Bava Batra 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

And if he comes to cut it,

if he wishes to separate the Torah and the Prophets, or the Prophets from one another,

he cuts it!

The Gemara raises an objection:

What is he saying?

What is the novel point that he may cut it? It is obvious that he is permitted to separate the books from one another; indeed, this is preferable, so that each book will be by itself.

The Gemara answers:

This is what he is saying:

The intention of the tanna is to explain the preceding ruling: If one finished writing a book at the bottom of a column, he does not leave a space of four lines at the top of the next column, before the beginning of the next book; rather, he begins the next book immediately at the top of the column. The reason for this ruling is

that

since

if he comes to cut

and separate the books,

he cuts it.

If he were to leave a space of four lines at the top of the column, then when he cut it, this column would differ from all the other columns, as its beginning would appear only after four blank lines. Therefore, the tanna said that one should not leave blank lines at the top of a column.

The Gemara now discusses what we learned in a beraita: At the beginning of every book, one leaves a blank piece of parchment, so that it can be rolled around a wooden amud, the rod around which the book is rolled. Likewise, at the end of the book one leaves a blank piece of parchment, so that this parchment can encircle the entire book when the book is rolled.

And he raises a contradiction:

We learned another beraita that contradicts this ruling—

As it was taught: A scribe must leave blank parchment at

the beginning of a book and

at

its end.

The measure of this blank parchment is

enough to roll [the Gemara will discuss below what “enough to roll” means]. This beraita indicates that the measure of the blank parchment to be left at the beginning and at the end of the book is the same, and that there is no distinction between the beginning of the book and its end.

The Gemara discusses the wording of this beraita:

“Enough to roll”—what is this?

What purpose is the blank parchment required to serve, such that it is described as “enough to roll”?

If

it is said that one must leave blank parchment in the measure of

enough to roll,

so that it will be possible to roll it upon an

amud

of wood,

then

it is difficult:

This contradicts the beraita that we learned above, which states that at the end of the book one must leave parchment in the measure of enough to

encircle,

so that it will encircle the entire book when it is rolled—

And

if

the intention of this beraita is to say that one must leave parchment whose measure is

enough to roll and encircle,

so that the blank parchment will be able to encircle the entire book when it is rolled, then

it is difficult

as a contradiction to the earlier beraita, which gives a different measure: At the beginning of the book, one must leave parchment in the measure that will enable it to be rolled upon an

amud

of wood.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said

he answered:

What the second beraita stated, “enough to roll,”

is taught with reference to two different cases.

It is understood in two ways: When the discussion concerns the beginning of the book, the intention is that there be enough to roll this parchment upon a wooden amud, around which the book will be rolled. When the discussion concerns the end of the book, “enough to roll” means a measure such that, when the book is rolled, the blank parchment will encircle the entire book.

is taught with reference to two different cases.

When the discussion concerns the beginning of the book, it means enough blank parchment to wind it around a wooden roller, around which the book will be rolled. When the discussion concerns the end of the book, “enough to wind it” means an amount such that, when the book is rolled up, the blank parchment will encircle the entire book.

Rav Ashi said

to resolve the difficulty: The intention of the beraita when it says “enough to roll” is indeed that there be enough to roll this parchment upon an amud. Nevertheless, this beraita does not contradict what we learned above, that at the end of the book one must leave enough to encircle it. For what we learned, “enough to encircle,” applies to the books of the Prophets; but

when that

beraita was taught, stating that at the beginning and the end one leaves enough to roll around an amud, it was referring to

a Torah scroll.

As it was taught: All the books

are rolled from their beginning to their end.

Therefore, they require only one amud, upon which the entire book can be rolled.

But a Torah scroll is rolled

from both sides

toward its middle,

and

therefore

one makes an amud for it on either side.

One blank amud at its beginning and one blank amud at its end.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok said: This is what the scribes of Jerusalem used to do with their books.

They would make two blank amudim for their Torah scrolls, one on each side, and roll them toward the middle.

