1)

(a)We prove from the Aron, which was nine Tefachim high plus the Tefach of the lid - that the minimum size of a Sukah is ten Tefachim.

(b)We (initially) prove the height of a Sukah from the Aron - which was ten Tefachim high, from the fact that Hash-m (who appeared to Moshe from the lid of the Aron) did not descend to our domain. Clearly then, our domain ends at the height of ten Tefachim; in that case, it is logical to say that the Sukah must be at least as high as that.

(c)In that case, "va'Yeired Hash-m al Har Sinai" means - that Hash-m descended to a point that was a little more than ten Tefachim above the top of the mountain.

2)

(a)We know that neither Moshe nor Eliyahu actually entered Hash-m's domain in Heaven - because of the Pasuk in Tehilim "ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Hashem ... ".

(b)The Pesukim which inform us that Moshe ascended to Hash-m and Eliyahu to Heaven - refer to a point just below ten Tefachim from Hash-m's Domain.

(c)Consequently, Rav Tanchum, who explains a Pasuk in Iyov to mean that Moshe actually held on to Hash-m's Throne - will have to say that the Throne stretched to a point ten Tefachim below Hash-m's domain, to enable Moshe to hold on to it.

3)

(a)We said earlier that the Aron was ten Tefachim high - The Torah specifically teaches us that the Aron itself was nine Tefachim - by giving its height as one a half Amos (since one Amah = six Tefachim).

(b)We learn the height of the lid - from the smallest of the Vessels, the Misgeres (rim) of the Shulchan, which was one Tefach wide.

(c)We prefer not to learn it from the other Holy Vessels, because of the principle 'Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta ... ' - which means that if one picks the larger of two possible amounts, and discovers that one picked the wrong amount, one will not have chosen the correct amount; whereas if one picks the smaller amount, it cannot be wrong, because, even if one subsequently discovers that one ought to have picked the larger amount, the choice will still have been correct, seeing as every larger amount incorporates the smaller amount (e.g. 'two hundred includes one hundred').

(d)We cannot learn the height of the lid from the Tzitz (which is even smaller than the Misgeres of the Shulchan, and would therefore be a case of 'Tafasta Mu'at, Tafasta) - because we prefer to learn a Kli (a Vessel) from a Kli, rather than from an ornament.

4)

(a)The Tzitz was made of gold, and was two Etzba'os (finger-breadths) wide.

(b)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the four letters of Hash-m's Name were written on one line of the Tzitz, and 'Kodesh la' on the line below. Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi testified - that when he was in Rome, he saw it, and 'Kodesh la'Hashem' was all written on one line.

(c)The Zer - which symbolized (and also means) a crown, was an ornamental rim, which was no higher than a 'Mashehu' (a small, unspecified measurement).

(d)The Kelim that possessed a Zer were - the Aron, the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav and the Shulchan (representing the crowns of Torah, Kehunah and Malchus, respectively).

5)

(a)We suggest that it is preferable to learn the lid of the Aron from the Misgeres, which is a Kli, and not just a Hechsher Kli - which in this context, means of purely ornamental value, and serving no practical purpose.

(b)For the Misgeres not to be a Hechsher Kli - it would need to be fixed below the surface of the Shulchan (i.e. from leg to leg), where it would act as a base for the Shulchan; If, as some maintain, it was placed around the side of the Table-top, then it too, would be a Hechsher Kli.

(c)We retract from the reason that we just suggested, for learning the lid from the Misgeres - since we concede that it might well be a Hechsher Kli.

(d)reason do we finally give for learning the lid of the Aron from the Misgeres (rather than from the Tzitz or from the Zer) is - because the Misgeres shares with the lid of the Aron the fact that the Torah gives both of them fixed dimensions (the former, the height, the latter, the length and the breadth) which it does not do by the Tzitz or the Zer.

6)

(a)Rav Huna initially attempts to learn the width of the lid of the Aron from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "al Pnei ha'Kapores Keidmah" - and the smallest (human) face is a Tefach by a Tefach.

(b)We cannot learn it from the face of a Bar Yochni (a very large bird), which is more than a Tefach - because of the principle 'Tafasta Merubeh Lo Tafasta ... ' (which we explained on the previous Amud).

