Daf Ditty Eruvin 4 Measurements

! תוֹצּיִחְמ , אָתיְיָרוֹאְדּ וּהְניִנ

2 Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said that the halakhot of partitions were transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion as well: They are written in the Torah, as the fundamental principle that a partition ten handbreadths high establishes a separate domain is derived from the Torah.

. רַמָאְדּ רָמ : ןוֹרָא הָﬠְשִׁתּ תֶרוֹפַּכְו חַפֶט , רֲה יֵ ןאָכּ רָשֲׂﬠ הָ ֲָ

As the Master said: The Holy Ark in the Tabernacle was nine handbreadths high, as the verse states that its height was a cubit and a half. A cubit contains six handbreadths, so its height totaled nine handbreadths. And the cover atop the Ark was one handbreadth, which total ten. There is a tradition that the Divine Presence does not descend into the domain of this world, which is derived from the verse that states that the Divine Presence would reveal itself from above the cover of the Ark. Apparently, a partition of ten handbreadths creates a separate domain.

. אָל אָכיִרְצ , יִבַּרְל הָדוּהְי רַמָאְדּ : תַמַּא ןָיְנִבּ הָמַּאְבּ תַבּ הָשִּׁשׁ . תַמַּא םיִלֵכּ הָמַּאְבּ תַבּ הָשִּׁמֲח

The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The cubit mentioned with regard to the building of the Tabernacle and the Temple was a large cubit of six handbreadths, whereas the cubit mentioned with regard to the sacred vessels was a cubit of five handbreadths. According to this opinion, the Ark, which was a cubit and a half, and its cover, which was a handbreadth, measured eight and a half handbreadths. Therefore, nothing can be derived with regard to a partition of ten handbreadths.

? לוּ רְ בַּ ִ י ֵמ ריִא רַמָאְדּ : לׇכּ תוֹמַּאָה וּיָה תיִנוֹניֵבְבּ , יאַמ אָכּיִא רַמיֵמְל

The Gemara poses a question. And according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: All the cubits were medium ones, regular cubits of six handbreadths; what can be said? Apparently, according to his opinion, the laws governing partitions are explicitly stated in the Torah.

. יִבַּרְל ריִאֵמ , יִכּ יאַתֲא אָתְכְליִה — דוּגְל לוּ ְ ָ ל דוּב לוּ ְ פוֹד ֶ ן הָמּוּקֲﬠ

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the halakha with regard to a partition of ten handbreadths is indeed written in the Torah. However, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of the curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is valid even if there are up to four cubits of invalid roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the invalid roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah.

3 RASHI

רא ו ן עשת ה תרופכו חפט - רא ו ן והבוג עשת ה חפט י ם יתכד ב ) מש ו ת ה״כ : ב״כ ( המאו יצחו ותמוק תרופכו חפט רה י רשע ה ביתכו יתרבדו ךתא לעמ פכה ו תר נתו אי פב "ק סד ו הכ )ד 'ה (. בר י יסוי רמוא על ו םל אל הדרי כש י נ הניכ הטמל הרשעמ יתכד ב משה י ם מש י ם הל ' ץראהו ןתנ נבל י םדא הטמלו הרשעמ חפט י ם שח י ב ץרא יתכד ב יתרבדו : ךתא לעמ פכה ו תר אמלא רשע ה וה י חמ י הצ הלעמלד הרשעמ אל שח י ב היל שר ו ת תחת י ת אלא שר ו את רחא י ת י ח

The Gemara concludes its unsuccessful challenge to Abaye’s position that in the context of sukkah and mavoi the five tefach amah is used, when Abaye is forced to admit that the issue is a debate between Tannaim.

Rava, however, can maintain that there is no dispute between Tannaim on this issue. 2) Measures, interpositions and walls R’ Chiya bar Asi in the name of Rav States: Measures, interpositions and walls are laws taught to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai for which there is no source in the Torah. The assertion that measurements are Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai is challenged from the teaching of R’ Chanan who derives many Halachos related to measurements from the verse that describes the fruit of Eretz Yisroel.

4 The Gemara answers: The Halachos are in fact Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai and the verse was merely used by Chazal as a support for those halachos.

The assertion that interpositions are Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai is challenged. The Gemara answers: The part of the law that is Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai is the halacha that an interposition must cover most of the body and be something that is objectionable. The Gemara explains which law related to walls is Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai according to R’ Yehudah and R’ Meir.1

In the discussion of the varying size of the “ama” (=cubit) measurement, the Gemara points to the dimensions of the Mizbeach– the altar in the Temple – as an example of a structure with “amot” of varying sizes.2

The height of the Mizbeach (including the corner Keranot, or horns) was ten amot – but not all of the amot were measured the same way, so the total height was 58 tefahim (=handbreadths), rather than 60tefahim. There were five places on the Mizbeach that were measured in amot of five tefahim each.

They were: The height of the Yesod (foundation) The width of the Yesod the width of the Sovev (the ledge around the Mizbeach) The height of the Keranot (the raised corners) The width of the Keranot prooftext:

And these are the measures of the altar by cubits--the cubit is 13 גי הֶלֵּאְו תוֹדִּמ ַחֵבְּזִמַּה ,תוֹמַּאָבּ ,תוֹמַּאָבּ ַחֵבְּזִמַּה תוֹדִּמ הֶלֵּאְו a cubit and a handbreadth: the bottom shall be a cubit, and the הָמַּא ;חַפֹטָו קיֵחְו הָמַּאָה הָמַּאְו - breadth a cubit, and the border thereof by the edge thereof ֹר ,בַח הָּלוּבְגוּ לֶא - הָּתָפְשׂ ביִבָס ביִבָס הָּתָפְשׂ .round about a span; and this shall be the base of the altar תֶרֶז ,דָחֶאָה ,הֶזְו בַגּ .ַחֵבְּזִמַּה בַגּ ,הֶזְו ,דָחֶאָה תֶרֶז

1 Daf Digest 2 Steinzaltz (OBM)

5 Ezek 43:13 Which describes the Mizbeach it is clear that the Navi describes the Mizbeach as having two different types of “ama” measurements.

Nevertheless, the passages in Ezek that deal with the measurements of the third Temple that is to be built in the future are unclear, and they are interpreted by the Sages of the Gemara in different ways.

Following the discussion of different measurements, the Gemara brings Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav who says that the rules of Shi’urim (=measurements), Hatzitzim (=intervening substances) and Mehitzim (=partitions) are all based on an oral tradition received by Moshe on Mount Sinai.

With regard to measurements, the Gemara objects that they are, in fact, rooted in a biblical passage because Rav Hanan interprets the verse:

a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and 8 ח ץֶרֶא הָטִּח ,הָרֹעְשׂוּ ןֶפֶגְו הָנֵאְתוּ הָנֵאְתוּ ןֶפֶגְו ,הָרֹעְשׂוּ הָטִּח ץֶרֶא ;pomegranates; a land of olive-trees and honey ;ןוֹמִּרְו ץֶרֶא - תיֵז ,ןֶמֶשׁ .שָׁבְדוּ ,ןֶמֶשׁ תיֵז Deut 8:8 describing the seven species of agricultural products with which the Land of Israel is blessed, as teaching rules about measurements.

Apparently Rav Hanan perceived the praise of the Land of Israel to be so significant that even a foundational law – like establishing basic measurements – could be based upon it.

As an example, Rav Hanan derives that the standard amount of food that one must eat to be held liable for eating non-Kosher (and most other prohibited foods) is the size of an olive (“Zayit”). From “Dvash” (=honey), the last of the seven species mentioned, we derive the measure of food that makes someone liable for eating on Yom Kippur – an amount of food the size of a plump date. In the realm o:8f eating that is forbidden, Yom Kippur is unique.

The Torah never forbids “eating” on Yom Kippur; rather it commands the Jewish people to suffer “inuy” – affliction – on that day. The Rabbinic Sages understood this to mean that, while we should not eat, one does not reach a level of satisfaction beyond “inuy” until he eats the amount of a date (which is larger than an olive). The conclusion of the Gemara is that the derivations based on this passage can, at best, act as hints to the law, and that the true source is the oral tradition, as presented initially.

RAMBAM Hil Ma’achalot Assurot 14:2

This measure, as all the other measurements, is a Halachah conveyed by Moses from Sinai. It is forbidden by Scriptural Law to eat even the slightest amount of a forbidden substance. Nevertheless, one receives lashes only for an olive-sized portion. If one partakes of any amount less than this measure, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

Maimonides, following the Talmud, makes a distinction between the cubit of 6 handbreadths used in ordinary measurements, and the cubit of 5 handbreadths used in measuring the Golden Altar, the base of the altar of burnt offerings, its circuit and the horns of the altar.

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:

It is impossible, at least from a Jewish perspective, to understand the Bible without the tools to interpret the text. It is this "reading between the lines" that brings the Torah to life, allowing for its multiple meanings and eternal relevance. The most famous formulation of the rules of these interpretations--and there definitely are rules--is the 13 hermeneutic principles enumerated by the second-century sage, Rabbi Yishmael. Its importance is such that it has made its way into our daily prayers.

Yet, as all who have studied Talmud know, exactly how to apply those rules to any particular verse can (and often does) create much controversy. It is this analysis of the opposing views of our Sages that is a key factor in making Talmud study exciting for many. This tradition of intellectual debate

7 is the hallmark of the Jew, and has been carried over to every field of endeavor in which we participate.

Yet there is an area of tradition on which we have no debate: those laws classified as halacha L’Moshe mi Sinai, laws given [by G-d] to Moshe at Sinai. There is no debate on how to interpret these laws, as there is, by definition, no text to interpret. Their only source is an oral tradition dating back to Moshe at Sinai. Such examples include that tefillin are black, and that one may not carry 4 cubits (6 feet) in a public domain. Despite the absence of text (or more likely because of it), these laws have avoided all debate. In fact, the Rambam (Introduction to the Mishnah) claims that if we were to find an argument on a given law, that itself is proof positive that the law is not a halacha L’Moshe mi Sinai. (The Rambam notes a related category of “interpretations [of specific texts] received from Moshe" such as the fact that pri etz hadar refers to an etrog, also are devoid of debate.)

"Measures, barriers, and partitions are laws given to Moshe at Sinai" (Eiruvin 4a). Such concepts as: the requirement to eat matzah (and maror) requires a portion the size of an olive; that a vessel with a hole the size of a pomegranate loses its status as a vessel that can transmit impurity; or that airspace up to three handbreadths in a sukkah is immaterial, have no scriptural basis, and are based on transmission of the law from generation to generation dating back to Moshe.

The Gemara immediately gets "all excited" and asks, how can one claim that these laws are an oral tradition from Sinai, these laws are in fact derived from the biblical text themselves? The laws relating to measurements derive from the verse, "a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig- trees and pomegranates; a land of olive-trees and date honey" (Deut 8:8).

The Talmud notes that, in reality, we cannot learn the measurements from the verse itself; what scriptural basis could there be to explain the reference to "date" as teaching the measure that is considered a violation of the Yom Kippur fast? But once the law was given to Moshe at Sinai, the Rabbis wanted to attach these teachings to an actual verse.

The rabbis were very careful to ensure the correct source of each law. It was crucial to maintain the distinction between biblical and rabbinic law, and between law and custom. To claim equal status or to treat a rabbinic law with the same severity as a biblical law would be a violation of the biblical prohibition of "adding to the Torah".

RAMBAM Mamrim, 2:9

8 ִהוֹאיל וְיֵשׁ ְל ֵבית ִדּין ִל ְגזֹר וְ ֶל ֱאסֹר ָדּ ָבר ַה ֻמּ ָתּר וְיַ ֲעמֹד ִאסּוּרוֹ ְלדוֹרוֹת וְ ֵכן יֵשׁ ָל ֶהן ְל ַה ִתּיר ִאסּוּ ֵרי ָתּוֹרה ְל ִפי א ִתּוֹסיף ָע ָליו וְא ִת ְג ַרע ִמ ֶמּנּוּ". ֶשׁא ְל ִהוֹסיף ַעל ִדּ ְב ֵרי " ( רבד י ם י ג א ) ָשׁ ָעה. ַמהוּ ֶזה ֶשׁ ִה ְז ִה ָירה ָתּוֹרה ָתּוֹרה וְא ִל ְג ַרֹע ֵמ ֶהן וְ ִל ְק ַבֹּע ַה ָדּ ָבר ְל ָעוֹלם ְבּ ָד ָבר ֶשׁהוּא ִמן ַה ָתּוֹרה ֵבּין ַבּ ָתּוֹרה ֶשׁ ִבּ ְכ ָתב ֵבּין ַבּ ָתּוֹרה . ֶשׁ ְבּ ַעל ֶפּה today many blur distinctions in mitzvoth, paying little attention to their hierarchy and robbing Jewish life of so much meaning.

While the distinction between whether a law is based on a biblical verse, or an oral tradition at Sinai, or some combination of the two may seem of little import, our Sages put great value on precision. And, truth be told, there are times the law does distinguish between these two sources of law, mainly in the area of enforcement.

The Ell was an ancient measure of length mostly used for measuring cloth. It came from the Latin for arm 'ulnia' and was assumed to be the average length of a person's arm. There are Flemish, Polish, Danish, English and Scottish Ells and they were all of different sizes.

9 The Scottish Ell was standardized in 1661 to 37 inches (the English Ell was 45 inches but was never standardized).

In 1824 English measurements were imposed in Scotland and the Ell fell into disuse. Here in Dornoch is one of the very few Ells to survive as currently only 2 others are known - at Dunkeld and Fettercairn.

The Ell at Dornoch is named the Plaiden (cloth) Ell and is situated in Dornoch Cathedral graveyard where in the Medieval period several fairs were held each year. This stone is marked with two metal points which measure 39 inches so possibly the stone may pre-date standardization.

An ell (from Proto-Germanic *alinō, cognate with Latin ulna) is a unit of measurement originally understood as a cubit, the combined length of the forearm and extended hand. The word literally means "arm" and survives in the modern English world "elbow" (arm-bend). Later usage through the 19th century refers to several longer units,[2][3] some of which are thought to derive from a "double ell".

10 An ell-wand or ellwand was a rod of length one ell used for official measurement. Edward I of England required that every town have one. In Scotland, theBelt of Orion was called "the King's Ellwand". An iron ellwand is preserved in the entrance to Stånga Church on the Swedish island of Gotland, indicating the role that rural churches had in disseminating uniform measures. Several national forms existed, with different lengths, including the Scottish ell (≈37 inches or 94 centimetres), the Flemish ell [el] (≈27 in or 68.6 cm), theFrench ell [aune] (≈54 in or 137.2 cm), the Polish ell (≈31 in or 78.7 cm), the Danish alen (24 Danish inches or 2 Danish fod: 62.7708 cm), the Swedish aln(2 Swedish fot ≈59 cm) and the German ell [Elle] of different lengths in Frankfurt (54.7 cm), Cologne, Leipzig (Saxony) or Hamburg. Select customs were observed by English importers of Dutch textiles: although all cloths were bought by the Flemish ell, linen was sold by the English ell, buttapestry was sold by the Flemish ell. The Viking ell was the measure from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, about 18 inches (460 mm). The Viking or primitive ell was used in Iceland up to the 13th century. By the 13th century, a law set the "stika" as equal to 2 ells which was the English ell of the time.

The English word "cubit" comes from the Latin noun cubitus "elbow", from the verb cubo, cubare, cubui, cubitum "to lie down",

The ancient Egyptian royal cubit (meh niswt) is the earliest attested standard measure. Cubit rods were used for the measurement of length. A number of these rods have survived: two are known from the tomb of Maya, the treasurer of the 18th dynasty pharaoh Tutankhamun, in Saqqara; another was found in the tomb of Kha (TT8) in Thebes. Fourteen such rods, including one double cubit rod, were described and compared by Lepsius in 1865

The cubit is an ancient unit of length that had several definitions according to each of the various cultures that used the unit. These definitions typically ranged between 444 and 529.2 mm (17.48 and 20.83 in), with an ancient Roman cubit being as long as 120 cm (47 in). The shorter unit – common cubit – was based on the forearm length from the tip of the middle finger to the bottom of the elbow and was divided as 6 palms × 4 fingers = 24 digits.[1] Royal cubits added a palm for 7 palms × 4 fingers = 28 digits.

11 Cubits of various lengths were employed in many parts of the world in antiquity, during the Middle Ages and as recently as early modern times. The term is still used in hedge laying, the length of the forearm being frequently used to determine the interval between stakes placed within the hedge.

Measures of the Mosaic Ell

Derived from Babylonia. — Biblical Data:

While the references in the Old Testament are sufficient for a general knowledge of the ancient Hebrew system of weights and measures, and of the mutual relations of the several units, they are not adequate for an exact determination of the absolute standard of measurement. The rabbinical statements that a fingerbreadth equals seven barleycorns laid side by side, and that a log is equivalent to six medium-sized eggs, are as indefinite as the statement on the Siloam inscription that the Siloam canal (537.6 meters as measured by Conder) was 1,200 ells long— evidently a round number. Since, however, the entire system of measures corresponds almost exactly with the Babylonian, from which the Hebrew measures were in all probability derived, it may be assumed that the Hebrew system corresponded with the Babylonian with regard to the absolute standard as well. It is true that the Egyptian system may have exerted some influence here and there, as will be shown later, but it is now generally recognized that the culture of ancient Syria, even before the Israelites had migrated there, was almost wholly under Babylonian influence.

Measures of Length: The Cubit.

The original measures of length were derived from the human body: the finger, hand, arm, span, foot, and pace. As these measures differ with each individual, they must be reduced to a certain

12 definite standard for general use. The Hebrew system, therefore, had such a standard; the ell ("amah") contained 2 spans ("zeret"), while each span was made up of 3 handbreadths ("ṭefaḥ") of 4 fingers ("eẓba' ") each. This division of the ell into 6 handbreadths was the one customarily employed in antiquity, but it was supplanted in Babylonia by the sexagesimal system. The Old Testament mentions two ells of different size. Ezekiel implies that in his measurement of the Temple the ell was equal to a "cubit and a handbreadth" (xl. 5, xliii. 13)—that is, one handbreadth larger than the ell commonly used in his time. Since among all peoples the ell measured 6 handbreadths, the proportion of Ezekiel's ell to the others was as 7 to 6. The fact that Ezekiel measured the Temple by a special ell is comprehensible and significant only on the assumption that this ell was the standard of measurement of the old Temple of Solomon as well. This is confirmed by the statement of the Chronicler that the Temple of Solomon was built according to:

Now these are the foundations which Solomon laid for 3 ג הֶלֵּאְו דַסוּה ,הֹמְשׁ תוֹנְבִל תֶא - תיֵבּ תיֵבּ the building of the house of God. The length by cubits after :םיִהֱאָה ֶרֹאָה תוֹמַּא הָדִּמַּבּ ,הָנוֹשׁאִרָה ,הָנוֹשׁאִרָה הָדִּמַּבּ תוֹמַּא ֶרֹאָה the ancient measure was threescore cubits, and the breadth תוֹמַּא ,םיִשִּׁשׁ ,בַחֹרְו תוֹמַּא .םיִרְשֶׂﬠ תוֹמַּא twenty cubits.

II Chron 3:3 "cubits after the first measure" implying that a larger ell was used at first, and that this was supplanted in the course of time by a smaller one. The Egyptians in like manner used two kinds of ells in exactly the same proportion to each other, namely, the smaller ell of 6 handbreadths and the larger "royal" ell, which was a handbreadth longer. The latter measures 525-528 millimeters, and the former 450 millimeters, estimating a handbreadth as 75 millimeters. It would seem at first sight that the Egyptian system of measurement had influenced the Hebrew, and the two Hebrew ells might naturally be considered identical with the Egyptian measures. This assumption is, however, doubtful. Since all the other measures were derived from Babylon, in all probability the ancient Hebrew ell originated there also. The length of the Babylonian ell is given on the famous statue of King Gudea (beginning of 3d millennium B.C.), found in Telloh in southern Babylonia.

