Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 1, 2017 | ื”ืณ ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 99

How did the cherubs (cruvim) fit in the kodesh hakodashim? ย There seems to be a problem with the measurements which lead Shmuel to say that they miraculously didn’t take up space. ย However many other rabbis provided alternate solutions so as not to conclude there was something miraculous going on. ย When one has a pit in another’s property and has an access route or an inner garden within an outer one, what are his rights to that path? ย If one had a public path going through his property and made it his own and made a different public path on the side of his property, is that valid?

ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืฉ ื›ืœื•ื ืืฃ ืœืžื˜ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืฉ ื›ืœื•ื

The verse teaches us this: The area below the cherubs is like the area above them; just as the area above the cherubsโ€™ wings, which were spread out in the air, was not used for anything, i.e., it was empty space, so too the area below them was not used for anything and was empty.

ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืœื•ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืœื•ื™ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ืžืกื•ืจืช ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื ื• ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ืžืงื•ื ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืžื“ื” ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืจื•ืŸ ืฉืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืจื™ื•ื— ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืœื›ืœ ืจื•ื— ื•ืจื•ื—

This supports the opinion of Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoแธฅanan who said: This matter is a tradition handed down to us by our ancestors: The space occupied by the Ark of the Covenant and the cherubs is not included in the measurement of the Holy of Holies in which it rested, as miraculously it did not occupy any space at all. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: When they brought the Ark that Moses crafted into the Holy of Holies in the Temple of King Solomon, even though the total width of the Holy of Holies was only twenty cubits, nevertheless the Ark had ten cubits of empty space between it and the wall in each and every direction.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื ืก ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืืžื•ืช ื›ื ืฃ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืื—ืช ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืืžื•ืช ื›ื ืฃ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืฉื ื™ืช ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืžืงืฆื•ืช ื›ื ืคื™ื• ื•ืขื“ ืงืฆื•ืช ื›ื ืคื™ื• ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื”ื• ื”ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ื ืก ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ

Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: The cherubs stood miraculously and did not occupy any physical space, as it is stated: โ€œAnd five cubits was one wing of the cherub, and five cubits was the second wing of the cherub; ten cubits from the tip of its wings until the tip of its wingsโ€ (Iย Kings 6:24). Accordingly, the wings of two cherubs, standing side by side, would occupy the entire twenty cubits width of the Sanctuary. But if so, where, in what space, were their bodies standing? Since their wings alone, which protruded from the sides of cherubsโ€™ bodies, occupied twenty cubits, there was no room left in which their bodies could stand. Rather, one must conclude from the verse that the cherubs stood miraculously and did not occupy any physical space.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื•ืœื˜ื™ืŸ ื›ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื•ื“ืœืžื ื–ื” ืฉืœื ื›ื ื’ื“ ื–ื” ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืืœื›ืกื•ื ื ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™

Abaye objects to this proof: But perhaps they stood with their bodies emerging beneath their wings, like chickens, with their wings protruding above them from the same point in the center of their backs. If so, their bodies would stand beneath their wings and would not occupy any additional space. Rava also objects to this proof: But perhaps they stood so that this one was not next to that one and the wings of the two cherubs overlapped, thereby allowing for the additional space occupied by their bodies. Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaakov also objects to this proof: But perhaps they were standing in a diagonal [baโ€™alakhsona] alignment from one corner of the Holy of Holies to the diagonally opposite corner. In this way there would be enough space for their bodies and their wings.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื™ืชื ืžืขื™ืœืื™ ืจื•ื•ื— ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ื›ืฃ ื”ื•ื• ื›ื™ื™ืคื™ ื™ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ื“ืœืžื ืฉืœื—ื•ืคื™ ื”ื•ื• ืžืฉืœื—ืคื™

