Sukkah, Daf Kaf Bet, Part 4
Introduction
This section continues to deal with the concept of "beat it and throw it down" which allows us to consider the upper reeds of the skhakh as if they were next to the lower ones.
יתיב רב כהנא וקאמר להא שמעתא. אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא: וכל היכא דלית ביה טפח לא אמרינן חבוט רמי?
R. Kahana was sitting and he recited this statement.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana, do we then not apply the law of beat and throw down where an object is not a handbreadth wide?
Rav Kahana, a sage who lived a generation after Rava, is sitting and reciting the statement of Rava. Rav Ashi, his student, hears him and tries to prove that Rava’s rule is incorrect we can apply the principle of "beat and throw down" even if the object is not a handbreadth wide. He now cites a long baraita dealing with the beams used to make an eruv. As a reminder, to allow one to carry within a courtyard, part of what one had to do was lay a beam across the entryway to the courtyard. The baraita that Rav Ashi cites deals with this beam. To make it easier I will divide the baraita into sections and refer to it in the translation and explanation using these sections.
1) והא תניא: קורה היוצאה מכותל זה ואינה נוגעת בכותל זה, וכן שתי קורות, אחת יוצאה מכותל זה ואחת יוצאה מכותל זה ואינן נוגעות זו בזו, פחות משלשה – אינו צריך להביא קורה אחרת, שלשה – צריך להביא קורה אחרת.
a) רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: פחות מארבעה – אין צריך להביא קורה אחרת, ארבעה – צריך להביא קורה אחרת.
2) וכן שתי קורות המתאימות, לא בזו כדי לקבל אריח, ולא בזו כדי לקבל אריח, אם מקבלות אריח לרחבו טפח – אין צריך להביא קורה אחרת, ואם לאו – צריך להביא קורה אחרת.
a) רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: אם מקבלות אריח לארכו שלשה טפחים – אין צריך להביא קורה אחרת, ואם לאו – צריך להביא קורה אחרת.
3) היו אחת למעלה ואחת למטה, רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר: רואין העליונה כאילו היא למטה ואת התחתונה כאילו היא למעלה, ובלבד שלא תהא עליונה למעלה מעשרים אמה והתחתונה למטה מעשרה.
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.
a) Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel ruled, if the space was less than four [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to bring another beam, if not, it is necessary to bring another beam.
2) And so in the case of two parallel beams neither of which can support a half-brick, if they can support a half-brick on their joint width of a handbreadth, it is not necessary 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].
Section one: This deals with a case where the beam doesn’t fully reach the other side of the entrance, or with a case of two beams, one coming out of each side, that don’t reach other. If there is less than a three handbreadth gap between the beam and the other side or between one beam and the other, the eruv is valid. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that the gap may be up to four handbreadths.
Section two: This case deals with two thin parallel beams. The beam should be thick enough to hold a half-brick, whose thickness is 1.5 handbreadths. So if the two beams are close enough that they can hold a 1.5 handbreadth wide half brick, they are valid.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel is again more lenient. As long as the two beams can hold the half-brick by its length, which is three handbreadths, they are valid.
Section three: This is the section relevant to our topic. The beams here go all the way across but they are less than one handbreadth wide. If one beam is up top and the other beam is below, the two beams can join together to form the requisite one handbreadth as long as one isn’t above 20 cubits from the ground and the other below ten handbreadths, because these beams must always be below 20 cubits and above ten handbreadths (just like the sukkah).
הא זה וזה בתוך עשרים – אמרינן חבוט רמי, אף על גב דלית ביה טפח!
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]?
Rav Ashi now points out the essential issue from this baraita. In section 3 we see that even if the beams are less than one handbreadth wide they can join together, as long as they are all within twenty cubits from the ground. So why then does Rava hold that they must be one handbreadth wide?
אמר ליה: תריץ ואימא הכי ובלבד שלא תהא עליונה למעלה מעשרים אלא בתוך עשרים, והתחתונה סמוכה לה בפחות משלשה.
אי נמי: בלבד שלא תהא תחתונה למטה מעשרה אלא למעלה מעשרה, ועליונה סמוכה לה בפחות משלשה. אבל שלשה, כיון דלית ביה טפח – לא אמרינן חבוט רמי.
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 .
Rav Kahana now resolves the baraita. The first thing he does is separate it into three situations. In the first situation both beams are up high, but within twenty cubits from the ground. The lower beam is within three handbreadths of the upper beam, so we can invoke the principle of "lavud" a gap of less than three handbreadths is considered as if it didn’t exist.
The second situation is almost the same but both beams are just above ten handbreadths from the ground.
Finally, if the two beams are more than three handbreadths apart, they cannot join by the principle of "beat and throw down" because they are not one handbreadth in width. This resolves the difficulty on Rava.