Eruvin 14b — the Talmud in English

As it was taught:

it is written

“And he shall wash ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

in water all his flesh”

[the version according to the Gemara, Pesachim 109a], and we expound:

“In water” —

in the water of a ritual bath,

and not in living water. For “water” signifies water joined together and gathered together.

“All” his flesh,

since it did not write “his flesh,” it implies —

water in which his entire body rises

[so that it is not visible, but is entirely covered by it. Rashi, Pesachim 109a].

And how much is that?

One cubit by one cubit

in a square,

in height

[in height]

three cubits.

And the Sages estimated

the

water of a ritual bath

to be

forty seah.

And according to this calculation,

how many

cubic cubits [one cubit by one cubit by one cubit]

would there be

in Solomon’s Sea, which was ten cubits by ten cubits, with a height of five cubits [if the Sea had been made square]?

Five hundred square cubits

— five hundred cubic cubits [one cubit by one cubit by one cubit]! And this is the calculation: First, divide it into ten strips.

There are for each strip ten cubits in length, one cubit in width, and five in height.

Cut it into pieces of one cubit by one cubit by five.

There are one hundred pieces of one cubit by one cubit by five.

Place the pieces one upon another, and you have five hundred times one cubit by one cubit by one cubit.

And now go out and calculate how many ritual baths of purity there are in five hundred square cubits, when it is known that one cubit by one cubit by three cubits is a ritual bath of purity!

And the calculation will come out for you:

For three hundred

square cubits:

one hundred

ritual baths of purity, for every three of them constitute one ritual bath!

For one hundred and fifty

square cubits:

fifty

ritual baths of purity!

Thus, from four hundred and fifty square cubits, there are already one hundred and fifty ritual baths of purity.

And let it be challenged:

with four hundred and fifty

square cubits

it is sufficient!

And if so, in Solomon’s Sea, which had another fifty square cubits, there should have been more than one hundred and fifty ritual baths of purity?!

And we answer:

This applies

[that there could have been more than four hundred and fifty ritual baths in Solomon’s Sea] if the Sea had been made

in a square,

in the form of a square.

But

the Sea that Solomon made —

it was round,

and contained less.

And we still wonder:

Granted,

behold

how much

is the area of the

square greater than

the area of

the circle

within the square? [That is: a circle whose diameter equals the side of the square]?

A quarter

of the square surrounding it.

That is to say: the area of the circle equals three quarters of the area of the square.

And likewise, the volume of a round sphere is less by a quarter than the volume of the square shell enclosing it.

It follows that

for four hundred

square cubits “as it were,” in Solomon’s Sea [if it had been square], there are

one hundred

ritual baths.

For since the volume of the circle is three quarters of the volume of the square enclosing it, from four hundred square cubits “as it were,” one must subtract a quarter, and three hundred square cubits remain, which are one hundred ritual baths.

And

for one hundred

square cubits “as it were,” there are

twenty-five

ritual baths, for the one hundred square cubits “as it were” are only seventy-five square cubits [after we subtracted a quarter], which are twenty-five ritual baths.

And now let it be challenged:

these —

one hundred ritual baths, and another twenty-five ritual baths —

one hundred and twenty-five

ritual baths בלבד

would there be

in Solomon’s Sea, which was round; and how did you say that the Sea held one hundred and fifty ritual baths of purity?!

And we answer:

Rami bar Yehezkel taught: The Sea that Solomon made—the lower three cubits

[out of a height of five cubits]

were square

and

the

only

upper two were round

.

Thus, in the three lower square cubits, which are three hundred square cubits, there are one hundred ritual baths of one cubit by one cubit by three cubits.

And in these two upper cubits, if they had been square, there would have been two hundred square cubits.

And since they were round, you have only one hundred and fifty square cubits, which are fifty times one cubit by one cubit by three cubits, the measure of a ritual bath.

There you have it: one hundred and fifty ritual baths, which Solomon’s Sea contained.

And we wonder:

Granted that conversely

the three lower cubits were round and the two upper ones square,

you cannot say

that this was the form of the Sea, and then it would not contain one hundred and fifty ritual baths, because

“its rim”

is written “round.”

Rather,

in any event let it be challenged: from where do we know that the two cubits were round?

