Eruvin 3a — the Talmud in English

We further challenge Rav:

But from now on:

the fact that the invalidity of a beam that is high is learned from the entrance of the Sanctuary,

it should not benefit it

to validate the entrance of an alley in which there is a beam higher than twenty [cubits], even if he made

an amaltera [ [A0008]something that attracts the eye, and the Gemara explains it below].

[an object that attracts the eye; the Gemara will explain it below].

For

the entrance of

the Sanctuary

also

had an amaltera.

And even so,

only

twenty cubits was it high

and no more!

For

this is

what we learned

in tractate Middot:

Five amaltera of cypress [ [A0023]wood in which gallnuts grow]

[a tree that produces galls]

were above it

of the entrance of the Sanctuary,

this one above that one, and this one above that one.

And now the difficulty arises: Why does an amaltera help to validate a high beam, as the Gemara explains below?

Rather, before the questioner finished raising his difficulty, the Talmud raises a difficulty against it.

And we challenge the question:

And this

which is difficult for you—that it is proven from the entrance of the Sanctuary that it was not made higher than twenty cubits, despite the fact that it had an amaltera, so that an amaltera is not effective—

what refutation

is it?

Perhaps, when that statement was taught, that

there were

amaltera

—it was specifically

in the Hall

that it was

taught

about it. For that Mishna discusses the entrance of the Hall.

But concerning the entrance of the Sanctuary, one may say that it did not have amaltera?!

And we reject this:

And this—

what difficulty

is it against our difficulty?

For it is properly proven that there were amaltera even for the entrance of the Sanctuary.

For

perhaps

this is what they received as a tradition:

the design of the Sanctuary—

is like the design of the Hall, [ [A0053]Ritva] and there were amaltera even at the entrance of the Sanctuary.

[Ritva], and there were amaltarot even at the entrance of the Sanctuary.

And now we return to complete the difficulty against Rav:

Since there were amaltera even at the entrance of the Sanctuary, and its entrance was not more than twenty [cubits], the difficulty arises:

Why then

why

did Rabbi Ilaa say in the name of Rav

that an amaltera is effective?

For we find that Rav himself stated both of these laws concerning the beam of an alley:

A. Although a beam is valid only if it is sound and strong enough to bear a brick [half a brick of three handbreadths] [see Illustration 1], nevertheless, if

the beam is four

handbreadths

wide,

it is valid

even though it is not sound

enough to bear a brick [see Illustration 2].

B.

And if it has

the beam

an amaltera,

then

even

if

the beam is high

the beam

more than twenty cubits—

he need not reduce it.

If so, the difficulty arises from the entrance of the Sanctuary, which had an amaltera: Why did they not make it higher, like the entrance of the Hall, for it had amaltera? And it was from the entrance of the Sanctuary itself that Rav learned it?!

Said

he answered

Rav Yosef:

That which

an amaltera

is effective for a high beam—it was not stated by Rav, but rather

it is a beraita.

And now you will not find a contradiction between Rav’s statements.

And from the beraita as well there is no difficulty against Rav.

For

who taught it!?

For it is not known who it was who taught this beraita! Perhaps it is corrupted, and one may not raise a difficulty from it.

Abaye said: But Rav Hama son of Rabba bar Avuha

is the one who

taught it. Since he is the one who taught this beraita, it is not a corrupted beraita.

And if so:

even if

let the amaltera be a beraita [ [A0098]grant, according to your words, that it is a beraita and not a statement of Rav], ultimately:

[even granting your claim that it is a baraita and not a statement of Rav]; ultimately,

and let there be a difficulty

from this beraita

against Rav.

For this beraita proves that one should not learn from the entrance of the Sanctuary, which had an amaltera, contrary to Rav, who learned from the entrance of the Sanctuary.

For if one learns from the entrance of the Sanctuary, which was only twenty cubits, despite the fact that it had an amaltera—how can an amaltera be effective for a beam higher than twenty cubits?!

And we answer:

Rav can say to you:

Since it is a beraita, there is no contradiction from here to my words.

For even if

remove me from here [ [A0109]remove my words from here], behold, there are these two

[remove my statement from consideration], these two

beraitot

[ [A0112]beraitot]:

A. This one that was taught above: An alley that is higher than twenty cubits, higher than the entrance of the Sanctuary—he must reduce it. This implies that the Rabbis learn it from the entrance of the Sanctuary.

B. This beraita with which we are dealing, which says that an amaltera is effective for validating a high beam.

Are these two beraitot not difficult

to each other

with one another?

Do they not contradict one another?!

For the first beraita proves my words, that it is learned from the entrance of the Sanctuary.

And, on the other hand, the beraita proves that it is not learned from the entrance of the Sanctuary, for if so, an amaltera would not be effective.

