Sukkah 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The Divine Presence never descended below,

to the lower world,

and Moses and Elijah never ascended to the heights, as it is stated

Psalms 116:16,

“The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given to the children of man.”

If so, how is it possible that the Divine Presence spoke with Moses from above the Ark cover, since the Divine Presence never descended to the lower world? Rather, from here you learn that once one reaches a height of ten handbreadths [which is the location of the Ark cover], that place is considered a separate domain, and it is not solely the domain of human beings.

And similarly, a sukka must extend up to a height of ten handbreadths, which are a person’s “domain.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

if it is the case that

the Divine Presence did not descend below, is it written

Exodus 19:20,

“And the Lord descended upon Mount Sinai”?!

The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that the Holy One, blessed be He, descended literally to the earth. Rather, He descended

to a point above ten handbreadths

from the earth.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But is it not written

Zechariah 14:4,

“And His feet shall stand on that day upon the Mount of Olives”?!

The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that He descended literally onto the Mount of Olives; rather, He descended

to a point above ten

handbreadths.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

if it is the case that

Moses and Elijah did not ascend to the heights, is it not written

Exodus 19:3,

“And Moses ascended to God”?!

The Gemara answers: The verse means that they ascended to a place that was

below ten

handbreadths from the highest heavens. That place, too, is designated for human beings, and it is not solely the domain of the Divine Presence, unlike those ten handbreadths of the highest heavens.

And it is thereby explained that there are three distinct domains: a. The ten handbreadths immediately adjacent to the earth, which are the place that the Holy One, blessed be He, designated for His creations. b. The ten handbreadths immediately adjacent to the highest heavens, which are the place of the Divine Presence, and no person ever ascended there. c. The expanse between them. Although that, too, is a place of the Divine Presence, Moses and Elijah were privileged to ascend there.

The Gemara raises an objection: But did Elijah not ascend to the heights?

Is it not written

II Kings 2:11,

“And Elijah ascended in a stormwind to the heavens”?!

The later ones noted: For it would seem that only human beings did not ascend to the heights, but Elijah, having been transformed into an angel—what difficulty is there?

The Gemara answers: Elijah ascended only

to below ten

handbreadths beneath the highest heavens.

The Gemara raises an objection: How is it possible to explain that Moses did not ascend literally to the heights?

Is it not written

Job 26:9, concerning Moses our teacher when he ascended to heaven,

“He grasped the face of the throne; He spread His cloud over it.” And

concerning this

Rabbi Tanhum said: This teaches that Shaddai withdrew from the radiance of His Divine Presence and spread it over him.

That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, covered Moses with the radiance of His Divine Presence in order to protect him from the angels, who protested and said: What is one born of a woman doing among us? [He expounded the word “parshez” as an acronym for “He spread radiance.”] If so, it is clear that Moses ascended to the heights?!

The Gemara answers: There, too, the intention is that he ascended

to below ten

handbreadths from the highest heavens.

The Gemara raises an objection:

In any event, “He grasped the face of the throne” is written,

and the throne is certainly located in the highest heavens?!

The Gemara explains:

It was extended and stretched out for him,

that is, it descended and extended

the throne to within ten

handbreadths below the highest heavens, which are the boundary of the upper domain,

and he grasped it

at its very edge, so that his hand did not enter the ten-handbreadth area.

The Gemara now returns to explaining the derivation from the Ark and the Ark cover that the height of a domain is ten handbreadths:

Granted, with regard to the Ark,

we know that its height was

nine

handbreadths,

, as it is written

Exodus 25:10,

“And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood: two and a half cubits its length, and a cubit and a half its width, and a cubit and a half its height,”

and this refers to a cubit of six handbreadths.

But with regard to the Ark cover,

whose height was

one handbreadth, from where do we derive this?

The Gemara explains: We learn this

from that which Rabbi Hanina taught: For all the vessels that Moses made for the Tabernacle, the Torah gave their length, their width, and their height.

But as for the

Ark cover,

only

its length and its width did the Torah give

but as for

its height—

its elevation—

it did not give

it; so how will we know its measurement?!

Rather,

go and learn from

the

smallest

measurement stated with regard to the vessels,

as it is stated

Exodus 25:25,

“And you shall make for it—

for the table—

a rim of a handbreadth around it,”

a raised border one handbreadth high around the table.

Just as there,

the measure of the table’s rim is

one handbreadth, so too here,

the height of the Ark cover is

one handbreadth.

The Gemara raises an objection: Why derive the measure of the Ark cover’s height from the table’s rim, which is merely an ornament made to beautify the table?

Let us derive it from

the measurement of the

vessels themselves,

whose measure is greater?!

The Gemara answers: This is a general principle in the methods of deriving teachings from the Torah:

If you have grasped the greater amount, you have not grasped anything; if you have grasped the lesser amount, you have grasped it!

