עירובין 2 — parallel

2:1

MISHNAH. [A CROSS-BEAM SPANNING] THE ENTRANCE [TO A BLIND ALLEY] AT A HEIGHT OF MORE THAN TWENTY CUBITS SHOULD BE LOWERED. R. JUDAH RULED: THIS IS UNNECESSARY. AND [ANY ENTRANCE] THAT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS SHOULD BE REDUCED [IN WIDTH]; BUT IF IT HAS THE SHAPE OF A DOORWAY THERE IS NO NEED TO REDUCE IT EVEN THOUGH IT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS. GEMARA. Elsewhere we have learnt: A sukkah which [in its interior] is more than twenty cubits high is unfit, but R. Judah regards it as fit. Now wherein lies the difference [between the two cases that] in respect of the sukkah it was ruled: ‘unfit’, while in respect of the ENTRANCE [TO A BLIND ALLEY], a remedy was indicated? — [In respect of a] sukkah, since it Is a Pentateuchal ordinance, it [was proper categorically to] rule, ‘unfit’; in respect of the ENTRANCE, however, since [the prohibition against moving objects about in the alley is only] Rabbinical, a remedy could well be indicated. If you prefer I might reply: A remedy may properly be indicated in the case of a Pentateuchal law also, but as the ordinances of a sukkah are many it was briefly stated: ‘unfit’, [while in the case of] an ENTRANCE [To A BLIND ALLEY], since the regulations governing it are not many, a remedy could be indicated. Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: The Sages could have deduced it only from the [dimensions of] the entrance to the Hekal and R. Judah could only have deduced it from the [dimensions of] the entrance to the Ulam. For we have learnt: The entrance to the Hekal was twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide, and that to the Ulam was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide. And both based their expositions on the same text: And kill it at the entrance of the tent of meeting; the Rabbis being of the opinion that the sanctity of the Hekal is distinct [from that of the Ulam] and that of the Ulam is distinct from [that of the Hekal], so that the mention of ‘the entrance of the tent of meeting’ must refer to the Hekal only. R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that the Hekal and the Ulam have the same degree of sanctity so that the mention of ‘the entrance of the tent of meeting’ refers to both of them. If you prefer I might say: According to R. Judah's view also the sanctity of the Hekal is distinct from that of the Ulam, but the reason for R. Judah's ruling here is because it is written: To the entrance of the Ulam of the house. And the Rabbis? If it has been written: ‘To the entrance of the Ulam’ [the implication would indeed have been] as you suggested; now, however, that the text reads,I ‘To the entrance of the Ulam of the house’, [the meaning is the entrance of] the house that opens into the Ulam. But is not this text written in connection with the Tabernacle? — We find that the Tabernacle was called Sanctuary and that the Sanctuary was called Tabernacle. For, should you not concede this, [consider] the statement which Rab Judah made In the name of Samuel: ‘Peace-offerings that were slain prior to the opening of the doors of the Hekal are disqualified because it is said in Scripture: And kill it at the entrance of the tent of meeting [which implies only] when it is open but not when it is closed’. Now surely [it might be objected] is not this Scriptural text written in connection with the Tabernacle? The fact, then, [must be conceded that an analogy may be drawn between the two, since] we find that the Sanctuary was called Tabernacle and that the Tabernacle was called Sanctuary. One may well agree that the Sanctuary was called Tabernacle since it is written in Scripture: And I will set my Tabernacle among you. Whence, however, do we infer that the Tabernacle was called Sanctuary? If it be suggested: From the Scriptural text: And the Kohathites the bearers of the sanctuary set forward that the tabernacle might be set up against their coming,

—

2:2

that [surely] was written in respect of the [holy] ark. — Rather it is from the following text [that the inference was made:] And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. Whether [according to the ruling] of the Rabbis or [according to that] of R. Judah might not the deduction be made from the entrance of the court [of the Tabernacle], since it is written in Scripture: The length of the court shall be a hundred cubits and the breadth fifty everywhere, and the height five cubits, and it is also written: The hangings for the one side [of the gate] shall be fifteen cubits, and again it is written: And so for the other side; on this hand and that hand by the gate of court were hangings of fifteen cubits, as there [the entrance was] five [cubits in height] by twenty cubits in width so here also [the dimensions allowed should be no less than] five [cubits in height but as many as] twenty cubits in width? [Such an entrance] may well be described as the entrance of the gate of the court; but it cannot be regarded as an ordinary ENTRANCE. If you prefer I might reply: The Scriptural instruction that the hangings for the one side shall be fifteen cubits applies to its height. [You say], ‘Its height’! Is it not in fact written: And the height five cubits? That [refers only to a part of their height] above the edge of the altar. As to R. Judah, [how could it be said that] he inferred [the measurements of a gateway] ‘from the door of the Ulam’ when in fact we have learnt: AND [ANY ENTRANCE] THAT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS SHOULD BE REDUCED, and R. Judah did not dispute [the ruling]? — Abaye replied: He does dispute [this ruling] in the Baraitha. For it was taught: And [any entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced, but R. Judah ruled that is was not necessary to reduce it. Then why does he not express his disagreement in our Mishnah? — He expressed it in respect of the height of the gateway and the same disagreement applies to the width. Can it, however, still [be maintained that] R. Judah inferred [the measurements of a gateway] ‘from the entrance of the Ulam’ when it was in fact taught: [A cross-beam spanning the] entrance [to a blind alley] at a height of more than twenty cubits should be lowered, but R. Judah regards [the entrance] as a proper [gateway even if the beam is] as high as forty or fifty cubits; and Bar Kappara taught: Even a hundred? [The high figure] of Bar Kappara might quite well [be regarded as] an hyperbole; but in respect of [the figures] of R. Judah, what hyperbole [could be postulated]? [As regards that of] forty one might well explain that he derives it from [the height of] the door of the Ulam; whence, however, does he derive that of fifty? R. Hisda replied: The following Baraitha must have misled Rab. For it was taught: [A cross-bean, spanning the] entrance [to a blind alley] at a height of more than twenty cubits, [and thus forming a gateway] higher than the doorway of the Hekal, should be lowered. He consequently thought: Since the Rabbis derived [their figure] from [that of the height of] the doorway of the Hekal, R. Judah must have derived [his figure] from [that of the height of] the doorway of the Ulam. [In fact,] however, this is not [the case]; R. Judah derived his figure from [that of the height of] the doorways of kings. As to the Rabbis, however, if they derive their figure from [that of the height of] the doorway of the Hekal, should they not also require [a gateway to have] doors like the Hekal? Why then did we learn: The rendering of an alley fit [for carrying objects within it,] Beth Shammai ruled, requires a side-post and a beam, and Beth Hillel ruled: Either a side-post or a beam? The doors of the Hekal were made merely for the purpose of privacy. If that is the case THE SHAPE OF A DOORWAY should be of no avail, since the [entrance to the] Hekal had the shape of a doorway and yet was only ten cubits wide; why then did we learn: IF IT HAS THE SHAPE OF A DOORWAY THERE IS NO NEED TO REDUCE IT EVEN THOUGH IT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS? — Does not that reason originate but from Rab? Well, when Rab Judah taught Hiyya b. Rab in the presence of Rab, ‘It is not necessary to reduce [its width]’, the latter told them, ‘Teach him: It is necessary to reduce it’. [Still] if that is so52

—