Eruvin 4a — the Talmud in English

All cubits that the Sages stated are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths, provided that they are not exact .

And now we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rava

in the name of Rav Naḥman, we explain that which we say in the beraita, “provided that they are not exact,” as follows: This is what it says: provided that all the cubits that the Sages stated are not exact and equal to one another.

So that they should be: these

the cubits of kilayim,

expanded,

the cubits of a sukka and a mavוי,

contracted.

But according to Abaye it is difficult

for it is explicitly stated in the beraita that all cubits are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths?!

He said:

Abaye will answer

you: Say

that this is what it teaches: All cubits that the Sages stated with regard to kilayim are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths. For specifically

the cubit of kilayim

is measured

with a cubit of six handbreadths,

but not the cubits of a sukka and of a mavוי. And provided that those cubits of kilayim are not exact and restricted, but rather are spacious and expanded.

And we wonder about it:

But since it teaches

in the

conclusion

of that beraita:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All cubits that the Sages stated with regard to kilayim are measured with a cubit of six

handbreadths,

provided that they are not restricted.

It is proven that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the one who stated the rule that all cubits which they stated with regard to kilayim are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths;

by implication, the first tanna

did not say this with regard to kilayim alone, but rather said it with regard to

all cubits,

that they should be of six handbreadths, including the cubits of a sukka and of a mavוי?!

Rather, the Gemara brings another answer according to Abaye:

Abaye can say to you:

In fact, the first tanna maintains that both the cubit of kilayim and the cubit of a sukka and of a mavוי are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths.

But

is there not,

is there not found

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who stands in agreement with me,

who maintains as I do, that only the cubit of kilayim is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths, whereas the cubit of a sukka and of a mavוי is measured with a cubit of five handbreadths?!

And if so,

I—

who say

I maintain

in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel!

And we explain: This is obvious, for

according to Abaye,

who maintains in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that among the cubits which the Sages stated there are both cubits of six and cubits of five—

certainly

it is a dispute

of the tannaim.

For the first tanna certainly disagrees with him, as we said, and maintains that all cubits are measured with six handbreadths.

But this is what is doubtful to us: Does

according to Rava,

who maintains that all cubits which the Sages stated are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths,

can one say

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says, “All cubits that the Sages stated with regard to kilayim are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths,” comes to exclude the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavוי, and according to Rava as well it is a dispute

of the tannaim?

Rava can say to you:

I say that both according to the first tanna and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and according to my view they did not disagree about this matter.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who mentioned kilayim in his words, did not intend to say that the entire rule of a cubit of six handbreadths applies only to kilayim.

Rather,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

because of the conclusion of his statement, “provided that they are not restricted,” he mentioned kilayim in his words. And

this is what he came to teach us:

Only

the cubit of kilayim

is that it

must not be made exact,

but rather it should be made expanded; but the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavוי—one should make it exact!

And we raise an objection to this: If so, as you say,

let him say,

let Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say:

The cubit of kilayim must not be made exact,

and let him say nothing else.

Rather, necessarily,

“with a cubit of six”

which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mentioned in his words—

what does it come to exclude?

Is it not to exclude the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavוי,

which are measured with cubits of five handbreadths, and he disagrees with the first tanna?! And we reject this:

No,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not come to exclude the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavוי.

Rather, his intention is

to exclude

the

cubit

of the

base of the altar [at the bottom of the altar, at a height of one cubit, the altar projected outward by one cubit, and it is called the base],

of the altar [at the bottom of the altar, at a height of one cubit, the altar projected outward by one cubit; this projection was called the base],

and

the

cubit

of the

“ledge”

of the altar [at a height of five cubits from the base, the width of the altar was reduced by one cubit, and the surface that was formed, one cubit wide, was called the ledge, upon which the priests walked around the altar to apply the blood to the horns of the altar].

That is to say, the measure of these two cubits is not with a cubit of six handbreadths, but with one of five handbreadths.

For

this is how it is

written

in Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the measurements of the outer altar:

“And these are the measures of the altar:

All the measures of the altar [explained in that prophecy] are

in cubits

large [of six handbreadths], with each

cubit

whose measure is

a cubit

small, of five handbreadths,

and

another

handbreadth, making altogether six handbreadths, and with these they measure them.

But the other cubits of the altar are not in large cubits.

Rather:

“And the bosom of the cubit, and a cubit in width, and its border at its edge around it”,

whose width is

“one span, and this is the back of the altar”. All these are measured with a small cubit, of five handbreadths.”

And we explain the verse:

1.

“The bosom of the cubit”,

which is the engraving and arrangement of the altar below—

this

is the

base,

whose height was one small cubit [but the roof of the base was measured with a large cubit].