Rather,

necessarily,

what can you say

to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot?

That it is a dispute of

tannaim!

The tanna of the first beraita above holds that it is learned from the entrance of the Sanctuary, and an amaltera truly is not effective.

Whereas this beraita, which holds that an amaltera is effective, must necessarily hold another reason for the fact that a beam above twenty cubits is invalid. [The reason will be explained below, later in the Gemara.]

And since this is so, for me as well there is no difficulty from the beraita of the amaltera.

For

for me as well—

it is a dispute of tannaim.

And I hold in accordance with the tanna of the beraita above. Indeed, an amaltera is not effective for a beam higher than twenty [cubits].

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Without

the words of

Rav [ [A0136]who said: The tanna of the beraita above—“An alley that is higher than twenty cubits, higher than the entrance of the Sanctuary, must be reduced”—holds that the reason of the Rabbis is because they learn it from the entrance of the Sanctuary, and consequently the beraitot are difficult to one another], I would say:

[who said that the tanna of the baraita above—“An alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, higher than the entrance of the Sanctuary, must be lowered”—holds that the rationale of the Rabbis is that they derive the law from the entrance of the Sanctuary, and consequently the baraitot conflict], I would say that

the beraitot are not difficult to one another.

For one may say that even according to the tanna of this beraita, the reason for the invalidity is not that it is higher than the entrance of the Sanctuary.

Rather:

According to the Rabbis,

who disqualify

a beam

above twenty [cubits],

what is the reason

for its being invalid—

what is it?

Because of recognition. The beam above twenty is not visible. And we require that people see it and know that an enactment was made, so that they should not come to confuse an alley with the public domain!

And this which it teaches

in the beraita:

“higher than the entrance of the Sanctuary”

does not mean as Rav understood it, that the invalidity of a beam above twenty is because of the entrance of the Sanctuary. Rather, the tanna of the beraita mentioned it only as

a mere indication,

to state that the measure of the beam’s height is the measure of the entrance of the Sanctuary, which is twenty, so that the version should not be confused and changed to say that the measure of the beam’s height is thirty or forty.

And now, automatically, the beraitot are not difficult to one another. For even according to this beraita, an amaltera is properly effective, since through the amaltera, which attracts the eye, the beam is recognizable even above twenty cubits.

And we challenge this:

And Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak,

who holds that the reason of the Rabbis who disqualify a beam above twenty is that there is no recognition, and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda, who validates it, is that he holds that there is recognition even above twenty:

This works if he does not hold

the reason for a sukka higher than twenty cubits, which is invalid according to the Sages [and valid according to Rabbi Yehuda, as stated in Sukka 2a], like

that which

said

Rabba

below shortly; it works, and nothing is difficult!

But if he holds

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak

like

that which

said

Rabba, for Rabba said:

The reason that a sukka whose roofing is above twenty cubits is invalid is because

it is written

concerning a sukka: “Every native in Israel shall sit in sukkot

so that your generations may know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in sukkot

when I brought them out from the land of Egypt.” And we expound: Make a sukka—that is, roofing—whose dwelling is recognizable to you! [Rashi, Sukka 2a] Since

up to twenty cubits a person knows that he is dwelling in a sukka.

Above twenty cubits a person does not know

that he is dwelling in a sukka,

because

the [roofing]

eye does not rule over it, and its dwelling is not recognizable; therefore it is invalid!

The difficulty is:

it follows that, concerning a sukka as well, they dispute about recognition

the Sages, who disqualify a sukka above twenty, and Rabbi Yehuda, who validates it.

And if so:

why did

the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda dispute

on two matters [ [A0188]in a sukka and in an alley],

dispute two matters [a sukka and an alley]

what need was there,

when they dispute for one reason?

And we answer: It can properly be said that Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak also holds according to Rabba’s reason. Nevertheless,

it is necessary

for the Mishna to inform us of the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda concerning a sukka and an alley!

For if it had informed us

only

concerning a sukka,

I would have said that

in this

matter of a sukka specifically

Rabbi Yehuda says

that there is recognition even above twenty,

since

a sukka

is made for dwelling,

and since he sits and remains there,

the

eye of the one sitting

rules over it, over the roofing.

But an alley, which is made for passage,

and one does not remain there,

I might say that he agrees with them,

Rabbi Yehuda with

the Rabbis,

that above twenty the beam is not recognizable.

And if it had informed us

of their dispute only

in this

matter of an alley, I would have said that only

in this

matter of an alley, which is made for passage,

the Rabbis say

that there is no recognition above twenty.

But concerning this,

matter of a sukka, which is made for dwelling,

I might say that the Rabbis agree with him,

Rabbi Yehuda,

that there is recognition even above twenty.

