Bava Batra 99a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

This teaches us: below

the cherubim

is like above

them.

Just as above,

just as the space of the twenty cubits above the cherubim

serves no purpose,

there is nothing in it, and it is merely empty space,

so too below, it serves no purpose.

Thus, the ten cubits below the cherubim were all empty space. And the Ark and the cherubim [of Solomon] did not occupy any space at all by way of a miracle.

And this is the intent of the verse: “its height was twenty cubits,” meaning that all thirty cubits of the height were like the upper twenty above the edge of the cherubim, which were all empty space.

And this verse

supports Rabbi Levi.

For Rabbi Levi said—and some say Rabbi Yohanan: We have this matter as a tradition in our hands from our forefathers: the place of the Ark and the cherubim is not included in the measure.

They did not diminish anything from the measure of the empty space of the Holy of Holies.

It was also taught likewise: The Ark that Moses made had

ten cubits of space on every side.

For ten cubits of space remained between it and the walls on every side.

It follows that the Ark did not occupy any space at all, for the entire Holy of Holies was only twenty by twenty cubits.

Ravina said in the name of Shmuel: The cherubim

of Solomon

stood by means of a miracle.

For the bodies of the cherubim did not occupy any space at all.

As it is stated

in Kings [I Kings 6:24]: “

And five cubits was the wing of the one cherub, and five cubits was the wing of the second cherub

the second wing of that cherub,

ten cubits from the end of its wings to the end of its wings.”

And likewise with the second cherub that stood beside it across the width, in a straight line. It follows that the wings alone of both of them occupied twenty cubits, which was the entire space of the Holy of Holies.

If so,

their bodies,

the bodies of the cherubim,

where did they stand?

How was space left for them?

Rather, conclude from it

that the bodies of the cherubim

stood by means of a miracle.

Abaye raised an objection to it: But perhaps

there was no miracle there at all, because

they stood with their wings protruding like roosters.

For the bodies of the cherubim were not between the wings; rather, the wings were attached to one another, and the entire body protruded and extended out from between them, like roosters, whose wings emerge from one place in the middle of the back?

Rava raised an objection to it:

Even if the wings were not like those of roosters, nevertheless there was no miracle there, because the cherubim

stood not opposite one another.

For they did not stand in a straight line; rather, one was farther inward than the other, so that there was also room for the bodies of the cherubim?

Rav Aha bar Yaakov raised an objection to it: But perhaps they stood diagonally.

For the cherubim were indeed adjacent to one another along the same line, but they stood diagonally across the House and not in a straight line, and room remained for the bodies of the cherubim [for the diagonal is longer than the length]!?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to it: But perhaps

even if the cherubim stood directly opposite one another, nevertheless room remained for the bodies of the cherubim, because

the House was wider above.

Above, at the level of the wings, the House was wider than twenty cubits, for the walls became narrower as they went upward?

Rav Pappa raised an objection to it: But perhaps their hands were bent inward,

the ends of the wings being slightly bent, and room remained for the bodies of the cherubim?

Rav Ashi raised an objection to it: But perhaps they were overlapping,

for the wings were not spread out; rather, one embraced the other, and they did not occupy the entire twenty cubits of the House. And from where do we know that there was any miracle there at all?

And we considered it:

How did they stand,

the cherubim, both those of Moses and those of Solomon?

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree:

One said: Their faces

were

one toward the other.

And one said: Their faces

were

toward the House,

toward the interior of the House.

And we object: But according to the one who says

“their faces were one toward the other,” is it not written

concerning Solomon’s cherubim [II Chronicles 3:13]: “

And their faces were toward the House,”

and presumably Moses’ cherubim were also so?

And we answer:

It is not difficult: Here, when Israel perform the will of the Omnipresent,

then they stand face to face, like a male and a female who love one another, a sign that the Holy One, blessed is He, loves Israel.

Here, when Israel do not perform the will of the Omnipresent,

then they turn their faces toward the interior of the House.

And we considered it:

But according to the one who says, “and their faces were toward the House,” is it not

written

concerning Moses’ cherubim [Exodus 25:20]: “

And their faces were one toward the other,”

and presumably it was also so with Solomon’s cherubim?

And we answer:

They were turned somewhat to the side,

with their faces partly toward the House and partly one toward the other, like a person speaking with his fellow and turning his head slightly to the side.

For it was taught: Onkelos the convert said: The cherubim—“

the work of young forms”

[there, verse 10]

they are.

They had the faces of young children [from the term “offspring”]

and turned their faces like a student taking leave of his teacher,

who steps backward with his face toward his teacher, turned slightly to the side.

Mishna:

One who has a pit inside his fellow’s house,

within his fellow’s house, for so they divided the partnership between them: this one took the house and that one took the pit; or he purchased the pit from the owner of the house together with the path by which to reach the pit,

may not enter there at every time that he wishes, but

he enters at the time when people customarily enter, and leaves at the time when people customarily leave.

That is, only during the daytime hours, for they divided it between them on this condition: that the owner of the house would not have to rise from his bed at night to open it for him.

And he does not bring

his

animal

there,

and water

it

from his pit,

for it is possible to water it in another manner;

rather, he draws

water from the pit

and waters

his animal

from outside.

And this one makes a key for him.

The owner of the pit makes a lock for the pit, so that the owner of the house will not steal his water from him.

And this one makes a key for him.

The owner of the house also makes a lock. And the Gemara will immediately explain where he makes the lock and why he makes it.

Gemara:

And we considered it:

A key,

the lock that the owner of the house makes,

where,

where does he make it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: Both of them are for the pit.

The lock of the owner of the house is also for the pit.

And we considered it:

Granted, the owner of the pit needs to guard the water of his pit.

He wishes to guard his water; therefore he makes a lock for his pit.

But the owner of the house—why does he need it?

Why does he make a lock for his fellow’s pit?