| 5a. ותניא ר' יוסי אומר מעולם לא ירדה שכינה למטה ולא עלו משה ואליהו למרום שנאמר (תהלים קטו, טז) השמים שמים לה' והארץ נתן לבני אדם,ולא ירדה שכינה למטה והכתיב (שמות יט, כ) וירד ה' על הר סיני למעלה מעשרה טפחים והכתיב (זכריה יד, ד) ועמדו רגליו ביום ההוא על הר הזיתים למעלה מעשרה טפחים,ולא עלו משה ואליהו למרום והכתיב (שמות יט, ג) ומשה עלה אל האלהים למטה מעשרה והכתיב (מלכים ב ב, יא) ויעל אליהו בסערה השמים למטה מעשרה והכתיב (איוב כו, ט) מאחז פני כסא פרשז עליו עננו ואמר ר' תנחום מלמד שפירש שדי מזיו שכינתו ועננו עליו למטה מעשרה,מכל מקום מאחז פני כסא כתיב אישתרבובי אישתרבב ליה כסא עד עשרה ונקט ביה,בשלמא ארון תשעה דכתיב (שמות כה, י) ועשו ארון עצי שטים אמתים וחצי ארכו ואמה וחצי רחבו ואמה וחצי קומתו אלא כפורת טפח מנלן דתני רבי חנינא כל הכלים שעשה משה נתנה בהן תורה מדת ארכן ומדת רחבן ומדת קומתן כפורת מדת ארכה ומדת רחבה נתנה מדת קומתה לא נתנה,צא ולמד מפחות שבכלים שנאמר (שמות כה, כה) ועשית לו מסגרת טפח סביב מה להלן טפח אף כאן טפח ונילף מכלים גופייהו תפשת מרובה לא תפשת תפשת מועט תפשת,ונילף מציץ דתניא ציץ דומה כמין טס של זהב ורחב ב' אצבעות ומוקף מאזן לאזן וכתוב עליו ב' שיטין יו"ד ה"א מלמעלה וקדש למ"ד מלמטה וא"ר אליעזר בר' יוסי אני ראיתיו ברומי וכתוב עליו קדש לה' בשיטה אחת,דנין כלי מכלי ואין דנין כלי מתכשיט,ונילף מזר דאמר מר זר משהו דנין כלי מכלי ואין דנין כלי מהכשר כלי אי הכי מסגרת נמי הכשר כלי הוא מסגרתו למטה היתה,הניחא למאן דאמר מסגרתו למטה היתה אלא למאן דאמר מסגרתו למעלה היתה מאי איכא למימר האי הכשר כלי הוא,אלא דנין דבר שנתנה בו תורה מדה מדבר שנתנה בו תורה מדה ואל יוכיחו ציץ וזר שלא נתנה בהן תורה מדה כלל,רב הונא אמר מהכא (ויקרא טז, יד) על פני הכפורת קדמה ואין פנים פחות מטפח,ואימא כאפי | 5a. band it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yosei says: The Divine Presence neveractually bdescended below, and Moses and Elijah neveractually bascended toheaven bon high, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the earth He gave to the children of man”(Psalms 115:16), indicating that these are two distinct domains. Apparently, from ten handbreadths upward is considered a separate domain. Consequently, any isukkathat is not at least ten handbreadths high is not considered an independent domain and is unfit.,The Gemara asks: bAnd did the Divine Presence never descend belowten handbreadths? bBut isn’t it written: “And God descended onto Mount Sinai”(Exodus 19:20)? brThe Gemara answers: Although God descended below, He always remained bten handbreadths abovethe ground. Since from ten handbreadths and above it is a separate domain, in fact, the Divine Presence never descended to the domain of this world. brThe Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it written: “And on that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives”(Zechariah 14:4)? The Gemara answers: Here, too, He will remain bten handbreadths abovethe ground.,The Gemara asks: bAnd did Moses and Elijah never ascend tothe heavens bon high? But isn’t it written: “And Moses went up to God”(Exodus 19:3)? brThe Gemara answers: Nevertheless, he remained bbelow tenhandbreadths adjacent to the ground. brThe Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it written: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenward”(II Kings 2:11)? brThe Gemara answers: Here, too, it was bbelow tenhandbreadths. brThe Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it written: “He grasps the face of the throne, and spreads His cloud upon him”(Job 26:9)? bAnd Rabbi Tanḥum said:This bteaches that the Almighty spread of the radiance of His Divine Presence and of His cloud upon him.Apparently, Moses was in the cloud with God. brThe Gemara answers: Here, too, it was bbelow tenhandbreadths.,The Gemara asks: bIn any case: “He grasps the face of the throne,” is written,indicating that Moses took hold of the Throne of Glory. The Gemara rejects this: bThe throne was extended for him down to tenhandbreadths bandMoses bgrasped it;however, he remained below ten handbreadths. And since the Divine Presence speaks to Moses from above the Ark cover ten handbreadths above the ground, clearly a height of ten handbreadths is a distinct domain.,The Gemara wonders about the proof offered: bGranted,the height of the bArkwas bninehandbreadths, bas it is written: “And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height”(Exodus 25:10), and one and a half cubits equal nine handbreadths. bHowever, from where do wederive the fact that the thickness of the bArk coverwas one bhandbreadth?The Torah never states its dimensions explicitly, bas Rabbi Ḥanina taught:For ball the vessels that Moses craftedfor the Tabernacle, bthe Torah providedin btheirregard bthe dimension of their length, the dimension of their width, and the dimension of their