off the ground, greater than the entrance of the Sanctuary, one must diminish its height. And the space of the entrance of the Sanctuary itself was twenty cubits high, and its roof was higher than twenty cubits. Apparently, the twenty cubits mentioned with regard to a sukka and an alleyway refers to the space beneath the roofing and the cross beam.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 诪谞讬讞 拽讜专讛 诪砖驻转 注砖专讬诐 讜诇诪讟讛


Rav Shimi bar Rav Ashi raised an objection to Rav Pappa from the Tosefta: How precisely would he do it? He places the cross beam from the edge of twenty cubits and below. Apparently, the entire cross beam must be within twenty cubits of the ground, and if any part of it rises above twenty it is unfit.


讗讬诪讗 讜诇诪注诇讛 讜讛讗 诇诪讟讛 拽转谞讬


Rav Pappa replied: Emend the Tosefta and say: From the edge of twenty cubits and above. Rav Shimi retorted: But isn鈥檛 it taught: And below? What justification is there to completely reverse the meaning of the Tosefta?


讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞诇诇讛 注砖专讬诐 讗祝 诇诪讟讛 讞诇诇讛 注砖专讛:


Rava explained that there is no need to emend the language of the baraita, but merely to reinterpret it. The baraita is teaching us the following: The halakha below is like the halakha above. Just as above, with regard to the maximum height of the cross beam, it is the space beneath the cross beam that may not be more than twenty cubits, so too below, with regard to the minimum height of the cross beam, it is the space beneath the cross beam that may not be less than ten handbreadths. However, a cross beam placed within ten handbreadths of the ground is unfit and does not render it permitted to carry within the alleyway.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪转 住讜讻讛 讜讗诪转 诪讘讜讬 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛


The Gemara considers the measure of the cubit mentioned in the mishna and elsewhere. Abaye said in the name of Rav Na岣an: The cubit mentioned with regard to the halakhot of sukka and the cubit mentioned in connection with the halakhot of an alleyway is a small cubit consisting of five handbreadths. In contrast, the cubit of a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds is a large cubit consisting of six handbreadths. Apparently, Rav Na岣an rules stringently in all cases.


讗诪转 诪讘讜讬 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙讜讘讛讜 讜诇驻讬专爪转 诪讘讜讬


The Gemara elaborates: The cubit of an alleyway is a cubit consisting of five handbreadths. With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the issue of the height of the cross beam spanning an alleyway that may not be more than twenty cubits high, and to the breach of an alleyway that may not be more than ten cubits wide.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讱 诪讘讜讬 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇拽讜诇讗


The Gemara poses a question: But isn鈥檛 there also the issue of the minimal length of an alleyway? For carrying in an alleyway to be rendered permissible by means of a side post or a cross beam, it must be at least four cubits long. In that case, measuring the alleyway with small cubits will lead to a leniency.


讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐


The Gemara resolves this difficulty: Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the one who said that the length of an alleyway need only be four handbreadths. However, a cubit mentioned in the context of an alleyway is always a small cubit, which is a stringency.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜专讜讘 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专


The Gemara proposes an alternative solution: And if you wish, say instead that actually Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion that the length of an alleyway must be four cubits, and in that case, the alleyway is measured with large cubits of six handbreadths as a stringency. When he is saying that the cubit of an alleyway is a cubit of five handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned in the context of an alleyway.


讗诪转 住讜讻讛 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙讜讘讛讛 讜诇讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛


Rav Na岣an said that the cubit of a sukka is a small cubit consisting of five handbreadths. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the halakha governing its height, i.e., that a sukka may not be more than twenty cubits high, and to the halakha of a curved wall. A sukka is considered valid if there are up to four cubits of invalid roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the invalid roofing is considered an extension of the wall, i.e., the wall is considered to be curved, and consequently, the entire sukka is valid. With regard to both halakhot, the ruling is stringent and distance is measured with small cubits.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讱 住讜讻讛 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇拽讜诇讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讻诇 住讜讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there also the halakha of the minimal length of a sukka, which must be at least four cubits long? If it is measured with small cubits, that will lead to a leniency. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say, any sukka that does not have in it an area of at least four cubits by four cubits is invalid.


讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜


The Gemara resolves this difficulty: Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A sukka is valid even if it holds only one鈥檚 head, most of his body, and his table.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜专讜讘 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专


The Gemara suggests another solution: And if you wish, say instead: Actually, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement holds true even if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that a sukka must be at least four cubits long. Indeed, the sukka is measured with large cubits consisting of six handbreadths, which is a stringency. And when he says that the cubit of a sukka is a cubit of five handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned with regard to sukka.


讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讜诇诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐


The Gemara continues: As stated above, Rav Na岣an said that the cubit of a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds is a cubit consisting of six handbreadths. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the halakha of a clearing in a vineyard and to the halakha of the perimeter of a vineyard.


讚转谞谉 拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讜诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转


As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kilayim: With regard to a clearing in a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Its measure is twenty-four cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Sixteen cubits. With regard to the perimeter of a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Sixteen cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Twelve cubits.


讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讻专诐 砖讞专讘 讗诪爪注讬转讜 讗讬谉 砖诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转讜 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛诪讜转专


The mishna explains: What is a clearing in a vineyard? It is referring to a vineyard whose middle section was laid bare of vines. If there are not sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there, due to the Torah prohibition against sowing other crops in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9). If there were sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one provides the vineyard with its requisite work area, i.e., four cubits along either side of the vines are left unsown to facilitate cultivation of the vines, and he sows the rest of the cleared area with foreign crops.


讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐 讘讬谉 讻专诐 诇讙讚专 讗讬谉 砖诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转讜 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛砖讗专


The mishna continues: What is the perimeter of a vineyard? It is the vacant area between the vineyard and the fence surrounding it. If there are not twelve cubits in that area, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there. If there were twelve cubits in that area, he provides the vineyard, with its requisite work area, four cubits, and he sows the rest.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 专爪讜驻讬诐 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇拽讜诇讗 讚转谞谉 讻专诐 讛谞讟讜注 注诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讻专诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻专诐 讜专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗诪爪注讬讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞诐


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 there also the halakha of vines that planted consecutively, within four cubits of each other, with regard to which measuring the distance with large cubits would lead to a leniency? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a vineyard that was planted in consecutive rows with less than four cubits between them, Rabbi Shimon says: Since the rows are planted so closely together, it is not considered a vineyard, and if one plants other crops there he is not liable. And the Rabbis say: It is a vineyard, and one regards the middle vines, those planted between two appropriately spaced rows, as if they are not there. One who plants other crops there is indeed liable. According to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, measuring the distance between the rows with large cubits leads to leniency.


讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讛讜讬 讻专诐 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讜讘 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专


The Gemara resolves the difficulty: Rav Na岣an made his statement in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that a densely planted vineyard is a vineyard. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement holds true even if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a densely planted vineyard is not a vineyard, and the distance between the rows is measured with small cubits consisting of five handbreadths as a stringency. When he says that the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds is a cubit consisting of six handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned with regard to a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds.


讜专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讗诪讜转 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讗诇讗 讛诇诇讜 砖讜讞拽讜转 讜讛诇诇讜 注爪讘讜转


The above was based on the ruling of Rav Na岣an according to Abaye. But Rava said in the name of Rav Na岣an: All cubits mentioned in measurements by the Sages consisted of a large cubit of six handbreadths. However, these, the cubits mentioned with regard to diverse kinds of seeds, are measured with expansive handbreadths, with the fingers spread apart, whereas those, the cubits mentioned with regard to an alleyway and a sukka, are measured with compressed handbreadths, with the fingers held together.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讜讘诇讘讚


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: All cubits that were mentioned by the Sages are cubits of six handbreadths, provided


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 101-105 and Pesachim 2-3 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will be finishing Tractate Eruvin. After an introduction to Tractate Pesachim we will learn the first two...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 2-9

We will start Masechet Eruvin this week and review the key concepts in Daf 2-9 including understanding what an open...
eruvin

Introduction to Eruvin – by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Melacha is HOTZA鈥橝H 讛讜爪讗讛: Transferring objects between private and public domain OR 4 amot in public domain.聽 Rabbis added decrees...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 3: Someone Will Take Care of It, Right?

Terminology: Amaltra - cornice. Amah - cubit. The implication of having amaltrot, even as high as 20 amot, in your...

