Eruvin 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

As it is taught in a beraita:

it is written

“And he shall bathe

exact page location

in water all his flesh”

[The reading follows the Gemara in Pesachim 109a], and we expound:

“In water”—

in the waters of a ritual bath,

but not in spring water. For “water” implies water that is joined together and collected in one place.

“All” his flesh,

since it does not say merely “his flesh,” this implies

water in which his entire body can be immersed

[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 area,

with a height

of

three cubits.

And the Sages calculated

for

the waters of a ritual bath,

that they contain

forty se'a.

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 and five cubits high [if the Sea had been square]?

Five hundred garmidei

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

Each strip is ten cubits long, one cubit wide, and five cubits high.

Cut each into pieces one cubit by one cubit by five cubits.

There are now one hundred pieces, each one cubit by one cubit by five cubits.

Place the pieces one atop another, and you have five hundred units of one cubit by one cubit by one cubit.

Now calculate how many ritual baths are contained in five hundred garmidei, given that one cubit by one cubit by three cubits is the measure of a ritual bath!

The calculation is as follows:

For three hundred

garmidei:

one hundred

ritual baths, since every three of them constitute one ritual bath!

For one hundred and fifty

garmidei:

fifty

ritual baths!

Thus, from four hundred and fifty garmidei, there are already one hundred and fifty ritual baths.

But an objection may be raised:

four hundred and fifty

garmidei

is sufficient!

If so, since Solomon’s Sea contained another fifty garmidei, it should have contained more than one hundred and fifty ritual baths?!

And we answer:

That statement applies

if Solomon’s Sea could have contained more than four hundred and fifty ritual baths had the Sea been made

square,

in the shape of a square.

However,

the Sea that Solomon made

was round,

and held less.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

Granted,

then

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]?

One quarter

of the surrounding square.

In other words, the area of the circle equals three quarters of the area of the square.

Likewise, the volume of a round sphere is one quarter less than the volume of the square shell surrounding it.

It follows that

for four hundred

“square garmidei, so to speak,” in Solomon’s Sea [if it had been square], there are

one hundred

ritual baths.

Since the volume of the circle is three quarters of the volume of the square surrounding it, one must subtract one quarter from four hundred “square garmidei,” leaving three hundred garmidei, which equal one hundred ritual baths.

And

for one hundred

“square garmidei, so to speak,” there are

twenty-five

ritual baths, since the one hundred square units, so to speak, amount to only seventy-five garmidei [after subtracting one quarter], which equal twenty-five ritual baths.

The objection now arises:

these—

one hundred ritual baths, plus twenty-five ritual baths—

would amount to one hundred twenty-five

ritual baths בלבד

in all

in Solomon’s Sea, which was round. How, then, did you say that the Sea held one hundred and fifty ritual baths?!

And we answer:

Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: The three lower cubits of Solomon’s Sea

[out of its total height of five cubits]

were square,

and

the

only

two upper cubits were round

.

Thus, in the three lower cubits, which were square and contained three hundred garmidei, there were one hundred ritual baths of one cubit by one cubit by three cubits.

Had the two upper cubits also been square, they would have contained two hundred garmidei.

But since they were round, they contained only one hundred and fifty garmidei, which equal fifty units of one cubit by one cubit by three cubits, the measure of a ritual bath.

Thus, Solomon’s Sea held one hundred and fifty ritual baths.

The Gemara asks:

Although, if the reverse were true,

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

you could not say

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

“its rim”

“was round,” is written.

Rather,

the objection nevertheless remains: From where do we know that the two cubits were round?

Say that only

only

one

cubits was round, while the remainder was square, and that the Sea held more than one hundred and fifty ritual baths?!

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

that the Sea contained more than one hundred and fifty ritual baths of forty se'a.

As it is written

regarding Solomon’s Sea:

“It contained two thousand bat.”

How much is a bat?

Three se'a.

As it is written:

“A tenth—

a tenth, which is the measure of

the bat

of a kor,

which is thirty se'a.”

Thus they amounted

to these two thousand measures of “bat”—

six thousand gerivei

[a measure the size of a se'a, according to the Arukh], the measure of one hundred and fifty ritual baths of forty se'a.

The Gemara asks: Here, the verse states that Solomon’s Sea “contained two thousand bat.”

But it is written

in another verse concerning Solomon’s Sea that it

“held

measures of

baths

—three thousand”?!

And we answer:

That

additional thousand

was for the mound,

the heap that accumulates above the rim of a vessel when one places dry matter in it.

In other words, the first verse refers to the measure of liquid, while the second verse refers to the measure of dry matter.

Abaye said: Learn from this

that we see that Solomon’s Sea held two thousand units of liquid bat, whereas with dry matter, because of the mound, it held three thousand bat:

This mound

of a vessel

is one third

[one third externally]

of the vessel’s volume.

That is, the mound is one third of the vessel’s basic capacity, including the mound.

And we likewise learned

that the mound of such a vessel is one third:

For we learned in a Mishna: A wooden vessel contracts ritual impurity only when it is of a size that permits it to be carried both when full and when empty.

But a large wooden vessel that cannot be carried does not contract ritual impurity.

Therefore:

A shida,

which is a kind of chest on a carriage for transporting distinguished women,

a chest

placed before a money changer [Rabbenu Ovadya of Bertinoro],

and a tower,

which is a wooden storage house [Rabbenu Ovadya of Bertinoro],

a straw beehive

[made from the ends of ears of grain]

and a reed beehive,

and the cistern

of

an Alexandrian ship,

in which they make a wooden receptacle like a cistern and place fresh water in it,

even though they have broad bases

[bottoms], rather than pointed ones [Rabbenu Ovadya of Bertinoro], and are made like vessels.