height.However, for the bArk cover,the Torah bprovided the dimension of its length and the dimension of its width;but the Torah bdid not provide the dimension of its height. /b,The Gemara answers: bGo out and learn from the smallestdimension mentioned in connection with any bof theTabernacle bvessels, as it is statedwith regard to the shewbread table: b“And you shall make unto it a border of a handbreadth around”(Exodus 25:25). bJust as there,the frame measures one bhandbreadth, so too, here,the thickness of the Ark cover measures a single bhandbreadth.The Gemara asks: bAnd let us derivethe thickness of the Ark cover bfromthe bvessels themselves,the smallest of which measures a cubit. The Gemara answers: bIf you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something.If there are two possible sources from which to derive the dimension of the Ark cover, then without conclusive proof one may not presume that the Torah intended to teach the larger dimension. Rather, the presumption is that the Torah is teaching the smaller dimension, which is included in the larger measure.,The Gemara asks: If so, blet us derivethe thickness of the Ark cover bfrom the frontplate,which is even smaller than a handbreadth, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The bfrontplate is a type of platemade bof gold that is two fingerbreadths wide and stretches from ear to ear. And written upon it are two lines:The letters iyod /i, iheh /i, ivav /i, iheh /i, the name of God, babove;and the word ikodesh /i,spelled ikuf /i, idalet /i, ishin /i, followed by the letter ilamed /i, below.Together it spelled ikodesh laHashem /i, meaning: Sacred to the Lord, with iyod /i, iheh /i, ivav /i, ihehwritten on the upper line in deference to the name of God. bRabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I sawthe frontplate in the emperor’s treasury bin Rome,where it was taken together with the other Temple vessels when the Temple was destroyed, band upon it was written: Sacred to the Lord, on one line.Why not derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate and say that it was only two fingerbreadths?,The Gemara answers: bOne derivesthe dimension of ba vessel fromthe dimension of ba vessel, and one does not derivethe dimension of ba vessel fromthe dimension of ban ornament.The frontplate is not one of the Tabernacle vessels but one of the ornaments of the High Priest.,The Gemara suggests: bLet us derivethe thickness of the Ark cover bfrom the crownfeatured atop several of the Tabernacle vessels, bas the Master said:This bcrown,with regard to which the Torah did not specify its dimensions, could be bany size.The Gemara answers: bOne derivesthe dimension of ba vessel fromthe dimension of ba vessel, and one does not derivethe dimension of ba vessel fromthe dimension of the bfinish of a vesselthat serves decorative purposes. The Gemara asks: bIfit is bsothat one does not derive the dimensions of a vessel from the dimensions of the finish of a vessel, then how can dimensions be derived from bthe borderof the table, which bis alsothe bfinish of a vesseland not an integral part of the table? The Gemara answers: The bborderof the table bwas below,between the legs of the table, and the tabletop rested upon it. As it supports the table, it is an integral part of the table and not merely decoration.,The Gemara asks: bThisworks out bwell according to the one who saidthat bits border was belowthe tabletop; bhowever, according to the one who saidthat bits border was abovethe tabletop, bwhat can be said?According to that opinion, bthisborder bisindeed the bfinish of a vessel. /b, bRather,the thickness of the Ark cover must be derived from a different source. bOne derivesthe missing dimensions of ban object for which the Torah providedpart of its bdimension,e.g., the Ark cover, for which the Torah provided the dimensions of length and width, bfrom an object for which the Torah providedits bdimension,e.g., the border of the table. bAnd the frontplate and the crown, for which the Torah did not provide any dimension at all,and their dimensions were determined by the Sages, bwill not proveanything. It is certainly appropriate to derive the dimension of the thickness of the Ark cover from that which was stated clearly in the Torah., bRav Huna saidthat the thickness of the Ark cover is derived bfrom here: “Upon the face of [ ipenei /i] the Ark cover on the east”(Leviticus 16:14), band there is no face [ ipanim /i]of a person that measures bless thanone bhandbreadth. /b,The Gemara asks: And why say that the face in the verse is specifically the face of a person? bSaythat the Ark cover is blike the face /b |
