Translation:Talmud/Seder Moed/Tractate Eruvin/2a

Mishnah

[A CROSS-BEAM SPANNING] THE ENTRANCE^[1] [TO A BLIND ALLEY]^[2] AT A HEIGHT OF MORE THAN TWENTY CUBITS SHOULD BE LOWERED.^[3] R. JUDAH RULED: THIS IS UNNECESSARY. AND [ANY ENTRANCE] THAT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS^[4] SHOULD BE REDUCED [IN WIDTH]; BUT IF IT HAS THE SHAPE OF A DOORWAY^[5] THERE IS NO NEED TO REDUCE IT EVEN THOUGH IT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS.

Gemara

Elsewhere we have learnt: A sukkah^[6] which [in its interior] is more than twenty cubits high is unfit, but R. Judah regards it as fit.^[7] 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],1 a remedy^[8] was indicated?^[9] — [In respect of a] sukkah, since it Is a Pentateuchal ordinance,^[10] it [was proper categorically to] rule, ‘unfit’;^[11] in respect of the ENTRANCE, however, since [the prohibition against moving objects about in the alley is only] Rabbinical,^[12] a remedy could well be indicated.^[13] 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’,^[14] [while in the case of] an ENTRANCE [To A BLIND ALLEY], since the regulations governing it are not many, a remedy could be indicated.^[15] Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: The Sages^[16] could have deduced it^[17] only from the [dimensions of] the entrance to the Hekal^[18] 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^[19] was twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide,^[20] and that to the Ulam was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.^[21] And both based their expositions on the same text: And kill it at the entrance of the tent of meeting;^[22] the Rabbis^[23] being of the opinion that the sanctity of the Hekal is distinct^[24] [from that of the Ulam]^[25] and that of the Ulam is distinct from [that of the Hekal],^[26] so that^[27] the mention of^[28] ‘the entrance of the tent of meeting’ must refer^[29] to the Hekal only.^[30] 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’^[31] refers to both of them.^[32] 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,^[33] but the reason for R. Judah's ruling here is because it is written: To the entrance of the Ulam of the house.^[34] 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’,^[35] [the meaning is the entrance of] the house^[36] that opens into the Ulam. But is not this text^[37] written in connection with the Tabernacle?^[38] — We find that the Tabernacle was called Sanctuary and that the Sanctuary was called Tabernacle.^[39] For, should you not concede this,^[40] [consider] the statement which Rab Judah made In the name of Samuel: ‘Peace-offerings that were slain prior to the opening^[41] of the doors of the Hekal are disqualified because it is said in Scripture: And kill it at the entrance^[42] of the tent of meeting^[43] [which implies only] when it^[44] is open but not when it is closed’.^[45] Now surely [it might be objected] is not this Scriptural text written in connection with the Tabernacle?^[46] 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.^[47] 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^[48] that the tabernacle might be set up against their coming,^[49]

Notes

1. hucn (rt. tuc ‘to come’) signifying either (a) a way of entry or (b) an alley which forms the entry or gives access to courtyards that open out into it.
2. Having courtyards on three sides of it, the fourth side opening into a public domain (v. infra p. 2, n. 1).
3. Lit., ‘reduced’, the cross-beam thereby forming a kind of gateway into the alley. In the absence of a cross-beam, or in case it is raised too high (for the reason explained in the Gemara), the alley, in accordance with Rabbinic law, cannot be regarded as a private domain and no object may be moved in it during the Sabbath.
4. In consequence of which it cannot be regarded as a gateway but merely as a breach.
5. the simplest form of which is all horizontal pole or rod supported at each end by a stake or vertically placed reed.
6. the festive booth (v. Lev. XXIII, 42f and cf. Neh. VIII, 17).
7. Suk. 2a.
8. ‘SHOULD BE’ LOWERED’.
9. Lit., ‘he taught’.
10. Cf. supra N. 6.
11. The suggestion of a remedy might have been misunderstood as being mere advice the neglect of which did not vitally affect the performance of the precept, and so it would be concluded that ex post facto the sukkah may be deemed fit. (So according to Tosaf. s.v. vfux a.l. contra Rashi).
12. Pentateuchally such a prohibition applies only to a public domain which Is sixteen cubits in width (v. Shab. 6b and 99a) ant open on at least two sides. The ALLEY spoken of in our Mishnah is less than sixteen cubits in width and is open on one side only (cf. Supra p. 1, n. 2).
13. Cf. supra p. I, n. 9. There is no need for so much precaution in the case of a Rabbinical as in that of a Pentateuchal law.
14. Thus presenting a succinct ruling covering all disqualifications. Were remedies for each disqualification to be indicated the ruling would have extended to undue lengths, contrary to the principle of brevity in teaching (v. Pes. 3b).
15. Lit., ‘he taught’.
16. Sc. the first Tanna of our Mishnah.
17. The ruling as to the proper measurements of an entrance.
18. ‘Holy’, was situated between the Ulam, the hall leading to the interior of the Temple, and the Debir or the Holy of Holies, and contained the golden altar, the table for the shewbread and the candlestick.
19. V. previous note.
20. Mid. IV, I.
21. Ibid. III, 7.
22. Lev. III, 2. sgun kvt sc. the Hekal.
23. Sc. the first Tanna of our Mishnah.
24. Lit., ‘alone’.
25. That of the latter being of a minor degree.
26. Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.
27. Since the services that may be performed within the more sacred place of the Hekal cannot be performed in the less sacred one of the Ulam.
28. Lit., ‘when it is written.’
29. Lit., ‘when it is written’.
30. The dimensions of whose entrance were only 20 X 10 cubits.
31. v. Supra p. 2, n. 11 mut. mut.
32. To the Ulam also whose entrance was 40 X 20 cubits.
33. Cf. Supra p. 2, nn. 13 and 14.
34. No such verse has been preserved in M.T. Tosaf. (s.v. ch,fs a.l.) suggests that this quotation is a composite text based on Ezek. XL, 48, ‘To the Ulam of the house and Ezek. XLVII, 1, ‘The door of the house’.
35. How, in view of the specific description of the entrance to the Ulam as ‘an entrance’, could they refuse to recognize similar measurements in the case of an entrance to an alley?
36. Sc. the Hekal.
37. ‘The entrance of the tent of meeting’ (v. Supra p. 2, n. 11).
38. made by Moses in the wilderness the height of the door of which could not possibly be more than ten cubits since the height of its walls was only ten cubits (v. Ex. XXVI, 16). How then could our Mishnah allow a height of twenty cubits?
39. Hence the permissibility of drawing an analogy between the two. Cf. Shebu. 16b.
40. Lit., ‘say so’.
41. In the morning.
42. j,p, lit., ‘the opening’, emphasis on the last word.
43. V.supra p. 2, n. 11.
44. So MS.M. kugb tuva inzc tku ju,p tuva inzc Cur. edd. have the plural, ohju,p and ohkugb referring to the doors.
45. Zeb. 55b, Yoma 29a, 62b.
46. How then could it be applied to the Temple?
47. Lev. XXVI, 11. As this was said after the Tabernacle in the wilderness has already been erected, ‘tabernacle’ in the text must obviously refer to the promised sanctuary or Hekal that would be built later in Jerusalem. For another interpretation cf. Rashi Shebu. 16b (Sonc. ed., p. 82, n. 5.)
48. vilna and other edd. utabu is obviously a printer's error.
49. Num. X, 21.