And if they

were of a size such that they

held forty se'a of liquid, which is two kor measures

[sixty se'a]

of dry matter,

then

they are pure,

because they are excessively large and do not have the status of vessels, since they cannot be carried when full or empty.

For if they were carried when full, they would break in the hands of those carrying them.

We see, then, from this Mishna, which teaches that a vessel holding forty se'a of liquid holds two kor of dry matter, that the mound is one third!

Mishna:

The side posts that they stated,

which permit carrying in the alleyway, must have

a height of ten handbreadths.

And their width and thickness may be any amount.

Rabbi Yosei says: Their width,

[the side of the post that seals the entrance of the alleyway], must be

three handbreadths.

And its thickness may be any amount.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“The side posts that they stated.”

The Gemara discusses this:

Let us say,

since it teaches “side posts” in the plural,

we learned

here

an anonymous

Mishna

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who said:

two

side posts are required

to permit carrying in an alleyway, and one is insufficient [whereas earlier the Sages disagreed with him]?

We reject this:

No,

it is not Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather,

what is the meaning of “side posts”

in the plural, as it is taught?

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

side posts

in all

the world’s

alleyways; that is, every side post made in an alleyway must have a height of ten handbreadths.

The Gemara objects:

If so,

at the beginning of this Mishna [above, on page 14b], which teaches

“the crossbeam

that they stated,”

should it also teach “crossbeams”?

And

the explanation would be as here:

What is the meaning of “crossbeams”?

Crossbeams used everywhere?!

Therefore, we offer another answer:

This is what

the tanna of our Mishna

is saying:

Those side posts concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed—for Rabbi Eliezer requires two, while for the Sages one suffices—

must have a height of ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness may be any amount. Thus, the anonymous Mishna is not precisely in accordance with either one or the other.

And we explain the Mishna:

And we explain the Mishna:

And how much is “any amount”?

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Even as much as a garment-string,

which is used to fasten the collar of a garment.

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

placing it not at the entrance of the alleyway but inside it, at the midpoint of its length,

he has no

permission to carry

except in

half

half

alleyway

the alleyway,

the inner half. [See illustration 1]

The Gemara asks:

Is this obvious?

Surely more than half the alleyway “has no” permission?!

Therefore, we explain it differently:

Rather, say that the principal novelty is that

“he has” half an alleyway,

“he has” permission in half the alleyway,

while it is obvious that he has no permission in the half beyond the side post!

The Gemara asks:

This too is obvious!

And we answer: There is a novelty here, because

it might have entered your mind that we should decree that one may not use even the area on the inner side of the side post,

because perhaps he will come to use the entire

lest he come to use the entire

alleyway.

It teaches us

that we do not issue such a decree!

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

handbreadths above the ground. [See illustration 2]

Or if he distanced it

from

the wall

of the alleyway, toward the width of the entrance of the alleyway, by

three

handbreadths. [Illustration 3]

He has done nothing.

everywhere:

And even according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said

everywhere that

we apply the principle of lavud

up to four handbreadths, here it is ineffective.

For

that statement applies above,

such as in the case of a crossbeam [above, on the first side],

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

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s principle is effective.

For wherever a young goat can enter freely, that fact itself removes it from the status of lavud.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: Their width,

of the side posts, is

three handbreadths.

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, neither

in what he said

concerning heilmei

[a small quantity of salt water, which Rabbi Yosei prohibits preparing on Shabbat],

nor

in what he said—in our Mishna—

concerning side posts.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to Rav Yosef,

who had become ill and forgotten his learning:

“Concerning heilmei you told us

before you became ill that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, but

concerning side posts you did not tell us.”

And I do not know why.

What is different about heilmei

that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei? It is

because the Sages disagree with him.

But

concerning side posts too, the Sages disagree with him?!

He said to him,

Rav Yosef:

The case of side posts is different, because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stands in agreement with him,

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

Rav Raḥumi taught it this way: Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel,

bar Sheila,

said in the name of Rav: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, neither concerning heilmei nor concerning side posts,

even though in both cases his reasoning appears sound [Ritva].

They said to Rav Raḥumi

[Ritva]:

“Did you say that?”

That is, do you indeed say that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, neither concerning heilmei nor concerning side posts?

He said to them,

Rav Raḥumi:

No,

the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei in both cases. He denied having said this because he had retracted his statement [Ritva].

Rava said: By the God!

I swear that he

said it.

And I learned it from him

[and learned it from him as he originally stated it]. But he later retracted it.

And for what reason did he retract it?

Because Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning accompanies him

that is, his reasoning is with him, providing a rationale for all his statements and establishing them coherently.

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

concerning side posts—does it follow Rabbi Yosei or the Sages?

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

[go and see how the people “customarily act”].

And the established practice is to use a side post of any size.

[We say “Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning accompanies him” only where the majority do not disagree with him; Rav Nissim held that this applies even where the majority disagree—Ran.]

Some teach this statement of Abaye

that he said, “Go out and see what the people do,”

with regard to this

that we learned:

One who drinks water because he is thirsty

[and not because he is choking from having eaten meat, in which case he recites no blessing at all—Berakhot 45a],

recites

before drinking the blessing

“that everything came to be through His word,”

but after drinking he recites no blessing.

Rabbi Tarfon says:

He recites before drinking

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

And

Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: What is the halakha

—does it follow the first tanna or Rabbi Tarfon?

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

[they have already adopted the practice of reciting “that everything came to be through His word” at the beginning and “Who creates numerous living beings” afterward—Rashi, Berakhot 45a].