Bava Batra 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

And one said:

two.

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

And regarding this dispute, the Gemara concludes:

Both this statement and that statement are cited.

There is validity to both statements. That is to say, the Second Temple was greater than the First both in height and in the number of years it stood.

The Gemara continues to discuss the ammah tereksin in the Second Temple:

Why did they make only a curtain? Let them make

thirty cubits in masonry,

i.e., let them make thirty cubits of a wall,

and the rest,

the remainder of the height,

let them make

there

a curtain!

The Gemara explains:

Even when it stood at thirty cubits,

even when it stood at a height of thirty cubits,

it stood by virtue of the ceiling and the plastering

above it;

it would stand.

It could stand.

But

without a ceiling and plastering, it would not stand.

It could not stand at such a height.

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

But the Gemara returns and asks:

Let them do whatever is possible

in masonry—that is, let them make as many cubits of height as can stand without a ceiling, less than thirty cubits—

and let them make the rest

of the height

with a curtain!

Abaye said: It was received as a tradition

from them how to construct the ammah tereksin:

either all of it

must be

in masonry, or all of it with a curtain.

And the reason for this is:

if all of it is in masonry,

because they derive it

from the Temple; if all of it is with a curtain,

because they derive it

from the Tabernacle.

As it is stated concerning the Tabernacle: “And the curtain shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.”

The Gemara now discusses the thickness of the walls mentioned in our Mishna:

They raised a dilemma:

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

include their plaster,

meaning that they include the thickness of the plaster?

Or perhaps

the measurements are

without their plaster.

Is the thickness of the stones stated without the plaster?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It stands to reason

that the matter is as follows:

they include their plaster.

For if it enters your mind

that

they are without their plaster, let the tanna teach the measurements!

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

Rather, is it not evident from this

that the tanna did not state a separate measurement

because they include their plaster!

But the Gemara rejects the words of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

No!

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

I can actually say to you

that they are

without their plaster.

And regarding your question: Why did the tanna not state the measurement of the plaster?

Since it is not

the case that the thickness of the plaster is

a handbreadth, he did not teach it,

and therefore he did not state it.

The Gemara challenges this: The tanna does in fact state a measurement of less than a handbreadth:

But he teaches:

We learned:

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

The Gemara rejects this:

There,

the two half-handbreadths

are fit to be combined.

The two halves are fit to combine into a full handbreadth.

Whereas here, the thickness of the plaster of both of them together is less than a handbreadth.

The Gemara attempts to resolve the dilemma from a Mishna in tractate Eruvin:

Come and hear

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

The crossbeam that they said

the Sages must place at the entrance of an alleyway enclosed on three sides, in order to permit carrying within it on Shabbat, must be

wide enough to support

on it

a tile.

And the tile,

its width, is

half of a brick measuring three handbreadths!

Thus, the size of the brick itself, without plaster, is three handbreadths!

The Gemara rejects this:

There, with large bricks.

There, the reference is to large bricks whose measurement without plaster is three handbreadths. But our Mishna speaks of small bricks, which together with their plaster measure only three handbreadths.

The Gemara adds:

This is also precise,

as one can infer that our Mishna speaks of small bricks,

as it teaches:

For it states concerning a brick:

“of three handbreadths,” from this

you learn

that there is a smaller one,

a brick smaller than this one. For otherwise, it would have taught simply “a brick.”

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this!

Now, after discussing the distinction between the First Temple and the Second Temple, the Gemara presents the ruling of Rav Ḥisda concerning the demolition of a synagogue, since it is relevant to the building constructed by Herod, which was destroyed.

Rav Ḥisda said: A person may not demolish a synagogue

He may not demolish an existing synagogue

until he builds another synagogue

in its place.

And what is the reason?

Some say:

There are those who say:

because of negligence,

due to concern that they may become preoccupied with other matters and fail to 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 in which to pray.

What is the practical difference between them?

What is the halakhic difference between these two reasons? According to both reasons, it is prohibited to demolish the synagogue until another one is built in its place!

There is a difference between them

in a case

where there is another place,

where they can pray. According to the reason of negligence, there is still concern in this case that they may fail to build another synagogue in place of the one being demolished. But according to the reason of providing a place for prayer, there is no concern here, since they have another place in which to pray.

The Gemara relates an incident:

Mareimar and Mar Zutra

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

They demolished and built the summer synagogue in winter,

when they needed to repair them by demolition and rebuilding, they demolished and rebuilt the summer synagogue during the winter season.

