סוכה ה׳ ב:י״ד-ו׳ א:ח׳

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 Aḥa bar Ya’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: “Before [penei] the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2), and it is written there: “From the presence of [penei] Isaac his father” (Genesis 27:30). The dimension of the Ark cover is like that of the face of a person, a handbreadth.,The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of God, as it is written: “For I have seen your face as one sees the face of [penei] God, and you were pleased with me” (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.,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: “Toward the Ark cover shall be the faces of [penei] the cherubs” (Exodus 25:20), and their faces were presumably smaller than one handbreadth.,Rav Aḥa bar Ya’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: “Upon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the east” and: “The faces [penei] of the cherubs,” indicating that both are the same size.,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.,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: “The face of the first was the face of the cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a man” (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.,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.,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: “And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits” (I Kings 6:2). And it is written: “The height of the first cherub was ten cubits, and likewise was the second cherub” (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.,And to calculate: How many cubits high was the Tabernacle? It was ten cubits, as it is written: “Ten cubits shall be the length of a beam” (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: “And the cherubs shall spread out their wings upward, screening [sokhekhim] the Ark cover with their wings” (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.,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 Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that it is written: “Spread out their wings upward,” 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.,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?,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.,Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Sages learned the minimum height of a sukka as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. As Rabbi Ḥiyya 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’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.,The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah, as it is written: “A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav Ḥanin said: This entire verse is stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.,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. However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is based on wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not on barley bread, and it relates to one who is reclining and eating it together with relish or a condiment, which hastens the eating. This is a Torah measurement connected specifically to wheat.,Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not render all the articles in the house ritually impure.,The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite. A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure.,Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulk with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat. One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food.,Pomegranate teaches the following measure, as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken, as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual impurity. They are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates.,The Sages interpreted: “A land of olive oil and honey,” as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks. The Gemara poses a question: Does it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are olive-bulks? But aren’t there those measures that we just mentioned above, which are not olive-bulks? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are olive-bulks, as most measures relating to forbidden foods, e.g., fats, blood, piggul, leftover sacrificial flesh, ritually impure food, and the sciatic nerve, are olive-bulks, as are the measures for a corpse to transmit impurity in a tent and for an animal carcass to transmit impurity through contact.,Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulk of food.,Apparently, all these halakhic measurements are derived from this verse in the Torah and are not halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara refutes this argument: And how can you understand it in that manner that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse cited is mere support for these halakhot, not a source.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said earlier that Rav said that the halakhot governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion: These, too, are written in the Torah, as it is written: “And he shall bathe his flesh in the water” (Leviticus 14:9), and the Sages derived that nothing should interpose between his flesh and the water. Apparently, the halakhot of interposition are derived from a verse in the Torah and not through oral tradition.,The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition on one’s skin, which is indeed derived from verses in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach that an interposition in one’s hair invalidates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: A single hair [nima] tied in a knot interposes and invalidates the immersion. Three hairs tied together in a knot do not interpose, because three hairs cannot be tied so tightly that water cannot penetrate them. With regard to two hairs tied together in a knot, I do not know the halakha. This halakha with regard to hair is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to one’s hair is also written in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to that which is written: “And he shall bathe [et besaro] his flesh in the water.” The superfluous word et comes to include that which is subordinate to his flesh, and what is that? That is his hair. The fact that, like the body, there can be no interposition between one’s hair and the water is also derived from a verse.,The Gemara answers: When the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach, it is not with regard to an interposition in one’s hair, which is indeed derived from a verse in the Torah. Rather, it comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said: