Eruvin 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

We further challenge Rav:

But if that is so

, since the invalidity of a beam that is high is derived from the entrance of the Sanctuary,

it should not benefit him

to validate the entrance of an alleyway whose beam is higher than twenty cubits, even if he made

an amaltara

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

For

the entrance of

the Sanctuary

also

had an amaltara.

And even so,

only

twenty cubits was it high

, and no more!

For

this is what

we learned

in tractate Middot:

There were five amaltarot of fir wood

[a tree that produces galls]

above it

, the entrance of the Sanctuary,

one above the other, and one above the other.

And now the question arises: Why is an amaltara effective in validating a high beam, as the Gemara will explain below?

Rather, before the questioner finished presenting his challenge, the Gemara raises an objection to it.

And we challenge the question:

But this

, the matter that troubles you—that it is demonstrated from the entrance of the Sanctuary that it was not made higher than twenty cubits despite having an amaltara, proving that an amaltara is ineffective—

what refutation

is it?

Perhaps, when that

statement was taught, that there were

amaltarot

at the entrance, it was taught specifically

in the Entrance Hall

, for there it was

taught

. That Mishna is speaking of the entrance to the Entrance Hall.

But regarding the entrance of the Sanctuary, it may be said that it did not have amaltarot!?

And we reject this:

But this

—

what difficulty is it for our challenge?

The matter is in fact clearly demonstrated: there were amaltarot even at the entrance of the Sanctuary.

For

perhaps

this is what they had received as a tradition:

the design of the Sanctuary

was like the design of the Entrance Hall

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

And now we return to complete the challenge to Rav:

Since there were amaltarot even at the entrance of the Sanctuary, and its entrance was not higher than twenty cubits, the following difficulty arises:

Why, then,

did

Rabbi Ilaa say that Rav said

that an amaltara is effective?

For we find that Rav himself stated both of these halakhot concerning the beam of an alleyway:

a. Although a beam is valid only if it is sound and strong enough to support a half-brick [half a brick three handbreadths long] [see illustration 1], nevertheless, if the beam is

four

handbreadths

wide

, it is valid

even though it is not sound

enough to support a half-brick [see illustration 2].

b.

And if it has

—the beam—

an amaltara,

then

even

if the beam is

high

than twenty cubits—

more than twenty cubits, it

does not need to be lowered.

If so, the entrance of the Sanctuary presents a difficulty: Why was it not made higher, like the entrance of the Entrance Hall, since it had amaltarot? And Rav himself derived this law from the entrance of the Sanctuary?!

Said

—he answered—

Rav Yosef: The statement that an

amaltara

is effective for a high beam was not stated by Rav; rather,

it is a baraita

.

And now Rav’s statements do not contradict one another.

Nor does the baraita present a difficulty for Rav.

For

who taught it!?

It is not known who formulated this baraita. Perhaps it is an erroneous baraita, and no difficulty may be raised from it.

Abaye said: But it was Rav Hama, son of Rabba bar Avuha,

who

taught it. Since he is the one who taught this baraita, it is not an erroneous baraita.

And if so:

If so:

let the amaltara be a baraita

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

it still presents a difficulty

from this baraita

to Rav.

For this baraita demonstrates that one may not derive the law from the entrance of the Sanctuary, which had an amaltara, contrary to Rav, who derived it from the entrance of the Sanctuary.

For if the law is derived from the entrance of the Sanctuary, which was only twenty cubits high despite having an amaltara, how can an amaltara be effective for a beam higher than twenty cubits?!

And we answer:

Rav can say to you

: Since it is a baraita, this is not a contradiction to my statement.

For even if

you remove me from here

[remove my statement from consideration], these two

baraitot

remain:

a. The baraita taught above: An alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, higher than the entrance of the Sanctuary, must be lowered. This implies that the Rabbis derive the law from the entrance of the Sanctuary.

b. This baraita under discussion, which says that an amaltara is effective in validating a high beam.

Do these not conflict

—these two baraitot—

with one another?

Do they not contradict one another?!

The first baraita demonstrates my position, that the law is derived from the entrance of the Sanctuary.

Conversely, the other baraita demonstrates that the law is not derived from the entrance of the Sanctuary, since if it were, an amaltara would not be effective.

Rather,

necessarily,

what can you say

to resolve the contradiction between the baraitot?

It is a dispute between

tannaim!

The tanna of the first baraita above holds that the law is derived from the entrance of the Sanctuary, and that an amaltara is indeed ineffective.

Whereas this baraita, which holds that an amaltara is effective, must hold a different rationale for the invalidity of a beam higher than twenty cubits. [The rationale will be explained below in the continuation of the Gemara.]

And since that is so, the baraita concerning an amaltara also presents no difficulty for me.

For

for me as well

it is a dispute between tannaim.

And I hold in accordance with the tanna of the baraita above. Indeed, an amaltara is ineffective for a beam higher than twenty cubits.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Without

the words of

Rav

[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 baraitot do not conflict with one another.

For it may be said that even the tanna of this baraita does not hold that the reason for the invalidity is that the beam is higher than the entrance of the Sanctuary.

Rather:

according to the Rabbis,

who invalidate a

beam

above twenty cubits,

what

is the reason

that it is invalid?

Because of recognition. A beam higher than twenty cubits is not visible. We require people to see it and know that the enactment has been carried out, lest they confuse an alleyway with the public domain!

And this which it teaches

And the fact that it teaches

in the baraita:

“Higher than the entrance of the Sanctuary”

does not mean, as Rav understood, that the invalidity of a beam above twenty cubits is because of the entrance of the Sanctuary. Rather, the tanna merely adopted

a mnemonic

: the measure of the beam’s height is like the measure of the entrance of the Sanctuary, which was twenty cubits, so that the wording would not be altered and someone would mistakenly say that the measure of the beam’s height is thirty or forty cubits.

And now, the baraitot obviously do not conflict with one another. For even according to this baraita, an amaltara is entirely effective, since by attracting the eye it makes the beam visible even above twenty cubits.

And we challenge this:

And as for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak,

who holds that the reason the Rabbis invalidate a beam above twenty cubits is that there is no recognition, while the reason Rabbi Yehuda validates it is that he holds that there is recognition even above twenty cubits:

This works if he does not hold

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

that which

Rabba

Rabba

said shortly below; then it is satisfactory, and there is no difficulty!

But if Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak holds

the same as

that which

said

Rabba said, as Rabba said:

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

written

concerning sukka: “Every native Israelite 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 of the land of Egypt.” And we expound: Make the sukka—that is, the roofing—such that its dwelling is perceptible to you! [Rashi, Sukkah 2a] For

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]

is not within the range of the eye

, and its dwelling is not perceptible; therefore it is invalid!

The difficulty is as follows:

Apparently, with regard to sukka as well, they disagree concerning recognition

—the Sages, who invalidate a sukka above twenty cubits, and Rabbi Yehuda, who validates it.

And if so,

why did

the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda

disagree in two matters

[in sukka and in an alleyway]

at all,

when they disagree for one reason?

And we answer: It can indeed be said that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak also holds Rabba’s rationale. Nevertheless,

it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach us the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda both with regard to sukka and with regard to an alleyway!

For if it had taught us

only

with regard to sukka,

I would have said that

in this

case of sukka specifically

Rabbi Yehuda said

that there is recognition even above twenty cubits,

since

a sukka

is made for dwelling,

and because one sits and lingers there,

the eye

of the person sitting

is focused upon it

—the roofing.

But an alleyway, which is made for passage,

and one does not linger there,

I would say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes

to

the Rabbis

that above twenty cubits the beam is not discernible.

And if it had taught us

their dispute only

in this

matter of an alleyway, I would have said that only

in this

matter of an alleyway, which is made for passage,

the Rabbis say

that there is no recognition above twenty cubits.

But with regard to this

sukka, which is made for dwelling,

I would say that the Rabbis concede

to

Rabbi Yehuda

that there is recognition even above twenty cubits.

For this reason,

it is necessary

to teach us their dispute both with regard to sukka and with regard to an alleyway.

And now we return to explain:

What is an amaltara?

The amoraim disagree about this:

Rav Hama, son of Rabba bar Avuha, said: Pigeon lofts

[dovecotes]. There were pigeon lofts like bird dovecotes above the entrance of the Entrance Hall, and if one made them around the beam, it is effective even if the beam was higher than twenty cubits!

When

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

Rav Dimi

arrived from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: In the West they say

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

cedar planks

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

The one who says

that amaltarot are the beams themselves when they are made of

cedar planks

holds that

all the more so, pigeon lofts

are effective. Since the forms of the pigeon lofts are significant and unusual, and people look at the pigeon lofts, they will also see the beam; consequently there is recognition even when the beam is above twenty cubits.

But

the one who says: Pigeon lofts

holds that only pigeon lofts are effective.

But

beams made of

cedar planks are not

effective when they are above twenty cubits, to validate them.

And we inquire:

And the one who says cedar planks

are effective— -

What is the reason?

If it is because they are very long

[as they are very long, people see them and consequently see the beam as well, and there is recognition],

but a sukka

that is higher than twenty cubits,

whose roofing is very long

[since the roofing is long and rests across the entire sukka],

and

nevertheless

the Rabbis say

[who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna of tractate Sukkah cited above, 2a]

that it does not

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

If so, a beam made of long poles is no better than the roofing of a sukka; for what reason is it effective?!

And we answer:

Rather,

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

since they are significant

—the poles—

they have a voice

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

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

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

Two matters are discussed in the sugya before us:

The first is the halakha when part of the beam or part of the roofing is above twenty cubits, while another part is within twenty cubits.

The second is whether the measure of twenty cubits applies to the empty space between the beam or roofing and the ground, which may not contain twenty cubits of empty space; or whether the measure applies to the beam and roofing themselves, which may not be above twenty cubits, but if they are situated precisely at the line of twenty cubits, with twenty cubits of empty space beneath them, they are valid.

The sugya consists of several different approaches that change entirely from one to the next, and the Rishonim likewise disagreed fundamentally concerning the nature of these questions.