A scale is inscribed on this statue, according to which the ell may be reckoned at 495 millimeters, a measurement which is confirmed by certain Babylonian tablets. These measures, according to the Babylonian scale, ⅔ ell, or, according to the metric system, 330 millimeters (1 foot) on each side. The ell of 495 millimeters seems to have been used also in Phoenicia in measuring the holds of ships. The length of the ancient Hebrew ell cannot be determined exactly with the data now controlled by science; but it was either 525 or 495 millimeters, and this slight difference between the two figures is scarcely appreciable in an estimate of the size of Hebrew edifices, etc.

In addition to the Mosaic ell, which was equal to the mean ell ("ammat benonit") and consisted of six handbreadths, the Mishnah (Kelim xvii. 9) mentions two others, one of which was half a fingerbreadth and the other a whole fingerbreadth longer than the mean ell. The standards used for measuring both these ells were said to have been kept in a special place in the Second Temple. The Talmud explains the introduction of these two ells in addition to the mean or Mosaic ell (see Pes. 86a; Men. 98a), and mentions also an ell which contained only five handbreadths in OUR DAF. The mean ell, equivalent to six handbreadths, was, according to the measurement of the handbreadth given above, equal to 56.018658 cm. The ell which was half a fingerbreadth longer was, therefore, 57.185375 cm. in length, and that which was a whole fingerbreadth longer was 58.352 cm. The Mishnah (Tamid iii. 6) mentions still another ell, called , which was measured from the tip of the middle finger to the armpit. Inasmuch as the ell which measured six handbreadths was equal to the length of the forearm, and the length of the latter is to the arm as 6 is to 10, it follows that the "ammat sheḥi" measured ten handbreadths, or 93.36443 cm. In the Midrash (Gen. R. xxxvii.) an ell is mentioned under the name , by which the Theban ell (ϑηβαϊκόν) is probably meant.

14 The standard of the cubit in different countries and in different ages has varied. This realization has led the rabbis of the 2nd century CE to clarify the length of their cubit, saying that the measure of the cubit of which they have spoken "applies to the cubit of middle-size”. In this case, the requirement is to make-use of a standard 6 handbreadths to each cubit, and which handbreadth was not to be confused with an outstretched palm, but rather one that was clinched and which handbreadth has the standard width of 4 fingerbreadths (each fingerbreadth being equivalent to the width of a thumb, about 2.25 cm). This puts the handbreadth at roughly 9 centimetres (3.5 in), and 6 handbreadths (1 cubit) at 54 centimetres (21 in).

St. Epiphanius in a fresco painting (Gračanica Monastery)

Bishop of Salamis (Cyprus), Oracle of Palestine

Epiphanius of Salamis, in his treatise On Weights and Measures, describes how it was customary, in his day, to take the measurement of the biblical cubit: "The cubit is a measure, but it is taken from the measure of the forearm. For the part from the elbow to the wrist and the palm of the hand is called the cubit, the middle finger of the cubit measure being also extended at the same time and there being added below (it) the span, that is, of the hand, taken all together."

Rabbi Avraham Chaim Naeh put the linear measurement of a cubit at 48 centimetres (19 in). Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz (the "Chazon Ish"), dissenting, put the length of a cubit at 57.6 centimetres (22.7 in).

Mathematical Calculations:

Boaz Zaban and David Garber of Dept. Mathematics, Bar Ilan write3

The Outer Altar served as the focal point of the sacrificial service. [The smaller, Inner Altar — located within the Sanctuary Building — was used for offering incense.] After an animal offering was slaughtered, its blood was applied to the walls of the Altar and certain parts of the animal were then burned on the fires located on the Altar's top.

