Chasidut for Eruvin 5:27

מאי הוי עלה רבה בר רב עולא אמר זה וזה פסול רבא אמר זה וזה כשר

The Rabbis made the law stricter in respect of a sukkah because [the commandment is] Pentateuchal, but in respect of an entrance [to an alley the prescribed construction of] which is only Rabbinical, the Rabbis did not impose such restrictions. R'Adda B'Mattenah taught the statement of Rabbah just cited in the reverse order: Rabbah said: It is inadmissible in the case of an entrance but admissible in that of a sukkah. Why is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A roof of a sukkah of which only a portion is below the height of twenty cubits.');">⁶²</span> admissible in the case of a sukkah? Obviously because we say: [Regard the roof as] thinned out;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Supra p. 10, n. 12.');">⁶³</span> but, then, [why should it not] be said in respect of an entrance also: [Regard the beam as] planed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Supra p. 10, n. 12.');">⁶³</span> - If you [regard it as] planed, the beam would be like one that can be carried away by a wind.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Supra p. 10, n. 15.');">⁶⁴</span> But here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the roof of a sukkah.');">⁶⁵</span> if you [regard the roof as] thinned out [would not also] the sunshine in the sukkah [have to be regarded as] larger in extent than its shade? Consequently you must maintain that whatever the assumption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'against your will'.');">⁶⁶</span> the actual extent of the shadow is larger than that of the sunshine, [may it not then] here also [be said] that whatever the assumption [beams in the condition mentioned] are regarded as metal spits?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 10, n. 17. Why then did Rabbah rule that a cross-beam in such a condition is admissible?');">⁶⁷</span> - Raba of Parazika replied: In the case of a sukkah, since [it is usually made] for one individual, that person realizes his responsibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'throws upon himself'.');">⁶⁸</span> and makes a point of remembering [the conditions of the roof].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 11, n. 2.');">⁶⁹</span> In the case of an entrance, however, since [it is made] for the use of many, [the people affected might] rely upon one another and so overlook<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and would not remember'.');">⁷⁰</span> [any defects in the cross-beam]; for do not people say: 'a pot in charge of two cooks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of partners'.');">⁷¹</span> is neither hot nor cold'. Rabina replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 11, n. 2.');">⁷²</span> [the law of] sukkah, since it is Pentateuchal, requires no buttressing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' People would in any case be careful properly to observe it.');">⁷³</span> but that of an entrance, since it is onl Rabbinical, does require buttressing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise it might be entirely disregarded.');">⁷⁴</span> What is the ultimate decision?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is (the decision) about it'.');">⁷⁵</span> - Rabbah B'R'Ulla replied: The one as well as the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this and this', the roof of a sukkah and a cross-beam if either is even only partially higher than twenty cubits from the ground.');">⁷⁶</span> is inadmissible. Raba replied: The one as well as the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this and this', the roof of a sukkah and a cross-beam if either is even only partially higher than twenty cubits from the ground.');">⁷⁶</span> is admissible,

Explore chasidut for Eruvin 5:27. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.