Eruvin 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

All cubits mentioned by the Sages are measured by 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 can interpret that which we say in the beraita, “provided that they are not exact,” as follows: Provided that all the cubits mentioned by the Sages are not measured exactly and equally relative to one another.

So that they will be as follows: these—

the cubits used for diverse kinds—

are generous, and

the cubits used for a sukka and a mavoy—

are constricted.

But according to Abaye this is difficult,

as the beraita explicitly states that all cubits are measured by a cubit of six handbreadths?!

He said:

Abaye can answer

you: Say

that this is what it teaches: All cubits that the Sages mentioned with regard to diverse kinds are measured by a cubit of six handbreadths. Specifically,

the cubit used for diverse kinds

is measured

by a cubit of six handbreadths,

but not the cubits used for a sukka and for a mavoy. And provided that those cubits used for diverse kinds are not exact and constricted, but rather are generous and expansive cubits.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

But since it teaches

in the

last clause

of that beraita:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All cubits that the Sages mentioned with regard to diverse kinds are measured by a cubit of six

handbreadths,

provided that they are not constricted.

It is evident that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the one who stated the halakha that all cubits mentioned with regard to diverse kinds are measured by a cubit of six handbreadths.

By inference, the first tanna

did not say this only with regard to diverse kinds, but rather he said that

all cubits

must be six handbreadths, including the cubits of a sukka and a mavoy?!

Rather, the Gemara presents another answer according to Abaye:

Abaye could say to you:

In truth, the first tanna holds that both the cubit used for diverse kinds and the cubit used for a sukka and a mavoy are measured by a cubit of six handbreadths.

But

is there not

a case of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who agrees with me,

as he holds, like me, that only the cubit used for diverse kinds is measured by a cubit of six handbreadths, whereas the cubit used for a sukka and a mavoy is measured by a cubit of five handbreadths?!

And if so,

I—

who say

I hold

like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel!

And we explain: It is obvious that

according to Abaye,

who follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in holding that among the cubits mentioned by the Sages there are both cubits of six handbreadths and cubits of five handbreadths,

certainly

there is a dispute

between the tannaim.

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

But this is what is uncertain to us:

According to Rava,

who holds that all cubits mentioned by the Sages are measured by a cubit of six handbreadths,

can one say

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says, “All cubits that the Sages mentioned with regard to diverse kinds are measured by a cubit of six handbreadths,” came to exclude the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavoy, and that according to Rava as well there is a dispute

between the tannaim?

Rava could say to you:

I state my position in accordance both with the first tanna and with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; according to my view, they do not disagree on this matter.

And when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mentioned diverse kinds in his statement, he did not intend to say that the entire law of a cubit of six handbreadths applies only to diverse kinds.

Rather,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

because of the latter part of his statement, “provided that they are not constricted,” mentioned diverse kinds in his formulation. And

this is what he came to teach us:

Only

the cubit used for diverse kinds

is subject to the rule that one

must not constrict it,

but rather must make it generous; whereas the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavoy may be constricted!

And we raise a difficulty against this: If so, as you say,

let him say—

let Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say:

The cubit used for diverse kinds must not be constricted.

And let him say nothing more.

Rather, necessarily,

“by a cubit of six”

which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mentioned in his statement—

what does it come to exclude?

Is it not to exclude the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavoy, which are measured by cubits of five handbreadths, and thus he disagrees with the first tanna?! And we reject this:

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 mavoy.

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; this projection was called the base],

and

the

cubit

of the

ledge

of the altar [at a height of five cubits above the base, the altar narrowed by one cubit, and the resulting surface, one cubit wide, was called the ledge; the priests walked upon it around the altar when sprinkling blood on the altar’s horns].

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

D

This is what is

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

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

“And these are the measurements of the altar:

All the measurements of the altar [described in that prophecy] are

in cubits

large [of six handbreadths], with each

cubit

having the measure of a

cubit

small, of five handbreadths,

and

in addition one

handbreadth, making six handbreadths in all; and by these measurements they measure them.

