Eruvin — Daf 3a

לא תיהני ליה אמלתרא דהא היכל אמלתרא הויא ליה ואפי' הכי עשרים אמה הוא דגבוה דתנן חמש אמלתראות של מילה היו על גביו זו למעלה מזו וזו למעלה מזו

והאי מאי תיובתא דילמא כי תניא ההיא דאמלתראות באולם תניא

והאי מאי קושיא דילמא תבנית היכל כתבנית אולם

אלמה אמר רבי אילעא אמר רב רחבה ד' אע"פ שאינה בריאה ואם יש לה אמלתרא אפי' גבוהה יותר מעשרים אמה אינו צריך למעט

אמר רב יוסף אמלתרא מתניתא היא מאן קתני לה

אמר אביי והא חמא בריה דרבה בר אבוה קתני לה ותיהוי אמלתרא מתניתא ותיקשי לרב

אמר לך רב דל אנא מהכא מתנייתא מי לא קשיין אהדדי אלא מאי אית לך למימר תנאי היא לדידי נמי תנאי היא

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר בלא רב מתנייתא אהדדי לא קשיין לרבנן קורה טעמא מאי משום היכרא והאי דקתני יתר מפתחו של היכל סימנא בעלמא

ורב נחמן בר יצחק הניחא אי לא סבירא ליה הא דרבה אלא אי סבירא ליה הא דרבה דאמר רבה כתיב (ויקרא כג, מג) למען ידעו דורותיכם כי בסכות הושבתי עד עשרים אמה אדם יודע שדר בסוכה למעלה מעשרים אמה אין אדם יודע משום דלא שלטא ביה עינא

אלמא גבי סוכה נמי בהיכרא פליגי איפלוגי בתרתי למה לי

צריכא דאי אשמעינן גבי סוכה בהא קאמר ר' יהודה כיון דלישיבה עבידא שלטא ביה עינא אבל מבוי דלהילוך עביד אימא מודה להו לרבנן ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמרי רבנן אבל בהך אימא מודו ליה לר' יהודה צריכא

מאי אמלתרא רב חמא בריה דרבה בר אבוה אמר קיני כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא פסקי דארזא

מאן דאמר פסקי דארזא כ"ש קיני מ"ד קיני אבל פסקי דארזא לא

ומ"ד פסקי דארזא מ"ט משום דנפיש משכיה והא סוכה דנפיש משכיה וקאמרי רבנן דלא

אלא כיון דקא חשיב אית ליה קלא:

מקצת קורה בתוך עשרים ומקצת קורה למעלה מעשרים מקצת סכך בתוך עשרים ומקצת סכך למעלה מעשרים אמר רבה במבוי כשר בסוכה פסול

מאי שנא במבוי דכשר דאמרי' קלוש סוכה נמי לימא קלוש

אי קלשת הויא לה חמתה מרובה מצילתה

הכא נמי אי קלשת הויא לה קורה הניטלת ברוח אלא על כרחך נעשו כשפודין של מתכת הכא נמי על כרחך נעשית צילתה מרובה מחמתה

אמר רבא מפרזקי' סוכה דליחיד היא לא מדכר מבוי דלרבים מדכרי אהדדי

רבינא אמר סוכה דאורייתא אחמירו בה רבנן מבוי דרבנן לא אחמירו ביה רבנן

רב אדא בר מתנה מתני להא שמעתא דרבה איפכא אמר רבה במבוי פסול בסוכה כשירה

מאי שנא סוכה דכשירה דאמרינן קלוש במבוי נמי לימא קלוש

אי קלשת הוי לה קורה הניטלת ברוח הכא נמי אי קלשת הויא לה חמתה מרובה מצילתה אלא על כרחך נעשית צילתה מרובה מחמתה הכא נמי ע"כ נעשו כשפודין של מתכת

אמר רבא מפרזקיא סוכה דליחיד היא רמי אנפשיה ומדכר מבוי דלרבי' היא סמכי אהדדי ולא מדכרי דאמרי אינשי קדרא דבי שותפי לא חמימא ולא קרירא