The Altar was a three-tiered structure made of stones held together with cement and coated with plaster. The first tier was called the Yesod, or base, and measured 32 cubits (48 feet) square and 1 cubit (1½ feet) high.

3 https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/vayakhel/zag.html

"He made the altar for burnt offering" (Ex. 38:1). As is well known, the altar had a ramp with which to ascend, whose details are provided by the Mishnah. Tractate Middot (3.1) describes the structure of the altar: And he made the altar of burnt-offering of 1 א שַׂﬠַיַּו תֶא - חַבְּזִמ ,הָלֹעָה יֵצֲﬠ :םיִטִּשׁ שֵׁמָח תוֹמַּא וֹכְּרָא וֹכְּרָא תוֹמַּא שֵׁמָח acacia-wood: five cubits was the length שֵׁמָחְו - תוֹמַּא ,וֹבְּחָר ,ַﬠוּבָר שָׁשְׁו ,תוֹמַּא .וֹתָמֹק ,תוֹמַּא שָׁשְׁו ,ַﬠוּבָר ,וֹבְּחָר תוֹמַּא thereof, and five cubits the breadth thereof, four-square, and three cubits the height thereof. Ex 38:1 The altar measured thirty-two by thirty-two. It went up one cubit and in one cubit, forming the base, leaving thirty by thirty. It went up five and in one, forming the surround, leaving twenty- eight by twenty-eight.

ַחֵבְּזִמַּה הָיָה םיִשְׁשׁ םִיַתְּשׁוּ לַﬠ םיִשְׁשׁ .םִיַתְּשׁוּ הָלָﬠ הָמַּא סַנָכְו ,הָמַּא הֶז יַה .דוֹסְ .דוֹסְ יַה הֶז ,הָמַּא סַנָכְו הָמַּא הָלָﬠ .םִיַתְּשׁוּ םיִשְׁשׁ לַﬠ םִיַתְּשׁוּ םיִשְׁשׁ הָיָה ַחֵבְּזִמַּה ְמִנ אָצ םיִשְׁשׁ לַﬠ .םיִשְׁשׁ הָלָﬠ שֵׁמָח סַנָכְו .הָמַּא הֶז .בֵבוֹסַּה אָצְמִנ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ הֶנֹמְשׁוּ הֶנֹמְשׁוּ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ אָצְמִנ .בֵבוֹסַּה הֶז .הָמַּא סַנָכְו שֵׁמָח הָלָﬠ .םיִשְׁשׁ לַﬠ םיִשְׁשׁ אָצ לַﬠ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ .הֶנֹמְשׁוּ םוֹקְמ תוֹנָרְקַּה הָמַּא הֶזִּמ הָמַּאְ ו .הֶזִּמ אָצְמִנ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ שֵׁשָׁו לַﬠ לַﬠ שֵׁשָׁו םיִרְשֶׂﬠ אָצְמִנ .הֶזִּמ הָמַּאְ ו הֶזִּמ הָמַּא תוֹנָרְקַּה םוֹקְמ .הֶנֹמְשׁוּ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ לַﬠ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ .שֵׁשָׁו םוֹקְמ וּלִּה יֵלְגַר ַה נֲהֹכּ ,םיִ הָמַּא הֶזִּמ הָמַּאְו .הֶזִּמ אָצְמִנ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ אָצְמִנ .הֶזִּמ הָמַּאְו הֶזִּמ הָמַּא ,םיִ נֲהֹכּ עַבְּרַאְו לַﬠ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ ,עַבְּרַאְו םוֹקְמ .הָכָרֲﬠַמַּה רַמָא יִבַּר ,יֵסוֹי הָלִּחְתִּמ אֹל הָיָה אָלֶּא אָלֶּא הָיָה אֹל הָלִּחְתִּמ ,יֵסוֹי יִבַּר רַמָא .הָכָרֲﬠַמַּה םוֹקְמ ,עַבְּרַאְו םיִרְשֶׂﬠ לַﬠ עַבְּרַאְו נֹמְשׁ הֶ םיִרְשֶׂﬠְ ו לַﬠ נֹמְשׁ הֶ ,םיִרְשֶׂﬠְ ו סֵנוֹכּ הֶלוֹעְ ו הָדִּמְבּ ,וֹז דַﬠ נֶּשׁ ִ אָצְמ םוֹקְמ םוֹקְמ אָצְמ רֲﬠַמַּה הָכָ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ לַﬠ .םיִרְשֶׂﬠ וּלָﬠֶשְׁכוּ יֵנְב ,הָלוֹגַּה וּפיִסוֹה ויָלָﬠ עַבְּרַא תוֹמַּא ןִמ ןִמ תוֹמַּא עַבְּרַא ויָלָﬠ וּפיִסוֹה ,הָלוֹגַּה יֵנְב וּלָﬠֶשְׁכוּ .םיִרְשֶׂﬠ לַﬠ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ הָכָ רֲﬠַמַּה םוֹרָדַּה עַבְּרַאְו תוֹמַּא ןִמ רֲﬠַמַּה ,בָ ןיִמְכּ אָמַּגּ ןיִמְכּ ,בָ רֲﬠַמַּה ןִמ תוֹמַּא עַבְּרַאְו םוֹרָדַּה