The Sages taught: One does not make a Torah scroll—

not in length,

so that the height of the scroll will not be

greater than its circumference.

Nor should its circumference be greater than its length

[its height].

That is, a scribe writing a Torah scroll must ensure that the circumference of the scroll [when it is rolled ] will be equal to its length [its height] from top to bottom. That is, if a thread were wrapped around the thickness of the Torah scroll, the length of that thread would be equal to the length of the scroll from top to bottom.

Therefore, if the parchment is thick, the scribe must write in small script, so that the thickness of the scroll will not be greater than its length.

They asked Rabbi: What is the measure of a Torah scroll? How much?

What should be the length [height] of the parchment from top to bottom, when making a Torah scroll, so that its length and circumference will be equal?

He said to them:

If one writes the scroll

on gevil,

thick parchment that has not been processed, then its length [height] must be

six

tefaḥim. For one who writes a Torah scroll in medium-sized script on gevil whose length [height] is six tefaḥim will find, when he finishes, that the circumference of the scroll is six tefaḥim, and thus its length and circumference will be equal—

They further asked Rabbi: If one writes the scroll

on klaf,

processed parchment, which is thinner than gevil,

how much?

What should be the measure of the parchment’s length, such that its length and circumference will thereby be equal?

Rabbi said to them:

I do not know .

Rav Huna wrote seventy Torah scrolls,

seventy Torah scrolls,

but it did not happen for him

that the length of the scroll was equal to its circumference

except

in one scroll

alone

among the seventy scrolls.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov wrote

a Torah scroll

alone, on the hide of a calf,

on calfskin,

and

in that one scroll that he wrote,

it happened for him.

He happened to achieve equality between its length and its circumference. —

The Sages cast their eyes upon him,

the Sages cast their eyes upon him because he had succeeded, on the first attempt, in writing a scroll whose length and circumference were equal,

and

because of this,

his soul departed,

and Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov died.

The Sages said to Rav Hamnuna—

Rabbi Ami wrote four hundred Torah scrolls.

He said to them:

It is impossible that Rabbi Ami wrote four hundred Torah scrolls, since one person would not have enough time to write so many Torah scrolls ; rather,

perhaps

he wrote only the verse

“The Torah that Moses commanded us”

[in each one].

Therefore, they said that he wrote four hundred Torah scrolls, because this verse is called “Torah,” as they said in tractate Sukka [42a]: “A minor who knows how to speak, his father teaches him ‘Torah.’” The Gemara there explains that this refers to the verse “The Torah that Moses commanded us.”

Rava said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Yannai planted four hundred vineyards

.

He said to him:

This is not possible ; rather,

perhaps

each time he planted only five vines, out of those four hundred times, and this planting was arranged as

two opposite two,

two vines opposite two vines, in a square arrangement,

and one projecting like a tail

[as in the illustration].

Two opposite two, and one protruding like a tail 0 0

And what they said—that he planted four hundred vineyards—is because five grapevines planted in this configuration are called a vineyard. This is likewise explained in tractate Sota [43a]: When the kohanim announce upon going out to war, “Whoever planted a vineyard but has not redeemed it, let him go and return home,” even one who has five grapevines planted in this configuration is considered a vineyard owner and returns home.

The Gemara raises an objection:

The Gemara challenges Rabbi, who says that the measure of the length of a Torah scroll written on gevil is six tefahim.

We learned in a beraita:

The Ark

of

the Covenant that Moses made,

its dimensions were

cubits

[two cubits]

two and a half cubits in length, one and a half cubits in width, and one and a half cubits in height

.

In tractate Kelim [chapter 17, Mishna 10], Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed concerning the size of the cubit mentioned with regard to the vessels of the Temple. Rabbi Meir held that the cubit mentioned with regard to the Temple vessels was six tefahim long, while Rabbi Yehuda held that the cubit mentioned with regard to the Temple vessels was five tefahim long. This beraita is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as will be explained below; according to his view, Rabbi Meir said that the cubits mentioned with regard to the Ark were

cubits of six tefahim!

