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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 12, 2021 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Sukkah 5

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Shuster family of Edison in memory of Sharonna’s mother Sandra Shimoff and Ozer’s grandmother Malka Shuster.

A sukkah that is not ten handbreadths tall is invalid. Where do we learn this from? The first source is from the Ark which was ten handbreadths tall together with the kaporet. God spoke to Moshe from above that space according to the verse – from there we learn that God does not descend below ten handbreadths and man does not ascend to heaven except at a distance of ten handbreadths. This teaches us that that a domain in ten handbreadths. How do we know that the Ark was nine handbreadths and the kaporet was one? The Ark’s height is mentioned explicitly but the kaporet is not. The gemara first derives it from the frame around the Table and then Rav Huna derives it from the words “on the face of the kaporet” and the face of a baby is the size of one handbreadth. The gemara offers various possibilities of sizes of other items in the Temple or other sizes of faces that it could have been derived from but rejects them. If we derive if from the Ark and the kaporet, why would the ten handbreadths not include the sechach of the sukkah as the Ark and the kaporet together equal ten? Because of this difficulty, the gemara brings a different proof from the ten handbreadths between the wings of the cherubim and the ark below (the height of the cherubim themselves). This however only works according to Rabbi Meir’s opinion that the cubits of the Ark and other vessels in the Tabernacle were made of six handbreadths but according to Rabbi Yehuda who holds that vessels were five handbreadths, the calculation would lead us to eleven and a half, not ten! Rabbi Yehuda therefore must learn it from somewhere else. The gemara suggests that he holds it is a tradition passed down from Moshe at Sinai – Halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai.ย 

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืขื•ืœื ืœื ื™ืจื“ื” ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืœื ืขืœื• ืžืฉื” ื•ืืœื™ื”ื• ืœืžืจื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืฉืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ ื•ื”ืืจืฅ ื ืชืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The Divine Presence never actually descended below, and Moses and Elijah never actually ascended to heaven on high, as it is stated: โ€œThe heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the earth He gave to the children of manโ€ (Psalms 115:16), indicating that these are two distinct domains. Apparently, from ten handbreadths upward is considered a separate domain. Consequently, any sukka that is not at least ten handbreadths high is not considered an independent domain and is unfit.

ื•ืœื ื™ืจื“ื” ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืจื“ ื”ืณ ืขืœ ื”ืจ ืกื™ื ื™ ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืขืœ ื”ืจ ื”ื–ื™ืชื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื

The Gemara asks: And did the Divine Presence never descend below ten handbreadths? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd God descended onto Mount Sinaiโ€ (Exodus 19:20)?
The Gemara answers: Although God descended below, He always remained ten handbreadths above the ground. Since from ten handbreadths and above it is a separate domain, in fact, the Divine Presence never descended to the domain of this world.
The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd on that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olivesโ€ (Zechariah 14:4)? The Gemara answers: Here, too, He will remain ten handbreadths above the ground.

ื•ืœื ืขืœื• ืžืฉื” ื•ืืœื™ื”ื• ืœืžืจื•ื ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžืฉื” ืขืœื” ืืœ ื”ืืœื”ื™ื ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืขืฉืจื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืขืœ ืืœื™ื”ื• ื‘ืกืขืจื” ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืขืฉืจื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืื—ื– ืคื ื™ ื›ืกื ืคืจืฉื– ืขืœื™ื• ืขื ื ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืชื ื—ื•ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืคื™ืจืฉ ืฉื“ื™ ืžื–ื™ื• ืฉื›ื™ื ืชื• ื•ืขื ื ื• ืขืœื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืขืฉืจื”

The Gemara asks: And did Moses and Elijah never ascend to the heavens on high? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd Moses went up to Godโ€ (Exodus 19:3)?
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, he remained below ten handbreadths adjacent to the ground.
The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenwardโ€ (II Kings 2:11)?
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.
The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œHe grasps the face of the throne, and spreads His cloud upon himโ€ (Job 26:9)? And Rabbi Tanแธฅum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread of the radiance of His Divine Presence and of His cloud upon him. Apparently, Moses was in the cloud with God.
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.

ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืžืื—ื– ืคื ื™ ื›ืกื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืฉืชืจื‘ื•ื‘ื™ ืื™ืฉืชืจื‘ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื›ืกื ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื” ื•ื ืงื˜ ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: In any case: โ€œHe grasps the face of the throne,โ€ is written, indicating that Moses took hold of the Throne of Glory. The Gemara rejects this: The throne was extended for him down to ten handbreadths and Moses grasped it; however, he remained below ten handbreadths. And since the Divine Presence speaks to Moses from above the Ark cover ten handbreadths above the ground, clearly a height of ten handbreadths is a distinct domain.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืืจื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืฉื• ืืจื•ืŸ ืขืฆื™ ืฉื˜ื™ื ืืžืชื™ื ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืืจื›ื• ื•ืืžื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืจื—ื‘ื• ื•ืืžื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืงื•ืžืชื• ืืœื ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื˜ืคื— ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ื ืชื ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืชื•ืจื” ืžื“ืช ืืจื›ืŸ ื•ืžื“ืช ืจื—ื‘ืŸ ื•ืžื“ืช ืงื•ืžืชืŸ ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืžื“ืช ืืจื›ื” ื•ืžื“ืช ืจื—ื‘ื” ื ืชื ื” ืžื“ืช ืงื•ืžืชื” ืœื ื ืชื ื”