Whenever something implies both a greater and a lesser amount, if you grasped the lesser amount, you have grasped it properly, since it certainly cannot be less than that, and if it turns out that you should have grasped more, they will add to what you have. But if you grasped the greater amount, you have not grasped it, since if you should have grasped only the lesser amount, they will take away from what you hold; therefore, even what you hold is not considered yours, since it is possible that nothing will remain in your possession.

And similarly, when learning one matter from another, one should derive the lesser measurement that must certainly be present.

Therefore, we derive it from the table’s rim, whose measure is one handbreadth, and not from the vessels themselves, whose measurement is greater.

The Gemara raises an objection: If indeed one should derive the smallest measurement,

let us derive it from the forehead plate,

whose measurement is smaller than that of the table’s rim?!

As it was taught in a beraita: The forehead plate was like a plate of gold, and it was two fingerbreadths wide,

which is approximately half a handbreadth.

And it was encircled

that is, it extended

from ear to ear

of the High Priest.

And written upon it were two lines,

two rows:

“Yod heh” above,

in the upper row,

and “Holy” lamed below,

in the lower row.

wrote Kiryat Sefer Tosafot s.v. "and let him not argue," that the Sages estimated also its width as two fingers, like the width of a human forehead. wrote the Tosafot: There are those who explain that they were written one directly above the other, such that in the top line would be the Divine Name, and in the line below the word "Kodesh" and the letter Lamed-Dalet. That is not sensible, for that is not the way it is read; for then the Name in the top line would be read before the word "Kodesh" and the Lamed-Dalet in the bottom line. Rather one should explain that they wrote them not opposite one another, that is, "Kodesh" Lamed-Dalet at the beginning of the lower line, on the right, and the Name Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh at the end of the upper line, on the left. For this reason Maharshei'ah wrote in Chiddushei Aggadot that it was not written all in one line, because it is not fitting that the word "Kodesh" and the letter Lamed-Dalet be written before the Name in the same way. Maharshei'ah wrote in Chiddushei Aggadot that it was not written all in one line, because it is not fitting that the word "Kodesh" and the letter Lamed-Dalet be written before the Name in the same way. wrote the Rambam R. Y. Korkos, that Rambam thought that sometimes they wrote so in later practice. And the Rambam ]that the Rambam had a different reading in our sugya, and thus was his version: "Kodesh below, and to the Lord above." He added that indeed this is the correct version, since one should not divide one word into two lines. And concerning our version he wrote to explain that they did so in order that there be four letters in each line [the word "Kodesh" written defective and…].

And Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Yosei said: I saw

the forehead plate

in Rome

where they had placed it in their treasuries,

and written upon it was “Holy to the Lord” in a single row,

and not in two rows?!

If so, it is difficult: Why do we not derive from the forehead plate that the measure of the Ark cover is two fingerbreadths?

The Gemara answers:

One derives one vessel from another vessel, but one does not derive a vessel from an ornament,

as is the case with the forehead plate, which is one of the eight garments of the Kohen.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Let us derive

the measure of the height of the Ark cover

from the rim

of the Ark, the altar, or the table,

as the Master said: The measure of a rim

is

anything whatsoever?!

The Gemara answers:

One derives one vessel from another vessel, but one does not derive a vessel from an accessory of a vessel,

that is, from the rim, which is an ornament, since a rim is not an independent vessel but merely an ornament for the Ark.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, the rim

of the table

is also an accessory of a vessel,

as it was made to adorn the table; so how can we derive the height of the Ark cover from it?!

The Gemara explains:

Its rim

of the table

was below,

and it was not made on top of the table. Rather, it was placed from leg to leg, and the tabletop rested upon it; it was not made as an ornament.

The Gemara raises an objection:

This works according to the one who says that its rim was below

the tabletop

and was

there, and according to him it is possible to derive the measure of the Ark cover from the rim.

But according to the one who says that its rim was above,

on top of the table, what is there to say?

For according to him, the rim was made only as an ornament; rather than deriving from the rim, derive from the rim of the Ark?!

The Gemara answers:

Rather,

one derives a matter for which the Torah gave a measurement,

the Ark cover, whose length and width have specified measurements,

from a matter for which the Torah gave a measurement,

the table’s rim, whose measure is one handbreadth.

And the forehead plate and the rim cannot serve as proof, since the Torah gave them no measurement

at all. For the measure of the rim is anything whatsoever, and even the forehead plate has no measure by Torah law; the requirement that it be two fingerbreadths wide is only rabbinic.

Rav Huna said: We derive it from here:

that the height of the Ark cover is one handbreadth,

as it is written

Leviticus 16:14,

“Upon the face

of the Ark cover, eastward,” and no “face”

of a person

is less than one handbreadth.