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

Rather:

“And the base of a cubit, and a cubit in width, and its border by its edge all around,”

whose width is

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

And we interpret the verse:

a.

“The base of a cubit,”

which is the shaping and arrangement of the altar at its bottom—

this

is the

base,

whose height was one small cubit [but the top surface of the base was measured by a large cubit].

b.

“And a cubit in width”—

this

is the recess of the

ledge,

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

c.

“And its border by its edge all around”—

these are the horns,

located on the top of the altar, at its four corners, each of which was one small cubit by one small cubit.

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

d.

“And this is the back of the altar”—

this is the golden altar [the inner altar], whose length was one small cubit and whose width was one small cubit. [This is 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 that Rav said:

a.

The measures

that the Sages prescribed for every matter, such as the measure of an olive-bulk for forbidden foods, as well as the other measures explained below;

b.

interpositions—an interposition that invalidates immersion;

meaning an intervening substance that invalidates immersion;

c.

and

the laws of

partitions,

such as the requirement that a partition be ten handbreadths high, and the other laws governing it—

all of them

are a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

.

And we raise a difficulty against this: But

the measures

are

of Torah origin!

That is, they can be derived from an exposition of the verse, and therefore 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: The entire verse was stated to

teach

the measures!

For the verse speaks of the praise of the Land of Israel: even with regard to matters of Torah, one must measure the Torah’s prohibitions by means of 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 leprosy,

with leprosy,

and his utensils

[his clothing] are placed

on his shoulders

rather than worn on his body in the usual manner,

and his sandals and rings are in his hands

rather than on his feet and fingers in the usual manner,

he

[the person who entered himself]

and they

[the utensils, sandals, and rings]

become impure immediately

upon his entering, even before he has remained in the afflicted house, since both he and his clothing entered the house, and the Torah says: “And he who enters the house shall be impure.”

But if

he was wearing his utensils

in the usual manner on his body,

and his sandals

in the usual manner

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

but

they remain pure,

because they are subordinate to him and are not included in the phrase, “And he who enters the house shall be impure.” Nevertheless, if the wearer remains in the house, his clothing also becomes impure and requires the washing of garments [immersion in a ritual bath], as the Torah says: “And the one who eats in the house shall wash his garments.” And we interpret this to mean that if he remains in the house for the time required to eat, he requires the washing of garments. The measure of his remaining is

until he remains for the time required to eat half a loaf

[a half] of a loaf [as a whole loaf is the food for two meals mentioned with regard to eruv teḥumim [below, 82b], and there it says: “And half of it for a house afflicted with leprosy,” where the size of the loaf is explained] made of

wheat bread

that is eaten quickly,

and not barley bread,

and he must eat it while

reclining,

not while standing or walking back and forth, in which case eating takes longer,

and he eats it with relish,

which causes the bread to be eaten quickly. Thus, to teach that the measure of remaining is the time required to eat wheat bread, the Torah said: wheat.

Barley—

as

we learned: A bone

of a corpse, measuring

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 on which there is no flesh

with

tent

impurity [unless it is an entire spinal column of the corpse’s bones, or a skull, or the majority of the bones comprising the body, or the majority by number of the bones].

[unless it is part of a complete spinal column of a corpse, a skull, most of the bones forming the body, or most of the number of bones].

Vine—

teaches the measure of

a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite.

If a nazirite drinks this measure of wine, he is flogged.

[Rashi explains it this way here, but in Sukka 6a Rashi explains differently: The verse comes to teach the measure of grape seeds and skins, which a nazirite is prohibited from eating. And there is one who says that the measure of eating is calculated by a quarter-log. It is not measured by a quarter-log of water, but by a quarter-log of wine.

That is, one measures the quantity of grape seeds by placing them in a cup full of wine until a quarter-log of wine spills out. This is the measure of the grape seeds, so that if a nazirite eats them, he is flogged.

There is a difference between measuring this with wine and measuring it with water.

For if one measures using 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 rises above the rim of the vessel, and only when more grape seeds are added does the wine spill. Consequently, when the grape seeds are measured by means of a cup of wine, the measure is greater than it would be if they were measured in a cup full of water.]