2.

“And a cubit in width”—

this

is the entrance of the

ledge,

which was measured with a small cubit [but the five cubits of height from the base to the ledge were in large cubits].

3.

“And its border at its edge around it”—

these are the horns

on the roof of the altar, at its four corners, which were one small cubit by one small cubit in width.

And when you measure from the middle of the horn to its edge, you find half a cubit, called a “span.” And this is what the verse says: “And its border,” the measure of the horn from the center to its edge, around it—“one span.”

4.

“And this is the back of the altar”—

this is the golden altar [the inner altar], which was one small cubit in length and one small cubit in width. [Explained according to Rashi’s second interpretation].

[the inner altar], which was one small cubit long and one small cubit wide. [This is explained according to the second interpretation of Rashi.]

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

1.

Measures

which the Sages gave for every matter, such as an olive-bulk for forbidden foods, and likewise the other measures that are explained below.

2.

Interpositions:

an interposition that disqualifies immersion.

3.

And

the laws of

partitions,

such as that a partition should be ten [handbreadths] high, and likewise its other laws.

All of them are

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

—they are.

And we raise an objection to this: But

the measures

are

from the Torah!

That is, they are to be learned from a derivation from Scripture, and they are not called “a halakha given to Moses at Sinai”?!

As it is written,

“A land of wheat and barley

and vine and fig and pomegranate, a land of olive oil and honey.”

And Rav Ḥanan said: This entire verse was stated to

teach

measures!

For the verse speaks of the praise of the Land of Israel, that even with regard to words of Torah, one must measure the prohibitions of the Torah with its produce. [Rashi, sukka 5b:]

And this is how the produce of the Land of Israel teaches the measures of the Torah:

Wheat—

teaches

as we learned: One who enters a house afflicted

with tzaraat,

while his utensils [his garments]

are placed

on his shoulders

and are not on his body in their usual manner,

and his sandals and rings are in his hands

and not on his feet and fingers in their usual manner,

he [the person who entered himself] and

[the person who entered]

they [the utensils, the sandals, and the rings]

[the garments, sandals, and rings]

are impure immediately,

upon his entering, and even before he has remained in the afflicted house, for both he and his garments came into the house, and the Torah said: “And the one who enters the house shall become impure.”

But if

he was wearing his utensils

in their usual manner on his body,

and his sandals

in their usual manner

on his feet, and his rings on his fingers, he is impure immediately,

but

they are pure,

because they are subordinate to him and are not included in “And the one who enters the house shall become impure.” Nevertheless, if the wearer remained in the house, his garments also become impure and require the washing of garments [immersion in a ritual bath], for thus the Torah said: “And the one who eats in the house shall wash his garments.” And we expound: If he remains in the house for the measure of eating, he requires the washing of garments, and the measure of his remaining is

until he remains for the time of eating a pras [

half] of a loaf, [for a whole loaf is the food of two meals mentioned with regard to the eruv of boundaries [below, 82b], and there it is said: “And half of it for an afflicted house,” and its size is explained there] made from

wheat bread

which is eaten quickly,

and not barley bread,

and he should eat it while

reclining

and not while standing and walking back and forth, in which case he remains longer while eating,

and eating with relish

through which the bread is eaten quickly. And to teach that the measure of remaining is the time required to eat wheat bread, the Torah said: “Wheat.”

Barley—

for

as we learned: A bone

of a corpse, of a measure

the size of a barley grain—

renders impure

one who touches it

with

contact

impurity,

and renders impure one who carries it

with

carrying

impurity.

But it does not render impure

a bone upon which there is no flesh

with

contact

tent

impurity [unless there was there a complete spine of the bones of the corpse, or a skull, or most of the bones forming the body, or most of the number of bones].

Vine—

to teach the measure of

a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite.

For if the nazirite drinks wine in this measure, he is flogged.

This is how Rashi explained it here, but in sukka 6a Rashi explained it differently: that the verse comes to teach the measure of grape seeds and skins, which a nazirite is forbidden to eat. And there is one who says that the measure of eating is measured by a quarter-log. It is not measured by a quarter-log of water, but by a quarter-log of wine.

That is, he measures the measure of the grape seeds by placing grape seeds into a cup full of wine until a quarter-log of it spills out. And this is the measure of the grape seeds, such that if the nazirite eats them, he is flogged.

And there is a difference whether this is measured with wine or with water.

For if one measures with a cup full of wine, the wine does not spill immediately when grape seeds are placed into it, as water spills immediately; rather, at first it heaps up over the edge of the vessel, and only when additional grape seeds are placed into it does the wine spill. It follows that when the grape seeds are measured by measuring them in a cup of wine, the measure is larger than it would be if they were measured in a cup full of water.