It follows that the Ark was fifteen tefahim long, which is two and a half cubits; its width was nine tefahim, which is one and a half cubits; and its height was also nine tefahim, which is one and a half cubits.

The beraita now proceeds to explain the size of the Tablets of the Covenant and how they were placed in the Ark.

And the Tablets—their length

of each of the Tablets was

six

tefahim

and their width was six

tefahim

and their thickness was three

tefahim.

The Tablets were

placed

lying down

along the length of the Ark

with the width of the Tablets extending along the length of the Ark, and their length extending across the width of the Ark [see the illustration].

An illustration should appear here 5

How much

space did the

Tablets occupy

?

of

the length of the

Ark?

That is to say,

twelve tefahim.

For the width of each Tablet was six tefahim, and when the two Tablets were placed side by side along the length of the Ark, they occupied twelve tefahim of the Ark’s length. [See the illustration].

It follows that

there remained

along the length of the Ark

three tefahim

empty, for its length was fifteen tefahim, and the Tablets occupied twelve of them. In practice, however, there were not three empty tefahim, since

subtract from them one tefah

we must deduct from this calculation one tefah, which was occupied by the walls of the Ark

half

of the tefah

by this wall and half by that wall.

It follows that

there remained there two tefahim

empty,

in which the Torah scroll

written by Moses our Master

was placed

with its length parallel to the length of the Tablets .

The beraita brings proof that the Torah scroll was placed inside the Ark of the Covenant—

As it is stated

in I Kings [chapter 8, verse 9]

“There was nothing in the Ark except the two Tablets of stone that Moses placed there,”

and we question this:

What

does the prophet mean by writing

“There was nothing in the Ark ‘except’”?

Why are both expressions, “nothing” and “except,” written, to exclude and say that only the Tablets were in the Ark? He should have written, “Only the two Tablets were in the Ark,” or, “There was nothing in the Ark other than the two Tablets” [see the note ]. This is

an exclusion following an exclusion, and

the rule is that

an exclusion following an exclusion

—whenever a verse excludes something repeatedly, this does not mean

anything other than to include

another matter. Here, the verse intends to include

a Torah scroll placed in the Ark

in addition to the Tablets.

The beraita adds—

You have accounted for

you have explained well why the

Ark needed to be of such length

—fifteen tefahim: twelve tefahim were occupied by the Tablets, one was occupied by the two walls of the Ark, and two by the Torah scroll. Now

go and account for

explain why

the Ark needed to be of such width

nine tefahim.

And we explain:

How much

space did the

Tablets occupy

do they occupy

of

the width of the

Ark?

That is to say,

six tefahim,

for the Tablets were six tefahim long, and the length of the Tablets extended across the width of the Ark [see illustration 1]. It follows that

there remained there

across the width of the Ark

three tefahim

empty—but in practice the three tefahim were not empty, since

subtract from them one tefah

we must deduct from this calculation one tefah, which was occupied by the walls of the Ark

half

of the tefah

by this wall and half by that wall,

so it follows that

there remained there two tefahim

empty, whose purpose was

so that the Torah scroll would not enter and leave

when cramped

for the Torah scroll was six tefahim long, as explained above, since a scroll written on gevil is six tefahim long, and our Sages had received it as a tradition that the scroll Moses wrote was on gevil . Therefore, if the Ark’s width had been only six tefahim, the Torah scroll [which was also six tefahim long] would have been pressed against the walls of the Ark when it was removed and inserted [for the Ark had no door, and the scroll was removed from above]. Therefore, the Torah required that two additional tefahim be added to the Ark’s width, so that the Torah scroll would not enter and leave when cramped—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says

that the measure of the cubit mentioned with regard to the Temple vessels is five tefahim. Therefore, the size of the Ark was also measured

with a cubit of five tefahim.