For this reason

it is necessary

to inform us of their dispute both concerning a sukka and concerning an alley.

And now we return to explain

what is an amaltera?

And the amoraim dispute this:

Rav Hama son of Rabba bar Avuha said: Birdhouses [ [A0235]dovecotes], like the birdhouses of birds, were above the entrance of the Hall; and if he did this around the beam, it is effective, even if it was higher than twenty!

What is an ornamental beam?

When

Rav Dimi

came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: They say in the West [ [A0241]in the Land of Israel]: Amaltera—these are the beams themselves when they are

Rav Dimi

cypress planks [ [A0243]long cypress poles], and they are decorated with designs. Because of the importance of the beam itself, since it is made of valuable wood, and because it is decorated, everyone looks at it as they pass there. Thus there is recognition even when it is higher than twenty cubits. [ [A0244]see Illustration]

The one who says that amaltera means the beams themselves when they are made cypress planks,

[in Eretz Yisrael]: Amaltarot are the beams themselves when they are

cedarwood planks [long cedar poles] and decorated with designs. Because the beam itself is important, being made of valuable wood, and because it is decorated, everyone looks at it as they pass there. Thus there is recognition even when it is higher than twenty cubits.

[See Illustration]

holds that

all the more so, birdhouses

are effective. For the forms of the birdhouses are an important and unusual matter, and since people look at the birdhouses, they will also see the beam; thus there is recognition even when the beam is above twenty cubits.

But

the one who says: Birdhouses,

holds that only birdhouses are effective;

but

beams made of

cypress planks are not

effective if they are above twenty, to validate them.

And we inquire about it:

And the one who says cypress planks

are effective— -

What is the reason?

If it is because their length is great [ [A0264]because they are very long], and therefore people see them and automatically also see the beam, and there is recognition.

help— -

But a sukka

that is higher than twenty,

whose length is great

of roofing [ [A0269]for the roofing is long, as it is placed over the entire sukka],

that is higher than twenty cubits

and

nevertheless

the Rabbis say [ [A0273]who dispute Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna of Sukka cited above, on page 2a]

nevertheless

that it does not

help, because the roofing is not visible to the one dwelling in the sukka, as we explained above.

And if so, a beam made of long poles is no better than the roofing of the sukka, so what is the reason that it is effective?!

And we answer:

Rather,

this is the reason that cypress planks are effective for a beam:

since they are considered important,

the poles

—

it has a voice

that they are placed there, and people look at them; through this they see the beam.

The height of the beam in an alley and the height of the roofing in a sukka are equal—twenty cubits.

Although the beam is only a rabbinic enactment, whereas the roofing is part of the mitzva of sukka from the Torah, the Gemara discusses below whether their laws should be compared.

Two matters are discussed in the sugya before us:

The first: What is the halakha when part of the beam or part of the roofing is above twenty cubits and part is within twenty?

And the second: Is the measure of twenty cubits stated with regard to the empty space between the beam or roofing and the ground, so that there may not be a space of twenty cubits? Or is the measure stated with regard to the beam and the roofing themselves, that they may not be above twenty cubits, but if they are located precisely at the line of twenty cubits, with twenty cubits of empty space beneath them, they are valid?

The sugya is composed of several different moves that change from one end to the other, and the Rishonim likewise disagreed completely concerning the nature of these questions.

The actual question of what the deficiency is in a beam part of which is above twenty cubits is not explained in the words of the Rishonim.

And it is possible that it is simple: We regard the beam as one complete unit, and if part of the unit is above twenty cubits, this creates a deficiency even in the part within twenty cubits.

And so the Gemara deliberates:

A. If it happened that

part of the beam

of an alley was located

within twenty

cubits,

and

the other

part

of the

beam

was located at a height

above twenty [ [A0306]see Illustration 1].

above twenty [see Illustration 1].

B. And likewise, if it happened that

part of the roofing

of a sukka was located

within twenty, and part of the roofing

was located

above twenty [ [A0313]see Illustration 2]:

Rabba said: Concerning the

beam of an

alley—

valid

is the alley’s validation through this beam.

But if this happened

with

the roofing of a

sukka—

invalid

is the roofing.

And we inquire about it:

What is different about an alley, that it is valid,

despite the fact that part of the beam is above twenty, necessarily because

we say “thin it away”,

regarding the thickness that protrudes above twenty, and we regard it as though it were a thin beam located within twenty. [See the end of the introduction to our sugya.]

If so,

a sukka

that has part of its roofing also above twenty cubits

should we not likewise say

concerning it

“thin it away”

with regard to the roofing above, and validate it?!

