Talmud do Middot 4:8

HALAKHAH: ²⁵For this and the following paragraphs there exists a reasonably complete Genizah text (G) edited by L. Ginzberg (שרידי ירושלמי New York 1909 p. 62). A slightly garbled parallel is in Ševuot 1:1, explained there in Notes 5–20. The Notes here are restricted to references and short explanations.“Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following²⁶Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability²⁷For R. Abba, there is a difference between the Mishnaiot in Šabbat and Ševuot in that in the case here at least one person involved always is not liable whereas in Ševuot only one person is mentioned and all cases are of liability. For R. Yose, the parallel is only that of Mishnaiot 1–2, not 3–4. Each Mishnah describes two cases of liability; these are two covering in all four cases of liability as in Ševuot 1:1.. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated²⁸Mishnah Middot 4:1. The Mishnah is purely descriptive of the construction of Herod’s Temple; the notions of liability or no liability are inappropriate., “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability²⁹There are four cases in the Mishnah where one party is liable and the other is not involved. Then there are four cases in which both parties are involved but nobody is criminally liable. One might construct another four cases where nobody is liable; e. g., if the poor man reaches into the house, picks something up, which the householder then takes from his hand and deposits outside.? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted³⁰Since in Mishnaiot 1–2 only one person acts, it is inappropriate to apply the label “not liable” to the other person. Babli 2b/3a.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two³¹In G, Ševuot 1:1, editio princeps, and a quote in RITBA Ševuot 1:1: “Taking out or bringing in are two but the Sages counted them as one.” As noted later in this paragraph, taking out is called work by Jeremiah (which cannot be used as a legal text but is confirmation of the interpretation of the law) whereas bringing in is only forbidden by the argument that taking out from A to B is bringing in to B from A.. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable³²Even an intrinsic liability can be prosecuted only if a minimal amount was transported, which for food is determined as the size of a dried fig (Chapters 7–8). Since taking out and bringing in small quantities are to be combined, taking out and bringing in are representatives of one and the same action, viz., transporting.. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan³³In Ševuot 1:1 and the Babli (6b): R. Joḥanan; quoted without attribution by R. Ḥananel Šabbat 3b; in a number of Medieval sources R. Jonathan. understood it from the following³⁴Ex. 36:6. Babli 96a.: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah³⁵Missing in Ševuot. In G, R, Aḥa in the name or R. Ila; in Sefer Haˋittim (ed. Mekize Nirdamim p. 300) R. Aḥa in the name of R. Ḥiyya. In Sefer Miṣwot Gadol #65, (part 1, fol. 17a in Venice edition) R. Ḥiyya in the name of R. Aḥa. in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following³⁶Jer. 17:22.: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

“With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this⁵⁴That in contrast to the First temple, the Second had two gobelins, the interior one belonging to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one belonging to the Temple Hall, with a cubit in between. The problem whether the cubit between interior and exterior gobelins belongs to the Temple Hall or the Holies of Holies is quoted as undecidable in Kilaim 8:5 where part of the text is found (Notes 93–95) and Babli 52a. is hinted at as we have stated there⁵⁵Mishnah Middot 4:7., “One cubit taraqsin, twenty cubits for the building of the Holiest of Holies.” What is “one cubit taraqsin”? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “confusion”, what is inside-outside⁵⁶Jastrow’s conjecture that טרקסין is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις, “confusion”; cf. Kilaim 8:5 Note 93.. Rebbi Yose said, since it is written⁵⁷1K. 6:17., forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple, it means that it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written⁵⁸2Chr. 3:8. Since the reports about the first Temple do not mention the cubit in between, all they prove is that the interior gobelin belongs to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one to the Temple Hall., he made the building of the Holiest of Holies,…, twenty cubits, it means that it is counted outside. What is the rabbis’ reason? The gobelin shall separate for you⁵⁹Ex. 26:33. This is R. Yose’s (the Tanna) reason that only one gobelin is possible between the Temple Hall and the Holiest of Holies. How can the rabbis explain the verse?, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose do with this⁶⁰In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12. Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below⁶¹The rabbis will dispute that even in the first Temple there was only one gobelin. Since there must be an opening for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies, a complete separation so that the Holiest of Holies cannot be seen from the Temple Hall requires a minimum of two gobelins, one being closed at the place where the other is open. But on the roof of the building there was only one separating line.. Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated⁶²Mishnah Middot 4:5., “the impression of pebbles⁶³Greek ψῆφος. distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”

“With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this⁵⁴That in contrast to the First temple, the Second had two gobelins, the interior one belonging to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one belonging to the Temple Hall, with a cubit in between. The problem whether the cubit between interior and exterior gobelins belongs to the Temple Hall or the Holies of Holies is quoted as undecidable in Kilaim 8:5 where part of the text is found (Notes 93–95) and Babli 52a. is hinted at as we have stated there⁵⁵Mishnah Middot 4:7., “One cubit taraqsin, twenty cubits for the building of the Holiest of Holies.” What is “one cubit taraqsin”? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “confusion”, what is inside-outside⁵⁶Jastrow’s conjecture that טרקסין is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις, “confusion”; cf. Kilaim 8:5 Note 93.. Rebbi Yose said, since it is written⁵⁷1K. 6:17., forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple, it means that it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written⁵⁸2Chr. 3:8. Since the reports about the first Temple do not mention the cubit in between, all they prove is that the interior gobelin belongs to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one to the Temple Hall., he made the building of the Holiest of Holies,…, twenty cubits, it means that it is counted outside. What is the rabbis’ reason? The gobelin shall separate for you⁵⁹Ex. 26:33. This is R. Yose’s (the Tanna) reason that only one gobelin is possible between the Temple Hall and the Holiest of Holies. How can the rabbis explain the verse?, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose do with this⁶⁰In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12. Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below⁶¹The rabbis will dispute that even in the first Temple there was only one gobelin. Since there must be an opening for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies, a complete separation so that the Holiest of Holies cannot be seen from the Temple Hall requires a minimum of two gobelins, one being closed at the place where the other is open. But on the roof of the building there was only one separating line.. Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated⁶²Mishnah Middot 4:5., “the impression of pebbles⁶³Greek ψῆφος. distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”

²⁰⁷This entire paragraph is copied in Q. It is written²⁰⁸2Chr. 4:6. The topic is to find roots for the uncommon words אֲגַרְטְלֵ֨י, מַֽחֲלָפִי֭ם.: And these are their numbers: gold basins30, Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said, places where the blood of the lamb was collected. Silver basins 1’000, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, places where the blood of the bull was collected. Knives 29, Rebbi Simon said, these are the knives, as we have stated there²⁰⁹Mishnah Middot 4:7., “it was called the place of knives since there they hid the knives.”

“And its window closed.” That they could not use it for their knives, as we have stated there¹⁶⁹Mishnah Middot4:7. The window being closed meant that there was no hollow space in the wall. Just as with the rings, the Cohanim from Bilgah had to use spaces dedicated to other watches to store their knives.: “this was called the place of the sharp knives since there they hid the knives.”