Eruvin 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

that

verse—

“concerning”

the bearers of the

Ark

it is

written! The Kehatites carried the Ark, and the Ark is called “sanctuary,” since it was more sacred than the other vessels.

And we answer:

And we answer:

Rather, from here

it can be learned that the Tabernacle is called “sanctuary”:

As it is written in the passage concerning the Tabernacle:

“And they shall make Me a sanctuary, and I shall dwell among them.”

And it is written:

“In accordance with all that I

show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle.”

Thus, we find that the Tabernacle is called “sanctuary”!

And we raise a question:

Whether according to the Rabbis,

who derive the measure of the height of the opening from the opening of the Sanctuary,

or according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives it from the opening of the Entrance Hall—

let them derive

the measure of the width of the opening as well

from the opening of the courtyard gate

in the Tabernacle, and permit the opening of a mavוי even when it is wider than ten cubits, like the opening of the courtyard gate?!

For

it is

written:

“The length of the courtyard shall be one hundred cubits,

and its width fifty by fifty,

and its height five cubits.”

We have therefore learned that the width of the courtyard, in which the opening of the courtyard gate was located, was fifty cubits.

And it is written:

“And fifteen cubits of hangings

on the side.”

And it is written:

“And for the second side, on either side of the gate of the courtyard,

hangings of fifteen cubits.”

It follows that the width of the opening was twenty cubits, since the opening was in the middle of the courtyard’s width. The courtyard was closed by hangings on both sides of the opening, fifteen cubits long on each side.

And now the question is difficult: Why should we not derive the measure of the width of an opening from the opening of the courtyard gate, which is called an “opening,” as it is written: “And the hangings of the courtyard and the screen of the opening of the courtyard gate”?

And let us say:

Just as there,

in the opening of the courtyard gate, the height of the opening is

five

cubits

wide twenty

cubits,

so here,

in a mavוי, the measure of an “opening” is a height of

five

cubits

wide twenty

cubits. [There is no intention here for the Gemara to derive the measure of the height of the opening from the opening of the courtyard gate, but only the measure of its width.] Why, then, does the Mishna teach only: “And if it is wider than ten cubits, he must reduce it”?

The Gemara does not intend here to derive the required height of an entrance from the entrance of the courtyard gate, but only the required width. Why, then, does the Mishna state only: “And if it is wider than ten cubits, one must reduce it”?]

And we answer: The opening of the courtyard gate cannot serve as a source for the width of an “opening,” because only

“the opening of the courtyard gate”

is called

that, whereas an

“opening”

without qualification [without a gate]

without a gate]

is not called one!

Alternatively,

it is impossible to derive from the Torah’s statement that there were fifteen cubits of hangings on each side of the opening that the width of the courtyard-gate opening was twenty cubits.

Since

when it is written:

“Fifteen cubits of hangings on the side,” [and similarly regarding the other verses cited above,] it does not refer to the width of the courtyard, to teach the measure of the hangings on the sides of the opening; rather,

and likewise the other verses cited above], this does not refer to the width of the courtyard, in order to teach the length of the hangings on the sides of the entrance. Rather,

it is its height

of the courtyard that

is referred to,

teaching that the hangings there were fifteen cubits high, as were the other hangings of the courtyard.

And we question this: Do you mean

the height

of the courtyard?

But it is written

in the verse cited above: “And its width shall be fifty by fifty,

and its height five cubits”!

Thus, the height of the courtyard and its hangings was only five cubits.

And we answer:

That

measure of the height of the courtyard was

from the top of the altar

which was ten cubits high,

and above,

meaning that above it the hangings were another five cubits high, so that a kohen could not stand upon it with the sacrificial service in his hand, while all the people saw him!

We further question this:

And

does

Rabbi Yehuda derive the height of the opening from the opening of the Entrance Hall,

which was forty cubits high and twenty wide,

deriving

the measure of the height of the opening?!

But we learned

in our Mishna:

“And if it is wider than ten cubits, he must reduce it!” And Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree

by saying that an opening retains the status of an opening up to a width of twenty cubits, like the Entrance Hall, whose opening was twenty cubits wide.

And if Rabbi Yehuda derives the measure of the height of an opening from the opening of the Entrance Hall, let him also derive from there the measure of the width of an opening?!

Abaye

replies:

He said:

Indeed, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees even concerning the measure of the width of the opening, since he derives it from the opening of the Entrance Hall. And we find that he

disagreed

Rabbi Yehuda

in a beraita.

As it was taught: And

the opening of a mavוי

that is wider than ten cubits—

he must reduce it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not reduce it.

And we question this: If so,

let Rabbi Yehuda also disagree

Rabbi Yehuda

in the Mishna

concerning the width of the opening?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda disagrees

in the Mishna

with regard to

the measure of

its height, and the same law applies [this can be inferred from it]

this can be inferred from it]

with regard to

the measure of

its width,

as Rabbi Yehuda likewise disagrees concerning it.

This matter follows by itself. Since he disagrees concerning its height because he derives it from the opening of the Entrance Hall, the same applies with regard to its width: he derives it from the opening of the Entrance Hall. [Ritva]

And still

it can be asked: Does

Rabbi Yehuda derive from the opening of the Entrance Hall,

which was forty cubits high,

deriving from it?!