And we answer: Concerning roofing it is impossible to say “thin it away,” since

if you thin away

that part which is above twenty and regard it as though it were not here

—

it becomes

the sukka

whose sunlight is greater than its shade.

And we challenge: According to your words,

here

with regard to the beam of an alley

also, you should invalidate the beam, because

if you thin away

that part of the beam which is above twenty,

it becomes

the beam below twenty

a beam that can be removed by the wind,

which is ineffective. For it is for this reason that we require the beam to be sound enough to bear a brick.

Rather,

why did you not invalidate the beam, even though if you thin it away it becomes a beam removable by the wind? Because

necessarily, it was made [ [A0360]it was made] the beam in its part below twenty

it is necessarily made [the beam was made] in its part below twenty cubits

as though

it were made of

metal spits

that cannot be removed by the wind.

For we are not actually removing the part above twenty, but only “regard” it as though we were removing it; therefore the beam is valid.

And if so,

here too,

with regard to the sukka, let us say that we do not care that we “regard” the roofing above twenty as though it had been removed, even though as a result the roofing below twenty will have more sunlight than shade. For we are not actually removing it, but only “regard” it so. And if so,

necessarily, its shade is greater than its sunlight?

And we answer:

He said,

he answered,

Rava of Parzekia:

The reason that we invalidate it is that we are concerned that perhaps the part below twenty will be removed and he will not notice it, and only the part above twenty will remain, which by itself is certainly invalid.

And the distinction between a sukka and an alley is:

A sukka, which is for an individual,

is made, if the roofing below twenty is removed,

he will not remember [ [A0379]he will not notice], and therefore the sukka is invalid, out of concern that it may be removed.

he will not remember [he will not notice],

But

an alley, which is for the public,

is made,

they remind one another,

as presumably one of the many will notice it, inform the others that the beam has become invalid, and they will repair it.

Ravina said

there is another reason for this: In a sukka we are concerned that the roofing below twenty may be removed, whereas in an alley we are not concerned:

A sukka,

which is invalid above twenty

by Torah law, the Rabbis were stringent concerning it

and were concerned that it might become invalid.

But

an alley,

whose entire obligation concerning the beam is only

rabbinic, the Rabbis were not stringent concerning it

and were not concerned that it might become invalid.

Rav Adda bar Mattana taught this statement of Rabba

above

in reverse:

Rabba said: Concerning the

beam of an

alley

whose part is below twenty,

invalid.

Concerning

the roofing of a

sukka

whose part is below twenty,

valid.

And this is how we wonder about it:

What is different about a sukka, which is valid, because we say “thin it away”; concerning an alley as well, should we not say “thin it away”?

Perhaps you will say: Concerning a beam it is impossible to say “thin it away,” because

if you thin it away, it becomes a beam removable by the wind,

which is ineffective.

Here too,

concerning the sukka, you should invalidate it because

if you thin it away, it becomes a sukka whose sunlight is greater than its shade.

Rather,

why did you not invalidate the sukka? Because

necessarily, its shade is greater than its sunlight.

necessarily, its shade has become greater than its sunlight.

Here too

in the case of a crossbeam, you will not disqualify it, because

you are forced to say that they were made like metal spits.

Rava of Parzika said: A sukkah, since it is made for an individual

and it alone is incumbent upon him to ensure the sukkah’s validity, we are not concerned that perhaps the thickness of the roofing below twenty [cubits] will be removed and the sukkah will become invalid, since certainly

he will take it to heart

[he will give his attention]

and remember

[and remember] that the sukkah became invalid, and repair it.

But

a mavoy, since it is made for many

people, they do not trouble themselves to inspect whether it has become invalid, since

they rely upon one another

[they rely upon one another]

and do not remember.

And as

people say

[they customarily say]:

the cooking pot of partners

[a cooking pot belonging to partners]

is neither hot nor cold

[it is neither hot nor cold], because, since they rely upon one another, there is no one who will take care to heat the pot or cool it.

Ravina said: A sukkah

whose obligation of dwelling in it is

by Torah law,

there is no need to decree concerning it that perhaps the thickness of the roofing below twenty [cubits] will be removed, since certainly he will repair it immediately and will not be negligent.

But

a mavoy,

where the obligation to place a crossbeam in it is only of

rabbinic origin, requires reinforcement,

and it is necessary to decree that perhaps the lower part of the crossbeam will rot, and all of it will stand above twenty [cubits], and he will not hurry to repair it, since its entire obligation is only rabbinic.

And it is asked of us:

what was established concerning it

regarding part of a crossbeam and part of roofing being within twenty [cubits], whether they are valid or not?

Rabba bar Rav Ulla said: Both this and that

the crossbeam and the roofing

are invalid

.