Eruvin 2b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

that

verse—

“in”

the bearers of the

Ark

it is

written!

For the Kehatites carried the Ark, and the Ark is called “Sanctuary,” since it is more sacred than the other vessels.

And we answer:

Rather, from here

it is to be learned that the Tabernacle is called Sanctuary:

As it is written in the section of the Tabernacle:

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

And it is written:

“According to all that I

show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle.”

We have thus found that the Tabernacle is called Sanctuary!

And we raise a difficulty:

Whether according to the Rabbis,

who derive the measure of the height of an entrance from the entrance of the Sanctuary,

or according to Rabbi Judah,

who derives it from the entrance of the Hall—

let them derive

the measure of the width of the entrance also

from the entrance of the courtyard gate,

which was in the Tabernacle, and let us validate the entrance of an alleyway even when it is wider than ten cubits, like the entrance of the courtyard gate?!

For

it is

written:

“The length of the courtyard: one hundred cubits

and its width: fifty by fifty,

and its height: five cubits.”

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

And it is written:

“And fifteen cubits of hangings

for the shoulder.”

And it is written:

“And for the second shoulder, on this side and on that side of the entrance of the courtyard gate,

hangings fifteen cubits.”

It follows that the width of the entrance was twenty cubits. For the entrance was in the middle of the width of the courtyard. And the courtyard was closed with hangings on both sides of the entrance, on each side [shoulder], for a length of fifteen cubits.

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

And let us say:

Just as there,

at the entrance of the courtyard gate, the height of the entrance is

five

cubits

by a width of twenty

cubits,

so here,

in an alleyway, the measure of an “entrance” is a height of

five

cubits

by a width of twenty

cubits.

[The Gemara’s intention here is not to derive the measure of the height of an entrance from the entrance of the courtyard gate, but only the measure of the width], and why does the Mishna teach that only “if it is wider than ten cubits, he must reduce it”?

And we answer: From the entrance of the courtyard gate one cannot derive the measure of the width of an “entrance.” For only

“the entrance of the courtyard gate”

is called

an entrance, but

“entrance”

without qualification [

without a gate]

is not called one!

And if you wish, say:

It is impossible to derive from the fact that the Torah said that there were hangings fifteen cubits on each side of the entrance that the width of the entrance of the courtyard gate was twenty cubits.

Since

when it is written

“hangings fifteen cubits toward the shoulder” [and likewise the other verses cited above], this does not refer to the width of the courtyard, to teach the measure of the width of the hangings on the sides of the entrance, but 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,

in its height

of the courtyard

it is written, to teach that the hangings there were fifteen cubits high, and likewise the other hangings of the courtyard.

to teach that the hangings there were fifteen cubits high, and so too were the other hangings of the courtyard.

And we raise a difficulty against this: Are you saying

the height

of the courtyard?

But it is written

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

and its height: five cubits”!

It follows that the height of the courtyard and the hangings was only five cubits.

And we answer:

That

measure of the height of the courtyard—from

the edge of the altar

which was ten cubits high,

and above,

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

We further raise a difficulty:

And

does

Rabbi Judah derive the measure from the entrance of the Hall,

which was forty high and twenty wide,

and derive

the measure of the height of an entrance?!

But we learned

in our Mishna:

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

to say that up to a width of twenty there is still the designation of entrance, like the Hall, whose entrance was twenty wide.

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

Said

in answer

Abaye:

It is indeed so: Rabbi Judah disagrees also concerning the measure of the width of the entrance, since he derives it from the entrance of the Hall. And as we find that he

disagrees

Rabbi Judah

in a beraita.

As it was taught: And

an entrance of an alleyway

that is wider than ten cubits—

he must reduce it.

Rabbi Judah says: He need not reduce it.

And we raise a difficulty: If so,

let Rabbi Judah disagree

also, Rabbi Judah,

in the Mishna

with regard to the width of the entrance?!

And we answer:

He disagrees

Rabbi Judah in the Mishna

with

the measure of

its height, and the same law [

is learned from this]

with regard to

the measure of

its width,

as Rabbi Judah also disagrees concerning it.

And this matter we know in any event. Since he disagrees concerning its height because he derives it from the entrance of the Hall, the same law applies with regard to the width: he derives it from the entrance of the Hall. [Ritva]

And still

there is a difficulty: Does

Rabbi Judah derive it from the entrance of the Hall,

which was forty cubits high,

and derive it?!

But it was taught, we find an explicit beraita that Rabbi Judah validates an entrance even higher than forty cubits.

As it was taught:

An alleyway that is

higher than twenty cubits—

he must reduce it.

And Rabbi Judah validates it up to forty and fifty cubits.