And they demolished and built the winter synagogue in summer.

They demolished and rebuilt the winter synagogue during 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 collectors had collected money for the construction of the new synagogue and the money was now in the collectors’ possession, is there still concern of negligence, so that it would be prohibited to demolish the existing synagogue? Or not?

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to him: Even in this case there is concern, because

perhaps

it may happen that

a redemption of captives opportunity will arise for them,

it will come their way,

and they will give it to them,

they will give the synagogue funds for the redemption of captives, for the halakha is that money designated for the construction of a synagogue may be used for the mitzva of redeeming captives. Consequently, they will no longer have money with which 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 intended for the construction had already been arranged one upon another,

and the roof beams are prepared and finished,

and smoothed and prepared,

and the beams are lying there,

and the beams have already been placed—

what is the law?

Is there still concern of negligence in such a case?

He said to him:

There is still concern in this case, because

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

and sell the bricks and beams,

and give it to them,

and give the money for the mitzva of redeeming the captives.

Ravina challenged him:

If so,

if that is the case,

even

if they

built

the new synagogue,

also,

we should prohibit demolishing the old one, because 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 certainly they do not sell a built and completed synagogue for this purpose. Therefore, there is no such concern.

The Gemara states when it is nevertheless permitted to demolish a synagogue:

And we said this

that our statement prohibiting the demolition of a synagogue applies

only

in a case

where they did not see a crack in it,

where they had not seen cracks that raised concern that it might collapse and fall.

But if they saw a crack in it,

if they saw cracks in it,

they demolish it and build

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

The Gemara proves this from an incident:

As in this incident involving Rav Ashi,

like the incident involving Rav Ashi:

He saw a crack in the synagogue

and saw cracks in the synagogue

of Mata Meḥasya. He demolished it,

he had it demolished,

and brought his bed inside there,

and placed his bed there so that he could live there, in order that the discomfort caused by the heat and rain would spur him to complete the construction quickly,

and he did not

remove it

and did not remove it from there

until he had installed the gutters,

until he had installed the gutters of the synagogue—that is, until the construction was entirely completed.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

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

how did he give

Herod counsel to demolish it

to demolish

the Temple,

as related below?

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

The Gemara offers 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: Royal authority is different.

A kingdom that undertakes to build is different, because there is no concern of negligence regarding it, since

it does not retract,

the kingdom does not go back on its word.

And this is like

that which Shmuel said: If the kingdom says,

if the kingdom says,

“I will uproot mountains,”

“I will uproot mountains”—

it uproots mountains,

it indeed uproots mountains,

and it does not retract.

It does not go back on its word.

And the Gemara relates about Herod:

Herod –

he was a slave of the House of Hasmonean.

He was a slave belonging to the House of Hasmonean.

He set his eyes upon that young girl,

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

One day,

one day

that man heard

Herod

a Divine voice, which said:

a Divine voice saying:

“Any slave who rebels now will succeed!”

Any slave who rebels now will succeed.

He arose,

Herod stood up,

killed all his masters,

he killed all his masters, the members of the Hasmonean family,

and left that young girl alive,

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

When that young girl saw that he wanted to marry her,

when that young girl saw that Herod wanted to marry her,

she went up to the roof,

she went up to the roof

and raised her voice

and raised her voice, and

said: “Anyone who comes and says,

anyone who will come in the future and declare, “I am

descended from the House of Hasmonean,

I am their descendant!”—certainly

he is a slave!”

he is certainly a slave.

This necessarily means that he was descended from Herod the slave, and not from the House of Hasmonean, since he had killed them all,

for none of them remained,

none of the House of Hasmonean remained

except that young girl,

the young woman.

And that young girl

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 buried

Herod buried the dead young girl

in honey for seven years,

for seven years.

Some say,

there are those who say,

he had relations with her

after she died.

Some say,

there are those who say that

he did not have relations with her.

And the Gemara explains:

According to those who say

according to those who say

“he had relations with her,” the reason he buried her

the reason he buried her in honey was

to satisfy his desire,

to assuage his desire when he would have relations with her.

And according to those who say

and according to those who say

“he did not have relations with her,” the reason he buried her

the reason he buried her was

so that people 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 “from among your brothers” means “from the choicest of your brothers,” excluding a slave, even though he is your brother with regard to the mitzvot?—It is

the Rabbis,

the Sages who expound the verse in this manner!

Therefore:

he arose,

Herod stood up,

and killed all the Rabbis,

he killed all the Sages .

He left alive

he left alive

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

so that he could seek his advice.