The Gemara wonders about the proof offered: Granted, the height of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: โ€œAnd they shall make an Ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its heightโ€ (Exodus 25:10), and one and a half cubits equal nine handbreadths. However, from where do we derive the fact that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth? The Torah never states its dimensions explicitly, as Rabbi แธคanina taught: For all the vessels that Moses crafted for the Tabernacle, the Torah provided in their regard the dimension of their length, the dimension of their width, and the dimension of their height. However, for the Ark cover, the Torah provided the dimension of its length and the dimension of its width; but the Torah did not provide the dimension of its height.

ืฆื ื•ืœืžื“ ืžืคื—ื•ืช ืฉื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืœื• ืžืกื’ืจืช ื˜ืคื— ืกื‘ื™ื‘ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื˜ืคื— ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื˜ืคื— ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื›ืœื™ื ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื”ื• ืชืคืฉืช ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืคืฉืช ืชืคืฉืช ืžื•ืขื˜ ืชืคืฉืช

The Gemara answers: Go out and learn from the smallest dimension mentioned in connection with any of the Tabernacle vessels, as it is stated with regard to the shewbread table: โ€œAnd you shall make unto it a border of a handbreadth aroundโ€ (Exodus 25:25). Just as there, the frame measures one handbreadth, so too, here, the thickness of the Ark cover measures a single handbreadth. The Gemara asks: And let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the vessels themselves, the smallest of which measures a cubit. The Gemara answers: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. If there are two possible sources from which to derive the dimension of the Ark cover, then without conclusive proof one may not presume that the Torah intended to teach the larger dimension. Rather, the presumption is that the Torah is teaching the smaller dimension, which is included in the larger measure.

ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืฆื™ืฅ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฆื™ืฅ ื“ื•ืžื” ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื˜ืก ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืจื—ื‘ ืฉืชื™ ืืฆื‘ืขื•ืช ื•ืžื•ืงืฃ ืžืื–ืŸ ืœืื–ืŸ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืชื™ ืฉื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื“ ื”ืืณ ืžืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืณืงื“ืฉ ืœืžื“ืณ ืžืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ื• ื‘ืจื•ืžื™ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืงื“ืฉ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืฉื™ื˜ื” ืื—ืช

The Gemara asks: If so, let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate, which is even smaller than a handbreadth, as it is taught in a baraita: The frontplate is a type of plate made of gold that is two fingerbreadths wide and stretches from ear to ear. And written upon it are two lines: The letters yod, heh, vav, heh, the name of God, above; and the word kodesh, spelled kuf, dalet, shin, followed by the letter lamed, below. Together it spelled kodesh laHashem, meaning: Sacred to the Lord, with yod, heh, vav, heh written on the upper line in deference to the name of God. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the frontplate in the emperorโ€™s treasury in Rome, where it was taken together with the other Temple vessels when the Temple was destroyed, and upon it was written: Sacred to the Lord, on one line. Why not derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate and say that it was only two fingerbreadths?

ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžื›ืœื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืชื›ืฉื™ื˜

The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of an ornament. The frontplate is not one of the Tabernacle vessels but one of the ornaments of the High Priest.

ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ืจ ืžืฉื”ื• ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžื›ืœื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžื”ื›ืฉืจ ื›ืœื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืกื’ืจืช ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื›ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ืžืกื’ืจืชื• ืœืžื˜ื” ื”ื™ืชื”

The Gemara suggests: Let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the crown featured atop several of the Tabernacle vessels, as the Master said: This crown, with regard to which the Torah did not specify its dimensions, could be any size. The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of the finish of a vessel that serves decorative purposes. The Gemara asks: If it is so that one does not derive the dimensions of a vessel from the dimensions of the finish of a vessel, then how can dimensions be derived from the border of the table, which is also the finish of a vessel and not an integral part of the table? The Gemara answers: The border of the table was below, between the legs of the table, and the tabletop rested upon it. As it supports the table, it is an integral part of the table and not merely decoration.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืกื’ืจืชื• ืœืžื˜ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืกื’ืจืชื• ืœืžืขืœื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื”ืื™ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื›ืœื™ ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that its border was below the tabletop; however, according to the one who said that its border was above the tabletop, what can be said? According to that opinion, this border is indeed the finish of a vessel.

