Eruvin 14a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised this concerning what is stated in the Mishna, that although it is necessary that it be wide enough to receive a tile, it is sufficient for the beam to be wide

a handbreadth:

But

a handbreadth and a half is required,

the width of a tile?!

And we answer:

Since it is wide

enough

to receive a handbreadth

of the tile, it suffices!

Since

the other half-handbreadth

is smeared

[spread, from the language of “brick”]

for it

on the beam

with plaster

[with mud]

something

[a fingerbreadth]

on this side

of the beam,

and something

[a fingerbreadth]

on this side

—which together are two fingerbreadths, which are half a handbreadth, and makes the beam equal to the tile—

and it stands

[and the tile stands].

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The beam of which they said must be strong enough to receive a tile.

And “the supports of the beam,”

those supporting the beam, such as when it does not rest upon the walls of the alley itself,

do not need to be strong enough to receive a beam and a tile

upon them.

Rather, it is sufficient that they be able to receive the beam alone, for one does not place a tile upon it.

And only concerning the beam do we require that it resemble a permanent structure, in order to build a structure upon it, so that it constitute a proper indication. But the indication is not dependent upon the supports.

And Rav Hisda said: Both this

—the beam,

and this

—the supports of the beam,

must be strong.

The beam must be strong enough to receive a tile.

And the supports

must be strong enough to receive a beam and a tile.

For if there is no indication in the supports of the beam, what benefit is there in the indication of the beam? Surely the supports will negate the indication [Rabbeinu Yonatan].

Rav Sheshet said: If one placed a beam upon an alley and spread a mat over it

in order that the mat should serve as a partition, because he wishes to strengthen further the power of the leniency of the beam,

and raised

the mat

three handbreadths

from the ground, so that it was a suspended partition—this invalidates the alley. [See illustration 1]

Because

there is no beam here,

and also

there is no partition here.

There is no beam here—

for it is covered

the beam is covered, and there is no indication here.

For even according to the one who says that the beam is due to a partition, a certain indication is necessary [Ritba].

A partition

also

is not here, for it is a partition

through which young goats pass

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

The Sages taught: A beam that projects from this wall

which is at the side of the entrance to the alley

and does not touch that wall

which is on the other side of the entrance to the alley. [See illustration 1]

And likewise, two beams, one projecting from this wall

of the alley,

and one projecting

opposite it

from this wall

which is on the other side of the entrance to the alley,

and they do not touch one another—

if the distance was

less than three

handbreadths,

it is not necessary to bring another beam.

For we say: lavud. [See illustration 2]

But if the distance was

three

handbreadths or more,

it is necessary to bring another beam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

who holds that lavud applies until less than four handbreadths—

says:

Less than four

handbreadths,

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

Four—

it is necessary to bring another beam.

And

likewise, two corresponding beams

lying beside one another like twins, when

neither this one

has a width

sufficient to receive a tile, nor this one

has a width

sufficient to receive a tile—

if they receive a tile across its width of one handbreadth

when they are adjacent to one another,

it is not necessary to bring another beam.

But if not,

that the two together are not one handbreadth wide,

it is necessary to bring another beam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says,

as a leniency: Even if the two beams together are not one handbreadth wide, and if one places a tile across its width upon both of them it does not stand,

if they receive a tile along its length of three

handbreadths,

it is not necessary to bring another beam.

That is, he distances them from one another and places a tile along its length upon them, provided that they are strong enough to receive the weight and length of a tile of three handbreadths. [See illustration 5]

But if not,

that they are not strong enough to receive it,

it is necessary to bring another beam.

If

the two beams were

one above and one below,

one ascending and the other descending,

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

For we say: havot rammi [lower the upper beam as though it were below, next to the other, similar to what we say above, page 9a].

And

also

[that is: or we view the]

lower one—

as though it were above,

for we say: gud asik. [See illustration 6]

Provided that the upper one is not higher than twenty cubits.

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

And

likewise the

lower

one must not be

lower than ten

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

And we explain:

Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who validates two beams, one above and one below, even though they are not strong enough to receive a tile as they stand, one here and one there,

holds

Rabbi Yosei

like his father

[Rabbi Yehuda]

in one matter, for he holds:

It is not necessary that the beam be strong; rather, even if it is made of straw or reeds,

we view

it as though it were made of metal.

And

however,

Rabbi Yosei disagrees

with Rabbi Yosei

concerning him

his father

in one matter.

For if Rabbi Yehuda

his father

held:

A beam is valid even

above twenty

cubits, as is stated at the beginning of our chapter.

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

no.

