חֲלַל סוּכָּה תְּנַן, חֲלַל מָבוֹי תְּנַן.

as that which we learned in the mishna, with regard to the unfitness of a sukka higher than twenty cubits, is referring to the interior space of the sukka ; and that which we learned in the mishna, that a cross beam spanning an alleyway that is more than twenty cubits must be lowered, is referring to the space at the entrance of the alleyway beneath the cross beam.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פַּפָּא לְרָבָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיֵּיעַ לָךְ, מָבוֹי שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה יוֹתֵר מִפִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכָל – יְמַעֵט. וְהֵיכָל גּוּפוֹ – חֲלָלוֹ עֶשְׂרִים.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: A baraita was taught that supports your opinion: If the cross beam spanning the entrance of an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits off the ground, greater than the entrance of the Sanctuary, one must diminish its height. And the space of the entrance of the Sanctuary itself was twenty cubits high, and its roof was higher than twenty cubits. Apparently, the twenty cubits mentioned with regard to a sukka and an alleyway refers to the space beneath the roofing and the cross beam.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר רַב אַשִׁי לְרַב פַּפָּא: כֵּיצַד הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה – מַנִּיחַ קוֹרָה מִשְּׂפַת עֶשְׂרִים וּלְמַטָּה.

Rav Shimi bar Rav Ashi raised an objection to Rav Pappa from the Tosefta : How precisely would he do it? He places the cross beam from the edge of twenty cubits and below. Apparently, the entire cross beam must be within twenty cubits of the ground, and if any part of it rises above twenty it is unfit.

אֵימָא ״וּלְמַעְלָה״. וְהָא ״לְמַטָּה״ קָתָנֵי!

Rav Pappa replied: Emend the Tosefta and say: From the edge of twenty cubits and above. Rav Shimi retorted: But isn’t it taught: And below? What justification is there to completely reverse the meaning of the Tosefta ?

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: דִּלְמַטָּה כִּלְמַעְלָה, מַה לְּמַעְלָה – חֲלָלָהּ עֶשְׂרִים, אַף לְמַטָּה – חֲלָלָה עֲשָׂרָה.

Rava explained that there is no need to emend the language of the baraita , but merely to reinterpret it. The baraita is teaching us the following: The halakha below is like the halakha above. Just as above, with regard to the maximum height of the cross beam, it is the space beneath the cross beam that may not be more than twenty cubits, so too below, with regard to the minimum height of the cross beam, it is the space beneath the cross beam that may not be less than ten handbreadths. However, a cross beam placed within ten handbreadths of the ground is unfit and does not render it permitted to carry within the alleyway.

אָמַר אַבַּיֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: אַמַּת סוּכָּה וְאַמַּת מָבוֹי – בְּאַמָּה בַּת חֲמִשָּׁה. אַמַּת כִּלְאַיִם – בְּאַמָּה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה.

The Gemara considers the measure of the cubit mentioned in the mishna and elsewhere. Abaye said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The cubit mentioned with regard to the halakhot of sukka and the cubit mentioned in connection with the halakhot of an alleyway is a small cubit consisting of five handbreadths. In contrast, the cubit of a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds is a large cubit consisting of six handbreadths.

אַמַּת מָבוֹי – בְּאַמָּה בַּת חֲמִשָּׁה״. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא – לְגוֹבְהוֹ וּלְפִירְצַת מָבוֹי,

The Gemara elaborates: The cubit of an alleyway is a cubit consisting of five handbreadths. With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the issue of the height of the cross beam spanning an alleyway that may not be more than twenty cubits high, and to the breach of an alleyway that may not be more than ten cubits wide.

וְהָא אִיכָּא מֶשֶׁךְ מָבוֹי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דִּלְקוּלָא!

The Gemara poses a question: But isn’t there also the issue of the minimal length of an alleyway? For carrying in an alleyway to be rendered permissible by means of a side post or a cross beam, it must be at least four cubits long. In that case, measuring the alleyway with small cubits will lead to a leniency.

כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים.

The Gemara resolves this difficulty: Rav Naḥman holds in accordance with the one who said that the length of an alleyway need only be four handbreadths. However, a cubit mentioned in the context of an alleyway is always a small cubit, which is a stringency.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וְרוֹב אַמּוֹת קָאָמַר.

The Gemara proposes an alternative solution: And if you wish, say instead that actually Rav Naḥman holds in accordance with the opinion that the length of an alleyway must be four cubits, and in that case, the alleyway is measured with large cubits of six handbreadths as a stringency. When he is saying that the cubit of an alleyway is a cubit of five handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned in the context of an alleyway.

״אַמַּת סוּכָּה בְּאַמָּה בַּת חֲמִשָּׁה״ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא – לְגוֹבְהָהּ וּלְדוֹפֶן עֲקוּמָּה.

Rav Naḥman said that the cubit of a sukka is a small cubit consisting of five handbreadths. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the halakha governing its height, i.e., that a sukka may not be more than twenty cubits high, and to the halakha of a curved wall. A sukka is considered valid if there are up to four cubits of invalid roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka . In that case, the invalid roofing is considered an extension of the wall, i.e., the wall is considered to be curved, and consequently, the entire sukka is valid. With regard to both halakhot , the ruling is stringent and distance is measured with small cubits.

