Eruvin 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We considered the statement in the Mishna that although the crossbeam must be wide enough to support a brick, it is sufficient for the crossbeam to be wide

a handbreadth:

But

it requires a handbreadth and a half,

the width of a brick?!

And we answer:

Since it is wide

enough

to support a handbreadth

of the brick, that is sufficient!

Since

the other half-handbreadth

is smeared [with mortar, from the term for brick]

with mortar,

onto it,

the crossbeam,

with mortar [mud]

that is, clay,

a little [a fingerbreadth]

the width of a finger,

on this side

of the crossbeam,

and a little [a fingerbreadth]

the width of a finger,

on this side,

which together amount to two fingerbreadths, i.e., half a handbreadth, and make the crossbeam equivalent to a brick,

and it stands [the brick].

that is, the brick remains standing.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The crossbeam of which they said must be sturdy enough to support a brick.

And the “supports of the crossbeam,”

the supports of the crossbeam, for example, when it does not rest directly on the walls of the mavoi

need not be sturdy enough to support the crossbeam and the brick

upon them.

Rather, it is sufficient that they be able to support the crossbeam alone, since a brick is not placed upon it.

It is only regarding the crossbeam that we require it to resemble a permanent structure, so that a structure could be built upon it and it would constitute a clear indication. But the indication does not depend upon the supports.

And Rav Hisda said: Both this one

the crossbeam,

and this one

the supports of the crossbeam,

must be sturdy.

The crossbeam must be sturdy enough to support a brick,

and the supports

must be sturdy enough to support the crossbeam and the brick.

For if there is no indication in the supports of the crossbeam, what benefit is there in the indication of the crossbeam? The supports would negate the indication [Rabbeinu Yonatan].

Rav Sheshet said: If one placed a crossbeam atop a mavoi and spread a mat over it

so that the mat would serve as a partition, as he wishes to enhance further the crossbeam’s permissive force,

and raised

the mat

three

handbreadths above the ground, so that it became a suspended partition—this invalidates the mavoi. [See illustration 1]

Because

there is no crossbeam here,

and also

there is no partition here.

There is no crossbeam here—

for it is covered,

the crossbeam is covered, and there is no indication.

For even according to the one who says that the crossbeam functions as a partition, some indication is required [Ritva].

There is also no partition

here,

for it is a partition

through which young goats can pass

from beneath the partition, and in every such case it is not a partition.

The Sages taught: If a crossbeam projects from this wall

on the side of the entrance to the mavoi,

but does not touch that wall

on the other side of the entrance to the mavoi. [See illustration 1]

And likewise, in the case of two crossbeams, one projecting from this wall

of the mavoi,

and one projecting

opposite it

from that wall

on the other side of the entrance to the mavoi,

and they do not touch one another,

if the distance

is less than three

handbreadths,

it is not necessary to bring another crossbeam.

For we apply the principle of lavud. [See illustration 2]

But if the distance

is three

handbreadths or more,

it is necessary to bring another crossbeam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

who holds that lavud applies up to less than four handbreadths—

says:

If it is less than four

handbreadths,

it is not necessary to bring another crossbeam. [See illustrations 3 and 4]

If it is four—

it is necessary to bring another crossbeam.

And

similarly, in the case of two matching crossbeams

lying next to one another like twins, when

neither this one

is wide

enough to support a brick, nor that one

is wide

enough to support a brick—

if they can support a brick across its width

when they are adjacent to one another,

it is not necessary to bring another crossbeam.

But if not,

if together they are not a handbreadth wide,

it is necessary to bring another crossbeam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says,

as a leniency: Even if the two crossbeams together are not a handbreadth wide, and if a brick is placed across them by its width it will not stand,

if they can support a brick along its length, three

handbreadths,

it is not necessary to bring another crossbeam.

That is, one separates them from one another and places a brick upon them along its length, provided that they are sturdy enough to support the weight and length of a brick measuring three handbreadths. [See illustration 5]

But if not,

if they are not sturdy enough to support it,

it is necessary to bring another crossbeam.

If

the two crossbeams were

one above and one below,

one ascending and the other descending,

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: We view the upper one as though it were below.

For we apply the principle of ḥavut rammi [lower the upper crossbeam as though it were alongside the other one, similar to the statement above, page 9a].

And

the [that is, alternatively, we view the [Ritva, Rashi, Sukka 22b]]

that is, alternatively, we view the

lower one as

though it were above,

for we apply the principle of gud asik. [See illustration 6]

Provided that the upper one is not more than twenty cubits high.

For if the crossbeam is placed more than twenty cubits high, it is invalid, as stated above at the beginning of our chapter.

And

likewise the

lower

must not be

below ten

handbreadths [for there is no partition at less than ten handbreadths, Rashi, Sukka 22b].

And we explain:

Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

who validates two crossbeams, one above and one below, even though as they stand—one here and one there—they are not sturdy enough to support a brick,

holds

Rabbi Yosei

like his father [Rabbi Yehuda]

Rabbi Yehuda

in one matter, for he holds:

The crossbeam need not be sturdy; even if it is made of straw or reeds,

we view

it as though it were made of metal.

But

nevertheless,

Rabbi Yosei differs

Rabbi Yosei

from him

his father

in one matter.

For Rabbi Yehuda,

his father,

holds:

A crossbeam is valid even

above twenty

cubits, as stated at the beginning of our chapter.

But Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda holds: Within twenty, yes; above twenty—

no.

As he said: Provided that the upper one is not above twenty cubits.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be wide even though it is not sturdy.

