עירובין 14 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. ONE HANDBREADTH! Is not a handbreadth and a half required? — Since it is wide enough to hold [an ariah of the size of] one handbreadth one may provide a foundation for the remaining half of the handbreadth by plastering [the beam] with clay, a little on one side and a little on the other, so [that the ariah can be] kept in position. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: The cross-beam of which [the Rabbis] spoke must be strong enough to support an ariah; the supports of the beam, however, need not be so strong as to be capable of bearing the beam and the ariah. R. Hisda, however, ruled: They must be strong enough to support both the beam and the ariah. R. Shesheth said: If one laid a beam across [an entrance to] an alley and spread a mat over it, raising [the lower end of the mat to a height of] three handbreadths from the ground, there is here neither valid cross-beam nor valid partition. There is here no valid cross-beam, since it is covered up; and no valid partition, since it is one through which kids can push their way. Our Rabbis taught: If a cross-beam projects from one wall and does not touch the wall opposite, and so also if two cross-beams one of which projects from one wall and the other from the wall opposite, do not touch one another, it is not necessary to provide another beam, [if the gap is] less than three handbreadths, [but if it was one of] three handbreadths it is necessary to provide another cross-beam. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: [if the gap was] less than four handbreadths it is not necessary to provide another cross-beam [and only where it was one of] four handbreadths it is necessary to provide another cross-beam. Similarly where there were two parallel cross-beams, neither of which was wide enough to hold an ariah, it is unnecessary to provide another cross-beam if the two together can hold the width of one handbreadth of an ariah, otherwise it is necessary to provide another cross-beam. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: If they can hold an ariah of the length of three handbreadths it is unnecessary to provide another cross-beam, otherwise it is necessary to provide another cross-beam. If they were [fixed] one higher than the other, the higher one, said R. Jose son of R. Judah, is looked upon as if it lay lower or the lower one, as if it lay higher, provided only that the higher one was not higher than twenty cubits and the lower one [was not] lower than ten cubits. Abaye remarked: R. Jose son of R. Judah holds the same view as his father in one respect and differs from him in another. He ‘holds the same view as his father in one respect’ in that he also adopts the principle of ‘IS LOOKED UPON’; ‘and differs from him in another’, for whereas R. Judah holds [that a cross-beam may be] higher than twenty cubits, R. Jose son of R. Judah holds [that it is valid] only within, but not above twenty cubits. R. JUDAH RULED: [THE BEAM IS VALID IF IT IS SUFFICIENTly] WIDE, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT STRONG. Rab Judah taught Hiyya b. Rab in the presence of Rab, ‘WIDE, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT STRONG’, when the latter said to him: Teach him, ‘Wide and strong enough’. Did not, however, R. Ela'i state in the name of Rab, ‘[a cross-beam that is] four [handbreadths] wide [is valid] although it is not strong,’? — One that is four [handbreadths] wide is different [from one that is less than the prescribed width]. IF IT WAS MADE OF STRAW etc. What does he thereby teach us? That we adopt the principle of ‘IS LOOKED UPON’? But, then, is not this exactly the same [principle as was already enunciated]? — It might have been assumed that [the principle] is applied only to one of its own kind but not to one of a different kind; hence we were taught [that any material is valid]. [IF IT WAS] CURVED IT IS LOOKED UPON AS THOUGH IT WERE STRAIGHT. Is not this obvious? — He taught us [thereby a ruling] like that of R. Zera, for R. Zera stated: If it was within an alley and its curve without the alley, or if it was below twenty cubits and its curve above twenty, or if it was above ten cubits but its curve was below ten, attention must be paid [to this]: Whenever no [gap of] three handbreadths would have remained if its curve had been removed, it is not necessary to provide another cross-beam; otherwise, another cross-beam must be provided. Is not this also obvious? — It was necessary [to enunciate the ruling in the case where the beam] was within the alley and its curve was without the alley. As it might have been presumed that the possibility must be taken into consideration that the residents might be guided by it; hence we were informed [that no such possibility need be considered]. [IF IT WAS] ROUND IT IS LOOKED UPON AS THOUGH IT WERE SQUARE. What need again was there for this ruling? It was necessary [on account of its] final clause: WHATSOEVER HAS A CIRCUMFERENCE OF THREE HANDBREADTHS IS ONE HANDBREADTH IN DIAMETER. Whence are these calculations deduced? — R. Johanan replied: Scripture stated: And he made the ‘molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. But surely there was [the thickness of] its brim? — R. Papa replied: Of its brim, it is written in Scripture [that it was as thin as] the flower of a lily; for it is written: And it was a handbreadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths. But there was [still] a fraction at least? — When [the measurement of the circumference] was computed it was that of the inner circumference. R. Hiyya taught: The sea that Solomon made contained one hundred and fifty ritual baths. But consider: How much is [the volume of] a ritual bath? Forty se'ah, as it was taught: And he shall bathe . . .^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ

^ᵃnote:To support an ariah of that size.
