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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 12, 2021 | 讙壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讗

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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.聽

讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讬专讚讛 砖讻讬谞讛 诇诪讟讛 讜诇讗 注诇讜 诪砖讛 讜讗诇讬讛讜 诇诪专讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖诪讬诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讛壮 讜讛讗专抓 谞转谉 诇讘谞讬 讗讚诐

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: 鈥淭he heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the earth He gave to the children of man鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 讬专讚讛 砖讻讬谞讛 诇诪讟讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬专讚 讛壮 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜注诪讚讜 专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 注诇 讛专 讛讝讬转讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

The Gemara asks: And did the Divine Presence never descend below ten handbreadths? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd God descended onto Mount Sinai鈥 (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 isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd on that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives鈥 (Zechariah 14:4)? The Gemara answers: Here, too, He will remain ten handbreadths above the ground.

讜诇讗 注诇讜 诪砖讛 讜讗诇讬讛讜 诇诪专讜诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜诪砖讛 注诇讛 讗诇 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇 讗诇讬讛讜 讘住注专讛 讛砖诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 诪讗讞讝 驻谞讬 讻住讗 驻专砖讝 注诇讬讜 注谞谞讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 诪诇诪讚 砖驻讬专砖 砖讚讬 诪讝讬讜 砖讻讬谞转讜 讜注谞谞讜 注诇讬讜 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And did Moses and Elijah never ascend to the heavens on high? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Moses went up to God鈥 (Exodus 19:3)?
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, he remained below ten handbreadths adjacent to the ground.
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenward鈥 (II Kings 2:11)?
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗e grasps the face of the throne, and spreads His cloud upon him鈥 (Job 26:9)? And Rabbi Tan岣m 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.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讞讝 驻谞讬 讻住讗 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖转专讘讜讘讬 讗讬砖转专讘讘 诇讬讛 讻住讗 注讚 注砖专讛 讜谞拽讟 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: In any case: 鈥淗e grasps the face of the throne,鈥 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗专讜谉 转砖注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注砖讜 讗专讜谉 注爪讬 砖讟讬诐 讗诪转讬诐 讜讞爪讬 讗专讻讜 讜讗诪讛 讜讞爪讬 专讞讘讜 讜讗诪讛 讜讞爪讬 拽讜诪转讜 讗诇讗 讻驻讜专转 讟驻讞 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 谞转谞讛 讘讛谉 转讜专讛 诪讚转 讗专讻谉 讜诪讚转 专讞讘谉 讜诪讚转 拽讜诪转谉 讻驻讜专转 诪讚转 讗专讻讛 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讛 谞转谞讛 诪讚转 拽讜诪转讛 诇讗 谞转谞讛

The Gemara wonders about the proof offered: Granted, the height of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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 height鈥 (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 岣nina 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.

爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪驻讞讜转 砖讘讻诇讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注砖讬转 诇讜 诪住讙专转 讟驻讞 住讘讬讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讟驻讞 讗祝 讻讗谉 讟驻讞 讜谞讬诇祝 诪讻诇讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 转驻砖转 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转 转驻砖转 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转

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: 鈥淎nd you shall make unto it a border of a handbreadth around鈥 (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.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪爪讬抓 讚转谞讬讗 爪讬抓 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 讟住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜专讞讘 砖转讬 讗爪讘注讜转 讜诪讜拽祝 诪讗讝谉 诇讗讝谉 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 砖转讬 砖讬讟讬谉 讬讜讚 讛讗壮 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜壮拽讚砖 诇诪讚壮 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讜 讘专讜诪讬 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转

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 emperor鈥檚 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?

讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讻诇讬 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪转讻砖讬讟

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.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讝专 讚讗诪专 诪专 讝专 诪砖讛讜 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讻诇讬 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讛讻砖专 讻诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪住讙专转 谞诪讬 讛讻砖专 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诪住讙专转讜 诇诪讟讛 讛讬转讛

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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪住讙专转讜 诇诪讟讛 讛讬转讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪住讙专转讜 诇诪注诇讛 讛讬转讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 讛讻砖专 讻诇讬 讛讜讗

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.