But it was taught

in an explicit beraita that Rabbi Yehuda permits an opening even when it is higher than forty cubits.

As it was taught:

A mavוי that is higher than twenty cubits—

he must reduce it.

But Rabbi Yehuda permits it up to forty or fifty cubits.

And Bar Kappara taught:

Rabbi Yehuda permits it even

up to

a height of

one hundred

cubits.

And if Rabbi Yehuda derives from the opening of the Entrance Hall, he should permit it only up to forty cubits, like the opening of the Entrance Hall!

And we explain the question:

Granted, according to Bar Kappara,

who taught, “Rabbi Yehuda permits it up to one hundred cubits,” it can be said that he merely stated an

exaggeration

in his wording.

Since Rabbi Yehuda permits even a crossbeam that is higher than twenty or thirty cubits, and this appears to Bar Kappara to be an exaggeration,

Bar Kappara therefore added to Rabbi Yehuda’s statement and exaggerated even more than he did, saying: “Rabbi Yehuda permits it up to one hundred cubits”!

But in truth, Rabbi Yehuda does not permit it when it is higher than forty cubits, beyond the height of the opening of the Entrance Hall.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda,

according to the way his opinion is taught in the beraita, that he permits it up to forty or fifty cubits,

what exaggeration

could there be here?!

It must be that he stated it deliberately!

And if so, the question is difficult:

Granted, forty

cubits—

Rabbi Yehuda derives

and permits it, since he learned it

from the opening of the Entrance Hall.

But fifty

cubits—

from where does he derive it

and permit it? After all, the opening of the Entrance Hall was only forty cubits high!

On the strength of this question, we reject what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: that Rabbi Yehuda derives his ruling from the opening of the Entrance Hall.

And

Rav Ḥisda said

about this:

This teaching was what misled Rav [this beraita was what led Rav astray]

into saying that Rabbi Yehuda derived his ruling from the opening of the Entrance Hall:

As it was taught: A mavוי that is higher than twenty cubits,

a height that is

greater than the opening of the Sanctuary—

he must reduce it!

He,

Rav,

thought, from

what we see in the beraita,

that the Rabbis derive their ruling from the opening of the Sanctuary,

it is reasonable that

Rabbi Yehuda also derives his ruling from the opening of the Entrance Hall!

But

in truth,

that is not

what Rav held!

The Gemara now explains the second approach:

Rather,

Rabbi Yehuda—

he derives it from the entrances of kings

[the entrances of royal palaces],

deriving

that ruling from the fact that their entrances are ordinarily very high.

And now we return to what we said: according to the Rabbis, we derive the measure of the height of an “opening” from the opening of the Sanctuary. And we ask:

And according to the Rabbis, if it is from the opening of the Sanctuary

that they

derive—

let them require

also

doors

at the opening of the mavוי,

like

the opening of the

Sanctuary,

which had doors?!

Why, then, did we learn: The qualification of a mavוי:

Beit Shammai say: A side-post

[a post fixed beside one of the walls of the mavוי, at its opening]

and a crossbeam

together qualify the mavוי for carrying within it [see illustration 1].

And Beit Hillel say:

Either

a side-post or a crossbeam,

but everyone agrees that doors are not required. This is so despite the fact that the opening of the Sanctuary had doors?! [See illustration 2.]

And we answer:

The doors of the Sanctuary—

they were made merely for privacy,

so that one could not see into the Sanctuary; it cannot be learned from there that without doors an opening is not called an “opening.”

We further ask:

But if so,

since you derive the measure of an opening from the opening of the Sanctuary,

a tzurat ha-petaḥ should not be effective

for an opening wider than ten cubits,

a tzurat ha-petaḥ!

For

the opening of the

Sanctuary had a tzurat ha-petaḥ,

and

even so, it was only ten cubits wide

[it was ten cubits wide] and no more; and according to Rav, the entire measure of openings should be learned from the opening of the Sanctuary.

Why, then,

why

did we learn

in our Mishna:

“If it has a tzurat ha-petaḥ, even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not reduce it”?

And we answer:

Is that the reason?

The entire basis for deriving the measure of an “opening” from the opening of the Sanctuary applies

only to Rav,

since he was the one who said above that we derive it from the opening of the Sanctuary. It is only according to him that we ask: consequently, a tzurat ha-petaḥ should not be effective for an opening wider than ten cubits!

And since that is the case, there is no difficulty at all.

For

Rav Yehuda taught this Mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav in the presence of Rav,

while he was before Rav, in accordance with the wording of our Mishna: “If it has a tzurat ha-petaḥ, even if it is wider than ten cubits,”

he need not reduce it.

And

when Rav heard that this was how Rav Yehuda had taught it,

Rav said to him:

Rav said to Rav Yehuda:

Teach it to him

[teach it to my son Ḥiyya] in these words:

He must reduce it!

And Rav follows his own view, that we derive the measure from the opening of the Sanctuary. Since the opening of the Sanctuary had a tzurat ha-petaḥ and was not wider than ten cubits, an opening wider than ten cubits may not be qualified, even if it has a tzurat ha-petaḥ.