handbreadths

What does he inform us? — He informs us this: That the minimum extent of a small sukkah is seven [handbreadths].

Mishnah. If one removed the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid.

Rabbah stated: I found the rabbis of the house of Rav sitting and saying, ‘an open air space invalidates if it is three [handbreadths wide]; an invalid covering invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]’,

Rabbah stated: I found the rabbis of the house of Rav sitting and saying, ‘an open air space invalidates if it is three [handbreadths wide]; an invalid covering invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]’,

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

And I said to them: what [would the law be] if the invalid skhakh were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? It would be valid. And what if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid skhakh which only invalidates with four?

And I said to them: what [would the law be] if the invalid skhakh were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? It would be valid. And what if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid skhakh which only invalidates with four?

And I said to them: what [would the law be] if the invalid skhakh were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? It would be valid. And what if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid skhakh which only invalidates with four?

And they answered me, If so, then even according to you, who says that invalid skhakh invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid skhakh of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? It would be valid. And if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the skhakh which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?’

And they answered me, If so, then even according to you, who says that invalid skhakh invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid skhakh of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? It would be valid. And if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the skhakh which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?’

And in any case where the minimum measures are not equal they don't join together? Have we not in fact learned: a garment that is three [handbreadths] square, sacking four handbreadths square, leather five handbreadths square and matting six handbreadths square[are susceptible to uncleanness].

And in any case where the minimum measures are not equal they don't join together? Have we not in fact learned: a garment that is three [handbreadths] square, sacking four handbreadths square, leather five handbreadths square and matting six handbreadths square[are susceptible to uncleanness].

And in any case where the minimum measures are not equal they don't join together? Have we not in fact learned: a garment that is three [handbreadths] square, sacking four handbreadths square, leather five handbreadths square and matting six handbreadths square[are susceptible to uncleanness].

And in any case where the minimum measures are not equal they don't join together? Have we not in fact learned: a garment that is three [handbreadths] square, sacking four handbreadths square, leather five handbreadths square and matting six handbreadths square[are susceptible to uncleanness].

In Sura they taught this passage in the above words; In Nehardea they taught [as follows]: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: invalid skhakh in the middle [of the sukkah] invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]; at the side only if it is four cubits wide; While Rav says, whether in the middle or at the sides, [it invalidates] only if it is four cubits wide.

We have learned: if he placed over it a plank four hand breadths wide, it is valid. It is well according to Rav who says that whether in the middle or at the sides [the invalid covering must be no less than] four cubits [to invalidate it]; for this reason it is [here] valid; but according to Shmuel who says that at the middle a width of four [handbreadths invalidates], why is it here valid? Here what are we dealing with? When [the plank was placed at] the side.

It is well according to that version which says that Rav says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ What does it mean by ‘combine'? They combine to make four cubits. But, according to the version which says that Rav says that, in the middle [even] four handbreadths [width of invalid skhakh] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why do they need to combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks!

It is well according to that version which says that Rav says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ What does it mean by ‘combine'? They combine to make four cubits. But, according to the version which says that Rav says that, in the middle [even] four handbreadths [width of invalid skhakh] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why do they need to combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks!

It is well according to that version which says that Rav says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ What does it mean by ‘combine'? They combine to make four cubits. But, according to the version which says that Rav says that, in the middle [even] four handbreadths [width of invalid skhakh] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why do they need to combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks!

This is indeed a case where they are each four handbreadths wide; and what does ‘combine’ mean? That they combine to make up four cubits at the side.

Come and hear: if he covered the sukkah with planks of cedarwood which are four [handbreadths wide], according to all it is invalid; If they are not four handbreadths: R. Meir disqualifies and R. Judah validates.

Come and hear: if he covered the sukkah with planks of cedarwood which are four [handbreadths wide], according to all it is invalid; If they are not four handbreadths: R. Meir disqualifies and R. Judah validates.

It is well according to him who says that whether in the middle or at the sides it needs four cubits [of invalid covering to invalidate a sukkah], for this reason it is here valid; but according to him who says that in the middle four [handbreadths of invalid skhakh invalidate] why is it valid?