ืืœื ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืชื ื” ื‘ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืžื“ื” ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืชื ื” ื‘ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืžื“ื” ื•ืืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืฆื™ืฅ ื•ื–ืจ ืฉืœื ื ืชื ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืชื•ืจื” ืžื“ื” ื›ืœืœ

Rather, the thickness of the Ark cover must be derived from a different source. One derives the missing dimensions of an object for which the Torah provided part of its dimension, e.g., the Ark cover, for which the Torah provided the dimensions of length and width, from an object for which the Torah provided its dimension, e.g., the border of the table. And the frontplate and the crown, for which the Torah did not provide any dimension at all, and their dimensions were determined by the Sages, will not prove anything. It is certainly appropriate to derive the dimension of the thickness of the Ark cover from that which was stated clearly in the Torah.

ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืžื”ื›ื ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืงื“ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืคื ื™ื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื˜ืคื—

Rav Huna said that the thickness of the Ark cover is derived from here: โ€œUpon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the eastโ€ (Leviticus 16:14), and there is no face [panim] of a person that measures less than one handbreadth.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ืืคื™

The Gemara asks: And why say that the face in the verse is specifically the face of a person? Say that the Ark cover is like the face

ื“ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ื›ื ื™ ืชืคืฉืช ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืคืฉืช ืชืคืฉืช ืžื•ืขื˜ ืชืคืฉืช ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ืืคื™ ื“ืฆื™ืคืจืชื ื“ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืคื ื™ ืคื ื™ ื’ืžืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ืžืืช ืคื ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื‘ื™ื•

of a bird called bar Yokhani, whose face is significantly larger than a handbreadth? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. The Gemara asks: If so, say that it is like the face of a bird, which is extremely small? Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: Rav Huna derives that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth not through an actual comparison to the real faces of different creatures but rather by means of a verbal analogy between the terms penei and penei written in different places in the Torah. It is written here: โ€œBefore [penei] the Ark coverโ€ (Leviticus 16:2), and it is written there: โ€œFrom the presence of [penei] Isaac his fatherโ€ (Genesis 27:30). The dimension of the Ark cover is like that of the face of a person, a handbreadth.

ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืคื ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืขืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืจืื•ืช ืคื ื™ ืืœื”ื™ื ื•ืชืจืฆื ื™ ืชืคืฉืช ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืคืฉืช ืชืคืฉืช ืžื•ืขื˜ ืชืคืฉืช

The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of God, as it is written: โ€œFor I have seen your face as one sees the face of [penei] God, and you were pleased with meโ€ (Genesis 33:10). The term penei is used with regard to the face of God as well. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something.

ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื›ืจื•ื‘ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœ ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื™ื”ื™ื• ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื

The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of the cherub in the Tabernacle and the Temple, as it is written: โ€œToward the Ark cover shall be the faces of [penei] the cherubsโ€ (Exodus 25:20), and their faces were presumably smaller than one handbreadth.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืื™ืŸ ืคื ื™ ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืคื—ื•ืชื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืคื— ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื ืžื™ ืžื”ื›ื ื’ืžื™ืจ

Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: We have learned through tradition that the faces of the cherubs were not smaller than a handbreadth, and indeed Rav Huna derived the thickness of the Ark cover from here as well, i.e., from the verbal analogy between the instances of the word penei in the verses: โ€œUpon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the eastโ€ and: โ€œThe faces [penei] of the cherubs,โ€ indicating that both are the same size.

ื•ืžืื™ ื›ืจื•ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื‘ืœ ืงื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื™ื ื•ืงื ืจื‘ื™ื

Apropos the cherubs, the Gemara asks: And what is the form of the face of a cherub [keruv]? Rabbi Abbahu said: Like that of a child [keravya], as in Babylonia one calls a child ravya.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืคื ื™ ื”ืื—ื“ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ืคื ื™ ื”ืฉื ื™ ืคื ื™ ืื“ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืื“ื ืืคื™ ืจื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื•ืืคื™ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื

Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so, what is the meaning of that which is written about the faces of the celestial beasts drawing the celestial chariot: โ€œThe face of the first was the face of the cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a manโ€ (Ezekiel 10:14)? According to your explanation, this face of the cherub is the same as that face of a man. The Gemara answers: Although two of the celestial beasts drawing that chariot had the face of a man, the difference between them is that one was a large face and one was a small face. In other words, the face described as the face of a man was the face of an adult, and the face described as the face of a cherub was that of a child. This is the source that the Ark and the Ark cover were ten handbreadths high.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ื—ืœืœื” ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ืจ ืžืกื›ื›ื” ืื™ืžื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืกื›ื›ื”

However, with regard to the application of this measure to the halakhot of sukka, the Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the interior space of the sukka must be ten handbreadths high without the thickness of the roofing? Say that the ten handbreadths of the sukka are with the thickness of the roofing. Just as the ten handbreadths of the Ark are measured from the bottom of the Ark to the top of the Ark cover, let the sukka be measured to the top of the roofing.

ืืœื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื’ืžืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืฉืจ ื‘ื ื” ื”ืžืœืš ืฉืœืžื” ืœื”ืณ ืฉืฉื™ื ืืžื” ืืจื›ื• ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ืจื—ื‘ื• ื•ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืืžื” ืงื•ืžืชื• ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงื•ืžืช ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืื—ื“ ืขืฉืจ ื‘ืืžื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืžื” ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื‘ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ

Rather, the dimension of the sukka is not derived from the Ark; one instead derived it from the dimensions of the eternal Temple, as it is written: โ€œAnd the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubitsโ€ (I Kings 6:2). And it is written: โ€œThe height of the first cherub was ten cubits, and likewise was the second cherubโ€ (I Kings 6:26). And it is taught in a baraita: Just as we find in the eternal Temple that the cherubs stand reaching one-third the height of the Temple, as each cherub was ten cubits high and the Temple was thirty cubits high, in the Tabernacle as well, the cherubs stand reaching one-third the height of the Tabernacle.

ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืื•ืจืš ื”ืงืจืฉ ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ ืœื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื™ืŸ ืคื•ืฉื›ื™ ืชืœืชื™ื” ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ ืขืฉืจื™ื ืคื•ืฉื›ื™ ื“ืœ ืขืฉืจื” ื“ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืคืฉื• ืœื”ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื• ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืคื•ืจืฉื™ ื›ื ืคื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ืกื•ื›ื›ื™ื ื‘ื›ื ืคื™ื”ื ืขืœ ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืกื›ื›ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืขืฉืจื”

And to calculate: How many cubits high was the Tabernacle? It was ten cubits, as it is written: โ€œTen cubits shall be the length of a beamโ€ (Exodus 26:16). How many handbreadths do these ten cubits contain? They contain sixty handbreadths. And one third of that total is how many? It is twenty handbreadths. Subtract from this figure ten handbreadths of the Ark and the Ark cover upon which the cherubs stood, and ten handbreadths remain, which was the height of each individual cherub. And it is written: โ€œAnd the cherubs shall spread out their wings upward, screening [sokhekhim] the Ark cover with their wingsโ€ (Exodus 25:20). Here the Merciful One is referring to the wings using the terminology of roofing [sekhakha] specifically when they are ten handbreadths above the Ark cover. This is a source that the roofing of the sukka is placed at least ten handbreadths high.

ืžืžืื™ ื“ื’ื“ืคื™ื ื”ื• ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืจื™ืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื“ืœืžื ืœื”ื“ื™ ืจื™ืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืœืžืขืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื™ืžื ื“ืžื™ื“ืœื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžืขืœื”

The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that their wings were spread above their heads, from which it is derived that roofing is ten handbreadths high? Perhaps they were spread level with their heads. In that case, the ten handbreadths derived would include the roofing, leaving the interior space of the sukka less than ten handbreadths high. Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said that it is written: โ€œSpread out their wings upward,โ€ indicating that the wings were above their heads. The Gemara asks: If so, say that the wings were extremely high to an unspecified height. The Gemara answers: Does the verse say: Upward, upward? It says upward only once, meaning slightly over their heads. There is proof from the verses that the roofing was at least ten handbreadths off the ground.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืืžื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ื•ืช ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืžื” ืฉืœ ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ืฉืฉื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ื›ืœื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This calculation works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said that all the cubits in the Tabernacle and the Temple were intermediate cubits, consisting of six handbreadths; however, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the cubit used in the dimensions of a building in the Temple was a cubit consisting of six handbreadths, but the cubit used in the dimensions of vessels was a cubit consisting of only five handbreadths, what is there to say?

ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ ืœื”ื• ืชืžื ื™ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืคืฉื• ืœื”ื• ื—ื“ ืกืจื™ ื•ืคืœื’ื ืื™ืžื ืกื•ื›ื” ืขื“ ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ื—ื“ ืกืจื™ ื•ืคืœื’ื

Based on that calculation, how many handbreadths was the height of the Ark and the Ark cover? They totaled eight and a half handbreadths. The height of the Ark was one and a half cubits, which, based on a five-handbreadth cubit, equals seven and a half handbreadths. Including the additional handbreadth of the Ark cover, the total height is eight and a half handbreadths. If the cherubs were one third of the height of the Tabernacle, which is twenty handbreadths, eleven and a half handbreadths remain for the height of the cherubs, over which their wings were spread. Therefore, say that for a sukka to be fit for use its interior space must be eleven and a half handbreadths high. However, there is no recorded opinion that requires a sukka with that dimension.

ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื™ืฆื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ื™ืฆื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืœืžืฉื” ืžืกื™ื ื™

Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Sages learned the minimum height of a sukka as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. As Rabbi แธคiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The measures in various areas of halakha, e.g., olive-bulk, dried fig-bulk, egg-bulk, and the various halakhot of interpositions that serve as a barrier between oneโ€™s body and the water in a ritual bath and invalidate immersions, and the dimensions and nature of halakhic partitions are all halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. They were not written in the Torah; rather, they were received in the framework of the Oral Law.

ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืจืฅ ื—ื˜ื” ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื” ื•ื’ืคืŸ ื•ืชืื ื” ื•ืจืžื•ืŸ ืืจืฅ ื–ื™ืช ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืคืกื•ืง ื”ื–ื” ืœืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ืืžืจ

The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah, as it is written: โ€œA land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honeyโ€ (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav แธคanin said: This entire verse is stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.