And as he said: Provided that the upper one is not higher than twenty cubits.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Wide, even though it is not strong.

He taught it

he was teaching

Rav Yehuda to Hiyya bar Rav, before

him,

Rav,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna:

Wide—

even though it is not strong!

Rav said to him

Rav to Rav Yehuda:

Teach him

[teach Hiyya, my son, his words of Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna in another wording]:

Wide and strong!

That is: Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree with the Sages at all, and concedes to them that it must be wide and strong.

And we object:

But Rabbi Ilaai said in the name of Rav

himself:

Wide four

handbreadths,

even though it is not strong.

And it entered our mind that he said two things:

a. The beam must be four handbreadths wide.

b. It is not necessary that it be strong.

And now Rav contradicts Rav;

For here Rav says that it need not be strong, while above he says that even according to Rabbi Yehuda it must be strong?!

And we answer: This is what Rabbi Ilaai said in the name of Rav: If the beam was four handbreadths wide, it is valid even though it is not strong.

A width of four is different!

And the words of the Rabbis, who require that it be strong, were said concerning one that is not four handbreadths wide.

And the statement of Rabbi Ilaai in the name of Rav can also accord with the Rabbis. [See illustration 1]

We learned in the Mishna:

It was made of straw

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

And we wonder:

What does it teach us by saying “we view”?

But

this is the same thing

that the tanna taught initially: “Wide even though it is not strong,” for we view it as though it were strong.

And we answer:

Lest you say

specifically

with its kind

of beam, which is ordinarily strong,

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

But where he made it

not of its kind

of beam, which is ordinarily strong—and for example, he made a beam of straw or reeds—one might say that in such a case

we do not say “we view.”

It teaches us

that in every circumstance we say “we view”!

We learned in the Mishna:

A crooked one, we view it as though it were straight.

And we wonder:

Is it obvious!?

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

And we answer: The Mishna

teaches us in accordance with Rabbi Zeira:

For Rabbi Zeira said:

A beam part of which was made like an arch, and he laid it upon the walls of the alley, and

it

[the beam itself]

was within the alley, while its curvature

the part made like an arch projected

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

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

it was within twenty

cubits of the floor of the alley,

while its curvature was above twenty

cubits from its floor. [Illustration 2]

Or it was

above ten

handbreadths,

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

For in all these cases, the curvature itself is outside the place where a beam is valid.

We view: If, were its

curvature

removed

from it—the curvature located outside the place where a beam is valid—and only that part located in the valid place would remain,

and between this and that

between the two ends of the beam after its curvature was removed,

there are three

handbreadths—

it is not necessary to bring another beam,

for we say lavud, and it is as though the beam had been lengthened in a straight line and not as an arch.

And

if not,

that there are three handbreadths between the two ends,

it is necessary to bring another beam!

And we still wonder:

Is this also obvious!

And we answer:

“It was within the alley while its curvature was outside the alley”

was necessary for it

for the Mishna to teach us.

For

lest you say that we should decree to invalidate it, because

we should be concerned that perhaps

he will come to follow after it

[to follow and carry until the end of the curvature outside the alley].

It teaches us

that we are not concerned.

We learned in the Mishna:

Round—

we view it as though it were square.

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

why do I need this further statement?!

And we answer:

The latter clause was necessary

to teach us:

Anything whose circumference is three handbreadths—

has a width of one handbreadth.

And

from where are these words

this rule derived?

Rabbi Yohanan said: The verse says, “And he made

Hiram, for the construction of the Temple of Solomon,

the Sea,

a large immersion pool for the immersion of the kohanim,

cast,

by casting and not by hammering,

ten cubits

its width

from its rim to its rim, 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 object:

But there is

also the width of

its rim!

For it entered our mind that the verse speaks of the circumference of the Sea on the outside, and since its width was ten cubits on the inside, it follows that if one adds the thickness of its rim, 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 bottom of its walls below, and its base, Rashi, Kings]—

a handbreadth.

And its rim

[at the height of the Sea, beside its opening]—

like the work of a cup of a lily

[extremely thin, like a lily blossom [rose].

Two thousand baths

[a bath-measure of three seahs]

it could contain

the Sea.”

And nevertheless, we wonder:

But there is

in its width this

something

of the thickness of its walls on both sides, and it follows that the calculation is not exact?!

And we answer:

When the verse calculated

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

from the inside

[its circumference on the inside]

it calculated. And there its width was ten cubits, which is one third of its circumference.

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

Rabbi Hiyya taught: The Sea that Solomon made could contain one hundred and fifty ritual immersion pools.

And we object:

Since

the measure of

a ritual immersion pool—what is it? —

Forty seahs.