Abaye ruled: An air space of three handbreadths in a large sukkah which is diminished with either sticks or spits is a [valid] diminution; in a small Sukkah, with sticks it is a [valid] diminution, with spits an invalid one.

What is the reason of him who says that the rule of lavud applies in the middle? — Because it has been taught: If a beam protrudes from one wall but does not touch the opposite wall, and similarly in the case of two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other and not touching each other, if [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to provide another beam; if it is three [handbreadths] it is necessary to provide another beam. And [what does] the other [answer to this]?

What is the reason of him who says that the rule of lavud applies in the middle? — Because it has been taught: If a beam protrudes from one wall but does not touch the opposite wall, and similarly in the case of two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other and not touching each other, if [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to provide another beam; if it is three [handbreadths] it is necessary to provide another beam. And [what does] the other [answer to this]?

R. Oshaia said: This is necessary only in the case of a small sukkah which has invalid skhakh to an extent of less than three [handbreadths]. And what is meant by ‘going out’? Going out from the laws governing a Sukkah.

R. Hoshiah raised a difficulty: Let it be regarded as no better than air space, does then air space of less than three [handbreadths] invalidate a small sukkah?

GEMARA. But there are not ten [handbreadths in the height of the bed]? Shmuel interpreted, [that it refers to] a bed which is ten [handbreadths high].

GEMARA. But there are not ten [handbreadths in the height of the bed]? Shmuel interpreted, [that it refers to] a bed which is ten [handbreadths high].

Abaye stated, this applies only where there are not three handbreadths of distance between one reed and another, but if there are three handbreadths between one and another, it is invalid. Rava says, even if there are three handbreadths between one and another we also do not say [that it is invalid] unless the upper reed is not a handbreadth wide but if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide, it is valid, since we apply to it the law of "beat and cast it down."

Abaye stated, this applies only where there are not three handbreadths of distance between one reed and another, but if there are three handbreadths between one and another, it is invalid. Rava says, even if there are three handbreadths between one and another we also do not say [that it is invalid] unless the upper reed is not a handbreadth wide but if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide, it is valid, since we apply to it the law of "beat and cast it down."

Abaye stated, this applies only where there are not three handbreadths of distance between one reed and another, but if there are three handbreadths between one and another, it is invalid. Rava says, even if there are three handbreadths between one and another we also do not say [that it is invalid] unless the upper reed is not a handbreadth wide but if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide, it is valid, since we apply to it the law of "beat and cast it down."

1) Has it not in fact been taught: if a beam was protruding from one wall, but was not touching the opposite wall, and similarly if two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other, were not touching each other, and [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to supply another beam, but if it was three [handbreadths] it is necessary to supply another beam.

1) Has it not in fact been taught: if a beam was protruding from one wall, but was not touching the opposite wall, and similarly if two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other, were not touching each other, and [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to supply another beam, but if it was three [handbreadths] it is necessary to supply another beam.

if the space was less than four [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to bring another beam, if not, it is necessary to bring another beam.

a) Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said, if they can support a half-brick in its length of three handbreadths, it is not necessary to bring another beam; if not, it is necessary to bring another beam.

3) If one was above and the other below: Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah said, we regard the upper one as though it were lower down or the lower one as though it were higher, provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground] nor the lower one less than ten [handbreadths from the ground]. From which it follows that if both of them were within twenty [cubits] we do apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’ even though none of them is a handbreadth [wide]?

He replied, solve it and say it this way: 1) Provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground], but within the twenty [cubits], and the lower one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], 2) Alternatively provided that the lower one is not less than ten [cubits from the ground] but more than ten, and the upper one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], 3) But if they were three [handbreadths apart] since [the upper beam] is not a handbreadth [wide], we do not apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’.

He replied, solve it and say it this way: 1) Provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground], but within the twenty [cubits], and the lower one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], 2) Alternatively provided that the lower one is not less than ten [cubits from the ground] but more than ten, and the upper one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], 3) But if they were three [handbreadths apart] since [the upper beam] is not a handbreadth [wide], we do not apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’.

He replied, solve it and say it this way: 1) Provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground], but within the twenty [cubits], and the lower one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], 2) Alternatively provided that the lower one is not less than ten [cubits from the ground] but more than ten, and the upper one is near it within less than three [handbreadths], 3) But if they were three [handbreadths apart] since [the upper beam] is not a handbreadth [wide], we do not apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’.