ื—ื˜ื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื ื•ื’ืข ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื›ื ืก ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื ื•ื’ืข ื•ื›ืœื™ื• ืขืœ ื›ืชืคื™ื• ื•ืกื ื“ืœื™ื• ื•ื˜ื‘ืขื•ืชื™ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“

Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure when entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus, chapter 14), and his clothes are draped over his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure.

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

alon shvut women

Sukkah 5

Daf 5 Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/uYTBtytz8Mo
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 2 – 6 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

In this Tractate we will learn about the main mitzvot, commandments, of the Festival of Sukkot. The first chapter will...
short sukkah

Remember Me

Welcome to Sukkah, another tractate that is great for the spatially minded and a little harder for the rest of...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 5: Don’t Bite Off More Than You Can Chew

The minimum measurements of the sukkah coming off the aron brings us to a discussion of God's arrival to meet...

Sukkah 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 5

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืขื•ืœื ืœื ื™ืจื“ื” ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืœื ืขืœื• ืžืฉื” ื•ืืœื™ื”ื• ืœืžืจื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืฉืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ ื•ื”ืืจืฅ ื ืชืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The Divine Presence never actually descended below, and Moses and Elijah never actually ascended to heaven on high, as it is stated: โ€œThe heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the earth He gave to the children of manโ€ (Psalms 115:16), indicating that these are two distinct domains. Apparently, from ten handbreadths upward is considered a separate domain. Consequently, any sukka that is not at least ten handbreadths high is not considered an independent domain and is unfit.

ื•ืœื ื™ืจื“ื” ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืจื“ ื”ืณ ืขืœ ื”ืจ ืกื™ื ื™ ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืขืœ ื”ืจ ื”ื–ื™ืชื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืขืฉืจื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื

The Gemara asks: And did the Divine Presence never descend below ten handbreadths? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd God descended onto Mount Sinaiโ€ (Exodus 19:20)?
The Gemara answers: Although God descended below, He always remained ten handbreadths above the ground. Since from ten handbreadths and above it is a separate domain, in fact, the Divine Presence never descended to the domain of this world.
The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd on that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olivesโ€ (Zechariah 14:4)? The Gemara answers: Here, too, He will remain ten handbreadths above the ground.

ื•ืœื ืขืœื• ืžืฉื” ื•ืืœื™ื”ื• ืœืžืจื•ื ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžืฉื” ืขืœื” ืืœ ื”ืืœื”ื™ื ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืขืฉืจื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืขืœ ืืœื™ื”ื• ื‘ืกืขืจื” ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืขืฉืจื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืื—ื– ืคื ื™ ื›ืกื ืคืจืฉื– ืขืœื™ื• ืขื ื ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืชื ื—ื•ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืคื™ืจืฉ ืฉื“ื™ ืžื–ื™ื• ืฉื›ื™ื ืชื• ื•ืขื ื ื• ืขืœื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืขืฉืจื”

The Gemara asks: And did Moses and Elijah never ascend to the heavens on high? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd Moses went up to Godโ€ (Exodus 19:3)?
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, he remained below ten handbreadths adjacent to the ground.
The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenwardโ€ (II Kings 2:11)?
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.
The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œHe grasps the face of the throne, and spreads His cloud upon himโ€ (Job 26:9)? And Rabbi Tanแธฅum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread of the radiance of His Divine Presence and of His cloud upon him. Apparently, Moses was in the cloud with God.
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.

ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืžืื—ื– ืคื ื™ ื›ืกื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืฉืชืจื‘ื•ื‘ื™ ืื™ืฉืชืจื‘ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื›ืกื ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื” ื•ื ืงื˜ ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: In any case: โ€œHe grasps the face of the throne,โ€ is written, indicating that Moses took hold of the Throne of Glory. The Gemara rejects this: The throne was extended for him down to ten handbreadths and Moses grasped it; however, he remained below ten handbreadths. And since the Divine Presence speaks to Moses from above the Ark cover ten handbreadths above the ground, clearly a height of ten handbreadths is a distinct domain.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืืจื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืฉื• ืืจื•ืŸ ืขืฆื™ ืฉื˜ื™ื ืืžืชื™ื ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืืจื›ื• ื•ืืžื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืจื—ื‘ื• ื•ืืžื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืงื•ืžืชื• ืืœื ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื˜ืคื— ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืฉืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ื ืชื ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืชื•ืจื” ืžื“ืช ืืจื›ืŸ ื•ืžื“ืช ืจื—ื‘ืŸ ื•ืžื“ืช ืงื•ืžืชืŸ ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืžื“ืช ืืจื›ื” ื•ืžื“ืช ืจื—ื‘ื” ื ืชื ื” ืžื“ืช ืงื•ืžืชื” ืœื ื ืชื ื”

The Gemara wonders about the proof offered: Granted, the height of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: โ€œAnd they shall make an Ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its heightโ€ (Exodus 25:10), and one and a half cubits equal nine handbreadths. However, from where do we derive the fact that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth? The Torah never states its dimensions explicitly, as Rabbi แธคanina taught: For all the vessels that Moses crafted for the Tabernacle, the Torah provided in their regard the dimension of their length, the dimension of their width, and the dimension of their height. However, for the Ark cover, the Torah provided the dimension of its length and the dimension of its width; but the Torah did not provide the dimension of its height.