He taught it

he was teaching

Rav Yehuda to Ḥiyya bar Rav, in the presence

of

Rav,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna:

Wide—

even though it is not sturdy!

Rav said to him,

Rav to Rav Yehuda:

Teach him [teach my son Ḥiyya my words in the Mishna in a different formulation]:

the words of Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna in a different wording:

Wide and sturdy!

That is: Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree with the Sages at all, but agreed with them that it must be both wide and sturdy.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Ila'i said that Rav

himself said:

It may be four

handbreadths wide,

even though it is not sturdy.

And it initially entered our minds that he stated two separate points:

a. The crossbeam must be four handbreadths wide.

b. It need not be sturdy.

Now Rav’s statements contradict one another:

Here Rav says that it need not be sturdy, whereas above he says that even according to Rabbi Yehuda it must be sturdy?!

And we answer: This is what Rabbi Ila'i said in the name of Rav: If the crossbeam was four handbreadths wide, it is valid even though it is not sturdy.

Being four handbreadths wide is different!

The statement of the Rabbis that it must be sturdy was said with regard to one that is not four handbreadths wide.

And the statement of Rabbi Ila'i in the name of Rav can accord even with the Rabbis. [See illustration 1]

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was made of straw

or reeds, we view it as though it were made of metal.

And we ask:

What does it teach us by saying, “We view”?

But

isn’t this the same thing

that the tanna taught at the beginning: “It may be wide even though it is not sturdy”? For we view it as though it were sturdy.

And we answer:

Lest you say

that specifically

with regard to its own material,

which is ordinarily sturdy,

we say “we view.” That is, only if it was made of wood, then even if it is thin the crossbeam is valid, since a wooden crossbeam is ordinarily sturdy; therefore we view even the thin crossbeam as though it were sturdy.

But where he made it

not of its ordinary material,

such as a crossbeam made of straw or reeds, which is not ordinarily sturdy—say that in such a case

we do not say “we view.”

It teaches us

that in every case we say “we view”!

We learned in the Mishna:

A bent one is viewed as though it were straight.

And we ask:

Isn’t it obvious?!

Since at the beginning it taught “we view,” here too we say “we view”?!

And we answer: The Mishna

teaches us the principle stated by Rabbi Zeira:

For Rabbi Zeira said:

A crossbeam part of which is shaped like an arch was placed upon the walls of the mavoi, and

it

the crossbeam itself

was within the mavoi, while its curve,

the section shaped like an arch, projected

outside the mavoi in front of it. [See illustration 1]

Or, he placed it upon the walls of the mavoi, and

it was within twenty

cubits of the floor of the mavoi,

while its curve was above twenty

cubits above its floor. [Illustration 2]

Or it was

above ten

handbreadths,

while its curve was below ten. [See illustration 3]

In all these cases, the curved portion itself is outside the area in which a crossbeam is valid.

We view it: If its

curved portion

were removed

the part located outside the area in which a crossbeam is valid, leaving only the portion located within the valid area,

and between this and that

between the two ends of the crossbeam after its curve was removed

there are three

handbreadths,

it is not necessary to bring another crossbeam,

for we apply lavud, and it is as though the crossbeam extended in a straight line rather than in an arch.

But

if not,

if there are three handbreadths between the two ends,

it is necessary to bring another crossbeam!

And we still ask:

Isn’t this also obvious?!

And we answer:

“It was within the mavoi while its curve was outside the mavoi”

was necessary

for the Mishna to teach us.

For

lest you say that we should decree that it is invalid, because

we should be concerned

we should be concerned lest one come to follow after it [to continue carrying until the end of the curve outside the mavoi].

and continue carrying until the end of the curved portion outside the alley,

It teaches us

that we are not concerned about this.

We learned in the Mishna:

A round one—

is viewed as though it were square.

And we ask: Since the Mishna already taught something similar,

why do I need this additional statement?!

And we answer:

The latter clause was necessary

to teach us:

Whatever has a circumference of three handbreadths

has a width of one handbreadth.

And

from where are these words derived,

this rule?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states: “And he made

Hiram, for the construction of Solomon’s Temple,

the Sea,

a large immersion pool for the immersion of the priests,

cast,

made by casting rather than by hammering,

ten cubits

in its width

from one rim to the other, round all around, and its height was five cubits,

and a line of thirty cubits encircled it all around.”

Thus the round Sea, whose width was ten cubits, had a circumference three times as great!

And we challenge this:

But there is also

the

width of its rim!

For it initially entered our minds that the verse speaks of the circumference of the Sea on the outside; and since its width was ten cubits on the inside, once the thickness of its rim is added, the circumference would be greater than three times its width?!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: The width of

its rim

was extremely thin.

For

“the rim of a lily”

is written concerning it. For

it is written:

“And its thickness

the thickness of the lower part of its walls, and its bottom, Rashi, Kings

was a handbreadth.

And its rim

at the height of the Sea, beside its opening

was fashioned like the rim of a cup, like a lily

very thin, like a lily [a rose].

Two thousand baths

a bath being a measure of three seah

it could contain,

the Sea.”

Nevertheless, we ask:

But there is

in this width

a little

of the thickness of its walls on both sides, so the calculation does not precisely fit?!

And we answer:

When the verse calculated

“and a line of thirty cubits encircled it all around,” the verse was not referring to the outer circumference of the Sea. Rather,

from the inside

its circumference

it calculated.

There its width was ten cubits, which is one-third of its circumference.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: The Sea that Solomon made could contain one hundred fifty ritual baths.

And we challenge this:

Now,

the measure of

a ritual bath—what is it? \-

Forty seah.