Bava Batra 99a (צט.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

This teaches us: below

the cherubim is

like above

them.

Just as above,

just as the twenty cubits above the cherubim

serve no purpose,

containing nothing and being merely empty space,

so too below, they serve no purpose.

Thus, the ten cubits below the cherubim were entirely empty space. And the Ark and the cherubim [of Solomon] occupied no space at all, by way of a miracle.

And this is the meaning of the verse, which states that its height was twenty cubits: that is, all thirty cubits of its height were like the upper twenty cubits above the level of the cherubim, which were entirely empty space.

And this verse

supports Rabbi Levi.

As Rabbi Levi said—and some say it was Rabbi Yohanan: We have this tradition from our fathers: the place occupied by the Ark and the cherubim is not included in the measure.

They diminished nothing from the measure of the empty space of the Holy of Holies.

It was taught likewise: The Ark that Moses made had

ten cubits of space on every side.

That is, there remained ten cubits between it and the walls on every side.

It follows that the Ark occupied no space at all, for the entire Holy of Holies was only twenty cubits 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 occupied no space at all.

As it is stated

in Kings [I, 6:24]: “

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

[the other wing of that same cherub],

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

And likewise with the second cherub, which stood beside it across the width in a straight line. It follows that the wings alone of the two cherubim 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 there room for them?

Rather, conclude from this

that the bodies of the cherubim

stood by means of a miracle.

Abaye raised an objection to this: But perhaps

there was no miracle there at all, because

they stood with their bodies protruding like chickens.

That is, the bodies of the cherubim were not between the wings; rather, the wings were joined to one another, while the entire body protruded from between them, as with chickens, whose wings extend from a single point in the middle of the back?

Rava raised an objection to this:

Even if the wings did not extend like those of chickens, there still would have been no miracle there, because the cherubim

stood not directly opposite one another.

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

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov raised an objection to this: But perhaps they stood diagonally.

The cherubim were indeed adjacent to one another along the same line, but they stood diagonally across the room rather than in a straight line, leaving room for their bodies [since a diagonal is longer than the length]!?

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

even if the cherubim stood directly opposite one another in a straight line, there was nevertheless room for their bodies, because

a house is wider above.

At the level of the wings, the room was wider than twenty cubits, since the walls became progressively narrower toward the top?

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

with the ends of the wings slightly bent, leaving room for the bodies of the cherubim?

Rav Ashi raised an objection to this: But perhaps they overlapped one another,

as the wings were not spread out but embraced one another, and they did not occupy the entire twenty cubits of the room. And from where do we know that there was any miracle at all?

And we inquire about this:

How did the cherubim stand,

both those of Moses and those of Solomon?

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar disagreed:

One said: Their faces

were

toward one another.

And one said: Their faces

were

toward the House,

facing the interior of the House.

And we object: But according to the one who says that

their faces were toward one another, is it not written

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

And their faces were toward the House,”

and presumably Moses’ cherubim were likewise?

And we answer:

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

they stand face-to-face, like a male and female who love one another, signifying that the Holy One, blessed be He, loves Israel.

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

they turn their faces toward the interior of the House.

And we inquire about this: 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 toward one another,”

and presumably Solomon’s cherubim were likewise?

And we answer:

They were turned partially to either side,

so that their faces were partly toward the House and partly toward one another, like a person speaking with his fellow who turns his head slightly to the side.

As it was taught: Onkelos the Convert said: The cherubim—“

the work of young children”

[there, verse 10]

they are.

They had the faces of children [from the term meaning offspring] and

turned their faces as does a student taking leave of his teacher,

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

Mishna:

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

within his fellow’s house, because they had divided their partnership in this manner: one took the house and the other took the cistern; or because he purchased the cistern from the owner of the house together with the path leading to it,

cannot enter there whenever he wishes; rather,

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

That is, only during the daytime, for this was the basis on which they divided the property: that the owner of the house would not have to rise from his bed at night to open the way for him.

And he may not bring

his

animal

there

and water

it

from his cistern,

since it is possible to water it in another manner;

rather, he fills

water from the cistern

and waters

his animal

from outside.

And this one makes a lock for him.

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

And this one makes a lock for him.

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

Gemara:

And we inquire about this:

The lock,

the lock made by the owner of the house,

where,

where does he make it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: Both of them make it for the cistern.

The lock made by the owner of the house is also for the cistern.

And we inquire about this:

Granted, the owner of the cistern needs to protect the water of his cistern.

He wishes to protect his water, and therefore he makes a lock for his cistern.

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

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