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua also objects to this proof: But perhaps the width of twenty cubits stated in the verse refers only to the width at ground level, whereas the room widened at the top and was therefore able to accommodate both their wings and the width of the bodies. Rav Pappa also objects to this proof: But perhaps they were folding their wings somewhat; since their wings were not fully extended they did not actually fill the full twenty cubits of the Sanctuary. Rav Ashi also objects to this proof: But perhaps their wings crossed over one another, so that they did not occupy so much space.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืคื ื™ื”ื ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืคื ื™ื”ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคื ื™ื”ื ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืคื ื™ื”ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื•ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื•ื

ยง Continuing its focus on the cherubs, the Gemara asks: How were the cherubs standing? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about this. One says: Their faces were turned one toward the other. And one says: Their faces were turned toward the House, i.e., the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that their faces were turned one toward the other, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd their faces were toward the Houseโ€ (IIย Chronicles 3:13)? How does he explain the meaning of this verse? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as their faces miraculously changed directions in reflection of the Jewish peopleโ€™s relationship to God. Here, when it states that the cherubs faced each other, it was when the Jewish people do the will of God. There, the verse that describes that the cherubs faced the Sanctuary and not toward each other, was when the Jewish people do not do the will of God.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื•ืคื ื™ื”ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืคื ื™ื”ื ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื“ืžืฆื“ื“ื™ ืืฆื“ื•ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื•ื ืงืœื•ืก ื”ื’ืจ ืืžืจ ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืžืขืฉื” ืฆืขืฆืขื™ื ื”ืŸ ื•ืžืฆื•ื“ื“ื™ื ืคื ื™ื”ื ื›ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื”ื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืจื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says they stood as described in the verse: โ€œAnd their faces were toward the House,โ€ isnโ€™t it written: โ€œWith their faces one toward the otherโ€ (Exodus 25:20). How does he explain the meaning of this verse? The Gemara answers: They were angled sideways so that they turned both to each other and toward the Sanctuary, as it is taught in a baraita: Onkelos the Convert said that the cherubs were of the form of children, as the verse states: โ€œAnd in the Holy of Holies he made two cherubim of the form of children; and they overlaid them with goldโ€ (IIย Chronicles 3:10), and their faces were angled sideways toward the Ark of the Covenant, like a student taking leave of his teacher.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื‘ื•ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ื ื™ืก ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ื•ืžืฉืงื” ืžื‘ื•ืจื• ืืœื ืžืžืœื ื•ืžืฉืงื” ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืœื• ืคื•ืชื—ืช ื•ื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืœื• ืคื•ืชื—ืช

MISHNA: One who has ownership of a cistern located beyond the house of another, i.e., the cistern can be accessed only by entering the property of the other, and also has access rights to that cistern, may enter the house to access his cistern only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. And in addition, he may not bring his animal into the house and water it from his cistern; rather, he must fill a pail with water from the cistern and water his animal outside. And this one, the owner of the cistern, constructs for himself a lock on the entrance to the cistern to prevent the homeowner from drawing water from it, and that one, the homeowner, constructs for himself a lock.

ื’ืžืณ ืคื•ืชื—ืช ืœื”ื™ื›ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืขื™ ืœืืฉืชืžื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื” ืืœื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœืžื” ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ

GEMARA: The mishna states that the owner of the cistern and the homeowner each construct a lock. The Gemara asks: A lock to where? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Both of them construct a lock on the opening to the cistern to prevent the other from accessing it unilaterally. The Gemara asks: Granted, the owner of the cistern constructs a lock, as he wants to protect the water of his well. But why does the homeowner construct a lock? Rabbi Elazar said:

ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืฉื“ ืืฉืชื•

He does so due to a suspicion that the owner of the cistern might enter the house at a time when the owner of the house is not present, and thereby be secluded together in the house with the homeownerโ€™s wife.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื’ื™ื ื” ืœืคื ื™ื ืžื’ื™ื ืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ืจื• ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ื ื•ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ื ื™ืก ืœืชื•ื›ื” ืชื’ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืžืชื•ื›ื” ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ืื—ืจืช ื•ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ื–ื•ืจืข ืืช ื”ื“ืจืš

MISHNA: One who has ownership of a garden located beyond the garden of another, and also has access rights to it, may enter his garden only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. Furthermore, he may not bring merchants into his garden, and he may not enter the garden solely in order to use it as a passageway, to enter from it into another field. And the owner of the outer garden may sow the path leading to the inner garden.