^ᵇnote:ihckn particip. denom. of vbck, lit., he makes it a brick (foundation)’.
^ᶜnote:To hold (a half of the half) a quarter of the handbreadth.
^ᵈnote:For reason v. note in our Mishnah.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘that cause to stand’, pegs for instance.
^ᶠnote:It is sufficient if they can bear the weight of the beam alone, since in fact no ariah is ever put on the beam.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘the one as well as the other’.
^ʰnote:A suspended partition of such a character is invalid in an alley.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘to bring’.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘to bring’.
^ᵏnote:Lit., ‘and if not’.
^ˡnote:But are together wide enough to hold an ariah.
^ᵐnote:In the same level as the other beam.
^ⁿnote:From the ground (cf. Mishnah supra 2a ab init.).
^ᵒnote:Cf. our Mishnah.
^ᵖnote:In the previous clause: (THE BEAM IS VALID) . . . ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT STRONG. One that ‘WAS MADE OF STRAW’ is obviously not strong.
^ᵠnote:Sc. a frail beam of wood may be regarded as a strong beam of the same material, since weak as well as strong beams can be made of it.
^ʳnote:As straw, for instance, is a material from which no strong beam can ever be made, it might have been deemed to be totally unfit.
^ˢnote:Since it involves the same principle as that of the previous ruling. Why then the unnecessary repetition?
^ᵗnote:A cross-beam.
^ᵘnote:From the ground.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘(we) see’.
^ʷnote:Between the two parts of the beam at which the curve begins.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘he might come to be drawn after it’; and so use a section of the public domain as if it had been a part of their alley.
^ʸnote:v. supra note 3.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘things’. [This is the only instance where a doubt is raised in the Talmud in connection with a mathematical statement. This, as Zuckermann points out (Das Mathematische im Talmud, p. 23) proves that the Rabbis were well aware of the more exact ratio between the diameter and circumference and that the ratio of 1:3 was accepted by them simply as a workable number for religious purposes. Hence the question, ‘Whence are these calculations deduced?’ V. Feldman, Rabbinical Mathematics etc., p. 23].
^ᵃᵃnote:I Kings VII, 23. As the molten sea which had a diameter of ten cubits was approximately thirty cubits in circumference, the ratio of a diameter to a circumference must consequently be 10:30 = 1:3 approx.
^ᵃᵇnote:Which increased the diameter to more than ten cubits: so that the ratio between diameter and circumference was greater than 1:3.
^ᵃᶜnote:Its thickness, therefore, amounted to very little and might be disregarded.
^ᵃᵈnote:The lower portion of the sea.
^ᵃᵉnote:I Kings VII, 26.
^ᵃᶠnote:Of the molten sea.
^ᵃᵍnote:As thirty cubits.
^ᵃʰnote:The diameter of which was exactly ten cubits.
^ᵃⁱnote:So Bomb. ed. Cur. edd., ‘it was taught’.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘a gathering together for purification’.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. Glos.