Say

only

one

cubit alone was round, while the rest was square, and the Sea held more than one hundred and fifty ritual baths?!

And we answer:

It does not enter your mind

that the Sea contained more than one hundred and fifty ritual baths of forty seah.

For it is written

regarding Solomon’s Sea:

“It held two thousand bat.”

“A bat”—how much is it —

three seah,

for it is written

“a tenth

— a tenth is the measure of

the bat

of the kor,

which is thirty seah.”

So there would be

these two thousand measures of “bat” —

six thousand geriva

[a measure the size of a seah. According to the Arukh], the measure of one hundred and fifty ritual baths of forty seah.

And we wonder: Here it is written in the verse that Solomon’s Sea “held two thousand bat.”

But it is written

another verse concerning Solomon’s Sea, that it

“held

measures of

bat

three thousand”?!

And we answer:

That

remaining thousand was

for the heap,

for the heap accumulating above the rim of the vessel when you place a dry substance in the vessel.

That is to say: the first verse refers to the measure of a liquid, and the latter verse to the measure of a dry substance.

Abaye said: Learn from this

that we see that Solomon’s Sea held two thousand units of liquid “bat,” whereas with dry material—because of the heap—it held three thousand bat:

This heap

of a vessel:

three

[a third, from the outside]

it is.

That is to say: the addition of the heap is one third of the original, together with the addition of the heap.

And we also learned

that the heap of such a vessel is one third:

For we learned: A wooden vessel contracts impurity only when it is of such a measure that it can be carried both when full and when empty.

But a large wooden vessel, which cannot be carried, does not contract impurity.

Therefore:

A chest,

which is like a box in a wagon for the riding of important women.

A box

before a money changer [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura].

And a tower,

which is a wooden storage house [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura].

A straw beehive

[made from the ends of ears of grain]

and a reed beehive.

And the hold

of an

Alexandrian ship,

in which they make a wooden receptacle like a pit and put fresh water there.

Even though they have broad bottoms

[a base], and not pointed ones [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura], and they are made like a vessel.

And they,

if they were of a size that

held forty seah when liquid, which are two kor

[sixty seah]

when dry —

behold, they are

pure,

because they are excessively large and the status of a vessel does not apply to them, for they cannot be carried when full and when empty.

For if they carry them when full, they will break in the hands of the people carrying them.

Thus we see from this Mishna, which teaches: A vessel that holds forty seah when liquid holds two kor when dry—that the heap is one third!

Mishna:

The side-posts that they said,

which permit carrying in the alleyway — must have

a height of ten handbreadths.

And their width and thickness may be any amount.

Rabbi Yose says: Their width

[the side of the side-post that blocks the entrance of the alleyway]

is three handbreadths.

And their thickness may be any amount.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“The side-posts that they said.”

And we raised a question about it:

Let us say,

since it teaches “side-posts” in the plural,

we learn

here

an anonymous

Mishna

like Rabbi Eliezer, who says:

two

side-posts are required

for the permitting of an alleyway, and one is not sufficient [and earlier the Sages disagreed with him]?

And we reject this:

No,

it is not Rabbi Eliezer!

Rather,

what is the meaning of “side-posts”

that it teaches in the plural?

It is not because two side-posts are required. Rather, the tanna is speaking of

side-posts

that are in all alleyways

in general,

that is to say: every side-post that they make in alleyways must have a height of ten handbreadths.

And we challenge:

If so,

in the first part of this Mishna [above, 14a], where it teaches

“The beam

that they said,”

should it also teach “beams”?

And

the explanation would be as here:

What is the meaning of “beams” —

beams in general?!

And therefore we answer with another resolution:

This is what he is saying,

the tanna in our Mishna:

Those side-posts concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed

— for Rabbi Eliezer two are required, whereas for the Sages one is sufficient —

their height is ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness may be any amount. And now the anonymous Mishna is established neither specifically according to one nor according to the other.

And we explain the Mishna:

And how much is “any amount”?

Rabbi Hiyya taught: Even like the thread of a cloak,

which they tie with it at the collar of the cloak.