ื ืชื ื• ืœื• ื“ืจืš ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ืžื“ืขืช ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ื•ื ืจื•ืฆื” ื•ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืจื•ืฆื” ื•ืžื›ื ื™ืก ืœืชื•ื›ื” ืชื’ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืžืชื•ื›ื” ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ืื—ืจืช ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ืŸ ืจืฉืื™ื ืœื–ื•ืจืขื”

If the court gave him an access path from the side of the outer garden, with the agreement of both of them, he may enter at any time he wants, and leave at any time he wants, and may bring merchants into the inner garden. But he may still not enter the garden solely in order to enter from it into another field. In such a case, neither this one, the owner of the inner garden, nor that one, the owner of the outer garden, is permitted to plant that side path.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืš ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉืชื™ ืืžื•ืช ืœืชื•ื›ื” ื•ืืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืื’ืคื™ื” ืืžื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืงื™ืœื•ืŸ ืื ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืš ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืžื” ืื—ืช ืœืชื•ื›ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืื’ืคื™ื”

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a field owner says to another: I am selling you from my land a water channel fit for bringing water to an irrigated field, he is required to give him land two cubits wide for the inside of the channel, and one cubit on this side and one cubit on that side for its banks. If he said to him: I am selling you a shadoof [kilon] channel, he is required to give him land one cubit wide for the inside of the channel and half a cubit on this side and half a cubit on that side for its banks.

ื•ืื•ืชืŸ ืื’ืคื™ื™ื ืžื™ ื–ื•ืจืขื ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื–ื•ืจืขื ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื ื•ื˜ืขื ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื•ืจืขื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื ื•ื˜ืขื ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื•ื˜ืขื ืื‘ืœ ื–ื•ืจืขื ืœื ื—ืœื—ื•ืœื™ ืžื—ืœื—ื•ืœื™

The Gemara asks: And with regard to those banks, who has permission to sow them? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The field owner may sow them with vegetables or crops. Rav Naแธฅman says that Shmuel says: The field owner may plant them with trees. The Gemara elaborates: The one who says that the field owner may sow them holds that all the more so he may plant them with trees. And the one who says that he may plant them with trees holds that he may only plant trees, but sowing them with other plants is not permitted. This is because the roots perforate the ground, which weakens it and can cause damage to the water channel.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ืฉื›ืœื• ืื’ืคื™ื” ืžืชืงื ื” ืžืื•ืชื” ืฉื“ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉืœื ื›ืœื• ืื’ืคื™ื” ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉื“ื”

ยง And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to a water channel whose banks collapsed, the owner of the channel may repair it with earth from that field through which the channel runs, even though the field does not belong to him. It is permitted because it is known that when its banks collapsed the earth that the banks were made from spread only into that surrounding field.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื™ืš ืืฉืคืœื•ื” ืœืืจืขื™ืš ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืฉืขืœ ืžื ืช ื›ืŸ ืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื”

Rav Pappa objects to this: But let the field owner say to the owner of the channel: Your water in your channel carried away your earth from your banks, so you have no right to take earth from my field. Rather, Rav Pappa said he may repair the banks with earth from the field because when the field owner sold the rights to the channel he accepted that condition upon himself.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืขื•ื‘ืจืช ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ื ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ืžื” ืฉื ืชืŸ ื ืชืŸ ื•ืฉืœื• ืœื ื”ื’ื™ืขื•

MISHNA: In the case of one who had a public thoroughfare passing through his field, and he appropriated it and instead gave the public an alternative thoroughfare on the side of his property, the halakha is that the thoroughfare that he gave them, he gave them, and they may use it. But the original thoroughfare that he took for himself has not reached him, i.e., he cannot appropriate it for his personal use.