רבינא אמר סוכה דאורייתא לא בעי חיזוק מבוי דרבנן בעי חיזוק

מאי הוי עלה רבה בר רב עולא אמר זה וזה פסול רבא אמר זה וזה כשר

a cornice1 should be of no avail,2 since [the entrance to the] Hekal had a cornice and yet was only twenty cubits high? For have we not learnt: Five cornices of oak3 were above it, one higher than the other? (What4 an objection, however, is this? Is it not possible that the statement about the cornices was made in respect of the Ulam?5 — And what difficulty is this! It is quite possible that the build of [the entrance to] the Hekal was like that of the Ulam). Then6 why did R. Il'a state in the name of Rab [that if a cross-beam was] four [handbreadths] wide [it constitutes a proper gateway] even though it is not strong enough,7 and if it had a cornice there is no need to lower it even if it was higher than twenty cubits? — R. Joseph replied: [The ruling about] the cornice is that of a Baraitha.8 (Who learned it?9 — Abaye replied: Hama10 the son of Rabbah b. Abbuha learned it.) But even if [the ruling about] the cornice is a Baraitha, does it11 not present an objection against Rab?12 — Rab can answer you: Even if I am removed from here,13 are not the two Baraithas14 mutually contradictory? All you can reply,15 [however, is that they represent the views of different] Tannas;16 so also [the reply to the contradiction] against me may be [that our respective statements are the views of different] Tannas. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: In the absence of [the statement of] Rab17 there is no contradiction between the [two] Baraithas, since the reason of the Rabbis [for limiting the height of] the beam, [may be] that there should be a distinguishing mark18 and that the use of the expression,19 ‘higher than the doorway of the Hekal’20 is a mere mnemonic. As to R. Nahman b. Isaac, [his explanation may be accepted as] satisfactory if he does not adopt the view of Rabbah; but if he does adopt the view of Rabbah21 who stated: ‘It is written in Scripture: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths,22 [if the roof of the booth is] not higher than23 twenty cubits, one knows that one is living in a booth but if it is higher than twenty cubits one would not know it, since [the roof] does not catch the eye’,24 from which it is clear that in respect of sukkah also they25 differ on the question of distinction, why [it may be asked] should they26 express the [same] difference27 in two [rulings]?28 — [Both are] required. For if we had been informed [of their dispute] in respect of sukkah only, it might have been assumed that only in this case does R. Judah maintain his view, [because a sukkah], since it is made for the purpose of sitting in, the eye would well observe29 [the roof], but [that in the case of] an alley, since it is used for walking30 he agrees with the Rabbis. And if we had been informed of the other31 [ruling only], it might have been assumed that only in this case did the Rabbis maintain their view, but that in the other case they agree with R. Judah. [Hence the] necessity [for both rulings]. What [is the meaning of] amaltera?32 — R. Hama son of Rabbah b. Abbuha replied: Pigeon holes.33 When R. Dimi came34 he stated that in the West35 it was explained as cedar poles.36 He who said that cedar poles36 [constitute a proper entrance would] with even more reason [admit that] pigeon holes [constitute a proper entrance].37 He, however, who said that pigeon holes [constitute a proper entrance recognizes only these] but not cedar poles.38 As to him, however, who recognized39 cedar poles, is not his reason because their length is considerable?40 But [if so, it may be objected]: Is not the extent [of the roof] of a sukkah considerable41 and the Rabbis nevertheless ruled that it is not [valid]!42 — The fact, however, is that since [they are] valuable people talk about them. 43 If part of [the thickness of] the cross-beam44 was within twenty cubits45 and part of it above twenty cubits,45 or if part of [the depth of] the covering46 [of a sukkah] was within twenty cubits45 and part of it above twenty cubits, [such an altitude] said Rabbah, is admissible47 in the case of an entrance but inadmissible48 in that of a sukkah. Why is this49 admissible in the case of an entrance? Obviously because we say, [Regard the beam as] planed;50 but, then, [why should it not] be said in respect of a sukkah also, [Regard the roof as] thinned?50 — If you [assume the roof to be] thinned, the sunshine in the sukkah [would have to be assumed to be] more than the shade.51 But here also,52 if you [regard it as] planed, would not the beam be like one that can be carried away by the wind?53 Consequently you must [assume that beams in the conditions mentioned]54 are regarded as metal spits;55 [may it not then], here also [be said], that whatever the assumption56 the extent of the shade is actually more than that of the sunshine?57 — Raba of Parazika58 replied: In the case of a sukkah, since [it is usually intended] for the use of an individual, one might not remember [the altitude of the roof].59 In the case of an entrance however, since [it is made] for the use of many, [the people concerned] would remind one another.60 Rabina replied:61 The Rabbis made the law stricter in respect of a sukkah because [the commandment is] Pentateuchal, but in respect of an entrance [to an alley the prescribed construction of] which is only Rabbinical, the Rabbis did not impose such restrictions. R. Adda b. Mattenah taught the statement of Rabbah just cited in the reverse order: Rabbah said: It is inadmissible in the case of an entrance but admissible in that of a sukkah. Why is this62 admissible in the case of a sukkah? Obviously because we say: [Regard the roof as] thinned out;63 but, then, [why should it not] be said in respect of an entrance also: [Regard the beam as] planed?63 — If you [regard it as] planed, the beam would be like one that can be carried away by a wind.64 But here also65 if you [regard the roof as] thinned out [would not also] the sunshine in the sukkah [have to be regarded as] larger in extent than its shade? Consequently you must maintain that whatever the assumption,66 the actual extent of the shadow is larger than that of the sunshine, [may it not then] here also [be said] that whatever the assumption [beams in the condition mentioned] are regarded as metal spits?67 — Raba of Parazika replied: In the case of a sukkah, since [it is usually made] for one individual, that person realizes his responsibility68 and makes a point of remembering [the conditions of the roof].69 In the case of an entrance, however, since [it is made] for the use of many, [the people affected might] rely upon one another and so overlook70 [any defects in the cross-beam]; for do not people say: ‘a pot in charge of two cooks71 is neither hot nor cold’. Rabina replied:72 [the law of] sukkah, since it is Pentateuchal, requires no buttressing73 but that of an entrance, since it is only Rabbinical, does require buttressing.74 What is the ultimate decision?75 — Rabbah b. R. Ulla replied: The one as well as the other76 is inadmissible. Raba replied: The one as well as the other76 is admissible, that such an inference is not drawn. mentioned. irrespective of the presence or absence of a cornice, while the Tanna of the last cited Baraitha draws no such inference. Hekal. would not be noticed and people might mistake the alley for a public domain. As a cornice can be noticed even at a higher altitude the limit of twenty cubits, as stated in the second Baraitha, was in its case removed. course, to a sukkah. thin out’. in the interior to predominate over the sunshine. strength, V. Supra p. 7, n. 16. individual that his Sukkah, the roof of which was now completely higher than twenty cubits, was no longer valid. He would thus unconsciously live in an invalid Sukkah and so transgress a Pentateuchal precept. from the ground.