Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 7

vineyard. The ells of a vineyard are generally used of six spans, but not for the width. But Rabha said in the name of R. * The crooked walls will be explained in Tract Sukkah. TRACT ERUBIN. 5 Na'hman : All ells measure six spans, but in Kilaim are measured with long spans and in entry and booth with short spans to make it more rigorously. R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh said : The several prescribed quantities (as mentioned in Tract Sabbath), the Chatzitzah (intervention of articles at bathing), and the ordinance concerning the walls of an entry and of a booth are ordinances given by Moses at the Mount Sinai. How can it be said, that these are Sinaic laws, they are biblical laws ? For it is written [Deutr. viii. 8]: "A land of wheat and barley, and of the vine, and the fig-tree and the pomegranate; a land of the oil-olive and of honey." And R. Hanan said, that the whole verse refers to prescribed quantities: " By wheat is meant, what we have learned elsewhere in a Mishna [Negaim xiii. 9] : If a man clad in garments and shoes entered a house where leprosy was preva- lent, he immediately becomes unclean, but his garments, shoes, etc., do not become unclean, until he remains there a length of time sufficient for the consumption of bread of the quantity of two eggs, wheaten bread but not barley-bread, and when eaten in a reclining position with some other dish. By barley is meant, what we have learned elsewhere [Ohaloth ii. 3] : If a bone of a corpse is the size of a (grain of) barley, it makes a body unclean, when touched or carried, but it does not make unclean the con- tents of a tent, if found therein. By vine is meant: If a Naza- rite drink a quarter of a lug of wine he ceases to be a Nazarite and must bring a sin-offering. By fig-tree is meant, that one is guilty of carrying on the Sabbath, if he carries anything of the size or quantity of a dried fig. By pomegranate is meant, what we have learned elsewhere [Khelim xvii. i] : Any vessel belong- ing to a household, if it have a hole as large as a pomegranate, is not subject to defilement any more. By a land of the oil-olive is meant a land where all prescribed quantities are of the size of an olive. [All prescribed quantities ? What about those just mentioned ? Say, a land where the majority of the prescribed quantities are of the size of an olive.] By honey is meant, that if a man ate anything the size of a fresh date on the Day of Atonement, he is guilty." How can the passage be understood in this manner ? No prescribed quantities are mentioned in the passage ? We must say, therefore, that those laws are Sinaic, but the passage is merely a mnemotechnical basis for them. And Chatzitzah, is that not also biblical law ? It (as) is written [Leviticus xv. 6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. i6]: " Then shall he bathe all his flesh in water." By all his flesh is meant, that nothing should intervene between his flesh and the water ? The Sinaic law was necessary in order to stipulate, that there should even be no intervention between the hair and the water (not only between the flesh and the water). As was said by Rabba bar R. Huna: " If there was a knot in a single hair, there was certainly an intervention ; but if three hairs were tied in a knot, there was certainly no intervention ; but if two were tied together, the matter is doubtful to me." But even the ordinance concerning the hair is also biblical ? For we have learned in a Boraitha, that by " all his flesh " is meant all attached to the flesh, and that includes the hair. The Sinaic law was necessary in order to stipulate the ordinances con- cerning the greater and lesser part of the hair, one who is par- ticular with his hair and one who is not, as was said by the dictum of R. Itz'hak: " According to biblical law Chatzitzah is constituted only if the greater part of his hair was encrusted with loam or blood, etc., and the man is particular about his hair, but if he is not, it does not constitute intervention." The rabbinical laws, however, ordained as a precautionary measure, that if the larger part of his hair be encrusted even though he be not particular, it would constitute Chatzitzah, lest one who is particular would not consider it so, and they also ordained, that if the smaller part of his hair was encrusted and he is particular about his hair, it would constitute Chatzitzah, as a precautionary measure, for the sake of the one who has the larger part of his hair encrusted and is also particular about his hair. The ordinances concerning the walls of a booth and an entry are also biblical ? For the master said: "It is written, that the ark was nine spans high and the cover was one span thick, so the ark and cover combined were ten spans high, and this serves as a prescribed height for all walls." The Sinaic laws are necessary for the stipulation of the ordinances concerning Gud,* Lavud,f and crooked walls. If the entry was higher than twenty ells and is to be lowered, * In many places of the Talmud the expression Gud is used to signify, that where a wall or a curtain is supposed to reach the ground or to reach the ceiling, and comes within three spans of doing so in either case, they are considered as if they were on a level with the ground or with the ceiling, the expression for the former being Gud Achith and for the latter Gud Assik ; literally, " consider it bound down" and " con- sider it bound up," respectively. f Lavud, attached. See note §, page I2, Vol. I. TRACT ERUBIN. 7 how much lower should it be made ? How much lower ? As much as is necessary. The question here is, how much of the space below the cross-beam must be diminished in order to make the space only twenty ells high. R. Joseph said: "One span underneath the cross-beam is sufficient"; but Abayi said, four spans, and they differ merely as to the precautionary measure involved; the latter claiming, that one span may be impaired through stepping upon it, while the former holds that there is no danger of such a thing happening. How is it if the entry was less than ten spans high and suffi- cient ground had to be excavated in order to make it the pre- scribed height ? How much ground should be excavated ? How much ? As much as is necessary ? The question, therefore, is not as to how much must be excavated in height, but in the width of the entry. R. Joseph said: " For the width of four spans," and Abayi said, " For four ells. " (The reason R. Joseph says four spans in this case, while only requiring one span in the above case, is because in the first instance a wall for the entry already existed, and merely the space had to be diminished, but in this instance, if the wall is less than ten spans high, it cannot be considered a wall and by excavating the ground the wall will