ื“ืจืš ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืืžื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืžืœืš ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื“ืจืš ื”ืงื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื”ืžืขืžื“ ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื‘ื™ืช ืืจื‘ืขื” ืงื‘ื™ืŸ

The standard width of a private path is four cubits. If a field owner sells the right to pass through his field to an individual, without specifying the width of the path, he must provide him with a path four cubits wide. The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The width of a kingโ€™s thoroughfare has no maximum measure, as the king may appropriate whatever width thoroughfare he wishes. The width of the path for the burial procession to a grave has no maximum measure. With regard to the practice of standing and comforting the mourners following a funeral, the judges of Tzippori said that the standard requisite size is the area required for sowing four kav of seed.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืื™ ืฉืœื• ืœื ื”ื’ื™ืขื• ืœื™ื ืงื•ื˜ ืคื–ืจื ื•ืœื™ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ืคืฉื™ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืกื™ื“ื

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna rule that the public thoroughfare that the landowner took for himself has not reached him? If by making the exchange the original thoroughfare now belongs to him, let him take a stick [pazra] and sit on the thoroughfare and physically prevent anyone from passing through. Apparently, the Sages did not permit him to do so. The Gemara suggests: Does it follow that one can conclude from the mishnaโ€™s ruling that a person may not execute judgment for himself even in circumstances where refraining from acting will cause him a loss? This would contradict the accepted halakha that one may do so.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื“ืจืš ืขืงืœืชื•ืŸ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ื“ืจืš ืขืงืœืชื•ืŸ

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Although generally one may do so, in this case the Sages issued a decree prohibiting it, lest he give them a circuitous route that will lengthen the distance the public will have to travel. Rav Mesharshiyya said in the name of Rava that the ruling of the mishna applies only where he actually gives them a circuitous route instead of the original straight thoroughfare. But one may exchange a public thoroughfare for an equally straight thoroughfare, appropriating the original for his personal use.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 99

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 99

ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืฉ ื›ืœื•ื ืืฃ ืœืžื˜ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืฉ ื›ืœื•ื

The verse teaches us this: The area below the cherubs is like the area above them; just as the area above the cherubsโ€™ wings, which were spread out in the air, was not used for anything, i.e., it was empty space, so too the area below them was not used for anything and was empty.

ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืœื•ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืœื•ื™ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ืžืกื•ืจืช ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื ื• ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ืžืงื•ื ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืžื“ื” ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืจื•ืŸ ืฉืขืฉื” ืžืฉื” ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืจื™ื•ื— ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืœื›ืœ ืจื•ื— ื•ืจื•ื—

This supports the opinion of Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoแธฅanan who said: This matter is a tradition handed down to us by our ancestors: The space occupied by the Ark of the Covenant and the cherubs is not included in the measurement of the Holy of Holies in which it rested, as miraculously it did not occupy any space at all. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: When they brought the Ark that Moses crafted into the Holy of Holies in the Temple of King Solomon, even though the total width of the Holy of Holies was only twenty cubits, nevertheless the Ark had ten cubits of empty space between it and the wall in each and every direction.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื ืก ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืืžื•ืช ื›ื ืฃ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืื—ืช ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืืžื•ืช ื›ื ืฃ ื”ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืฉื ื™ืช ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืžืงืฆื•ืช ื›ื ืคื™ื• ื•ืขื“ ืงืฆื•ืช ื›ื ืคื™ื• ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื”ื• ื”ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ื ืก ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ

Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: The cherubs stood miraculously and did not occupy any physical space, as it is stated: โ€œAnd five cubits was one wing of the cherub, and five cubits was the second wing of the cherub; ten cubits from the tip of its wings until the tip of its wingsโ€ (Iย Kings 6:24). Accordingly, the wings of two cherubs, standing side by side, would occupy the entire twenty cubits width of the Sanctuary. But if so, where, in what space, were their bodies standing? Since their wings alone, which protruded from the sides of cherubsโ€™ bodies, occupied twenty cubits, there was no room left in which their bodies could stand. Rather, one must conclude from the verse that the cherubs stood miraculously and did not occupy any physical space.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื•ืœื˜ื™ืŸ ื›ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ื•ื“ืœืžื ื–ื” ืฉืœื ื›ื ื’ื“ ื–ื” ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืืœื›ืกื•ื ื ื”ื•ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™

Abaye objects to this proof: But perhaps they stood with their bodies emerging beneath their wings, like chickens, with their wings protruding above them from the same point in the center of their backs. If so, their bodies would stand beneath their wings and would not occupy any additional space. Rava also objects to this proof: But perhaps they stood so that this one was not next to that one and the wings of the two cherubs overlapped, thereby allowing for the additional space occupied by their bodies. Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaakov also objects to this proof: But perhaps they were standing in a diagonal [baโ€™alakhsona] alignment from one corner of the Holy of Holies to the diagonally opposite corner. In this way there would be enough space for their bodies and their wings.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื™ืชื ืžืขื™ืœืื™ ืจื•ื•ื— ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ื›ืฃ ื”ื•ื• ื›ื™ื™ืคื™ ื™ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ื“ืœืžื ืฉืœื—ื•ืคื™ ื”ื•ื• ืžืฉืœื—ืคื™

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua also objects to this proof: But perhaps the width of twenty cubits stated in the verse refers only to the width at ground level, whereas the room widened at the top and was therefore able to accommodate both their wings and the width of the bodies. Rav Pappa also objects to this proof: But perhaps they were folding their wings somewhat; since their wings were not fully extended they did not actually fill the full twenty cubits of the Sanctuary. Rav Ashi also objects to this proof: But perhaps their wings crossed over one another, so that they did not occupy so much space.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืคื ื™ื”ื ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืคื ื™ื”ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคื ื™ื”ื ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืคื ื™ื”ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื•ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื•ื

ยง Continuing its focus on the cherubs, the Gemara asks: How were the cherubs standing? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about this. One says: Their faces were turned one toward the other. And one says: Their faces were turned toward the House, i.e., the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that their faces were turned one toward the other, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd their faces were toward the Houseโ€ (IIย Chronicles 3:13)? How does he explain the meaning of this verse? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as their faces miraculously changed directions in reflection of the Jewish peopleโ€™s relationship to God. Here, when it states that the cherubs faced each other, it was when the Jewish people do the will of God. There, the verse that describes that the cherubs faced the Sanctuary and not toward each other, was when the Jewish people do not do the will of God.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื•ืคื ื™ื”ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืคื ื™ื”ื ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื“ืžืฆื“ื“ื™ ืืฆื“ื•ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื•ื ืงืœื•ืก ื”ื’ืจ ืืžืจ ื›ืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืžืขืฉื” ืฆืขืฆืขื™ื ื”ืŸ ื•ืžืฆื•ื“ื“ื™ื ืคื ื™ื”ื ื›ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื”ื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืจื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says they stood as described in the verse: โ€œAnd their faces were toward the House,โ€ isnโ€™t it written: โ€œWith their faces one toward the otherโ€ (Exodus 25:20). How does he explain the meaning of this verse? The Gemara answers: They were angled sideways so that they turned both to each other and toward the Sanctuary, as it is taught in a baraita: Onkelos the Convert said that the cherubs were of the form of children, as the verse states: โ€œAnd in the Holy of Holies he made two cherubim of the form of children; and they overlaid them with goldโ€ (IIย Chronicles 3:10), and their faces were angled sideways toward the Ark of the Covenant, like a student taking leave of his teacher.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื‘ื•ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ื ื™ืก ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ื•ืžืฉืงื” ืžื‘ื•ืจื• ืืœื ืžืžืœื ื•ืžืฉืงื” ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืœื• ืคื•ืชื—ืช ื•ื–ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืœื• ืคื•ืชื—ืช