²in 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 water of the size of] a cubit by a cubit by a height of three cubits; and the Sages have accordingly estimated that the waters of a ritual bath must measure forty se'ah. Now how many [cubic units] were there [in the molten sea]? Five hundred [cubic] cubits. From three hundred [cubic cubits are obtained] a hundred [ritual baths], and from a hundred and fifty [cubic cubits] fifty [ritual baths are obtained]. [Would not then a volume] of four hundred and fifty [cubic cubits] be enough? — These calculations [apply only] to a square [shaped tank], while the sea that Solomon made was round. But consider: By how much does [the area of] a square exceed that of a circle? By a quarter. Then of the four hundred [cubic cubits previously assumed] one hundred [must be deducted], and of the hundred [cubic cubits] twenty-five [must be deducted]. [Would not then the number of ritual baths] be Only a hundred and twenty-five? — Rami b. Ezekiel learned that the sea that Solomon made was square in its lower three cubits and round in its upper three. Granted that you cannot assume the reverse, since it is written in Scripture that its brim was round, [can you not] say, however, [that only] one [cubit of the height of the brim was round]? — This cannot be entertained at all, for it is written, it held two thousand baths; now how much is a bath? Three se'ah,; for it is written in Scripture: The tenth of the bath out of the kor [which is ten baths], so that the sea contained six thousand griva. But Surely is it not written: It held three thousand baths? — This [includes the addition] of the heap [in a dry measure]. Said Abaye: From this it may be inferred that the heap [of a measure] is one third [of the entire quantity]. And so have we also learnt: A large box or chest, a cupboard, a large straw or reed basket, and the tank of an Alexandrian ship, although they have flat bottoms and are capable of holding forty se'ah of liquid, which are [equal to] two kor of dry [commodities], are levitically clean. MISHNAH. THE SIDE-POSTS OF WHICH THEY [THE RABBIS] SPOKE [MUST BE NO LESS THAN] TEN HANDBREADTHS IN HEIGHT, BUT THEIR WIDTH AND THICKNESS MAY BE OF ANY SIZE WHATSOEVER. R. JOSE RULED: THEIR WIDTH [MUST BE NO LESS THAN] THREE HANDBREADTHS. GEMARA. THE SIDE-POSTS OF WHICH THEY SPOKE etc. May it then be asserted that we have here learnt an anonymous Mishnah in agreement with R. Eliezer who ruled that two side-posts are required? — No; the expression of SIDE-POSTS [refers to] side-posts in general. If so, should it not have been taught, in the case of the cross-beam also, ‘cross-beams’, the plural referring to cross-beams generally? — It is really this that was meant: The SIDE-POSTS concerning which R. Eliezer and the Sages are in dispute [MUST BE NO LESS THAN] TEN HANDBREADTHS IN HEIGHT, BUT THEIR WIDTH AND THICKNESS MAY BE OF ANY SIZE WHATSOEVER. And how much [was meant by] ‘ANY SIZE WHATSOEVER’? — R. Hiyya taught: Even [if only] as that of the thread of a cloak. A Tanna taught: If a man put up a side-post for a half of an alley he may only use [the inner] half of the alley. Is not this obvious? — Rather read: He may use a half of the alley. Is not this, however, also obvious? — It might have been presumed that the possibility should be considered that one might proceed to use all of it; hence we were informed [that the inner half may be used]. Raba stated: If one constructed a side-post for an alley and raised it three handbreadths from the ground, or removed it three handbreadths from the wall, his act is invalid. Even R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who holds [that in the case of gaps] we apply the rule of labud, maintains his view [only where the gap occurred] above, but [where it was] below, since [the post] constitutes a partition through which kids can push their way, he did not uphold that view. R. JOSE RULED: THEIR WIDTH [MUST BE NO LESS THAN] THREE HANDBREADTHS. R. Joseph stated in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel: The halachah is not in agreement with R. Jose either in respect of ‘brine’ or in that of ‘SIDE-POSTS’. Said R. Huna b. Hinena to him: You told us this concerning ‘brine’ but not concerning ‘side-posts’. Now wherein does brine differ? Obviously because the Rabbis disagree with him; but do not they disagree with him in respect of side-posts also? — ‘Side-posts’, the other replied: ‘are in a different category because Rabbi has taken up the same point of view.’ R. Rehumi taught thus: Rab Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shilath stated in the name of Rab: The halachah does not agree with R. Jose either in respect of ‘brine’ or in that of ‘SIDE-POSTS’. ‘Did you say it?’ they asked him. ‘No’, he replied. ‘By God!’ Raba exclaimed, ‘he did say it, and I learned it from him,’ — Why then did he change his view? — Because R. Jose has always good reasons for his rulings. Said Raba son of R. Hanan to Abaye, ‘What is the law?’ — ‘Go’, the other told him, ‘and see what is the usage of the people’. There are some who teach this in connection with the following: A man who drinks water on account of his thirst must say [the benediction], ‘by whose word all things exist’. R. Tarfon ruled [that the following benediction must be said], ‘who createst many living beings with their wants, for all the means that thou has created’. Said R. Hanan to Abaye, ‘What is the law?’ — ‘Go’, the other told him, ‘and see what is the usage of the people’.^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ

^ᵃˡnote:Lev. XV, 16. ‘His flesh’ is in cur. edd. enclosed in parenthesis. M.T. has ‘all’ before ‘flesh’.
^ᵃᵐnote:Sc. it need not be spring water.
^ᵃⁿnote:Ibid.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘goes up in them’.
^ᵃᵖnote:V. supra 4b, notes.
^ᵃᵠnote:The calculation at the moment is based, for the sake of argument, on the imaginary assumption that the round sea like a square tank contained 10 X 10 X 5 = 500 cubic cubits.
^ᵃʳnote:Since each bath, as stated supra, contains 1 X 1 X 3 = 3 cubic cubits.
^ᵃˢnote:To make up a hundred and fifty ritual baths. An objection against R. Hiyya's statement.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. supra p. 91, n. 17.
^ᵃᵘnote:Since a diameter of one unit has a circumference of three units approx., and a square of one such unit has a perimeter of four such units.
^ᵃᵛnote:In the number of ‘five hundred’. 500 — 400 = 100.
^ᵃʷnote:Since 400 — 100 = 300, and 100 — 25 = 75, the number of cubic cubits in the sea of Solomon was only 375. As each three cubic cubits produced one ritual bath, the sea could have contained no more than 375/3 = 125 ritual baths. An objection again against R. Hiyya.
^ᵃˣnote:The lower section contained 3 X 10 X 10 = 300 cubic cubits. The upper section, being circular and by one quarter less than a square, contained 2 X 10 X 10 — 50 = 150. The two sections together consequently contained (300 + 150)/3 = 350 ritual baths.
^ᵃʸnote:That the upper section of the sea was square shaped and its lower one round.
^ᵃᶻnote:And the sea consequently contained more than a hundred and fifty ritual baths. On what ground then could R. Hiyya maintain that it contained only a hundred and fifty ritual baths?
^ᵇᵃnote:That the sea contained more than the number given by R. Hiyya.
^ᵇᵇnote:I Kings VII, 26.
^ᵇᶜnote:Ezek. XLV, 14. A kor which is ten baths also equals thirty se'ah. Ten baths consequently equal thirty se'ah and one bath equals three se'ah.
^ᵇᵈnote:Which held two thousand baths.
^ᵇᵉnote:A griva = one se'ah. Since one bath = three se'ah, two thousand baths = 3 X 2000 = 6000 se'ah = 6000/40 = 150 ritual baths. Hence R. Hiyya's figure.
^ᵇᶠnote:Solomon's sea.
^ᵇᵍnote:II Chron. IV, 5.
^ᵇʰnote:The higher figure.
^ᵇⁱnote:While liquids can only reach the level of the top of the measure, dry commodities can be raised to a certain height above that level. The difference between the dry and liquid commodities that the sea could contain, explains the difference between the figures in I Chron., and I Kings respectively. For an attempt to reconcile Rami b. Ezekiel's solution with the more exact value of ‘pie’ v. Zuckermann, op. cit., p. 29 and Feldman, op. cit., p. 51.
