Eruvin

that1 [surely] was written in respect of the [holy] ark.2 — Rather it is from the following text3 [that the inference was made:] And let them make Me a sanctuary,4 that I may dwell5 among them.6 Whether [according to the ruling] of the Rabbis or [according to that] of R. Judah might not the deduction7 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,8 and it is also written: The hangings for the one side [of the gate] shall be fifteen cubits,9 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,10 as there [the entrance was] five [cubits in height] by twenty cubits in width so here also11 [the dimensions allowed should be no less12 than] five [cubits in height but as many as] twenty cubits in width?13 [Such an entrance]14 may well be described15 as the entrance of the gate of the court; but it cannot be regarded15 as an ordinary ENTRANCE.16 If you prefer I might reply: The Scriptural instruction17 that the hangings for the one side shall be fifteen cubits18 applies19 to its height.20 [You say], ‘Its height’! Is it not in fact written: And the height five cubits?21 That [refers only to a part of their height] above the edge of the altar. 22 As to R. Judah, [how could it be said that] he inferred [the measurements of a gateway] ‘from the door of the Ulam’23 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]?24 — 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.25 Then why does he not express his disagreement in our Mishnah? — He expressed it26 in respect of the height of the gateway27 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’28 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,29 but R. Judah regards [the entrance] as a proper [gateway even if the beam is] as high as30 forty or fifty31 cubits; and Bar Kappara taught:32 Even a hundred? [The high figure] of Bar Kappara might quite well [be regarded as] an hyperbole;33 but in respect of [the figures] of R.34 Judah,35 what hyperbole [could be postulated]? [As regards that of] forty36 one might well explain that he derives it from [the height of] the door of the Ulam;37 whence, however, does he derive that of fifty? R. Hisda replied: The following Baraitha must have misled Rab.38 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.39 He consequently thought: Since the Rabbis40 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.41 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 gateway42 to have] doors like the Hekal?43 Why then did we learn: The rendering of an alley fit [for carrying objects within it,]44 Beth Shammai ruled, requires a side-post and a beam,45 and Beth Hillel ruled: Either a side-post or a beam?46 The doors of the Hekal were made merely for the purpose of privacy.47 If that is the case48 THE SHAPE OF A DOORWAY should be of no avail,49 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 reason50 originate but from Rab?51 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 thee, the patter, of the tabernacle’ (Ex. XXV, ); sanctuary’ in v. 8 is thus described as tabernacle in v. 9. what follows, since evidence that an entrance of a lesser height is regarded as a proper doorway cannot alter the fact that one of a bigger size (as has been proved supra from that of the doors of the Hekal or Ulam) is also regarded as a proper entrance, or gateway (cf. Rashi s.v. upkhk and Tosaf. s.v. ihc), that it had hangings of fifteen cubits in width at each end (ibid. 14 and XXXVIII, 15), thus leaving an opening of (50 — 2 X 15 =) 20 cubits for an entrance. of the court was fifteen cubits. The width of the gate cannot, therefore, be deduced from this text (cf. second interpretation; Rashi, s.v. ypan) obtained (15 — 10 = 5). The reading vynku ohgke ,pan substituted by Bah for vkgnku jczn ,pan occurs also in MS.M. but is rejected by Rashi (l.c. q.v.). be allowed. not above that of forty. measurements. Hekal?