Eruvin 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 3

诇讗 转讬讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诪诇转专讗 讚讛讗 讛讬讻诇 讗诪诇转专讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讛讜讗 讚讙讘讜讛 讚转谞谉 讞诪砖 讗诪诇转专讗讜转 砖诇 诪讬诇讛 讛讬讜 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 讜讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜


a molded or protruding cornice [amaltera] crowning the entrance should not be effective in rendering an alleyway fit to carry within it if it is higher than twenty cubits, as the Sanctuary had a cornice, and even so it was twenty cubits high, and no more. As we learned in a mishna: Over it were five oak cornices, one protruding above the other.


讜讛讗讬 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讚讗诪诇转专讗讜转 讘讗讜诇诐 转谞讬讗


The Gemara attempts to dismiss this difficulty: And, with regard to that mishna, what is the refutation? Perhaps when that mishna with regard to cornices was taught, it was taught with regard to the Entrance Hall, whose height was forty cubits, and not with regard to the Sanctuary.


讜讛讗讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 转讘谞讬转 讛讬讻诇 讻转讘谞讬转 讗讜诇诐


The Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty with that? Perhaps the design of the Sanctuary was like the design of the Entrance Hall. Just as there were cornices in one doorway, there were cornices in the other.


讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘 专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讗诪诇转专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛讛 讬讜转专 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟


The Gemara returns to its question with regard to a cornice: Why then did Rabbi Ile鈥檃 say that Rav himself said: If the width of a cross beam is four handbreadths, even if it is not sturdy, it renders the alleyway fit for carrying within it. And if it has a cornice, even if it is higher than twenty cubits, one need not diminish its height.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪诇转专讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讛讬讗 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛


Rav Yosef said: This halakha with regard to a cornice was not actually stated by Rav, but rather it is a baraita. Who, in fact, teaches that baraita? Perhaps it is not an authoritative baraita, and Rav does not have to accept what it says.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讞诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜转讬讛讜讬 讗诪诇转专讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讜转讬拽砖讬 诇专讘


Abaye said: Isn鈥檛 it 岣ma, son of Rabba bar Avuh, who teaches it? And therefore, even if the halakha with regard to a cornice will be a baraita, it nevertheless poses a difficulty to Rav.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚诇 讗谞讗 诪讛讻讗 诪转谞讬讬转讗 诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


Rav could have said to you: Even if you eliminate me and my explanation from the discussion here, don鈥檛 the two baraitot themselves, the baraita that states that the Rabbis derive the dimensions of an entrance from the doorway of the Sanctuary and the baraita that states that in the case of a cornice, even if it is higher than twenty cubits, it need not be lowered, contradict each other? Rather, what have you to say to reconcile the contradiction? The matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m; so too, according to my opinion, it is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讘诇讗 专讘 诪转谞讬讬转讗 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 拽讜专讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讬转专 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 住讬诪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Without Rav, the baraitot do not contradict each other, as according to the Rabbis, what is the reason that a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for carrying? Because it serves as a conspicuous marker between the alleyway and the public domain. Ordinarily a cross beam more than twenty cubits high is not noticeable; however, a cornice attracts attention even at that height. And that which is taught in the other baraita with regard to the height of a beam at the entrance to an alleyway: Greater than the entrance of the Sanctuary, is merely a mnemonic device. No actual halakhot are derived from the entrance of the Sanctuary.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 讬讚注讜 讚讜专讜转讬讻诐 讻讬 讘住讻讜转 讛讜砖讘转讬 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讚专 讘住讜讻讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗


The Gemara notes: And that the explanation of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k works out well if he does not hold this opinion of Rabba; however, if he holds this opinion of Rabba, it is difficult. As Rabba said with regard to the fitness of a sukka whose roofing is higher than twenty cubits that it is written: 鈥淚n order that your generations should know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:43). When the roofing of a sukka is up to twenty cubits high, a person is aware that he is dwelling in a sukka; however, when the roofing of the sukka is above twenty cubits, a person is not aware that he is dwelling in a sukka, because the eye does not discern the sukka roofing. One does not usually raise his head to look that high, and consequently, he sees the walls and does not notice the defining feature of the sukka, its roofing.


讗诇诪讗 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 谞诪讬 讘讛讬讻专讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 讘转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara explains the difficulty: Apparently, with regard to sukka as well, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree whether or not an item more than twenty cubits high is conspicuous. According to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, why do I need them to disagree about the same point in two cases, that of sukka and that of an alleyway? That the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to sukka revolves around this issue indicates that their dispute with regard to an alleyway revolves around a different point, as asserted by Rav.


爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬砖讬讘讛 注讘讬讚讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗 讗讘诇 诪讘讜讬 讚诇讛讬诇讜讱 注讘讬讚 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 爪专讬讻讗


The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach both disputes, as had the mishna taught us only with regard to sukka, one might have thought that only in this case does Rabbi Yehuda say that an object is conspicuous even above twenty cubits; since a sukka is designed for extended dwelling, the eye undoubtedly discerns the roofing at some point. However, in the case of an alleyway, which is designed for walking, say that he concedes to the Rabbis that a person walking in an alleyway does not notice objects at so significant a height. And had the mishna taught us only with regard to that case of an alleyway, one might have thought that only in that case do the Rabbis say that people do not notice objects at so significant a height; however, in that case of sukka, say that they concede to Rabbi Yehuda, for the above-stated reason. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both disputes.


诪讗讬 讗诪诇转专讗 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽讬谞讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 驻住拽讬 讚讗专讝讗


The Gemara seeks to arrive at a precise definition of amaltera, translated above as cornice. What is an amaltera? Rav 岣ma, son of Rabba bar Avuh, said: It refers to decorative wood carvings in the shape of birds鈥 nests. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, it is referring to cedar poles.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住拽讬 讚讗专讝讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 拽讬谞讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬谞讬 讗讘诇 驻住拽讬 讚讗专讝讗 诇讗


The Gemara explains: The one who said that amaltera refers to cedar poles would all the more so permit use of carvings of birds鈥 nests, as a cross beam engraved with images attracts attention and is noticeable even at a great height. However, the one who said that amaltera refers to carvings of birds鈥 nests would say that the halakha with regard to a cornice applies only to them, but not to cedar poles.


讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住拽讬 讚讗专讝讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖 诪砖讻讬讛 讜讛讗 住讜讻讛 讚谞驻讬砖 诪砖讻讬讛 讜拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗


The Gemara clarifies the opinion of the one who said cedar poles. What is the reason for his opinion? He holds that since its length is great, a cedar pole attracts attention. But isn鈥檛 the length of a sukka great as well, and nevertheless, the Rabbis say that a sukka higher than twenty cubits is not fit?


讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗:


Rather, the reason is as follows: Since a cedar pole is of significant value, it generates publicity. People passing through an alleyway stop and stare at a cross beam of that kind, even when it is higher than twenty cubits, leading others to do so as well.


诪拽爪转 拽讜专讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讜诪拽爪转 拽讜专讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 诪拽爪转 住讻讱 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讜诪拽爪转 住讻讱 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘诪讘讜讬 讻砖专 讘住讜讻讛 驻住讜诇


The Gemara raises a question: If part of the cross beam of an alleyway is within twenty cubits of the ground, and part of the cross beam is above twenty cubits, and similarly, if part of the roofing of a sukka is within twenty cubits, and part of the roofing is above twenty cubits, what is its legal status? Rabba said: In the case of an alleyway, it is fit; in the case of a sukka, it is unfit.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘诪讘讜讬 讚讻砖专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜砖 住讜讻讛 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 拽诇讜砖


The Gemara asks: What is different in the case of an alleyway that the ruling is that it is fit? It is because we say: Thin the part of the cross beam that is beyond twenty cubits, i.e., consider it as if it were not there. If so, in the case of sukka too, say: Thin the roofing that is beyond twenty cubits.


讗讬 拽诇砖转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪讬诇转讛


The Gemara answers: If you thin the roofing beyond twenty cubits, it will result in a sukka whose sun is more than its shade. Were the section of the roofing above twenty cubits removed, the roofing that remained would not provide sufficient shade for the sukka.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 拽诇砖转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 拽讜专讛 讛谞讬讟诇转 讘专讜讞 讗诇讗 注诇 讻专讞讱 谞注砖讜 讻砖驻讜讚讬谉 砖诇 诪转讻转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讻专讞讱 谞注砖讬转 爪讬诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛


The Gemara rejects this argument: Here too, in the case of a cross beam, if you thin the section above twenty cubits, it would become a weak and unstable cross beam that is removed by the wind, which does not render the alleyway fit for carrying within it. Rather, perforce, the status of the remaining parts of those cross beams becomes like that of metal skewers [shefudin], which, although they are thin, are not removed by the wind. Here too, in the case of a sukka, perforce, even after the upper roofing is removed, the status of the sukka becomes like that of a sukka whose shade is more than its sun.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 住讜讻讛 讚诇讬讞讬讚 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讚讻专 诪讘讜讬 讚诇专讘讬诐 诪讚讻专讬 讗讛讚讚讬


The Gemara explains Rabba鈥檚 distinction differently. Rava from Parzakya said: A sukka, which is generally erected for an individual, if the portion of the roofing below twenty were removed and only the portion above twenty remained, he would not be reminded to lower the remaining roofing and would dwell in a sukka that is unfit. An alleyway, in contrast, which is used by many people, if the section of the cross beam below twenty cubits were removed, they would remind each other to remedy the situation.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讞诪讬专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 诪讘讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讞诪讬专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉


Ravina said a different explanation: With regard to a sukka, since its mitzva is by Torah law, the Sages were stringent. However, with regard to an alleyway, since the entire requirement to place a cross beam across the entrance in order to permit carrying in an alleyway is only by rabbinic law, the Sages were not stringent.


专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘诪讘讜讬 驻住讜诇 讘住讜讻讛 讻砖讬专讛


The Gemara cites a different version of Rabba鈥檚 distinction: Rav Adda bar Mattana taught this halakha of Rabba in the opposite manner. Rabba said: In the case of an alleyway, it is unfit; in the case of a sukka, it is fit. As a result, all the previous explanations must be reversed.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讜讻讛 讚讻砖讬专讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜砖 讘诪讘讜讬 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 拽诇讜砖


The Gemara asks: What is different in the case of a sukka that it is fit? Because we say: Thin the roofing that is beyond twenty cubits. If so, then in the case of a cross beam as well, let us say: Thin the part of the cross beam that is beyond twenty cubits.


讗讬 拽诇砖转 讛讜讬 诇讛 拽讜专讛 讛谞讬讟诇转 讘专讜讞 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 拽诇砖转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞诪转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪爪讬诇转讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讻专讞讱 谞注砖讬转 爪讬诇转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讞诪转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讻专讞讱 谞注砖讜 讻砖驻讜讚讬谉 砖诇 诪转讻转


The Gemara answers: If you thin the part beyond twenty cubits, it will become a weak and unstable cross beam that moves in the wind. The Gemara rejects this argument: Here too, in the case of a sukka, if you thin the upper section of the roofing, it would become a sukka whose sun is more than its shade. Rather, perforce, even after the upper roofing is removed, the status of the sukka becomes like that of a sukka whose shade is more than its sun; here too, in the case of an alleyway, perforce, the status of the remaining parts of those cross beams becomes like that of metal skewers, which, although they are thin, do not move in the wind.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 住讜讻讛 讚诇讬讞讬讚 讛讬讗 专诪讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪讚讻专 诪讘讜讬 讚诇专讘讬诐 讛讬讗 住诪讻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讚讻专讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 拽讚专讗 讚讘讬 砖讜转驻讬 诇讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讜诇讗 拽专讬专讗


The Gemara offers a different explanation of Rabba鈥檚 distinction: Rava from Parzakya said: In the case of a sukka, which is generally erected for an individual, he casts responsibility upon himself and is reminded to make certain that the roofing is fit. In the case of an alleyway, which is used by many people, they are likely to rely upon each other and are not reminded to check the height of the cross beam. As people say: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold. When responsibility falls upon more than one person, each relies on the other, and ultimately the task is not completed.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讞讬讝讜拽 诪讘讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 讘注讬 讞讬讝讜拽


Ravina offered a different explanation and said: The mitzva of sukka, which is by Torah law, does not require reinforcement by the Sages, and consequently, they were lenient in that case. However, since the entire requirement to place a cross beam across the entrance to an alleyway is by rabbinic law, it requires reinforcement, and therefore the Sages were stringent.


诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 驻住讜诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讻砖专


Since there are two contradictory versions of Rabba鈥檚 statement, the Gemara inquires: What practical conclusion was reached about this problem, if part of the roofing of the sukka or the cross beam was above twenty cubits? Rabba bar Rav Ulla said: In that case, both this, an alleyway, and that, a sukka, are unfit. Rava said: Both this and that are fit,


讞诇诇 住讜讻讛 转谞谉 讞诇诇 诪讘讜讬 转谞谉


as that which we learned in the mishna, with regard to the unfitness of a sukka higher than twenty cubits, is referring to the interior space of the sukka; and that which we learned in the mishna, that a cross beam spanning an alleyway that is more than twenty cubits must be lowered, is referring to the space at the entrance of the alleyway beneath the cross beam.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 转谞讬讗 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讱 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬讜转专 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讬诪注讟 讜讛讬讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讞诇诇讜 注砖专讬诐


Rav Pappa said to Rava: A baraita was taught that supports your opinion: If the cross beam spanning the entrance of an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits off the ground, greater than the entrance of the Sanctuary, one must diminish its height. And the space of the entrance of the Sanctuary itself was twenty cubits high, and its roof was higher than twenty cubits. Apparently, the twenty cubits mentioned with regard to a sukka and an alleyway refers to the space beneath the roofing and the cross beam.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 诪谞讬讞 拽讜专讛 诪砖驻转 注砖专讬诐 讜诇诪讟讛


Rav Shimi bar Rav Ashi raised an objection to Rav Pappa from the Tosefta: How precisely would he do it? He places the cross beam from the edge of twenty cubits and below. Apparently, the entire cross beam must be within twenty cubits of the ground, and if any part of it rises above twenty it is unfit.


讗讬诪讗 讜诇诪注诇讛 讜讛讗 诇诪讟讛 拽转谞讬


Rav Pappa replied: Emend the Tosefta and say: From the edge of twenty cubits and above. Rav Shimi retorted: But isn鈥檛 it taught: And below? What justification is there to completely reverse the meaning of the Tosefta?


讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞诇诇讛 注砖专讬诐 讗祝 诇诪讟讛 讞诇诇讛 注砖专讛:


Rava explained that there is no need to emend the language of the baraita, but merely to reinterpret it. The baraita is teaching us the following: The halakha below is like the halakha above. Just as above, with regard to the maximum height of the cross beam, it is the space beneath the cross beam that may not be more than twenty cubits, so too below, with regard to the minimum height of the cross beam, it is the space beneath the cross beam that may not be less than ten handbreadths. However, a cross beam placed within ten handbreadths of the ground is unfit and does not render it permitted to carry within the alleyway.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪转 住讜讻讛 讜讗诪转 诪讘讜讬 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛


The Gemara considers the measure of the cubit mentioned in the mishna and elsewhere. Abaye said in the name of Rav Na岣an: The cubit mentioned with regard to the halakhot of sukka and the cubit mentioned in connection with the halakhot of an alleyway is a small cubit consisting of five handbreadths. In contrast, the cubit of a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds is a large cubit consisting of six handbreadths. Apparently, Rav Na岣an rules stringently in all cases.


讗诪转 诪讘讜讬 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙讜讘讛讜 讜诇驻讬专爪转 诪讘讜讬


The Gemara elaborates: The cubit of an alleyway is a cubit consisting of five handbreadths. With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the issue of the height of the cross beam spanning an alleyway that may not be more than twenty cubits high, and to the breach of an alleyway that may not be more than ten cubits wide.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讱 诪讘讜讬 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇拽讜诇讗


The Gemara poses a question: But isn鈥檛 there also the issue of the minimal length of an alleyway? For carrying in an alleyway to be rendered permissible by means of a side post or a cross beam, it must be at least four cubits long. In that case, measuring the alleyway with small cubits will lead to a leniency.


讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐


The Gemara resolves this difficulty: Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the one who said that the length of an alleyway need only be four handbreadths. However, a cubit mentioned in the context of an alleyway is always a small cubit, which is a stringency.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜专讜讘 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专


The Gemara proposes an alternative solution: And if you wish, say instead that actually Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion that the length of an alleyway must be four cubits, and in that case, the alleyway is measured with large cubits of six handbreadths as a stringency. When he is saying that the cubit of an alleyway is a cubit of five handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned in the context of an alleyway.


