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

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

Gemara
Elsewhere we have learnt: A sukkah which [in its interior] is more than twenty cubits high is unfit, but R. Judah regards it as fit. 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 was indicated? — [In respect of a] sukkah, since it Is a Pentateuchal ordinance, it [was proper categorically to] rule, ‘unfit’; in respect of the ENTRANCE, however, since [the prohibition against moving objects about in the alley is only] Rabbinical, a remedy could well be indicated. 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’, [while in the case of] an ENTRANCE [To A BLIND ALLEY], since the regulations governing it are not many, a remedy could be indicated. Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: The Sages could have deduced it only from the [dimensions of] the entrance to the Hekal 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 was twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide, and that to the Ulam was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide. And both based their expositions on the same text: And kill it at the entrance of the tent of meeting; the Rabbis being of the opinion that the sanctity of the Hekal is distinct [from that of the Ulam] and that of the Ulam is distinct from [that of the Hekal], so that the mention of ‘the entrance of the tent of meeting’ must refer to the Hekal only. 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’ refers to both of them. 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, but the reason for R. Judah's ruling here is because it is written: To the entrance of the Ulam of the house. 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’, [the meaning is the entrance of] the house that opens into the Ulam. But is not this text written in connection with the Tabernacle? — We find that the Tabernacle was called Sanctuary and that the Sanctuary was called Tabernacle. For, should you not concede this, [consider] the statement which Rab Judah made In the name of Samuel: ‘Peace-offerings that were slain prior to the opening of the doors of the Hekal are disqualified because it is said in Scripture: And kill it at the entrance of the tent of meeting [which implies only] when it is open but not when it is closed’. Now surely [it might be objected] is not this Scriptural text written in connection with the Tabernacle? 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. 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 that the tabernacle might be set up against their coming,