MISHNA: One who has ownership of a cistern located beyond the house of another, i.e., the cistern can be accessed only by entering the property of the other, and also has access rights to that cistern, may enter the house to access his cistern only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. And in addition, he may not bring his animal into the house and water it from his cistern; rather, he must fill a pail with water from the cistern and water his animal outside. And this one, the owner of the cistern, constructs for himself a lock on the entrance to the cistern to prevent the homeowner from drawing water from it, and that one, the homeowner, constructs for himself a lock.

ื’ืžืณ ืคื•ืชื—ืช ืœื”ื™ื›ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืœื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืขื™ ืœืืฉืชืžื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื” ืืœื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœืžื” ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ

GEMARA: The mishna states that the owner of the cistern and the homeowner each construct a lock. The Gemara asks: A lock to where? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Both of them construct a lock on the opening to the cistern to prevent the other from accessing it unilaterally. The Gemara asks: Granted, the owner of the cistern constructs a lock, as he wants to protect the water of his well. But why does the homeowner construct a lock? Rabbi Elazar said:

ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืฉื“ ืืฉืชื•

He does so due to a suspicion that the owner of the cistern might enter the house at a time when the owner of the house is not present, and thereby be secluded together in the house with the homeownerโ€™s wife.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื’ื™ื ื” ืœืคื ื™ื ืžื’ื™ื ืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ืจื• ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ื ื•ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ื ื™ืก ืœืชื•ื›ื” ืชื’ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืžืชื•ื›ื” ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ืื—ืจืช ื•ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ื–ื•ืจืข ืืช ื”ื“ืจืš

MISHNA: One who has ownership of a garden located beyond the garden of another, and also has access rights to it, may enter his garden only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. Furthermore, he may not bring merchants into his garden, and he may not enter the garden solely in order to use it as a passageway, to enter from it into another field. And the owner of the outer garden may sow the path leading to the inner garden.

ื ืชื ื• ืœื• ื“ืจืš ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ืžื“ืขืช ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื”ื•ื ืจื•ืฆื” ื•ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืจื•ืฆื” ื•ืžื›ื ื™ืก ืœืชื•ื›ื” ืชื’ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืžืชื•ื›ื” ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื” ืื—ืจืช ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ืŸ ืจืฉืื™ื ืœื–ื•ืจืขื”

If the court gave him an access path from the side of the outer garden, with the agreement of both of them, he may enter at any time he wants, and leave at any time he wants, and may bring merchants into the inner garden. But he may still not enter the garden solely in order to enter from it into another field. In such a case, neither this one, the owner of the inner garden, nor that one, the owner of the outer garden, is permitted to plant that side path.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืš ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉืชื™ ืืžื•ืช ืœืชื•ื›ื” ื•ืืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืื’ืคื™ื” ืืžื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืงื™ืœื•ืŸ ืื ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืš ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืžื” ืื—ืช ืœืชื•ื›ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืืžื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืื’ืคื™ื”

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a field owner says to another: I am selling you from my land a water channel fit for bringing water to an irrigated field, he is required to give him land two cubits wide for the inside of the channel, and one cubit on this side and one cubit on that side for its banks. If he said to him: I am selling you a shadoof [kilon] channel, he is required to give him land one cubit wide for the inside of the channel and half a cubit on this side and half a cubit on that side for its banks.