讗诪转 住讜讻讛 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讙讜讘讛讛 讜诇讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛


Rav Na岣an said that the cubit of a sukka is a small cubit consisting of five handbreadths. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the halakha governing its height, i.e., that a sukka may not be more than twenty cubits high, and to the halakha of a curved wall. A sukka is considered valid if there are up to four cubits of invalid roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the invalid roofing is considered an extension of the wall, i.e., the wall is considered to be curved, and consequently, the entire sukka is valid. With regard to both halakhot, the ruling is stringent and distance is measured with small cubits.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讱 住讜讻讛 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇拽讜诇讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讻诇 住讜讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻住讜诇讛


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there also the halakha of the minimal length of a sukka, which must be at least four cubits long? If it is measured with small cubits, that will lead to a leniency. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say, any sukka that does not have in it an area of at least four cubits by four cubits is invalid.


讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讝拽转 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜砖讜诇讞谞讜


The Gemara resolves this difficulty: Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A sukka is valid even if it holds only one鈥檚 head, most of his body, and his table.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜专讜讘 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专


The Gemara suggests another solution: And if you wish, say instead: Actually, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement holds true even if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that a sukka must be at least four cubits long. Indeed, the sukka is measured with large cubits consisting of six handbreadths, which is a stringency. And when he says that the cubit of a sukka is a cubit of five handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned with regard to sukka.


讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讜诇诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐


The Gemara continues: As stated above, Rav Na岣an said that the cubit of a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds is a cubit consisting of six handbreadths. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the halakha of a clearing in a vineyard and to the halakha of the perimeter of a vineyard.


讚转谞谉 拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讜诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转


As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kilayim: With regard to a clearing in a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Its measure is twenty-four cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Sixteen cubits. With regard to the perimeter of a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Sixteen cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Twelve cubits.


讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讻专诐 砖讞专讘 讗诪爪注讬转讜 讗讬谉 砖诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转讜 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛诪讜转专


The mishna explains: What is a clearing in a vineyard? It is referring to a vineyard whose middle section was laid bare of vines. If there are not sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there, due to the Torah prohibition against sowing other crops in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9). If there were sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one provides the vineyard with its requisite work area, i.e., four cubits along either side of the vines are left unsown to facilitate cultivation of the vines, and he sows the rest of the cleared area with foreign crops.


讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐 讘讬谉 讻专诐 诇讙讚专 讗讬谉 砖诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转讜 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛砖讗专


The mishna continues: What is the perimeter of a vineyard? It is the vacant area between the vineyard and the fence surrounding it. If there are not twelve cubits in that area, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there. If there were twelve cubits in that area, he provides the vineyard, with its requisite work area, four cubits, and he sows the rest.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 专爪讜驻讬诐 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诇拽讜诇讗 讚转谞谉 讻专诐 讛谞讟讜注 注诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讻专诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻专诐 讜专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讗诪爪注讬讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞诐


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 there also the halakha of vines that planted consecutively, within four cubits of each other, with regard to which measuring the distance with large cubits would lead to a leniency? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a vineyard that was planted in consecutive rows with less than four cubits between them, Rabbi Shimon says: Since the rows are planted so closely together, it is not considered a vineyard, and if one plants other crops there he is not liable. And the Rabbis say: It is a vineyard, and one regards the middle vines, those planted between two appropriately spaced rows, as if they are not there. One who plants other crops there is indeed liable. According to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, measuring the distance between the rows with large cubits leads to leniency.


讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讛讜讬 讻专诐 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讜讘 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专


The Gemara resolves the difficulty: Rav Na岣an made his statement in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that a densely planted vineyard is a vineyard. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement holds true even if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a densely planted vineyard is not a vineyard, and the distance between the rows is measured with small cubits consisting of five handbreadths as a stringency. When he says that the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds is a cubit consisting of six handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned with regard to a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds.


讜专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讗诪讜转 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讗诇讗 讛诇诇讜 砖讜讞拽讜转 讜讛诇诇讜 注爪讘讜转


The above was based on the ruling of Rav Na岣an according to Abaye. But Rava said in the name of Rav Na岣an: All cubits mentioned in measurements by the Sages consisted of a large cubit of six handbreadths. However, these, the cubits mentioned with regard to diverse kinds of seeds, are measured with expansive handbreadths, with the fingers spread apart, whereas those, the cubits mentioned with regard to an alleyway and a sukka, are measured with compressed handbreadths, with the fingers held together.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讜讘诇讘讚


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: All cubits that were mentioned by the Sages are cubits of six handbreadths, provided


Scroll To Top