According to his view, the Ark was twelve and a half tefahim long, which is two and a half cubits, and its width was seven and a half tefahim, which is one and a half cubits.

And the Tablets were six

tefahim long

and six in width

tefahim

and three in thickness

tefahim—

And the Tablets were

placed

lying down

along the length of the Ark

with the width of the Tablets extending along the length of the Ark, and their length extending across the width of the Ark [see the illustration above].

How much

space did the

Tablets occupy

do they occupy

of

the length of the

Ark?

That is to say,

twelve tefahim,

because the width of each Tablet was six tefahim, and when the two Tablets were placed side by side along the length of the Ark, they occupied twelve tefahim of its length. It follows that

there remained

along the length of the Ark

half a tefah

empty, for according to Rabbi Yehuda the Ark was twelve and a half tefahim long, and the Tablets occupied twelve of them. In practice, however, the half-tefah was not empty, because the walls of the Ark occupied space:

a finger

[a quarter of a tefah ]

by this wall

of the Ark

and a finger

more

by that wall . It follows that there was no extra space along the length of the Ark.

It follows that there was no extra space along the length of the Ark.

You have accounted for

you have explained well why

the Ark needed to be of such length,

now

go and account for

explain why

the Ark needed to be of such width

seven and a half tefahim. And we explain:

How much

space did the

Tablets occupy

do they occupy

of

the width of the

Ark?

That is to say,

six

tefahim,

because the Tablets were six tefahim long, and their length extended across the width of the Ark [see the illustration above]. It follows that

there remained there

across the width of the Ark

one and a half tefahim—

but in practice there were not one and a half empty tefahim there, since

subtract from them

we must deduct from this calculation

half a tefah

on which the walls of the Ark stood:

a finger

[a quarter of a tefah]

by this wall and a finger by that wall,

so it follows that

there remained there one tefah

empty,

in which

the two

columns

the silver columns that Solomon made

stood

lying down . These columns lay along the length of the Ark, with the Tablets between them [see the illustration].

An illustration should appear here—6—and where are those columns mentioned?

As it is stated

in the Song of Songs:

“King Solomon made himself a palanquin of the wood of Lebanon; he made its columns of silver, its support of gold, its seat of purple,” and so on.

This verse speaks of the Temple that Solomon built [the Temple is called “palanquin” in the verse]. The Gemara explains that the phrase in the verse, “He made its columns of silver,” refers to the silver columns that Solomon made to place in the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord.

The beraita now explains where the Torah scroll Moses wrote was placed, according to Rabbi Yehuda:

In I Samuel [chapter 6], it is related that when the Philistines wished to return the Ark of the Lord that they had captured from Israel, they asked the “kohanim and diviners” how to return it, and they advised them to send it together with gifts [listed there]. They were to place the gifts in a chest beside the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord and send them in that manner.

And

that same

chest that the Philistines had sent as a gift to the God of Israel,

was

placed alongside

the Ark in the Holy of Holies.

And the Gemara brings proof that that same chest was placed alongside the Ark.

As it is stated,

this is what the “priests and diviners” said to the Philistines:

“And the golden objects that you are returning to Him, you shall place as a guilt offering in a chest alongside it, and send it away, and it will go.”

And on it,

on top of the chest that was placed in the Holy of Holies, there

was a Torah scroll

that Moses had written,

placed, as it is stated: ‘

“Take this Torah scroll and place it alongside the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord.”’

And the Gemara infers from this verse that

alongside

the Ark [

was ]

the Torah scroll

placed, and not inside it.

And

if you ask: Did Rabbi Meir not derive from the verse, “There is nothing in the Ark except the two tablets of stone,” that there is here a “restriction after a restriction,” which serves to include the Torah scroll, indicating that it was in the Ark? If so, according to Rabbi Judah, who holds that the Torah scroll was not placed in the Ark,

what do I establish

what do we learn from the inclusion derived through the restriction after a restriction in the verse,

“There is nothing in the Ark except”?