^ᵇʲnote:Sc. the quantity above its level, if the ratio of its height to its length and width is the same as that of Solomon's sea.
^ᵇᵏnote:One thousand being a third of three thousand.
^ᵇˡnote:Lit., ‘receptacle’, ‘container’.
^ᵇᵐnote:Two kor = 60 se'ah. The difference between the dry and the liquid is thus 60 — 40 = 20 se'ah, and twenty is one third of sixty. This Mishnah thus supports Abaye's calculation.
^ᵇⁿnote:Sc. are not susceptible to levitical uncleanness. Only vessels that are moved about both empty and full are so susceptible. Those mentioned here are large and not easily moved; hence they are not subject to the same susceptibility. Shab. 35a; Kel. XV, 1; Oh. VIII, 1, 3.
^ᵇᵒnote:Since our Mishnah speaks of side-posts in the plural.
^ᵇᵖnote:Mishnah Supra 11b. Is it likely, however, that an anonymous Mishnah, which as a rule represents the halachah, would agree with an individual opinion contrary to that of the majority?
^ᵇᵠnote:Lit., ‘what’.
^ᵇʳnote:Each individual alley, however, may require no more than one side-post.
^ᵇˢnote:That the plural was used to refer to side-posts in general.
^ᵇᵗnote:In the previous Mishnah (supra 13b).
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., ‘and what beams?’
^ᵇᵛnote:The former requiring two and the latter one.
^ᵇʷnote:The use of the plural is consequently no proof that the halachah is in agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer.
^ᵇˣnote:kcrx cf. Gr. **.
^ᵇʸnote:I.e., instead of fixing the side-post at a point facing the entrance, he put it up within the alley at a point facing the middle of it.
^ᵇᶻnote:Lit., ‘he has not but’.
^ᶜᵃnote:Tosef. ‘Er. I.
^ᶜᵇnote:That only the inner but not the outer half of the alley may be used.
^ᶜᶜnote:Of course it is, since the outer part was not provided with any side-post.
^ᶜᵈnote:Lit., ‘he has’.
^ᶜᵉnote:While it is obvious that the outer half could not be used, it is not so obvious that the inner part may be used. Hence the necessity for the Tosef cited.
^ᶜᶠnote:That the inner half may be used.
^ᶜᵍnote:Since it was well provided with a side-post.
^ᶜʰnote:Were the use of the inner half to be permitted.
^ᶜⁱnote:In consequence of which the use of the inner half also should be forbidden.
^ᶜʲnote:Lit., ‘he did nothing’.
^ᶜᵏnote:Lit., ‘according to R.’
^ᶜˡnote:v. Glos.
^ᶜᵐnote:Lit., ‘these words’.
^ᶜⁿnote:As, for instance, when a cross-beam projecting from one wall does not reach the wall opposite.
^ᶜᵒnote:V. Shab. 108b.
^ᶜᵖnote:That the halachah is not in agreement with R. Jose.
^ᶜᵠnote:Supra 10a, 12a.
^ᶜʳnote:Lit., ‘his depth (of reasoning) is with him’. V. Rashi a.l. and cf. Rashi infra 51a s.v. ueunhb.
^ᶜˢnote:MS.M. Nahman.
^ᶜᵗnote:In respect of the size of the side-posts.
^ᶜᵘnote:They use side-posts of any size whatsoever (Rashi).
^ᶜᵛnote:The answer given by Abaye.
^ᶜʷnote:Excluding one who drinks it, e.g., for a cure.
^ᶜˣnote:Prior to his drinking (Rashi).
^ᶜʸnote:The beginning of this benediction like that of all others is, ‘Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe’ (cf. Singer's P.B., p. 290).
^ᶜᶻnote:The last eight words are wanting in MS.M. and are also absent from the Mishnah Ber. 44a.
^ᵈᵃnote:MS.M., Rabbah b. Hanin.