ื•ืื•ืชืŸ ืื’ืคื™ื™ื ืžื™ ื–ื•ืจืขื ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื–ื•ืจืขื ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื ื•ื˜ืขื ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื•ืจืขื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื ื•ื˜ืขื ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื•ื˜ืขื ืื‘ืœ ื–ื•ืจืขื ืœื ื—ืœื—ื•ืœื™ ืžื—ืœื—ื•ืœื™

The Gemara asks: And with regard to those banks, who has permission to sow them? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The field owner may sow them with vegetables or crops. Rav Naแธฅman says that Shmuel says: The field owner may plant them with trees. The Gemara elaborates: The one who says that the field owner may sow them holds that all the more so he may plant them with trees. And the one who says that he may plant them with trees holds that he may only plant trees, but sowing them with other plants is not permitted. This is because the roots perforate the ground, which weakens it and can cause damage to the water channel.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ืฉื›ืœื• ืื’ืคื™ื” ืžืชืงื ื” ืžืื•ืชื” ืฉื“ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉืœื ื›ืœื• ืื’ืคื™ื” ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉื“ื”

ยง And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to a water channel whose banks collapsed, the owner of the channel may repair it with earth from that field through which the channel runs, even though the field does not belong to him. It is permitted because it is known that when its banks collapsed the earth that the banks were made from spread only into that surrounding field.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืœื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื™ืš ืืฉืคืœื•ื” ืœืืจืขื™ืš ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืฉืขืœ ืžื ืช ื›ืŸ ืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื”

Rav Pappa objects to this: But let the field owner say to the owner of the channel: Your water in your channel carried away your earth from your banks, so you have no right to take earth from my field. Rather, Rav Pappa said he may repair the banks with earth from the field because when the field owner sold the rights to the channel he accepted that condition upon himself.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืขื•ื‘ืจืช ืœืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ื ื˜ืœื” ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ืžื” ืฉื ืชืŸ ื ืชืŸ ื•ืฉืœื• ืœื ื”ื’ื™ืขื•

MISHNA: In the case of one who had a public thoroughfare passing through his field, and he appropriated it and instead gave the public an alternative thoroughfare on the side of his property, the halakha is that the thoroughfare that he gave them, he gave them, and they may use it. But the original thoroughfare that he took for himself has not reached him, i.e., he cannot appropriate it for his personal use.

ื“ืจืš ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืืžื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืžืœืš ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื“ืจืš ื”ืงื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฉื™ืขื•ืจ ื”ืžืขืžื“ ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื‘ื™ืช ืืจื‘ืขื” ืงื‘ื™ืŸ

The standard width of a private path is four cubits. If a field owner sells the right to pass through his field to an individual, without specifying the width of the path, he must provide him with a path four cubits wide. The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The width of a kingโ€™s thoroughfare has no maximum measure, as the king may appropriate whatever width thoroughfare he wishes. The width of the path for the burial procession to a grave has no maximum measure. With regard to the practice of standing and comforting the mourners following a funeral, the judges of Tzippori said that the standard requisite size is the area required for sowing four kav of seed.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืื™ ืฉืœื• ืœื ื”ื’ื™ืขื• ืœื™ื ืงื•ื˜ ืคื–ืจื ื•ืœื™ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ืคืฉื™ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืกื™ื“ื

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna rule that the public thoroughfare that the landowner took for himself has not reached him? If by making the exchange the original thoroughfare now belongs to him, let him take a stick [pazra] and sit on the thoroughfare and physically prevent anyone from passing through. Apparently, the Sages did not permit him to do so. The Gemara suggests: Does it follow that one can conclude from the mishnaโ€™s ruling that a person may not execute judgment for himself even in circumstances where refraining from acting will cause him a loss? This would contradict the accepted halakha that one may do so.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื“ืจืš ืขืงืœืชื•ืŸ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ื“ืจืš ืขืงืœืชื•ืŸ

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Although generally one may do so, in this case the Sages issued a decree prohibiting it, lest he give them a circuitous route that will lengthen the distance the public will have to travel. Rav Mesharshiyya said in the name of Rava that the ruling of the mishna applies only where he actually gives them a circuitous route instead of the original straight thoroughfare. But one may exchange a public thoroughfare for an equally straight thoroughfare, appropriating the original for his personal use.

Scroll To Top