SUKAH 5 (14 Elul) - This Daf has been dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Yisrael (son of Chazkel and Miryam) Rosenbaum, who passed away on 14 Elul, by his son and daughter and families.

OPINIONS: The Gemara asks that the minimum height of any holy vessel in the Beis ha'Mikdash should not be one Tefach, but rather two Etzba'os, as the Tzitz was only two Etzba'os high.
The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which describes the Tzitz. It says that the words "Kodesh la'Hashem" were written on the Tzitz on two lines, with "Hash-m" written above and "Kodesh La" written below.
How exactly were the words "Kodesh la'Hashem" written on the Tzitz?
(a) According to RASHI's first explanation in Shabbos (63b), "Kodesh La" was on the center of the bottom line, and "Hash-m" was on the center of the top line (see Chart).
(b) According to RASHI's second explanation in Shabbos and the RAMBAM (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:1), "Kodesh" was on the center of the bottom line, and "la'Hashem" was on the center of the top line. In order to explain why the Tzitz found in Rome did not look like that, the Rambam adds that it is acceptable, b'Di'eved, to write both words in one line, "and sometimes they did write it in one line."
(c) TOSFOS says that "Kodesh La" was on the beginning of the bottom line, and "Hash-m" was inscribed on the end of the top line.
(d) The RASHBA in Shabbos, in the name of RABEINU TAM, explains that Tosfos' explanation is not acceptable because it is not the manner of people to read the second (bottom) line first. He says that "Kodesh La" was written on the end of the top line, and "Hash-m" was written on the beginning of the bottom line. He explains that when the Gemara says that "Hash-m" was written "above," it means that it was written in the first vertical column. "Below" means that "Kodesh La" was written in the second vertical column. (See also Insights to Shabbos 63:3.)


QUESTION: The Gemara cites Rav's assertion that the Halachic Shi'urim are known only through a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. The Gemara challenges his assertion from Rav Chanin's teaching that the Shi'urim are derived from the verse, "Eretz Chitah u'Se'orah..." (Devarim 8:8, which lists the seven species of fruits of Eretz Yisrael). From Rav Chanin's teaching, it is evident that the Shi'urim are learned from an explicit verse and not merely from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
The Gemara concludes that the verse is merely an Asmachta, and the primary source for the Shi'urim is the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
Why does the Gemara consider Rav Chanin's statement to contradict Rav's statement? Perhaps Rav means that other Shi'urim, which do not depend on the sizes of the items mention in the verse of "Eretz Chitah...," are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai? For example, the minimum size (one cubic Tefach) of an Ohel (roof of a shelter) that spreads Tum'ah is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, as Rashi mentions (Berachos 19b, DH Devar Torah, and Sukah 4a, DH Hachi Garsinan). Similarly, the length of time for which one is punishable with Kares when he stays in the Azarah while he is Tamei is learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (Rashi to Shevuos 14b, DH Chayav). Many other Shi'urim are presumably learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai as well, such as the smallest amount of Sheretz that is Metamei (k'Adashah), the size of a Nega Tzara'as (Gris), and the number of black hairs (two) that invalidate a Parah Adumah. (MAHARATZ CHAYOS; ARUCH LA'NER)
(a) RASHI (DH Shi'urin) seems to answer this question with the addition of the words, "Shel Isurin." The Gemara assumes that Rav's Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai is identical to Rebbi Yochanan's Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai in Yoma (80a). Rebbi Yochanan specifies that "Shi'urim Shel Onshin" are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. This refers to the minimum size for which a person is punishable when he transgresses a prohibition with that object. Why does Rebbi Yochanan add the words "Shel Onshin" (as the RASHASH there asks)? Perhaps his intention is to emphasize that even the Shi'urim for transgressions, which Rav Chanin derives from "Eretz Chitah..." (among other Shi'urim) are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Other Shi'urim are not related to an object involved in a prohibition, but rather to general laws of Tum'ah and other matters.
Accordingly, Rav also means that the Shi'urim of Onshin, punishments (or as Rashi writes, the Shi'urim of Isurin, transgressions), are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Those Shi'urim are the very Shi'urim that Rav Chanin learns from the verse. (However, when the same Sugya is discussed in Eruvin (4a), Rashi does not mention the word "Isurim.") (M. KORNFELD)
(b) Alternatively, from the fact that Rav does not qualify his statement and limit it to specific Shi'urim, it is evident that his intention is to make a general statement about all Shi'urim. The Gemara asks that since there are some Shi'urim which are learned from a verse, why does Rav make a general statement that all Shi'urim are learned from the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai?
This approach answers several another questions on the Sugya. The ARUCH LA'NER asks, why does the Gemara (6a) challenge Rav by saying that the laws of Chatzitzah are learned from a verse? The laws of Chatzitzah apply not only to a person who immerses in a Mikvah, but also to the Kohanim who perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The source of some of those laws (such as whether Tefilin is considered a Chatzitzah; see Zevachim 19a and Tosfos there, and Insights to Pesachim 77:1) seem to be a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Why does the Gemara not assume that these are the laws to which Rav refers?
Similarly, why does the Gemara ask what law of Mechitzah is derived from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai? Even if the minimum height of a Mechitzah is learned from a verse, the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai is necessary to teach the law that the third wall of a Sukah requires a width of only one Tefach, as the Gemara itself says (6b)! (See ARUCH LA'NER, SEFAS EMES, MAHARATZ CHAYOS, and RASHASH, who all suggest forced answers.)
According to the approach mentioned above, the Gemara could not have suggested such answers for Rav's statement. If the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches one specific law of Chatzitzah (that Tefilin are not a Chatzitzah) or of Mechitzah (that the third wall of a Sukah needs only one Tefach), Rav would not have made a general statement that "Chatzitzin u'Mechitzin" are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Rather, he must have meant that some general and common Halachos of Chatzitzah ("Rubo u'Makpid Alav") and of Mechitzah ("Gud v'Lavud...") are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. (M. KORNFELD)