讗诇讗 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖谞转谞讛 讘讜 转讜专讛 诪讚讛 诪讚讘专 砖谞转谞讛 讘讜 转讜专讛 诪讚讛 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞讜 爪讬抓 讜讝专 砖诇讗 谞转谞讛 讘讛谉 转讜专讛 诪讚讛 讻诇诇

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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 注诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 拽讚诪讛 讜讗讬谉 驻谞讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪讟驻讞

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

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讗驻讬

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

讚讘专 讬讜讻谞讬 转驻砖转 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转 转驻砖转 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讗驻讬 讚爪讬驻专转讗 讚讝讜讟专 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻谞讬 驻谞讬 讙诪专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诪讗转 驻谞讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讘讬讜

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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淏efore [penei] the Ark cover鈥 (Leviticus 16:2), and it is written there: 鈥淔rom the presence of [penei] Isaac his father鈥 (Genesis 27:30). The dimension of the Ark cover is like that of the face of a person, a handbreadth.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪驻谞讬诐 砖诇 诪注诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻专讗讜转 驻谞讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讜转专爪谞讬 转驻砖转 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转 转驻砖转 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转

The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of God, as it is written: 鈥淔or I have seen your face as one sees the face of [penei] God, and you were pleased with me鈥 (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.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讻专讜讘 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 讛讻驻讜专转 讬讛讬讜 驻谞讬 讛讻专讜讘讬诐

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: 鈥淭oward the Ark cover shall be the faces of [penei] the cherubs鈥 (Exodus 25:20), and their faces were presumably smaller than one handbreadth.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讙诪讬专讬 讗讬谉 驻谞讬 讻专讜讘讬诐 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪讟驻讞 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讛讻讗 讙诪讬专

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淯pon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the east鈥 and: 鈥淭he faces [penei] of the cherubs,鈥 indicating that both are the same size.

讜诪讗讬 讻专讜讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻专讘讬讗 砖讻谉 讘讘讘诇 拽讜专讬谉 诇讬谞讜拽讗 专讘讬讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻谞讬 讛讗讞讚 驻谞讬 讛讻专讜讘 讜驻谞讬 讛砖谞讬 驻谞讬 讗讚诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讻专讜讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讚诐 讗驻讬 专讘专讘讬 讜讗驻讬 讝讜讟专讗

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: 鈥淭he face of the first was the face of the cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a man鈥 (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.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讞诇诇讛 注砖专讛 讘专 诪住讻讻讛 讗讬诪讗 讘讛讚讬 住讻讻讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讙诪专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讬转 讗砖专 讘谞讛 讛诪诇讱 砖诇诪讛 诇讛壮 砖砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗专讻讜 讜注砖专讬诐 专讞讘讜 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讗诪讛 拽讜诪转讜 讜讻转讬讘 拽讜诪转 讛讻专讜讘 讛讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讗诪讛 讜讻谉 讛讻专讜讘 讛砖谞讬 讜转谞讬讗 诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讻专讜讘讬诐 讘砖诇讬砖 讛讘讬转 讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 诪砖讻谉 谞诪讬 讻专讜讘讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讛讘讬转 讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits鈥 (I Kings 6:2). And it is written: 鈥淭he height of the first cherub was ten cubits, and likewise was the second cherub鈥 (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.

诪砖讻谉 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讗讜专讱 讛拽专砖 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 诇讛讜 砖讬转讬谉 驻讜砖讻讬 转诇转讬讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 注砖专讬诐 驻讜砖讻讬 讚诇 注砖专讛 讚讗专讜谉 讜讻驻讜专转 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 注砖专讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 讛讻专讜讘讬诐 驻讜专砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 住讜讻讻讬诐 讘讻谞驻讬讛诐 注诇 讛讻驻讜专转 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 住讻讻讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛

And to calculate: How many cubits high was the Tabernacle? It was ten cubits, as it is written: 鈥淭en cubits shall be the length of a beam鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the cherubs shall spread out their wings upward, screening [sokhekhim] the Ark cover with their wings鈥 (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.

诪诪讗讬 讚讙讚驻讬谞讛讜 注讬诇讜讬 专讬砖讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讛讚讬 专讬砖讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇诪注诇讛 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬诪讗 讚诪讬讚诇讬 讟讜讘讗 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛

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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that it is written: 鈥淪pread out their wings upward,鈥 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗诪讜转 讛讬讜 讘讬谞讜谞讬讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗诪讛 砖诇 讘谞讬谉 砖砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜砖诇 讻诇讬诐 讞诪砖讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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?

讗专讜谉 讜讻驻讜专转 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 诇讛讜 转诪谞讬讗 讜驻诇讙讗 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 讞讚 住专讬 讜驻诇讙讗 讗讬诪讗 住讜讻讛 注讚 讚讛讜讬讗 讞讚 住专讬 讜驻诇讙讗

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.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讞爪讬爪讬谉 讜诪讞讬爪讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Sages learned the minimum height of a sukka as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. As Rabbi 岣yya 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 one鈥檚 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.