וְהָא אִיכָּא מֶשֶׁךְ סוּכָּה בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, דִּלְקוּלָא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי, כָּל סוּכָּה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – פְּסוּלָה!

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there also the halakha of the minimal length of a sukka , which must be at least four cubits long? If it is measured with small cubits, that will lead to a leniency. As it was taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say, any sukka that does not have in it an area of at least four cubits by four cubits is invalid.

כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: ״אֲפִילוּ אֵינָהּ מַחֲזֶקֶת אֶלָּא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ וְשׁוּלְחָנוֹ״.

The Gemara resolves this difficulty: Rav Naḥman holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A sukka is valid even if it holds only one’s head, most of his body, and his table.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי הִיא, וְרוֹב אַמּוֹת קָאָמַר.

The Gemara suggests another solution: And if you wish, say instead: Actually, Rav Naḥman’s statement holds true even if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that a sukka must be at least four cubits long. Indeed, the sukka is measured with large cubits consisting of six handbreadths, which is a stringency. And when he says that the cubit of a sukka is a cubit of five handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned with regard to sukka .

״אַמַּת כִּלְאַיִם בְּאַמָּה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה״. לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא – לְקָרַחַת הַכֶּרֶם וְלִמְחוֹל הַכֶּרֶם.

The Gemara continues: As stated above, Rav Naḥman said that the cubit of a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds is a cubit consisting of six handbreadths. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does this ruling apply? It applies to the halakha of a clearing in a vineyard and to the halakha of the perimeter of a vineyard.

דִּתְנַן: קָרַחַת הַכֶּרֶם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת. וּמְחוֹל הַכֶּרֶם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת.

As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kilayim : With regard to a clearing in a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Its measure is twenty-four cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Sixteen cubits. With regard to the perimeter of a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Sixteen cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Twelve cubits.

אֵיזוֹ הִיא קָרַחַת הַכֶּרֶם – כֶּרֶם שֶׁחָרַב אֶמְצָעִיתוֹ, אֵין שָׁם שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת – לֹא יָבִיא זֶרַע לְשָׁם, הָיוּ שָׁם שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָתוֹ וְזוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַמּוֹתָר.

The mishna explains: What is a clearing in a vineyard? It is referring to a vineyard whose middle section was laid bare of vines. If there are not sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there, due to the Torah prohibition against sowing other crops in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9). If there were sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one provides the vineyard with its requisite work area, i.e., four cubits along either side of the vines are left unsown to facilitate cultivation of the vines, and he sows the rest of the cleared area with foreign crops.

וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְחוֹל הַכֶּרֶם – בֵּין כֶּרֶם לְגָדֵר; אֵין שָׁם שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה – לֹא יָבִיא זֶרַע לְשָׁם, הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָתוֹ וְזוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר.

The mishna continues: What is the perimeter of a vineyard? It is the vacant area between the vineyard and the fence surrounding it. If there are not twelve cubits in that area, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there. If there were twelve cubits in that area, he provides the vineyard, with its requisite work area, four cubits, and he sows the rest.

וְהָא אִיכָּא רְצוּפִים בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דִּלְקוּלָא, דִּתְנַן: כֶּרֶם הַנָּטוּעַ עַל פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ כֶּרֶם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֶּרֶם, וְרוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיִּים כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָם!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t there also the halakha of vines that planted consecutively, within four cubits of each other, with regard to which measuring the distance with large cubits would lead to a leniency? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a vineyard that was planted in consecutive rows with less than four cubits between them, Rabbi Shimon says: Since the rows are planted so closely together, it is not considered a vineyard, and if one plants other crops there he is not liable. And the Rabbis say: It is a vineyard, and one regards the middle vines, those planted between two appropriately spaced rows, as if they are not there.

כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי הָוֵי כֶּרֶם. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרוֹב אַמּוֹת קָאָמַר.

The Gemara resolves the difficulty: Rav Naḥman made his statement in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that a densely planted vineyard is a vineyard. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, Rav Naḥman’s statement holds true even if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a densely planted vineyard is not a vineyard, and the distance between the rows is measured with small cubits consisting of five handbreadths as a stringency. When he says that the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds is a cubit consisting of six handbreadths, he is speaking of most, but not all, cubits mentioned with regard to a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds of seeds.

וְרָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: כָּל אַמּוֹת בְּאַמָּה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה, אֶלָּא הַלָּלוּ שׂוֹחֲקוֹת וְהַלָּלוּ עֲצֵבוֹת.

The above was based on the ruling of Rav Naḥman according to Abaye. But Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman: All cubits mentioned in measurements by the Sages consisted of a large cubit of six handbreadths. However, these, the cubits mentioned with regard to diverse kinds of seeds, are measured with expansive handbreadths, with the fingers spread apart, whereas those, the cubits mentioned with regard to an alleyway and a sukka , are measured with compressed handbreadths, with the fingers held together.

מֵיתִיבִי: כָּל אַמּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּאַמָּה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה, וּבִלְבָד

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : All cubits that were mentioned by the Sages are cubits of six handbreadths, provided