(c)We conclude however, that that Rav Huna really learned it from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Pnei" "Pnei" - from the Pasuk in Toldos "me'Es Pnei Yitzchak Aviv".

(d)We retract from the original suggestion - because (based on 'Tafasta Mu'at Tafasta') we ought then to learn it from the face of a small bird, which is less than a Tefach.

(e)We cannot learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk "ki'Re'os Pnei Elokim" (referring to Eisav's Angel) - because of the same principle 'Tafasta Merubeh Lo Tafasta '.

7)

(a)We ask why Rav Huna does not learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk in Terumah "el ha'Kapores Yiheyu Pnei ha'Keruvim" - in which case it would be less than a Tefach (since the Keruvim were in the shape of children. In fact, the acronym of Keruvim, 'ke'Ravya', means 'like children').

(b)R. Acha bar Yakov stated - that the faces of the Keruvim were not less than a Tefach.

(c)So we conclude that Rav Huna's source for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is indeed the Pasuk "el ha'Kapores Yiheyu Pnei ha'Keruvim" (though it is unclear on what grounds we retract from the original Limud from Yitzchak).

(d)When the Pasuk in Yechezkel writes "Pnei ha'Echad Pnei ha'Keruv, u'Pnei ha'Sheni, Pnei Adam" - it means that one face is slightly smaller (like that of a K'ruv) and the other one, slightly larger, like a grown-up (which therefore measures slightly more than a Tefach).

8)

(a)We retract from our original suggestion to learn the height of a Sukah from the height of the Aron - because if that were so, why should the ten Tefachim not include the Sechach (in the same way as the ten Tefachim of the Aron include the lid)?

(b)So we learn it from the Aron in the Mishkan. The first Beis-Hamikdash - was sixty Amos long, twenty Amos wide and thirty Amos tall.

(c)And the Keruvim - were ten Amos tall.

9)

(a)The Mishkan in the desert - was ten Amos tall.

(b)We learn from the first Beis Hamikdash - that the Keruvim, which stood on the floor, reached the height of a third of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. And the Beraisa states that the same applies to the Keruvim in the Mishkan. And since the Mishkan was ten Amos tall (i.e. sixty Tefachim), the Keruvim must have been twenty Tefachim from the ground. Bearing in mind that these Keruvim were attached to the lid of the Aron, that means that they stood ten Tefachim above the Aron.

(c)And we learn from the Pasuk in Terumah "v'Hayu ha'Keruvim Porsei Chenafayim ... Sochechim b'Chanfeihem al ha'Kapores" - that with their wings spread-out just above their heads, they created a Sechach of ten Tefachim (from their wings to the lid of the Aron - excluding the wings themselves).

(d)Their wings must have been spread out ...

1. ... above their heads and not just level with them - because the Torah writes "Lema'alah", suggesting that their wings were slightly raised.

2. ... slightly above their heads and not far above them - because then the Torah would have written "Lema'alah Lama'alah".

10)

(a)This proof from the Aron is only valid according to Rebbi Meir, in whose opinion the Amos of the building, like those of the Kelim. consisted of six Tefachim. According to Rebbi Yehudah, each Amah ...

1. ... of the building comprised - five Tefachim, and of the Kelim ...

2. ... six.

(b)Since, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the space between the wings of the Keruvim and the lid of the Aron was eleven and a half Tefachim, he maintains that the Shi'ur Sukah - is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, like Rav teaches.

11)

(a)Rav rules that - Shiurin, Chatziztin and Mechitzin - are 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(b)'Shiurin' - refers, for example to a k'Zayis of most forbidden foods and the Koseves of Yom Kippur, Chatzitzin - to Tevilah and Mechitzin - to the walls of a Sukah (and suchlike).

(c)When Rav Chanin says that the entire Pasuk of "Eretz Chitah u'Se'orah ... " (in Ekev) comes to teach us Shiurin, Chatziztin and Mechitzin' - he is extrapolating from the Pasuk the superlative qualities of Eretz Yisrael, that one can even assess the Shi'urim of Isur by its fruit.