砖讬注讜专讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗专抓 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讙驻谉 讜转讗谞讛 讜专诪讜谉 讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜拽 讛讝讛 诇砖讬注讜专讬谉 谞讗诪专

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

讞讟讛 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇 讻转驻讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讜 讛讜讗 讜讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讬讚

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 month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

讜转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讬专讚讛 砖讻讬谞讛 诇诪讟讛 讜诇讗 注诇讜 诪砖讛 讜讗诇讬讛讜 诇诪专讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖诪讬诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讛壮 讜讛讗专抓 谞转谉 诇讘谞讬 讗讚诐

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: 鈥淭he heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the earth He gave to the children of man鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 讬专讚讛 砖讻讬谞讛 诇诪讟讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬专讚 讛壮 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜注诪讚讜 专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 注诇 讛专 讛讝讬转讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

The Gemara asks: And did the Divine Presence never descend below ten handbreadths? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd God descended onto Mount Sinai鈥 (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 isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd on that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives鈥 (Zechariah 14:4)? The Gemara answers: Here, too, He will remain ten handbreadths above the ground.

讜诇讗 注诇讜 诪砖讛 讜讗诇讬讛讜 诇诪专讜诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜诪砖讛 注诇讛 讗诇 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇 讗诇讬讛讜 讘住注专讛 讛砖诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 诪讗讞讝 驻谞讬 讻住讗 驻专砖讝 注诇讬讜 注谞谞讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 诪诇诪讚 砖驻讬专砖 砖讚讬 诪讝讬讜 砖讻讬谞转讜 讜注谞谞讜 注诇讬讜 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And did Moses and Elijah never ascend to the heavens on high? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Moses went up to God鈥 (Exodus 19:3)?
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, he remained below ten handbreadths adjacent to the ground.
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenward鈥 (II Kings 2:11)?
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗e grasps the face of the throne, and spreads His cloud upon him鈥 (Job 26:9)? And Rabbi Tan岣m 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.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讞讝 驻谞讬 讻住讗 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖转专讘讜讘讬 讗讬砖转专讘讘 诇讬讛 讻住讗 注讚 注砖专讛 讜谞拽讟 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: In any case: 鈥淗e grasps the face of the throne,鈥 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗专讜谉 转砖注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注砖讜 讗专讜谉 注爪讬 砖讟讬诐 讗诪转讬诐 讜讞爪讬 讗专讻讜 讜讗诪讛 讜讞爪讬 专讞讘讜 讜讗诪讛 讜讞爪讬 拽讜诪转讜 讗诇讗 讻驻讜专转 讟驻讞 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 谞转谞讛 讘讛谉 转讜专讛 诪讚转 讗专讻谉 讜诪讚转 专讞讘谉 讜诪讚转 拽讜诪转谉 讻驻讜专转 诪讚转 讗专讻讛 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讛 谞转谞讛 诪讚转 拽讜诪转讛 诇讗 谞转谞讛

The Gemara wonders about the proof offered: Granted, the height of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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 height鈥 (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 岣nina 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.

爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪驻讞讜转 砖讘讻诇讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注砖讬转 诇讜 诪住讙专转 讟驻讞 住讘讬讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讟驻讞 讗祝 讻讗谉 讟驻讞 讜谞讬诇祝 诪讻诇讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 转驻砖转 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转 转驻砖转 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转

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: 鈥淎nd you shall make unto it a border of a handbreadth around鈥 (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.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪爪讬抓 讚转谞讬讗 爪讬抓 讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 讟住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜专讞讘 砖转讬 讗爪讘注讜转 讜诪讜拽祝 诪讗讝谉 诇讗讝谉 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 砖转讬 砖讬讟讬谉 讬讜讚 讛讗壮 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜壮拽讚砖 诇诪讚壮 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讜 讘专讜诪讬 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转

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 emperor鈥檚 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?

讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讻诇讬 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪转讻砖讬讟

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.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讝专 讚讗诪专 诪专 讝专 诪砖讛讜 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讻诇讬 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讛讻砖专 讻诇讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪住讙专转 谞诪讬 讛讻砖专 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诪住讙专转讜 诇诪讟讛 讛讬转讛

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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪住讙专转讜 诇诪讟讛 讛讬转讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪住讙专转讜 诇诪注诇讛 讛讬转讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 讛讻砖专 讻诇讬 讛讜讗

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.

