Talmud su Esodo 20:22

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..

¹¹⁸A copy of this paragraph, closer to the original, is in Sukkah 1:1 (ס) 51d l. 56. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Sukkah 5a. 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 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 cover (which is on the Ark of the Covenant)from between the two Cherubim¹¹⁹Ex. 25:6. The words in parentheses are not in the verse and not in ס; they are added to indicate that the argument is about the Ark.. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you¹²⁰Ex. 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-breadths¹²¹1.5 cubits (Ex. 25:10).? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth¹²²In the Babli, Sukkah 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 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)³. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 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 almost 1.9 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 Zeˋira 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 around¹²²In the Babli, Sukkah 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 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)³. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 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 almost 1.9 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.. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it is only make a golden wreath as its frame all around¹²²In the Babli, Sukkah 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 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)³. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 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 almost 1.9 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.? 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-breadth¹²³This 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..

The allegorical interpreters⁸⁸lit. ‘expounders of jewels’, i.e. precious ethical principles. These interpreters stressed the idea behind the law and not its fulfilment. This type of interpretation was a product of Alexandria and was strongly opposed by the Talmudical Rabbis. Cf. Lauterbach, Jewish Quarterly Review (new series), I, pp. 503ff. of Scripture said: And ye shall break down their altars:⁸⁹Deut. 12, 3. wherein have the trees and the stones sinned?⁹⁰Cf. Sanh. 55a (Sonc. ed., p. 374). Because they were a stumbling-block to man Scripture decreed, And ye shall break down. This is an argument from minor to major: if with trees and stones, which are capable neither of merit nor guilt, neither of good nor evil, because they were a stumbling-block to man the Torah declared, And ye shall break down, how much more [will a man be punished] who causes his neighbour to sin and turns him away from the way of life to the path of death! Similarly, And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.⁹¹Lev. 20, 16. If a human being sinned, how has the animal offended?⁹²Sanh. 54a (Sonc. ed., p. 367). Because evil came to a human being through it, and so that the animal shall not pass through the street and people say, ‘This is the animal on account of which So-and-so was stoned’. This is an argument from minor to major: if with an animal, which is capable neither of merit nor guilt, neither of good nor evil, because it was a stumbling-block to a human being the Torah declared, It shall be stoned, how much more [will a man be punished] who causes his neighbour to sin and turns him from the way of life to the path of death!
Similarly Scripture declares of the stones of the altar, Thou shalt lift up no iron tool upon them,⁹³Deut. 27, 5. and elsewhere it states, For if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.⁹⁴Ex. 20, 22. Wherein is iron different from all other metals to be unfit for [the building of] the altar? Because the sword is a symbol of curse and the altar an agent of atonement; so we remove the symbol of curse on account of the agent of atonement. This is an argument from minor to major: if with the stones of the altar which do not see and speak, eat or drink, because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven the Torah declared, Thou shalt lift no iron tool upon them, the children of the Torah,⁹⁵The people of Israel. who are an atonement for the world, how much more [should they not lift an iron tool against each other!] Similarly Scripture declares, Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy God of unhewn stones⁹⁶Deut. 27, 6.—stones that bring peace to the world. This is an argument from minor to major: if with stones which do not see or hear, speak or eat or drink, because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven they must be ‘whole’ [48a] before [the Holy One, blessed be He], how much more the children of the Torah, who are an atonement for the world, must be ‘whole’ before the Holy One, blessed be He!