square

Whose ruling is followed in the statement made by R. Huna in the name of Rav? That the difference of opinion is where the area of the Sukkah was only four amos square but where it was more than four amos square [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty amos it is kosher. Whose ruling is followed? Like Rabi Zeira, Who says:

Whose ruling is followed in the statement made by R. Huna in the name of Rav? That the difference of opinion is where the area of the Sukkah was only four amos square but where it was more than four amos square [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty amos it is kosher. Whose ruling is followed? Like Rabi Zeira, Who says:

but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the kashrus of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four amos [square] while the latter holds that The kashrus of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?

And the other, holding the opinion that holds the opinion that they differ [about a Sukkah whose size is] between [one capable of] containing his head, the greater part of his body and his table, and one four amos square, but if it is more than four amos square, both agree that it is kosher

And the other, holding the opinion that holds the opinion that they differ [about a Sukkah whose size is] between [one capable of] containing his head, the greater part of his body and his table, and one four amos square, but if it is more than four amos square, both agree that it is kosher

While in another [Baraitha] it has been taught: Rabbi says: Any Sukkah which is not four amos square is invalid, while the Sages say: Even if it can contain only his head, and the greater part of his body it is kosher. Whereas of ‘his table’ there is no mention. Does a contradiction not arise between the two [Baraisas]? We must consequently infer therefrom that: One is from Bais Shammai, and one is from Bais Hillel.

Who is the authority for that which our Rabbis taught: ‘A house which is not four cubits square is free from the mitzvos of Mezuzah and parapet, does not contract uncleanliness from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the dwelling houses of a walled city,

‘Rabbi’? — As it has been taught: Rabbi said: A sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid.

According to whom [is this statement]? According to Rabbi who says that a sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid.

That applies only to a circle, but in the case of a square, a greater perimeter is required.

But consider: By how much is a square greater than its [inscribed] circle? By a quarter. Should it then not suffice if only sixteen [men can be seated around it]?

That is so in the case of a circle inscribed within a square, but if a square is to be inscribed within a circle a greater circumference is required on account of the projection of the corners....

That is so in the case of a circle inscribed within a square, but if a square is to be inscribed within a circle a greater circumference is required on account of the projection of the corners....

But consider: If the side of a square is a cubit, its diagonal is approximately one and two fifths cubits. Should not then [a circumference equivalent to] sixteen and four fifths [cubits] suffice? [R. Johanan] gave only an approximate figure.

The rabbis of Caesarea (and some say, the judges of Caesarea) say: The circumference of a circle inscribed in a square is a quarter;

but the square inscribed within that circle is a half. But this is not correct, for we see that these are not so much bigger.

R. Huna replied: A handbreadth since we find a handbreadth [prescribed as the minimum size] with regard to overshadowing in cases of uncleanliness, as we have learned: [A space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high acts as a carrier of uncleanliness and as an interposition to it, but if it is less than one handbreadth high it neither conveys nor interposes.

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered with discarded vessels it is invalid’. What are discarded vessels? Abaye said, Small strips of cloth less than three [handbreadths] square which are unfit to be used either by rich or by poor.

If he hollows out a haystack: R. Huna said: This was taught only where there is not a hollow of one handbreadth [in height] extending to seven [handbreadths square], but if there is a hollow of one handbreadth extending to seven, it is a [valid] sukkah.

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 that case the reason has been given, as Rabbi Shimon said: "What is the reason? Since they are susceptible to uncleanliness if [a zav] sits on them, as we have learned: if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’.

if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of R. Yannai said, it can be used as a patch for [the saddle of] a donkey.

What is the reason of the one who says that the rule of lavud is not applied in the middle? — Because we learned: If a skylight in [the roof of] a house was of one handbreadth square, and there was an object of uncleanliness in the house, all the house is unclean, but what is directly below the skylight is clean. If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.

If the skylight was less than a handbreadth square, and there was an unclean object in the house, what is directly below the skylight is clean. If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.

For any altar which does not have the ascent, the horn, the base and a square shape is invalid for the service. R. Jose b. Judah adds, Also the circuit

Our Rabbis have taught: Egypt extends over four hundred square parasangs and is one sixtieth as large as Aethiopia; Aethiopia is one sixtieth as large as the universe, and the universe is one sixtieth as large as (the Garden of) Eden; (the Garden of) Eden is one sixtieth as large as Gehenna, so that in comparison to Gehenna the whole world is like the lid of a pot. Some say that neither Eden nor Gehenna has a limit.

Nor do they say the blessing of mourners nor the blessing of bridegrooms etc. What is the blessing of mourners? The blessing said in the public square, as R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Yohanan: The blessing of mourners requires the presence of ten, the mourners are not counted; the blessing of bridegrooms requires the presence of ten, and the bridegroom is counted.

One who makes his tefillin [for the head] round, it is dangerous and has no religious value. Shall we say that that we have already taught this, as our Rabbis taught: [The obligation for] tefillin to be square is a law set down by Moses at Sinai. And Rava explained [this refers] to their stitching and their diagonal.

Townspeople who sold the town square, they may buy with the proceeds a synagogue. [If they sold] a synagogue, they may buy with the proceeds an ark. [If they sold] an ark they may buy covers [for scrolls].

[If they sold] scrolls they may buy a Torah. But if they sold a Torah they may not buy with the proceeds scrolls [of the Tanakh]. If [they sold] scrolls they may not buy covers. If [they sold] covers they may not buy an ark.If [they sold] an ark they may not buy a synagogue. If [they sold] a synagogue they may not buy a town square.

GEMARA. Townspeople who sold the town square. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This is the view of R. Menahem b. Yose the anonymous author, but the sages that there is no sanctity in the town square.

GEMARA. Townspeople who sold the town square. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This is the view of R. Menahem b. Yose the anonymous author, but the sages that there is no sanctity in the town square.