Bava Batra 3b — the Talmud in English

And one said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

in years.

For the First Temple existed for four hundred and ten years, whereas the Second Temple existed for four hundred and twenty years.

And concerning this dispute the Gemara says in conclusion:

And this one exists, and that one exists.

Both this and that are so. That is, the Second Temple was greater than the First both in height and in years.

And the Gemara continues to discuss the amah teraksin in the Second Temple:

Why did they make only a curtain? Let them make

thirty cubits in construction,

making thirty cubits of a wall’s construction,

and the rest,

and for the remaining height,

let them make

let them make there

a curtain!

And the Gemara explains:

Even when it stood at thirty cubits,

even when it stood at thirty cubits,

by virtue of the ceiling and the plastering

which were above it,

it stood.

It stood.

But

without a ceiling and plastering, it would not stand.

It could not stand at such a height.

Therefore, in the Second Temple, since the wall did not reach the ceiling at a height of thirty cubits, it could not stand.

But the Gemara returns and asks:

And let them make whatever is possible,

making as many cubits of height [less than thirty] as can stand without a ceiling,

in construction. And let them make the rest

and make the remainder

with a curtain!

Abaye said: It was received by tradition,

there was a received tradition in their hands concerning how to build the amah teraksin:

either all of it,

either everything

in construction, or all of it with a curtain.

And the reason for this is:

if all of it is in construction,

because they learn it

from the Temple. If all of it is with a curtain,

because they learn it

from the Tabernacle.

For it is stated concerning it [Exodus 26:33]: “And the curtain shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.”

And now the Gemara discusses the measure of the thickness of the walls in our Mishna:

They raised a question before them:

The Sages in the beit-midrash were uncertain: Do the measures of the walls in our Mishna

include them and their plaster,

meaning that they include the thickness of the plaster?

Or perhaps,

or maybe,

they are without their plaster.

Was the thickness of the stones stated without the plaster?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: It stands to reason,

the matter stands to reason,

they include them and their plaster.

For if it enters your mind

that if it enters your mind

that they are without their plaster, let the tannay teach its measure!

Let the tannay state the measure of how much each partner must contribute for the thickness of the plaster.

Rather, is it not to be inferred from this

that the tannay did not state its measure:

they include them and their plaster!

But the Gemara rejects the words of Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak:

No!

There is no necessity to say as you say. Rather,

I will always say to you,

I tell you that they are

without their plaster.

And as for what you asked: Why did the tannay not state the measure of the plaster?

And since it is not,

since the thickness of the plaster is not

a handbreadth, he did not teach it,

therefore he did not teach it.

And the Gemara objects: But the tannay does teach something less than a handbreadth:

But he teaches:

But we learned:

“With bricks, this one gives a handbreadth and a half, and that one gives a handbreadth and a half.”

And the Gemara rejects this:

There,

there

they are fit to be joined.

The two halves are fit to join together to make a complete handbreadth.

Whereas here, the thickness of the plaster of both together does not contain a handbreadth.

And the Gemara attempts to resolve the uncertainty from a Mishna in Eruvin:

Come and hear

from what we learned in tractate Eruvin [13b]:

The crossbeam that they said

the Sages said that it must be placed at the entrance of an alleyway closed on three sides, so that it will be permitted to carry within it on Shabbat, must be

wide enough to receive

upon it

a tile.

And the tile,

its width is

half a brick of three handbreadths!

It follows that the size of the brick itself, without its plaster, is three handbreadths!

And the Gemara rejects this:

There, with large ones.

There it is speaking of large bricks, whose measure without plaster is three handbreadths. But our Mishna speaks of small bricks, which together with their plaster are only three handbreadths.

And the Gemara adds:

It is also precise,

this too may be inferred, that our Mishna speaks of small ones,

for it teaches,

as it teaches concerning a brick, “

of three handbreadths,” it follows

from this you learn

that there is a smaller one,

that there is also a brick smaller than this. For if not, it should have taught simply “a brick.”

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this!

Now, after the Gemara discussed the distinction between the First Temple and the Second Temple, it now brings the ruling of Rav Hisda concerning the demolition of a synagogue, since it has a connection to the building that Herod built, which was destroyed.

Rav Hisda said: A person may not demolish a synagogue

He should not demolish an existing synagogue

until he builds another synagogue,

until he builds another synagogue in its place.

And what is the reason?

Some say:

There are those who say:

because of negligence,

because of concern for negligence: perhaps they will become occupied with other matters and will not build the other synagogue in its place.

And some say: because of prayer,

for until they build the new one, there will be no place to pray.

What is the difference between them?

What is the practical halakhic difference between the two reasons? For according to both reasons, it is forbidden to demolish until they build another one in its place!

There is a difference between them

There is a difference between them in a case

where there is another place,

where there is another place in which they can pray. According to the reason of negligence, there is concern even in this case that perhaps they will not build another one in place of the demolished synagogue. But according to the reason of a place for prayer, there is no concern here, since they have another place in which to pray.

And the Gemara brings an incident:

Mareimar and Mar Zutra

had two synagogues, one for winter and one for summer. The winter one was low, with thick walls and few windows, because of the cold. The summer one was high and ventilated.

They demolished and built the summer synagogue in the winter,

when they needed to repair them through demolition and construction, they demolished and built the summer synagogue during the winter season.

And they demolished and built the winter synagogue in the summer.

They demolished and built the winter one in the summer, so that they would always have a place in which to pray.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If they collected money, and it is lying there, what is the law?

If the trustees collected money for the construction of the new synagogue, and the money is now lying in the trustees’ hands, is there also in such a case concern for negligence, and is it forbidden to demolish the existing one, or not?

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to him: Here too there is concern, because

perhaps

perhaps

a redemption of captives will arise for them,

it will happen to them,

and they will give it to them,

they will give the money of the synagogue for the redemption of captives, for the law is that money designated for the construction of a synagogue may be spent for the mitzva of redeeming captives, and they will not have money to build the new synagogue in place of the one that was demolished.

And Ravina returned and asked: If the bricks are arranged,

if the bricks designated for construction were already arranged one upon another,

and the roof beams are prepared,

and the roof timbers are sharpened and prepared,

and the beams are lying there,

and the beams are placed—

what is the law?

Is there also in such a manner concern for negligence?

He said to him:

There is concern in this also, because

sometimes a redemption of captives arises for them, and they sell them,

and they sell them,

and give it to them,

and give the money for the mitzva of redeeming captives.

And Ravina objected to him:

If so,

if so,

even

if

they built

the new synagogue,

also,

we should likewise prohibit demolishing the old one, for perhaps they will sell the new one for the sake of redeeming captives, and remain without a synagogue.

He said to him: People do not sell their dwelling!

People do not sell a dwelling for the sake of redeeming captives, and all the more so they do not sell a built and prepared synagogue for this purpose. Therefore there is no concern here.

And the Gemara says when it is indeed permitted to demolish a synagogue:

And we said this

our statement that it is forbidden to demolish a synagogue applies

only

in a situation

where they did not see a crack in it,

where they did not see cracks in it that arouse concern lest it collapse and fall.

But if they saw a crack in it,

if they saw cracks in it,

they demolish and build.

They demolish it even though there is no other synagogue, and build another one in its place.

And they prove this from an incident:

As in this incident of Rav Ashi,

like this incident involving Rav Ashi:

he saw a crack in the synagogue

he saw cracks in the synagogue

of Mata Mehasya. They demolished it,

they demolished it,

and he brought his bed inside there,

and brought his bed there, to live there, so that the discomfort of the heat and rains would urge him to complete the construction quickly,

and he did not

take it out,

and did not take it out from there

until he had installed its gutters,

until he installed the gutters of the synagogue; that is, until they completed the construction entirely.

And the Gemara objects:

And as for Bava ben Buta, how did he advise him

how did he give

advice to Herod to demolish it,

to demolish

the Temple,

as is related below?

But Rav Hisda said: A person may not demolish a synagogue until he builds another synagogue.

And the Gemara answers with two answers:

If you wish, say:

if you wish, say:

he saw a crack in it,

he saw cracks in the Temple, and therefore advised him to demolish it in order to rebuild it properly.

If you wish, say: Royalty is different.

Royalty that undertakes to build is different, because there is no concern of negligence concerning it, since

it does not retract,

the monarchy does not retract.

And this is like

what Samuel said: If the monarchy says,

if the monarchy says,

“I will uproot mountains,”

“I uproot mountains”—

it uproots mountains,

it indeed uproots mountains,

and does not retract.

It does not retract.

And the Gemara tells about Herod:

Herod -

He was a slave of the House of Hasmoneans.

He was a slave of the House of Hasmoneans.

He cast his eyes upon that maiden,

one of the young women among the family, and wished to marry her.

One day,

one day

that man heard

Herod

a voice from Heaven, which said:

a voice from Heaven saying:

“Every slave who rebels now succeeds!”

Every slave who rebels now succeeds.

He arose,

Herod stood up,

he killed all his masters,

he killed all his masters, the members of the House of Hasmoneans,

and he left that young woman alive,

and left alive that young woman whom he wished to marry.

When that young woman saw that he sought to marry her,

when that maiden saw that Herod wished to marry her,

she went up to the roof,

she went up to the roof,

and she raised her voice

and raised her voice, and

said: “Whoever comes and says,

whoever will come in the future and declare about himself, “I am

descended from the House of Hasmoneans,

I am their descendant!”—certainly

he is a slave!”

he is certainly a slave.

That is to say, necessarily, he is from the offspring of Herod the slave, and not from the offspring of the House of Hasmoneans, since he killed them all,

for none of them remained,

none of them, from the House of Hasmoneans, remained

except that young woman,

the young woman.

And that young woman

and that young woman

fell from the roof to the ground,

from the roof to the ground and died, and Herod had no offspring from her.

He concealed her

Herod concealed the dead young woman

for seven years in honey,

for seven years inside honey.

Some say,

there are those who say,

he had intercourse with her

after she died.

Some say,

there are those who say that

he did not have intercourse with her.

And the Gemara explains:

According to those who say,

according to those who say

“he had intercourse with her,” this that he concealed her

this that he concealed her in honey was

in order to settle his desire,

to settle his desire when he would have intercourse with her.

And according to those who say

and according to those who say

“he did not have intercourse with her,” this that he concealed her

this that he concealed her

was so that they would say,

so that people would say:

“He married a king’s daughter,”

Herod married a king’s daughter.

He said

Herod:

“Who expounds,

who is the one who expounds the meaning of the verse [Deuteronomy 17

‘From among your brothers you shall set a king over you,’

in such a manner that the meaning of “from among your brothers” is “from the choicest of your brothers,” excluding a slave even though he is your brother with regard to mitzvot?—It is

the Rabbis,

the Sages are the ones who expound the verse in this manner!”

Therefore:

he arose,

Herod stood up,

he killed all the Rabbis,

he killed all the Sages .

He left

he left alive

Bava ben Buta, in order to take counsel from him,

in order to take counsel from him.