Parallel
סוכה 5
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and it has been taught, R. Jose stated, Neither did the Shechinah ever descend to earth, nor did Moses or Elijah ever ascend to Heaven, as it is written, ‘The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the sons of men’. But did not the Shechinah descend to earth? Is it not in fact written, And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai? — That was above ten handbreadths [from the summit]. But is it not written, And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives? — That will be above ten handbreadths. But did not Moses and Elijah ascend to Heaven? Is it not in fact written, And Moses went up unto God.? — [That was] to a level lower than ten [handbreadths from heaven]. But is it not written, And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.? -[That was] to a level lower than ten handbreadths. But is it not written, He seizeth hold of the face of His throne, and He spreadeth His cloud upon him, and R. Tanhum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread some of the radiance of his Shechinah and his cloud upon him? — That was at a level lower than ten handbreadths. But in any case is it not written, ‘He seizeth hold of the face of His throne’? — The throne was well lowered for his sake until [it reached a level] lower than ten handbreadths [from Heaven] and then he seized hold of it. One can well understand that the ark was nine [handbreadths high] since it is written, And they shall make an ark of acacia wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof, but whence do we know that the ark-cover was a handbreadth [high]? — From that which R. Hanina learned: As for all the vessels which Moses made, the Torah gave the measurements of their length and breadth and height, [while in the case of] the ark-cover its length and its breadth are given, but not its height. Proceed, therefore, to deduce it from the smallest of the vessels, concerning which it is said, And thou shalt make unto it a border of a handbreadth round about. Just as there the height was a handbreadth so was it there also a handbreadth. But why should not our deduction be made from the vessels themselves? — If one select the greater, one does not select well; if one select the lesser, one selects well. But why should not our deduction be made from the plate of gold, as it was taught: ‘The ziz was in the shape of a plate of gold two finger-breadths broad and stretching from ear to ear, and upon it were engraved two lines, Yod and He above, and Kodesh [followed by a] Lamed below, and R. Eliezer son of R. Jose said, I saw it in Rome and it had Kodesh Ladonai on one line? — We deduce [the measurements of a] vessel from another vessel, but we do not deduce [the measurements of a] vessel from an ornament. Why then should we not deduce from the crown, of which a master stated, The crown was on the smallest possible size? — We deduce the size of a vessel from that of another vessel, but not from the appurtenances of a vessel. If so, [it may be objected] was not the border also an appurtenance of a vessel? — The border was below [the top of] the table. This is correct according to the authority who holds that the border was below, but according to the authority who holds that it was above what can one answer seeing that it was only an appurtenance of a vessel? — The fact is that one adduces the size of a thing some of whose measurements are given by the Torah from another thing whose measurements are given by the Torah, but no deduction can be made from the plate of gold or the crown of which the Torah gave no measurements at all. R. Huna said: [The height of the ark-cover may be deduced] from the following verse, Upon the face of the ark-cover’ on the east, and a ‘face’ is not smaller than a handbreadth. But perhaps it means a face like that
—
of the Bar-Yokani? — If one select the greater, one does not choose well, if one select the lesser, one does select well. Might it not be said that the face meant was one like that of a zipartha which is very small? — R. Aha b. Jacob answered, R. Huna draws an analogy between two expressions of ‘face’. It is written here, ‘[Upon the face of the ark-cover", and it is written elsewhere, From the face of Isaac his father. But why should we not deduce from the ‘face’ Above, concerning which it is written, As one seeth the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me? -If one selects the greater, one does not select well; if one select the lesser, one selects well. Then why should we not deduce from the cherub, concerning which it is written, Toward the face of the ark-cover shall the faces of the cherubim be? — R. Aha b. Jacob answered, We have a tradition that the face of the cherubim was not less than a handbreadth, and R. Huna too made his deduction from this verse. What is the derivation of cherub?- R. Abbahu said, ‘Like a child’, for in Babylon they call a child Rabia. Said Abaye to him: If so, how will you explain the Scriptural text, The first face was the face of the cherub and the second face the face of a man, seeing that the face of a cherub is the same as that of a man? — [One has] a large face and the other a small face. But whence do we know that the height of the interior space exclusive of the covering, must be ten [handbreadths] seeing that it might be said that the covering also is included? — The fact is that the deduction is made from the Temple covering of which it is written, And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits, and it is written, The height of the one cherub was ten cubits and so was it of the other cherub, and it was taught, Just as we find in the Temple that the cherubim reached to a third of the height thereof so also in the Tabernacle they reached to a third of its height. Now what was the height of the Tabernacle? Ten cubits, as it is written, Ten cubits shall be the length of a board. How much is this? Sixty handbreadths. How much is a third? Twenty handbreadths. Deduct the ten of the ark and the ark-cover, and ten handbreadths remain; and it is written, And the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high, covering the ark-cover with their wings. [From which we see that] the Divine Law calls [the wings that were stretched] above a height of ten handbreadths a ‘covering’. But whence do we know that their wings were above their heads? Is it not possible that they were on a level with their heads. — R. Aha b. Jacob answered, It is written ‘On high’. But perhaps this means that the wings were raised very high? — Is it then written, ‘On high, on high’? This explanation is satisfactory according to R. Meir, who says that all the cubits [in the Sanctuary] were normal cubits, but according to R. Judah who says that the cubits of the edifice were six handbreadths, but of the vessels were five, what can be said? For how much [then] were the ark and cover? Eight and a half, so that eleven and a half handbreadths are left. Shall we [therefore] say that [according to R. Judah] a Sukkah must be [at least] eleven and a half [handbreadths high]? — The fact is that according to R. Judah the law was learnt as a tradition, for R. Hiyya b. Ashi citing Rab stated: The laws concerning [minima], standards, interpositions and partitions are [a part of the] halachah that was given to Moses on Sinai. But are not the laws relating to minima Pentateuchal, since it is written, A land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates, a land of olive-trees and honey, and R. Hanin stated that all this verse was said in allusion to the prescribed minima. ‘Wheat’ is an allusion to the leprous house as we have learnt: He who enters a leprous house with his clothes on his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hand, both he and they become instantaneously unclean; [
—