And bar Kappara taught:

And Rabbi Judah validates it even

up to

a height of

one hundred

cubits.

And if Rabbi Judah derives it from the entrance of the Hall, Rabbi Judah should validate it only up to forty cubits, like the entrance of the Hall!

And we explain the difficulty:

Granted, according to bar Kappara,

who taught, “Rabbi Judah validates it up to one hundred cubits,” it is possible to say that he took

an exaggeration

in general in his statement.

For since Rabbi Judah validates even a beam higher than twenty and thirty cubits, and this appears to bar Kappara to be an exaggeration,

therefore bar Kappara added to Rabbi Judah’s words and exaggerated even more than he did, and said: Rabbi Judah validates it up to one hundred cubits!

But in truth, Rabbi Judah does not validate it above forty, beyond the height of the entrance of the Hall.

But according to Rabbi Judah,

according to the way his view is taught in the beraita, that he validates it up to forty and fifty cubits—

what exaggeration

is relevant here?!

It is necessarily the case that he stated it precisely!

And if so, the difficulty is:

Granted, forty

cubits

Rabbi Judah derives

as fit for validation, for he learned

from the entrance of the Hall.

But fifty

cubits—

from where does he have it

for Rabbi Judah to validate it? But the entrance of the Hall was only forty cubits high!

And on the strength of this difficulty we reject what Rav Judah said in the name of Rav, that Rabbi Judah derives it from the entrance of the Hall.

And

said

concerning it

Rav Hisda: This teaching misled Rav

[This beraita is what misled Rav] into saying that Rabbi Judah derived it from the entrance of the Hall:

As it was taught: An alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits,

which height is

greater than the entrance of the Sanctuary—

he must reduce it!

He,

Rav,

thought, from

what we see in the beraita,

that the Rabbis derive it from the entrance of the Sanctuary,

it is reasonable that also

Rabbi Judah derives it from the entrance of the Hall!

And

in truth,

it is not so,

as Rav maintained!

And now the Gemara explains the second course:

Rather,

Rabbi Judah—

from the entrances of kings

[the entrances of kings’ palaces] he

derives it,

for it is usual for their entrances to be very high.

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

And as for the Rabbis, if it is from the entrance of the Sanctuary

that they

derive it—

let them require

also

doors

at the entrance of the alleyway,

like

the entrance of

the Sanctuary, which had doors?!

which had doors?!

Why, then, did we learn: The validation of an alleyway:

Beit Shammai say: A side-post [

a post fixed beside one of the walls of the alleyway, at the entrance of the alleyway]

and a crossbeam

together are what validate the alleyway for carrying within it [see illustration 1].

And Beit Hillel say:

Either

a side-post or a crossbeam,

but everyone does not require doors, even though there were doors at the entrance of the Sanctuary?! [see illustration 2].

And we answer:

The doors of the Sanctuary—

they were made merely for modesty,

so that they would not be able to see into the Sanctuary; and one cannot learn from there that without doors it is not called an “entrance.”

We further ask:

But from now, since you derive the measure of an entrance from the entrance of the Sanctuary—

if you derive the required measure of an entrance from the entrance of the Sanctuary,

a tzurat ha-petah will not benefit

an entrance wider than ten cubits

!

For

the entrance of the

Sanctuary had a tzurat ha-petah,

and

even so, it was ten cubits wide [it was wide] and no more, and according to Rav one should derive the entire measure of entrances from the entrance of the Sanctuary.

it was that wide] and not more. According to Rav, all the measurements of entrances should be learned from the entrance of the Sanctuary.

Why, then

why

did we learn

in our Mishna:

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

And we answer:

Is this its reason?

After all, the entire basis of this matter—that we derive the measure of an “entrance” from the entrance of the Sanctuary—is

only according to Rav,

who is the one who said above that we derive it from the entrance of the Sanctuary. And it is according to him that we ask that consequently a tzurat ha-petah should not benefit an entrance wider than ten cubits!

And since this is so, there is no difficulty at all.

For

Rav Judah taught this Mishna to Hiyya bar Rav in the presence of Rav,

while he was before Rav, as it is written in our Mishna: If it has a tzurat ha-petah, even though it is wider than ten cubits,

he need not reduce it.

And

when Rav heard that Rav Judah had taught it thus,

Rav said to him

to Rav Judah:

Teach him [

teach Hiyya, my son] in this wording:

He must reduce it!

And Rav follows his position, that we derive it from the entrance of the Sanctuary. Since it had a tzurat ha-petah and was not wider than ten cubits, one cannot validate an entrance wider than ten cubits, even if it has a tzurat ha-petah.