עירובין 3:1 — Soncino English Talmud

a cornice should be of no avail, since [the entrance to the] Hekal had a cornice and yet was only twenty cubits high? For have we not learnt: Five cornices of oak were above it, one higher than the other? (What an objection, however, is this? Is it not possible that the statement about the cornices was made in respect of the Ulam? — And what difficulty is this! It is quite possible that the build of [the entrance to] the Hekal was like that of the Ulam). Then 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, 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. (Who learned it? — Abaye replied: Hama the son of Rabbah b. Abbuha learned it.) But even if [the ruling about] the cornice is a Baraitha, does it not present an objection against Rab? — Rab can answer you: Even if I am removed from here, are not the two Baraithas mutually contradictory? All you can reply, [however, is that they represent the views of different] Tannas; 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] Rab 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 mark and that the use of the expression, ‘higher than the doorway of the Hekal’ 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 Rabbah who stated: ‘It is written in Scripture: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths, [if the roof of the booth is] not higher than 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’, from which it is clear that in respect of sukkah also they differ on the question of distinction, why [it may be asked] should they express the [same] difference in two [rulings]? — [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 observe [the roof], but [that in the case of] an alley, since it is used for walking he agrees with the Rabbis. And if we had been informed of the other [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? — R. Hama son of Rabbah b. Abbuha replied: Pigeon holes. When R. Dimi came he stated that in the West it was explained as cedar poles. He who said that cedar poles [constitute a proper entrance would] with even more reason [admit that] pigeon holes [constitute a proper entrance]. He, however, who said that pigeon holes [constitute a proper entrance recognizes only these] but not cedar poles. As to him, however, who recognized cedar poles, is not his reason because their length is considerable? But [if so, it may be objected]: Is not the extent [of the roof] of a sukkah considerable and the Rabbis nevertheless ruled that it is not [valid]! — The fact, however, is that since [they are] valuable people talk about them. If part of [the thickness of] the cross-beam was within twenty cubits and part of it above twenty cubits, or if part of [the depth of] the covering [of a sukkah] was within twenty cubits and part of it above twenty cubits, [such an altitude] said Rabbah, is admissible in the case of an entrance but inadmissible in that of a sukkah. Why is this admissible in the case of an entrance? Obviously because we say, [Regard the beam as] planed; but, then, [why should it not] be said in respect of a sukkah also, [Regard the roof as] thinned? — If you [assume the roof to be] thinned, the sunshine in the sukkah [would have to be assumed to be] more than the shade. But here also, if you [regard it as] planed, would not the beam be like one that can be carried away by the wind? Consequently you must [assume that beams in the conditions mentioned] are regarded as metal spits; [may it not then], here also [be said], that whatever the assumption the extent of the shade is actually more than that of the sunshine? — Raba of Parazika 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]. In the case of an entrance however, since [it is made] for the use of many, [the people concerned] would remind one another. Rabina replied: 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 this admissible in the case of a sukkah? Obviously because we say: [Regard the roof as] thinned out; but, then, [why should it not] be said in respect of an entrance also: [Regard the beam as] planed? — If you [regard it as] planed, the beam would be like one that can be carried away by a wind. But here also 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, 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? — Raba of Parazika replied: In the case of a sukkah, since [it is usually made] for one individual, that person realizes his responsibility and makes a point of remembering [the conditions of the roof]. 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 overlook [any defects in the cross-beam]; for do not people say: ‘a pot in charge of two cooks is neither hot nor cold’. Rabina replied: [the law of] sukkah, since it is Pentateuchal, requires no buttressing but that of an entrance, since it is only Rabbinical, does require buttressing. What is the ultimate decision? — Rabbah b. R. Ulla replied: The one as well as the other is inadmissible. Raba replied: The one as well as the other is admissible,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ

^ᵃnote:tr,knt or tr,kn cf. Gr. **.
^ᵇnote:Where the gateway is higher than twenty cubits.
^ᶜnote:vkhn cf. Gr. ** quercus infectoria.
^ᵈnote:The argument is interrupted by the discussion within the brackets and is then resumed.
^ᵉnote:While the entrance to the Hekal may have had no cornice at all?
^ᶠnote:Supra n. 13.
^ᵍnote:To carry the weight of an ariah (a small brick hall’ the size of an ordinary one), v. infra 13b.
^ʰnote:Not that of Rab himself. Hence there is no contradiction between Rab's own statements.
^ⁱnote:I.e., who reported (or recited) it?
^ʲnote:Delete tvu with MS.M. and Bah. Emden reads: ‘R. Hama’.
^ᵏnote:This Baraitha from which it is obvious that the inference is not made from the door of the Hekal.
^ˡnote:Who stated (supra 2a) that the inference is made from the door of the Hekal; whereas from this Baraitha it is evident that such an inference is not drawn.
^ᵐnote:Sc. even if his opinion had never been expressed.
^ⁿnote:The one just cited and that quoted supra 2b where the inference from the door of the Hekal is specifically mentioned.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘what have you to say’.