The Rishonim did not explain the nature of the deficiency in a beam part of which is above twenty cubits.

It is possible that the matter is straightforward: the beam is regarded 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 this is the Gemara’s uncertainty:

a. If it happened that

part of the beam

of an alleyway was

within twenty

cubits,

and the

part

other part

beam

of the

beam was situated at a height of

above twenty

[see illustration 1].

b. And likewise, if it happened that

part of the roofing

of a sukka was

within twenty, and part of the roofing

was

above twenty [see illustration 2]:

Rabba said: In the case of a

beam of an

alleyway—it is

valid

, and the alleyway is valid with this beam.

But if this occurred

with

the roofing of a

sukka—it is

invalid

, and the roofing is invalid.

And we inquire:

What is different about an alleyway, that it is valid, although part of the beam is above twenty cubits? Necessarily, it is because

we say “thin it away”,

we say, “thin it”

, regarding the thickness that extends above twenty cubits as though it had been removed, and we consider it as a thin beam situated within twenty cubits. [See the end of the introduction to our sugya.]

If so, with regard to a

sukka as well, in which part of the roofing is above twenty cubits,

that contains some roofing above twenty cubits

let us likewise say

of it

“thin it”

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

And we answer: With regard to roofing, one cannot say “thin it,” since

if you thin

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

it would become

the sukka

with more sunlight than shade.

And we challenge this: According to your explanation,

here

—with regard to the beam of an alleyway—

as well,

you should invalidate the beam, because

if you thin

the part of the beam above twenty,

it would become

the part of the beam below twenty

a beam that can be carried away by the wind

, which is ineffective. For it is for this reason that we require the beam to be sound, so that it can support a half-brick.

Rather,

why do you not invalidate the beam even though, if you thin it, it would become a beam that can be carried away by the wind? It is because

necessarily, it was made

[it was made] in its part below twenty

as though

it had been made of

metal rods

that cannot be carried away by the wind.

For we are not actually removing the part above twenty; we merely “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 it does not matter that we “regard” the roofing above twenty as though it had been removed, even though as a result the roofing below twenty would have more sunlight than shade. For we are not actually removing it; we merely “regard” it as removed. If so,

necessarily, its shade is greater than its sunlight?

And we answer:

He said

—he answered—

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

The distinction between a sukka and an alleyway is:

The distinction between a sukka and an alley is as follows:

A sukka, which is made for an individual,

if the roofing below twenty is removed, he

will not remember

[he will not notice it]. Therefore, the sukka is invalid, due to the concern that it may be removed.

But

an alleyway, which is made for the public,

is made for many people,

they will remind one another

, since it is likely that one of the many people will notice this, remind the others that the beam has become invalid, and repair it.

Ravina said

another reason for the fact that with regard to a sukka we are concerned that the roofing below twenty may be removed, whereas with regard to an alleyway we are not concerned:

A sukka

that is invalid when it is above twenty cubits is

a Torah matter, so the Rabbis were stringent concerning it

and were concerned that it might become invalid.

But

an alleyway,

whose entire obligation with regard to a 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 the reverse:

Rabba said: In the case of a

beam of an

alleyway

whose part is below twenty cubits, it is

invalid.

With regard to

the roofing of a

sukka

whose part is below twenty cubits, it is

valid.

And this is how we challenge it:

What is different about a sukka, which is valid because we say “thin it”; with regard to an alleyway as well, let us say “thin it”?

You might say: With regard to the beam, one cannot say “thin it,” because

if you thin it, it would become a beam that can be carried away by the wind,

which is ineffective.

Here too,

with regard to the sukka, you should invalidate it because

if you thin it, it would have more sunlight than shade.

Rather,

why do you not invalidate the sukka? Because

necessarily, its shade has become greater than its sunlight.

Here too

with regard to a crossbeam, it would not invalidate it, because

you are compelled to say that they became like metal spits.

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

and the responsibility for ensuring the sukkah’s fitness rests solely upon him, we are not concerned that perhaps the thickness of the roofing below twenty cubits will be removed and the sukkah will become invalid, for certainly

he will apply himself

[he will take it to heart]

and remember

[and recall] that the sukkah has become invalid, and repair it.

But

a mavoy, since it is made for many

people, they do not take the trouble to inspect whether it has become invalid, because

they rely on one another

[each relies on the other]

and do not remember.

As

people say

[it is customary to say]:

The pot of partners

[a cooking pot belonging to partners]

is neither hot nor cold

[it is neither hot nor cold], because since they rely on one another, no one takes responsibility for heating or cooling the pot.

Ravina said: A sukkah

whose obligation to dwell in it is

by Torah law,

there is no need to enact a decree concerning it that perhaps the thickness of the roofing below twenty cubits will be removed, for certainly one will repair it immediately and not be negligent.

But

a mavoy,

where the obligation to place a crossbeam in it is only

rabbinic and requires reinforcement,

a decree must be enacted that perhaps the lower part of the crossbeam will rot, causing all of it to stand above twenty cubits, and one will not hasten to repair it, since its entire obligation is only rabbinic.

And we ask:

What conclusion was reached

concerning a partial crossbeam and partial roofing 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

.