Parallel
עירובין 4:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
‘Fig-trees’ [allude to] the size of a dried fig in respect of carrying out [from one domain into another] on the Sabbath. ‘Pomegranates’ [are an allusion] as we learned: ‘All [defiled wooden] utensils of householders [become clean if they contain holes] of the size of pomegranates. "A land of olive-trees" [is an allusion to the] land all the legal standards of which are of the size of olives’. [You say], ‘All the legal standards of which [etc.]’! Is this conceivable? Surely there are those that have just been enumerated? Rather read: ‘A land, most of the legal standards of which are of the size of olives’. ‘Honey’ [is an allusion to the eating of food of] the size of a big date [that constitutes an offence] on the Day of Atonement! — Do you then imagine that the standards were actually prescribed [in the Pentateuch]? [The fact is that] they are but traditional laws for which the Rabbis have found allusions in Scripture. But [the laws relating to] interpositions are Pentateuchal. [For was it not taught:] Since it is written in Scripture: Then he shall bathe all his flesh [it follows] that there must be no interposition between his flesh and the water; In water implies, in water that is gathered together; all his flesh implies, water in which all his body can be immersed; and how much is this? [A volume of the size of] a cubit by a cubit by a height of three cubits; and the Sages accordingly estimated that the waters of a ritual bath must measure forty se'ah? — Where a traditional law is required [it is in respect of] one's hair; and [it is to be understood] in accordance with [a statement of] Rabbah son of R. Huna, for Rabbah son of R. Huna said: ‘One knotted hair constitutes an interposition, three [hairs] constitute no interposition, but I do not know [the ruling in the case of] two’. [But are not the laws relating to] one's hair also Pentateuchal? For was it not taught: Then shall he bathe all his flesh [implies, even] that which is attached to his flesh, and by this was meant hair? — Where traditional law is required [it is the case of hair], and it is for [the purpose of distinguishing between an interposition] on its major, and one on its minor [portion] and between one to which the bather objects and one which he does not mind; this being understood on the lines of R. Isaac who said: [According to] traditional law [an interposition on] its major part to which a man objects constitutes an interposition but one which he does not mind constitutes no interposition; the Rabbis, however, ruled that [an interposition on] its greater part [shall constitute an interposition] even when the man does not mind it, as a preventive measure [against the possibility of allowing an interposition on] its major part to which the man does object, and that [an interposition on] its minor portion to which a man objects [shall constitute an interposition] on account [of the possibility of allowing an interposition over] its major portion to which a man objects. But [why should no prohibition be enacted] also [against an interposition over] its minor portion to which one does not object, as a preventive measure against [the possibility of allowing an interposition over] its minor portion to which one does object or its major portion to which one does not object? This ruling itself is merely a preventive measure, — shall we go as far as to institute a preventive measure against another preventive measure? But [the laws defining] partitions are Pentateuchal. For did not a Master state: [The height of] the ark was nine [handbreadths] and [the thickness of] the ark-cover was one handbreadth, so that we have here [a total height of] ten [handbreadths]? — [The traditional law] is required [in respect of the views] of R. Judah who holds that the cubit used for the structure [of the Temple] was of the standard of six [handbreadths] while that for the furniture was only one of five handbreadths. According to R. Meir, however, who holds that all cubit measurements were of the medium size, what can be said in reply? — According to R. Meir [it may be replied] the traditional law refers to [the legal fictions of] extension, junction and the crooked wall. [If the cross-beam] was higher than twenty cubits and it is desired to reduce the height, how much is one to reduce it? How much is one to reduce it, [you ask]? As much [obviously] as one requires! But [it is this that is asked]: How much [must the raised ground be in] width? — R. Joseph replied: A handbreadth. Abaye replied: Four [handbreadths]. May it be suggested that they differ on the following principles — he who said ‘a handbreadth’ being of the opinion that it is permissible to make use [of the floor space] under the beam61
—