讗诇讗 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖谞转谞讛 讘讜 转讜专讛 诪讚讛 诪讚讘专 砖谞转谞讛 讘讜 转讜专讛 诪讚讛 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞讜 爪讬抓 讜讝专 砖诇讗 谞转谞讛 讘讛谉 转讜专讛 诪讚讛 讻诇诇

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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 注诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 拽讚诪讛 讜讗讬谉 驻谞讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪讟驻讞

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

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讗驻讬

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

讚讘专 讬讜讻谞讬 转驻砖转 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转 转驻砖转 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讗驻讬 讚爪讬驻专转讗 讚讝讜讟专 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻谞讬 驻谞讬 讙诪专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诪讗转 驻谞讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讘讬讜

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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淏efore [penei] the Ark cover鈥 (Leviticus 16:2), and it is written there: 鈥淔rom the presence of [penei] Isaac his father鈥 (Genesis 27:30). The dimension of the Ark cover is like that of the face of a person, a handbreadth.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪驻谞讬诐 砖诇 诪注诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻专讗讜转 驻谞讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讜转专爪谞讬 转驻砖转 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转 转驻砖转 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转

The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of God, as it is written: 鈥淔or I have seen your face as one sees the face of [penei] God, and you were pleased with me鈥 (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.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讻专讜讘 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 讛讻驻讜专转 讬讛讬讜 驻谞讬 讛讻专讜讘讬诐

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: 鈥淭oward the Ark cover shall be the faces of [penei] the cherubs鈥 (Exodus 25:20), and their faces were presumably smaller than one handbreadth.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讙诪讬专讬 讗讬谉 驻谞讬 讻专讜讘讬诐 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪讟驻讞 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讛讻讗 讙诪讬专

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淯pon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the east鈥 and: 鈥淭he faces [penei] of the cherubs,鈥 indicating that both are the same size.

讜诪讗讬 讻专讜讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻专讘讬讗 砖讻谉 讘讘讘诇 拽讜专讬谉 诇讬谞讜拽讗 专讘讬讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻谞讬 讛讗讞讚 驻谞讬 讛讻专讜讘 讜驻谞讬 讛砖谞讬 驻谞讬 讗讚诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讻专讜讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讚诐 讗驻讬 专讘专讘讬 讜讗驻讬 讝讜讟专讗

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: 鈥淭he face of the first was the face of the cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a man鈥 (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.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讞诇诇讛 注砖专讛 讘专 诪住讻讻讛 讗讬诪讗 讘讛讚讬 住讻讻讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讙诪专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讬转 讗砖专 讘谞讛 讛诪诇讱 砖诇诪讛 诇讛壮 砖砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗专讻讜 讜注砖专讬诐 专讞讘讜 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讗诪讛 拽讜诪转讜 讜讻转讬讘 拽讜诪转 讛讻专讜讘 讛讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讗诪讛 讜讻谉 讛讻专讜讘 讛砖谞讬 讜转谞讬讗 诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讻专讜讘讬诐 讘砖诇讬砖 讛讘讬转 讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 诪砖讻谉 谞诪讬 讻专讜讘讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讛讘讬转 讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits鈥 (I Kings 6:2). And it is written: 鈥淭he height of the first cherub was ten cubits, and likewise was the second cherub鈥 (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.

诪砖讻谉 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讗讜专讱 讛拽专砖 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 诇讛讜 砖讬转讬谉 驻讜砖讻讬 转诇转讬讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 注砖专讬诐 驻讜砖讻讬 讚诇 注砖专讛 讚讗专讜谉 讜讻驻讜专转 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 注砖专讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 讛讻专讜讘讬诐 驻讜专砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 住讜讻讻讬诐 讘讻谞驻讬讛诐 注诇 讛讻驻讜专转 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 住讻讻讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛

And to calculate: How many cubits high was the Tabernacle? It was ten cubits, as it is written: 鈥淭en cubits shall be the length of a beam鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the cherubs shall spread out their wings upward, screening [sokhekhim] the Ark cover with their wings鈥 (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.

诪诪讗讬 讚讙讚驻讬谞讛讜 注讬诇讜讬 专讬砖讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讛讚讬 专讬砖讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇诪注诇讛 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬诪讗 讚诪讬讚诇讬 讟讜讘讗 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛

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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that it is written: 鈥淪pread out their wings upward,鈥 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗诪讜转 讛讬讜 讘讬谞讜谞讬讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗诪讛 砖诇 讘谞讬谉 砖砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜砖诇 讻诇讬诐 讞诪砖讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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?

讗专讜谉 讜讻驻讜专转 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 诇讛讜 转诪谞讬讗 讜驻诇讙讗 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 讞讚 住专讬 讜驻诇讙讗 讗讬诪讗 住讜讻讛 注讚 讚讛讜讬讗 讞讚 住专讬 讜驻诇讙讗

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.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讞爪讬爪讬谉 讜诪讞讬爪讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Sages learned the minimum height of a sukka as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. As Rabbi 岣yya 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 one鈥檚 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.

砖讬注讜专讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗专抓 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讙驻谉 讜转讗谞讛 讜专诪讜谉 讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜拽 讛讝讛 诇砖讬注讜专讬谉 谞讗诪专

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

讞讟讛 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇 讻转驻讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讜 讛讜讗 讜讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讬讚

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