What is the reason of R. Meir? Abaye said: Lest it die. R. Zera said: Lest it escape. Concerning an elephant securely bound, all agree [that the Sukkah is valid], since even ifs it die, there is still ten [handbreadths height] in its carcass. Regarding what then do they dispute? Regarding an elephant which is not tied up. According to the one who says: Lest it die, we are not concerned; According to him who says, We fear lest it escape, we are concerned.

But might it not lie down? [It refers to] where it was tied with cords from above. And according to him who says, Lest it die, is it not tied with cords from above? It might happen that it is made to stand within three [handbreadths] of the skhakh but when it dies,

Come and hear: If a tree casts a shadow on the ground, it if the ends of its branches are not three handbreadths high above the ground it is permitted to carry underneath it. But why? Does not the tree sway to and fro? Here also it is a case where one plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.

Come and hear: If one made his Shabbat resting place on a mound which is ten [handbreadths] high and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a cavity in the ground which is ten [handbreadths] deep, and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a harvested spot of grain that was surrounded by ears of grain, he may walk throughout its whole extent and two thousand cubits outside it [on the Sabbath]. [Now is not this permitted] even although it sways to and fro? There also it refers to where he plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.

Come and hear: If one made his Shabbat resting place on a mound which is ten [handbreadths] high and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a cavity in the ground which is ten [handbreadths] deep, and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a harvested spot of grain that was surrounded by ears of grain, he may walk throughout its whole extent and two thousand cubits outside it [on the Sabbath]. [Now is not this permitted] even although it sways to and fro? There also it refers to where he plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.

A lulav which is three handbreadths in length. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four, so that the lulav should extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas.

A lulav which is three handbreadths in length. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four, so that the lulav should extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas.

Have we not learned, a lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid? Say " and long enough to wave"; and each one explains it according to his own view.

Come and hear: [We have learned: the [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four Is this not including the leaves? No, excluding the leaves.

The main text: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four. R. Tarfon says. A cubit consisting of five handbreadths.

The main text: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four. R. Tarfon says. A cubit consisting of five handbreadths.

Rava said: May the master forgive R. Tarfon! Now that we cannot find a valid hadas three [handbreadths] long, would one of five handbreadths be required?

Rava said: May the master forgive R. Tarfon! Now that we cannot find a valid hadas three [handbreadths] long, would one of five handbreadths be required?

When R. Dimi came he said. [R. Tarfon meant]: Take a cubit which has [normally] six handbreadths, into five. Deduct from these the three for the myrtle and the remainder is for the palm-branch. How much then is it? Three and three fifths?

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

When Rabin came he said: [R. Tarfon meant]: Take a cubit of five normal handbreadths and make it into one of six handbreadths. Deduct of these three for the hadas, and the remainder is for the lulav How much is it? Two and a half.

When Rabin came he said: [R. Tarfon meant]: Take a cubit of five normal handbreadths and make it into one of six handbreadths. Deduct of these three for the hadas, and the remainder is for the lulav How much is it? Two and a half.

But did R. Judah really say that the four species can be used but not anything else? Was it not taught: If he covered it with planks of cedar wood which are four handbreadths wide, everyone holds it is invalid. If they are not four handbreadths wide, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. And R. Meir agrees that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, he may place valid skhakh between them and the sukkah is valid.

But did R. Judah really say that the four species can be used but not anything else? Was it not taught: If he covered it with planks of cedar wood which are four handbreadths wide, everyone holds it is invalid. If they are not four handbreadths wide, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. And R. Meir agrees that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, he may place valid skhakh between them and the sukkah is valid.

GEMARA. Waving? Who mentioned this ? It refers to there: A lulav which has a length of three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid, and our mishnah says, And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]?

GEMARA. If he has no vessels to remove, what should he do? If he has no vessels! What then did he use when he was in [his Sukkah]? Rather say: If he had no place to put his vessels what shall he do? R. Hiyya b. Ashi said, He removes four handbreadths [of the roof], And R. Joshua b. Levi said, he should kindle a lamp in it.