Sukkah 6a — the Talmud in English

But if

he was wearing his vessels,

his garments,

and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers—

he is immediately impure,

as it is written: “And he who enters the house shall be impure.”

But they,

his vessels, sandals, and rings,

are pure until he remains

in the house for the time

of eating a peras,

half a loaf of bread.

And the measure of eating a peras is calculated specifically with

wheat bread,

which is eaten easily and whose duration is short,

and not

with

barley bread,

whose eating takes longer.

And the measure of the eating time is specifically according to the time required for a person to eat the bread when he is

reclining,

occupied with his eating and not preoccupied with other matters, and therefore it is eaten quickly.

And according to the time required for him to eat it

with

together with

relish,

and not according to the time required to eat it alone, when it is dry, for then its duration is longer.

And the Gemara continues to explain how the continuation of the verse is expounded to teach us the measures of the Torah:

Even the word

“barley,”

was stated in the verse with regard to measures.

For we learned

[Ohalot 2:3]:

A bone the size of a barley grain

from the dead

imparts impurity through contact and through carrying

[that is, if a person or a vessel touched a bone from the dead measuring a barley grain, or if a person carried a bone the size of a barley grain from the dead, even if he did not touch it, he is impure].

But it does not impart impurity

to a person or vessels that are with it

in a tent

with this measure, until all the bones of the spine, or a complete skull, or bones from the majority of the number of a person’s limbs are in the tent of the dead, as explained in tractate Nazir.

And likewise

“vine,”

was stated in this verse to teach us how, with regard to the laws of a nazirite, one measures the measure of eating grape seeds [or grape shoots or grape leaves], which the nazirite is prohibited from eating: it is

“the measure of a fourth-log of wine for a nazirite.”

That is, the quantity of the grape seeds is assessed according to “a fourth-log of wine,” and not according to a fourth-log of water, whose measure is smaller than a fourth-log of wine.

And the manner of measuring is as follows: one places the grape seeds and skins into a cup full of wine, until a fourth-log of wine comes out of it, and this is the quantity of grape seeds which, if the nazirite eats it, he transgresses a negative commandment.

And this quantity is assessed specifically with wine, which is thick and does not hasten to come out, but rather heaps up at the edge of the cup more than water does. Therefore, when the grape seeds are measured according to a cup of wine, one must put into the cup of wine a greater quantity of grape seeds until the entire fourth-log of wine comes out of the cup than if this measurement were carried out by means of a cup of water.

“Fig”

was used to measure

the size of a dried fig for carrying out on Shabbat.

For if on Shabbat he carried out food or an object from a private domain into a public domain, in the measure of a dried fig, he is liable.

“Pomegranate”

was stated in the Torah with regard to the measure of a hole in a wooden vessel: if a hole was made in a wooden vessel as large as a pomegranate, this wooden vessel is no longer considered a vessel that has a receptacle and does not contract impurity, since it is no longer usable.

For we learned

[Kelim 17:1]:

All vessels belonging to householders

made of wood [and with wooden vessels a novel law was stated, that they do not contract impurity until they have a receptacle],

their measure

of holes that remove from them the status of a wooden vessel possessing a receptacle with regard to contracting impurity is the size of

“pomegranates.”

Since before the vessels are perforated to the measure of “the size that lets out a pomegranate”—that is, a pomegranate can pass through the hole—a person still cares about them and uses them for pomegranates. Therefore they still retain the status of vessels and contract impurity. But if they are perforated to the measure of “the size that lets out a pomegranate,” they lose the status of a vessel.

With regard to what does this apply? To vessels belonging to householders. But vessels intended for sale, even if they were perforated with any hole, are pure.

And from the end of the verse,

“a land of olive oil and honey,”

the Sages expounded:

a land whose measures are all olives.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Is it possible that

all its measures

are olives?

Would it enter your mind? But there are those that we stated

above that are not measured by an olive.

And the Gemara explains:

Rather, say: the majority of its measures are olives.

For example, the impurity of the dead, carrion, and the prohibition of forbidden fat and blood,

and pigul, notar, tamei, and the sciatic nerve.

“Honey”—

that is, dates, which are sweet, and likewise other kinds of sweets; their measure is

the size of a large date

[a date] in order to transgress a negative commandment if he eats them

on Yom Kippur.

And although the measure of eating throughout the Torah is an olive, on Yom Kippur he is liable for karet only if he ate the measure of a large date, because the Torah made him liable only for eating in a measure that settles a person’s mind. As it is stated: “And every soul that shall not be afflicted,” and anyone who has not eaten the measure of a large date has not had his mind settled, and he is still considered “afflicted.”

And the Gemara proves from here:

Evidently,

the measures

are of Torah origin!

They are explicit in the verse, so why did you say that they are a tradition given to Moses at Sinai!?

And the Gemara explains: all the measures mentioned above are not from the Torah; rather, they are a tradition given to Moses at Sinai.

And the proof is:

And can you understand it,

that we learned the law of measures from this verse? Is it the case that

measures are written

in the Torah?

Was the measure of eating a peras explicitly stated in the Torah, or is it explicit in the verse that the stay in the afflicted house is assessed as the time of eating a peras of wheat, and the other laws that we learned above?

Rather,

all those measures that we learned

are laws

given to Moses at Sinai,

and the verse

[“a land of wheat and barley”] is nothing but

a mere asmachta.

Rav further said above: Interpositions—the laws of interposition in immersion—are a tradition given to Moses at Sinai.

And the Gemara raises an objection: But

interpositions

are not a tradition given to Moses at Sinai; rather,

they are of Torah origin!

For it is written, “And he shall wash his flesh in water,”

the verse teaches

that there shall not be anything interposing between him,

between the person immersing,

and the water!?

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, the law of interposition on his flesh is explained in the verse and is not a tradition given to Moses at Sinai; rather,

when the tradition came, it was to measure it.

So that there should not be anything interposing between his hair and the water.

In accordance with Rabba bar bar Hana,

who says that an interposition invalidates immersion even when the interposition is in the hair.

For Rabba bar bar Hana said:

If there was in his hair

a strand,

a hair,

one tied,

and he is particular about it, for he does not want to have a knot in his hair,

it interposes,

that tied strand, during his immersion, since the water cannot enter within the tied hair, and his immersion is not effective.

This law applies only when the knot is tightly fastened and the water does not enter within it. And although the interposition is only on a minority of his body and does not interpose by Torah law, the Sages decreed that his immersion should not be effective, as will be explained below.

But if there were

three

hairs tied together,

they do not interpose,

because the hair of three hairs tied together is hard hair and is not tightly fastened, and the water can enter into the knot.

And if there were

two,

two hairs tied together,

I do not know

whether there is an interposition in this or not.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Why is it necessary to learn the law of interposition in hair from a tradition given to Moses at Sinai? After all, the law of interposition in

his hair too,

since he is obligated to immerse,

is of Torah origin!?

For it is written, “And he shall wash his flesh in water,”

and we expound:

“et,”

to include

that which is secondary to his flesh. And what is it?—

his hair,

which also requires immersion.

And the Gemara answers: Rather,

when the tradition came

to Moses at Sinai,

it was for the teaching of Rabbi Yitzhak.

For Rabbi Yitzhak said:

Rabbi Yitzhak enumerates several distinctions of law with regard to interposition during immersion: