Eruvin

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.