A tanna taught: If one made a side-post for half an alleyway,

and did not place it at the entrance of the alleyway, but placed it inside the alleyway at the midpoint of its length,

he has

no permission to carry

except

in

half

of the

alleyway

inside. [See illustration 1]

And we wonder:

It is obvious,

that beyond half the alleyway “he has no permission”?!

And therefore we explain:

Rather, say

that the principal novelty is that

“he has” half an alleyway,

but the half outside the side-post, it is obvious that he has no permission!

And we wonder:

This too is obvious!

And we answer: It is a novelty! For

lest you say

that we should decree that one may not use even from the side-post inward,

because perhaps he will come to use the entire

alleyway.

It teaches us

that we do not decree this!

Rava said: If one made a side-post for an alleyway and raised it three

handbreadths from the ground. [See illustration 2]

Or if he moved it away from

the wall

of the alleyway toward the width of the entrance of the alleyway —

three

handbreadths. [Illustration 3]

He has done nothing.

handbreadths. [Illustration 3]

And even according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says

everywhere:

we apply the principle of lavud

up to four handbreadths, here it is ineffective.

For

these words apply above,

such as with regard to a beam [above, on this page],

but below, since it is a partition through which young goats pass, he did not say

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that it is effective!

For wherever the kid can enter comfortably, that itself removes it from the status of lavud.

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s principle is effective.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yose says, their width of the side-posts

is three handbreadths:

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not according to Rabbi Yose, neither

with regard to what he said

concerning brine

[a small amount of salted water, which Rabbi Yose forbids making on Shabbat],

nor

with regard to what he said—in our Mishna—

concerning side-posts.

Rav Huna bar Hinena said to Rav Yosef,

who had become ill and forgotten his learning:

With regard to brine you told us

before you became ill that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Yose, but

with regard to side-posts you did not tell us.

And I do not know why.

What is different about brine

that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Yose? Because

the Sages disagreed with him.

But with regard to

side-posts too, the Sages disagreed with him?!

He said to him

Rav Yosef:

Side-posts are different, because Rabbi Yehuda the Patriarch stands according to him,

Rabbi Yose — as we said above, 10a and 12a — and therefore the halakha is according to him!

Rav Rahumi taught it in this manner: Rav Yehuda son of Rav Shmuel

Rabbi Yosei—as we said above, on pages 10a and 12a—and therefore the halakha follows him!

son of Sheilat

said in the name of Rav: The halakha is not according to Rabbi Yose, neither concerning brine nor concerning side-posts,

even though in both cases his reasoning is more plausible [Ritva].

They said to Rav Rahumi

[Ritva]:

Did you say so?!

That is to say: Do you indeed say that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Yose, neither concerning brine nor concerning side-posts?

He said to them

Rav Rahumi:

No,

and the halakha is according to Rabbi Yose in both of them, for he denied his words since he retracted [Ritva].

Rava said: By God!

By oath, for he

said

so.

And I learned it from him

[and I learned from him as he initially said]. Rather, he retracted.

And for what reason did he retract?

Because Rabbi Yose’s reason is with him,

its explanation is with him, to provide a reason for all his words, for he would establish his words.

Rava bar Rav Hanan said to Abaye: What is the halakha

concerning side-posts, according to Rabbi Yose or according to the Sages?

He said to him: Go out and see what the people do

[go out and see how the people have “conducted themselves”].

And they have already conducted themselves with a side-post of any amount.

[For we say “Rabbi Yose’s reason is with him” only where the majority do not disagree with him, whereas Rav Nissim thought that it applies even in a place where the majority disagree, Ran.]

There are those who teach this

statement of Abaye, who said: Go out and see what the people do,

with regard to this

that we learned:

One who drinks water for his thirst

[and not because he was choked by eating meat, for then he does not recite a blessing at all—Berakhot 45a],

says

before it the blessing

“that everything came to be by His word,”

and after drinking it he recites no blessing.

Rabbi Tarfon says:

he recites before it

“Who creates many living beings and their deficiencies, for all that You have created.”

And

Rav Hanan said to Abaye: What is the halakha

according to the first tanna or according to Rabbi Tarfon?

He said to him: Go out and see what the people do

[and they have already conducted themselves to recite at the beginning “that everything came to be,” and at the end “Who creates many living beings”—Rashi, Berakhot 45a].