^ᵖnote:The Tanna supra 2b infers from the Hekal and consequently limits the height of a gateway to twenty cubits irrespective of the presence or absence of a cornice, while the Tanna of the last cited Baraitha draws no such inference.
^ᵠnote:Sc. if Rab had not suggested that the Rabbis in the first Baraitha derived their measurement from the door of the Hekal.
^ʳnote:Between the alley and the public domain into which it opens. At a height of more than twenty cubits the beam 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.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘and that which he taught’.
^ᵗnote:In the first Baraitha.
^ᵘnote:V. Suk. 2a.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XXIII, 43, emphasis on ‘know’.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘until’.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘the eye does not rule over it’. Suk. 2a’
^ʸnote:The Rabbis and R. Judah, who declare such a booth valid.
^ᶻnote:For hk (sing.) read with Bah uvk (plur.).
^ᵃᵃnote:The Rabbis insisting on, and R. Judah dispensing with the necessity for a distinction.
^ᵃᵇnote:Those of (a) sukkah and (b) the cross-beam of an alley.
^ᵃᶜnote:Cf. Supra n. 4.
^ᵃᵈnote:It is not usual to sit down in an open alley and in passing one would not see a beam lying too high.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘of that’, the entrance to an alley.
^ᵃᶠnote:The Heb. for ‘cornice’, v. supra p. 7.
^ᵃᵍnote:hbhe ‘nests’, sc. ornamental carvings in the shape of birds’ nests.
^ᵃʰnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵃⁱnote:Palestine.
^ᵃʲnote:Fixed to the walls on the sides of the entrance.
^ᵃᵏnote:Since the latter are more likely to be noticed by the public.
^ᵃˡnote:Which are not so striking and may, in consequence, remain unnoticed.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lit., ‘said’, sc. regarded them as constituting a proper gateway even when higher than twenty cubits.
^ᵃⁿnote:In consequence of which they would be easily observed even at a considerable height.
^ᵃᵒnote:Cf. supra n. 2.
^ᵃᵖnote:If it is more than twenty cubits high.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘it has a voice’, and the public are consequently aware of their existence, a reason which is inapplicable, of course, to a sukkah.
^ᵃʳnote:At the entrance of an alley.
^ᵃˢnote:From the ground.
^ᵃᵗnote:lfx, consisting of branches, twigs or straw.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘fit’, ‘proper’, sc. the entrance to the alley is deemed to constitute a proper gateway.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘unfit’, cf. supra n. 9 mutatis mutandis.
^ᵃʷnote:A cross-beam of which only a portion is below the height of twenty cubits.
^ᵃˣnote:And only that portion remained that lay within the twenty cubits. auke, particip. pass. of ake ‘to weaken’, ‘to thin out’.
^ᵃʸnote:And this would render the sukkah invalid. The roof of a proper Sukkah must be thick enough to enable the shadows in the interior to predominate over the sunshine.
^ᵃᶻnote:In the case of a cross-beam over an entrance.
^ᵇᵃnote:In consequence of which it could not be regarded as a proper beam conforming to the prescribed thickness and strength, V. Supra p. 7, n. 16.
^ᵇᵇnote:In view of their general thickness and strength.
^ᵇᶜnote:A thin one of which can carry as heavy a weight as a thicker one of wood.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘against your will’.
^ᵇᵉnote:Why then, it may again be asked, did Rabbah rule that a Sukkah in such a condition is invalid?
^ᵇᶠnote:Farausag, a district near Bagdad (Obermeyer, p. 269), or Porsica, a town in Mesopotamia (v. Golds.).
^ᵇᵍnote:Should, therefore, the section below the altitude of twenty cubits dry up or fall down it might never occur to the 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.
^ᵇʰnote:Cf. Supra n. 4 mutatis mutandis.
^ᵇⁱnote:v. Supra note 2.
^ᵇʲnote:A roof of a sukkah of which only a portion is below the height of twenty cubits.
^ᵇᵏnote:v. Supra p. 10, n. 12.
^ᵇˡnote:v. Supra p. 10, n. 15.
^ᵇᵐnote:In the case of the roof of a sukkah.
^ᵇⁿnote:Lit., ‘against your will’.
^ᵇᵒnote:Cf. supra p. 10, n. 17. Why then did Rabbah rule that a cross-beam in such a condition is admissible?
^ᵇᵖnote:Lit., ‘throws upon himself’.
^ᵇᵠnote:V. supra p. 11, n. 2.
^ᵇʳnote:Lit., ‘and would not remember’.
^ᵇˢnote:Lit., ‘of partners’.
^ᵇᵗnote:V. supra p. 11, n. 2.
^ᵇᵘnote:People would in any case be careful properly to observe it.
^ᵇᵛnote:Otherwise it might be entirely disregarded.
^ᵇʷnote:Lit., ‘what is (the decision) about it’.
^ᵇˣnote:Lit., ‘this and this’, the roof of a sukkah and a cross-beam if either is even only partially higher than twenty cubits from the ground.