ืฆื ื•ืœืžื“ ืžืคื—ื•ืช ืฉื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืœื• ืžืกื’ืจืช ื˜ืคื— ืกื‘ื™ื‘ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื˜ืคื— ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื˜ืคื— ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื›ืœื™ื ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื”ื• ืชืคืฉืช ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืคืฉืช ืชืคืฉืช ืžื•ืขื˜ ืชืคืฉืช

The Gemara answers: Go out and learn from the smallest dimension mentioned in connection with any of the Tabernacle vessels, as it is stated with regard to the shewbread table: โ€œAnd you shall make unto it a border of a handbreadth aroundโ€ (Exodus 25:25). Just as there, the frame measures one handbreadth, so too, here, the thickness of the Ark cover measures a single handbreadth. The Gemara asks: And let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the vessels themselves, the smallest of which measures a cubit. The Gemara answers: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. If there are two possible sources from which to derive the dimension of the Ark cover, then without conclusive proof one may not presume that the Torah intended to teach the larger dimension. Rather, the presumption is that the Torah is teaching the smaller dimension, which is included in the larger measure.

ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืฆื™ืฅ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฆื™ืฅ ื“ื•ืžื” ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื˜ืก ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืจื—ื‘ ืฉืชื™ ืืฆื‘ืขื•ืช ื•ืžื•ืงืฃ ืžืื–ืŸ ืœืื–ืŸ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืชื™ ืฉื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื“ ื”ืืณ ืžืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืณืงื“ืฉ ืœืžื“ืณ ืžืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ื• ื‘ืจื•ืžื™ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืงื“ืฉ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืฉื™ื˜ื” ืื—ืช

The Gemara asks: If so, let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate, which is even smaller than a handbreadth, as it is taught in a baraita: The frontplate is a type of plate made of gold that is two fingerbreadths wide and stretches from ear to ear. And written upon it are two lines: The letters yod, heh, vav, heh, the name of God, above; and the word kodesh, spelled kuf, dalet, shin, followed by the letter lamed, below. Together it spelled kodesh laHashem, meaning: Sacred to the Lord, with yod, heh, vav, heh written on the upper line in deference to the name of God. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the frontplate in the emperorโ€™s treasury in Rome, where it was taken together with the other Temple vessels when the Temple was destroyed, and upon it was written: Sacred to the Lord, on one line. Why not derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate and say that it was only two fingerbreadths?

ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžื›ืœื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžืชื›ืฉื™ื˜

The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of an ornament. The frontplate is not one of the Tabernacle vessels but one of the ornaments of the High Priest.

ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ืจ ืžืฉื”ื• ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžื›ืœื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืžื”ื›ืฉืจ ื›ืœื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืกื’ืจืช ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื›ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ืžืกื’ืจืชื• ืœืžื˜ื” ื”ื™ืชื”

The Gemara suggests: Let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the crown featured atop several of the Tabernacle vessels, as the Master said: This crown, with regard to which the Torah did not specify its dimensions, could be any size. The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of the finish of a vessel that serves decorative purposes. The Gemara asks: If it is so that one does not derive the dimensions of a vessel from the dimensions of the finish of a vessel, then how can dimensions be derived from the border of the table, which is also the finish of a vessel and not an integral part of the table? The Gemara answers: The border of the table was below, between the legs of the table, and the tabletop rested upon it. As it supports the table, it is an integral part of the table and not merely decoration.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืกื’ืจืชื• ืœืžื˜ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืกื’ืจืชื• ืœืžืขืœื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื”ืื™ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื›ืœื™ ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that its border was below the tabletop; however, according to the one who said that its border was above the tabletop, what can be said? According to that opinion, this border is indeed the finish of a vessel.

ืืœื ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืชื ื” ื‘ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืžื“ื” ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืชื ื” ื‘ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืžื“ื” ื•ืืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืฆื™ืฅ ื•ื–ืจ ืฉืœื ื ืชื ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืชื•ืจื” ืžื“ื” ื›ืœืœ

Rather, the thickness of the Ark cover must be derived from a different source. One derives the missing dimensions of an object for which the Torah provided part of its dimension, e.g., the Ark cover, for which the Torah provided the dimensions of length and width, from an object for which the Torah provided its dimension, e.g., the border of the table. And the frontplate and the crown, for which the Torah did not provide any dimension at all, and their dimensions were determined by the Sages, will not prove anything. It is certainly appropriate to derive the dimension of the thickness of the Ark cover from that which was stated clearly in the Torah.

ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืžื”ื›ื ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืงื“ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืคื ื™ื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื˜ืคื—

Rav Huna said that the thickness of the Ark cover is derived from here: โ€œUpon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the eastโ€ (Leviticus 16:14), and there is no face [panim] of a person that measures less than one handbreadth.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ืืคื™

The Gemara asks: And why say that the face in the verse is specifically the face of a person? Say that the Ark cover is like the face

ื“ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ื›ื ื™ ืชืคืฉืช ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืคืฉืช ืชืคืฉืช ืžื•ืขื˜ ืชืคืฉืช ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ืืคื™ ื“ืฆื™ืคืจืชื ื“ื–ื•ื˜ืจ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืคื ื™ ืคื ื™ ื’ืžืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ืžืืช ืคื ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื‘ื™ื•

of a bird called bar Yokhani, whose face is significantly larger than a handbreadth? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. The Gemara asks: If so, say that it is like the face of a bird, which is extremely small? Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: Rav Huna derives that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth not through an actual comparison to the real faces of different creatures but rather by means of a verbal analogy between the terms penei and penei written in different places in the Torah. It is written here: โ€œBefore [penei] the Ark coverโ€ (Leviticus 16:2), and it is written there: โ€œFrom the presence of [penei] Isaac his fatherโ€ (Genesis 27:30). The dimension of the Ark cover is like that of the face of a person, a handbreadth.

ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืคื ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืขืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืจืื•ืช ืคื ื™ ืืœื”ื™ื ื•ืชืจืฆื ื™ ืชืคืฉืช ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืคืฉืช ืชืคืฉืช ืžื•ืขื˜ ืชืคืฉืช

The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of God, as it is written: โ€œFor I have seen your face as one sees the face of [penei] God, and you were pleased with meโ€ (Genesis 33:10). The term penei is used with regard to the face of God as well. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something.

ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื›ืจื•ื‘ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœ ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื™ื”ื™ื• ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื

The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of the cherub in the Tabernacle and the Temple, as it is written: โ€œToward the Ark cover shall be the faces of [penei] the cherubsโ€ (Exodus 25:20), and their faces were presumably smaller than one handbreadth.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืื™ืŸ ืคื ื™ ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืคื—ื•ืชื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืคื— ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื ืžื™ ืžื”ื›ื ื’ืžื™ืจ

Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: We have learned through tradition that the faces of the cherubs were not smaller than a handbreadth, and indeed Rav Huna derived the thickness of the Ark cover from here as well, i.e., from the verbal analogy between the instances of the word penei in the verses: โ€œUpon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the eastโ€ and: โ€œThe faces [penei] of the cherubs,โ€ indicating that both are the same size.

ื•ืžืื™ ื›ืจื•ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื›ืจื‘ื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื‘ืœ ืงื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื™ื ื•ืงื ืจื‘ื™ื

Apropos the cherubs, the Gemara asks: And what is the form of the face of a cherub [keruv]? Rabbi Abbahu said: Like that of a child [keravya], as in Babylonia one calls a child ravya.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืคื ื™ ื”ืื—ื“ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ืคื ื™ ื”ืฉื ื™ ืคื ื™ ืื“ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืื“ื ืืคื™ ืจื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื•ืืคื™ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื

Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so, what is the meaning of that which is written about the faces of the celestial beasts drawing the celestial chariot: โ€œThe face of the first was the face of the cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a manโ€ (Ezekiel 10:14)? According to your explanation, this face of the cherub is the same as that face of a man. The Gemara answers: Although two of the celestial beasts drawing that chariot had the face of a man, the difference between them is that one was a large face and one was a small face. In other words, the face described as the face of a man was the face of an adult, and the face described as the face of a cherub was that of a child. This is the source that the Ark and the Ark cover were ten handbreadths high.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ื—ืœืœื” ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ืจ ืžืกื›ื›ื” ืื™ืžื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืกื›ื›ื”

However, with regard to the application of this measure to the halakhot of sukka, the Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the interior space of the sukka must be ten handbreadths high without the thickness of the roofing? Say that the ten handbreadths of the sukka are with the thickness of the roofing. Just as the ten handbreadths of the Ark are measured from the bottom of the Ark to the top of the Ark cover, let the sukka be measured to the top of the roofing.

ืืœื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื’ืžืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืฉืจ ื‘ื ื” ื”ืžืœืš ืฉืœืžื” ืœื”ืณ ืฉืฉื™ื ืืžื” ืืจื›ื• ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ืจื—ื‘ื• ื•ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืืžื” ืงื•ืžืชื• ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงื•ืžืช ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืื—ื“ ืขืฉืจ ื‘ืืžื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืžื” ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื‘ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ

Rather, the dimension of the sukka is not derived from the Ark; one instead derived it from the dimensions of the eternal Temple, as it is written: โ€œAnd the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubitsโ€ (I Kings 6:2). And it is written: โ€œThe height of the first cherub was ten cubits, and likewise was the second cherubโ€ (I Kings 6:26). And it is taught in a baraita: Just as we find in the eternal Temple that the cherubs stand reaching one-third the height of the Temple, as each cherub was ten cubits high and the Temple was thirty cubits high, in the Tabernacle as well, the cherubs stand reaching one-third the height of the Tabernacle.

ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืื•ืจืš ื”ืงืจืฉ ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ ืœื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื™ืŸ ืคื•ืฉื›ื™ ืชืœืชื™ื” ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ ืขืฉืจื™ื ืคื•ืฉื›ื™ ื“ืœ ืขืฉืจื” ื“ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืคืฉื• ืœื”ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื• ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืคื•ืจืฉื™ ื›ื ืคื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ืกื•ื›ื›ื™ื ื‘ื›ื ืคื™ื”ื ืขืœ ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืกื›ื›ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืขืฉืจื”

And to calculate: How many cubits high was the Tabernacle? It was ten cubits, as it is written: โ€œTen cubits shall be the length of a beamโ€ (Exodus 26:16). How many handbreadths do these ten cubits contain? They contain sixty handbreadths. And one third of that total is how many? It is twenty handbreadths. Subtract from this figure ten handbreadths of the Ark and the Ark cover upon which the cherubs stood, and ten handbreadths remain, which was the height of each individual cherub. And it is written: โ€œAnd the cherubs shall spread out their wings upward, screening [sokhekhim] the Ark cover with their wingsโ€ (Exodus 25:20). Here the Merciful One is referring to the wings using the terminology of roofing [sekhakha] specifically when they are ten handbreadths above the Ark cover. This is a source that the roofing of the sukka is placed at least ten handbreadths high.

ืžืžืื™ ื“ื’ื“ืคื™ื ื”ื• ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืจื™ืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื“ืœืžื ืœื”ื“ื™ ืจื™ืฉื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืœืžืขืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื™ืžื ื“ืžื™ื“ืœื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžืขืœื”

The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that their wings were spread above their heads, from which it is derived that roofing is ten handbreadths high? Perhaps they were spread level with their heads. In that case, the ten handbreadths derived would include the roofing, leaving the interior space of the sukka less than ten handbreadths high. Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said that it is written: โ€œSpread out their wings upward,โ€ indicating that the wings were above their heads. The Gemara asks: If so, say that the wings were extremely high to an unspecified height. The Gemara answers: Does the verse say: Upward, upward? It says upward only once, meaning slightly over their heads. There is proof from the verses that the roofing was at least ten handbreadths off the ground.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืืžื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ื•ืช ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืžื” ืฉืœ ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ืฉืฉื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ื›ืœื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This calculation works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said that all the cubits in the Tabernacle and the Temple were intermediate cubits, consisting of six handbreadths; however, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the cubit used in the dimensions of a building in the Temple was a cubit consisting of six handbreadths, but the cubit used in the dimensions of vessels was a cubit consisting of only five handbreadths, what is there to say?

ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ ืœื”ื• ืชืžื ื™ื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืคืฉื• ืœื”ื• ื—ื“ ืกืจื™ ื•ืคืœื’ื ืื™ืžื ืกื•ื›ื” ืขื“ ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ื—ื“ ืกืจื™ ื•ืคืœื’ื

Based on that calculation, how many handbreadths was the height of the Ark and the Ark cover? They totaled eight and a half handbreadths. The height of the Ark was one and a half cubits, which, based on a five-handbreadth cubit, equals seven and a half handbreadths. Including the additional handbreadth of the Ark cover, the total height is eight and a half handbreadths. If the cherubs were one third of the height of the Tabernacle, which is twenty handbreadths, eleven and a half handbreadths remain for the height of the cherubs, over which their wings were spread. Therefore, say that for a sukka to be fit for use its interior space must be eleven and a half handbreadths high. However, there is no recorded opinion that requires a sukka with that dimension.

ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื™ืฆื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ื™ืฆื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืœืžืฉื” ืžืกื™ื ื™

Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Sages learned the minimum height of a sukka as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. As Rabbi แธคiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The measures in various areas of halakha, e.g., olive-bulk, dried fig-bulk, egg-bulk, and the various halakhot of interpositions that serve as a barrier between oneโ€™s body and the water in a ritual bath and invalidate immersions, and the dimensions and nature of halakhic partitions are all halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. They were not written in the Torah; rather, they were received in the framework of the Oral Law.

ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืจืฅ ื—ื˜ื” ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื” ื•ื’ืคืŸ ื•ืชืื ื” ื•ืจืžื•ืŸ ืืจืฅ ื–ื™ืช ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืคืกื•ืง ื”ื–ื” ืœืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ืืžืจ

The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah, as it is written: โ€œA land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honeyโ€ (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav แธคanin said: This entire verse is stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.

ื—ื˜ื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื ื•ื’ืข ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื›ื ืก ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื ื•ื’ืข ื•ื›ืœื™ื• ืขืœ ื›ืชืคื™ื• ื•ืกื ื“ืœื™ื• ื•ื˜ื‘ืขื•ืชื™ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื“

Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure when entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus, chapter 14), and his clothes are draped over his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure.

Scroll To Top