וַיִּסְעוּ֙ מֵהַ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה דֶּ֖רֶךְ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים וַאֲר֨וֹן בְּרִית־יְהוָ֜ה נֹסֵ֣עַ לִפְנֵיהֶ֗ם דֶּ֚רֶךְ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים לָת֥וּר לָהֶ֖ם מְנוּחָֽה׃
Et ils firent, à partir du mont de l’Éternel, trois journées de chemin; l’arche d’alliance de l’Éternel marcha à leur tête l’espace de trois journées, pour leur choisir une halte,
Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim
11From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is from Soṭah8:3 (Notes 43–130,ס), where all references to the Babli are given. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written12Num. 14:44.: Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp. The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them13Sifry Num. #82, referring to Num. 10.33.. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god141S.5:8.? A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark151S.14:18.. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye`arim? What do the rabbis do with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem16This is the correct interpretation, as explained at the end of Yoma Chapter 7, not “ephod” following LXX and many moderns.’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts172S. 11:11.. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.
Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah
44This paragraph is from Šabbat Chapter 1, Notes 118 ff. While here the problem is that a roof less than 10 hand-breadths from the ground does not have the status of a cover, for the rules of the Sabbath public domain reaches only from the ground to a height of 10 hand-breadths, while private domain extends to an indefinite height. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Sukkah5a. Since the entire discussion is Amoraic, one must conclude that for earlier times the limitation of the public domain to 10 hand-breadths from the ground and the minimal height required for a sukkah was tradition not subject to verification from biblical sources. From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover45Ex. 25:6.. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you46Ex. 20:22.. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths471.5 cubits (Ex. 25:10).? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth48In the Babli 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit)2 (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined.. If we take a small hand-breadth of 8.5 cm, cubit 51 cm, then a cover 2 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, and one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 108(hand-breadths)3 = 66 (dm)3. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1260 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of 1.26 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around49This cryptic statement is explained in the Babli (in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Jacob’s teacher Rav Huna) as referring to Lev. 16:2 where Aaron is warned not to appear before the face of the cover except on the day of Atonement. This implies that the cover was not simply a sheet lying over the Ark but had a face, a vertical dimension which is not negligible.. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it refers only to: make a golden wreath as its frame all around50It is impossible to say that in general a new domain starts at 10 hand-breadths since it is commonly accepted that a private domain remains private to an indeterminate height. The Ark was standing in the private domain of the Sanctuary; a reference to it seems to be irrelevant.? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth51In the desert, the Ark was travelling in front of the people (Num. 10:33) while the Sanctuary was carried in the middle (v. 17). At the resting place, the Ark automatically assumed a West-East direction so that the Sanctuary could be placed around it and the tribes camped correctly in the four directions of the compass (Num.2). The Ark had functions outside the Sanctuary; the reference is legitimate..
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to use anything from in it into the house or from the house into it124It is impossible to say that in general a new domain starts at 10 hand-breadths since it is commonly accepted that a private domain remains such to an indeterminate height. The Ark was standing in the private domain of the Sanctuary; a reference to it seems to be irrelevant.? But we are dealing when it was indicating to them the geographic directions125In the desert, the Ark was traveling in front of the people (Num. 10:33) while the Sanctuary was carried in the middle (v. 17). At the resting place, the Ark automatically assumed a West-East direction so that the Sanctuary could be placed around it and the tribes camped correctly in the four directions of the compass (Num. 2). The Ark had functions outside the Sanctuary; the reference is legitimate.. This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six [hand-breadths]126In Mishnaic times, the building cubit was a standard 6, the vessel cubit 5 hand-breadths. If the Ark was built to vessel standards, it cannot be used to define domains. Whether the vessel standard was used in the Temple is a matter of controversy in the Babli, Menaḥot 98a.. But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons127In Ex. 31:12–18 and 35:1–3 the observation of the Sabbath is emphasized in the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. One concludes that the work forbidden on the Sabbath is exactly work needed in building or transporting the Tabernacle. The wagons mentioned here are the 6 wagons donated by the tribal chiefs for the transport of the Sanctuary (Num. 7:3).. We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons. It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, the cover was one hand-breadth128The reading of ס is preferable: Nine hand-breadths of the Ark and one of the cover.. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten [hand-breadths] high129There are no biblical indications about the height of the wagons’ platforms above ground.? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola130Greek καμάρα, Latin camara, -ae, f.(also camera) “arched or vaulted roof or ceiling, distinct from an outer roof”.
The wagons are called עֶגְלֹ֥ת צָב֙. Now צָב means “turtle”; from this comes the usual translation “covered wagon”, using the image of the domed back of the turtle. The expression really is a technical term “freight-wagon”, Accadic ṣubbum, ṣūbum.? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to use anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it131This is a side remark. A hole in the public domain 10 hand-breadths deep and 4 by 4 wide creates a new domain and is considered a private domain from which nothing may be transported to the public domain. This cannot be derived by comparison either to the Ark or to the wagons.? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight132Whether the wagons were covered with a convex covering or not is irrelevant since at the moment of loading the planks and the gobelins of the Sanctuary they were uncovered and certainly had flat loading areas. For the meaning of “straight” for תְּרוּטוֹת cf. Mishnah Middot 2:5..
The wagons are called עֶגְלֹ֥ת צָב֙. Now צָב means “turtle”; from this comes the usual translation “covered wagon”, using the image of the domed back of the turtle. The expression really is a technical term “freight-wagon”, Accadic ṣubbum, ṣūbum.? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to use anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it131This is a side remark. A hole in the public domain 10 hand-breadths deep and 4 by 4 wide creates a new domain and is considered a private domain from which nothing may be transported to the public domain. This cannot be derived by comparison either to the Ark or to the wagons.? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight132Whether the wagons were covered with a convex covering or not is irrelevant since at the moment of loading the planks and the gobelins of the Sanctuary they were uncovered and certainly had flat loading areas. For the meaning of “straight” for תְּרוּטוֹת cf. Mishnah Middot 2:5..