The altar was thirty-two cubits by thirty-two. It rose a cubit and went in a cubit, and this formed the foundation, leaving thirty cubits by thirty. It then rose five cubits and went in one cubit, and this formed the surround, leaving twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight. The horns extended a cubit in each direction, thus leaving twenty-six by twenty-six. A cubit on every side was allowed for the priests to go around, thus leaving twenty-four by twenty-four as the place for the wood pile [for the altar fire]. Rabbi Yose said: Originally, the complete area [occupied by the altar] was only twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight, and it rose with the dimensions mentioned until the space left for the altar pile was only twenty by twenty. When, however, the children of the exile returned, they added four cubits on the north, and four on the west like a gamma.

Further on (Mishnah 3) the Mishnah adds: "At the south end of the altar was a ramp, thirty-two by sixteen wide."

17 If so, the length of the altar was thirty-two cubits, and the length of the ramp was thirty-two cubits as well. Elsewhere in this tractate (5.1), however, it says, "the altar and the ramp totaled sixty-two cubits," seemingly a contradiction, since 32 +32 = 64, not 62!

The gemara (Zemanim 62b) attempts to explain this by saying, "It turns out that it extended one cubit on the base and one cubit on the surround." In other words, there were two cubits overlap between the altar and the ramp:

Cross-section

Further on in the same gemara (Zevahim, loc. sit.), Rami Bar Hama says, "All ramps are three cubits [length] per cubit [height], except for the ramp of the altar, which was three and a half cubits and one and a third etzba (finger) in its principle dimension (Heb. be-zikhruta(. In other words, there was a difference between the slope of the ramp to the altar and the slope of other ramps. Rashi explains Bar Hama's words as follows:

All the large and small ramps there had a slope of three cubits per cubit height, save for the large ramp of the altar, which was ascended while carrying heavy body parts, and which was slippery and therefore had to be more gently graded and easier to ascend. Hence it was extended to a slope of 32 [cubits length] for 9 cubits [height]. Afterwards Rashi proceeds to prove Rami Bar Hama's computation:

<="" p=""> (An etzba is a fourth of a tefah, and a tefah is a sixth of a cubit, therefore the ratio of a cubit to an etzba is 1:24). Rashi's approach has a problem in that common sense would say the thirty-two

18 cubits are measured along the slope of the ramp (the diagonal), so that the measurement along the ground is approximately 30.7 cubits by Pythagoras' theorem): Accordingly, the question raised by the gemara about the seeming contradiction between 62 and 64 cubits loses its poignancy, since the sum of the lengths of the altar and the ramp, measured along the ground, is 30.7 + 32 = 62.7, which is quite close to 62.

Birkat ha-Zevah (on the gemara in question) suggests a way of explaining this. The measurement of 32 cubits given in the Mishnah pertains to the base of the ramp, not its slope. Accordingly, for each cubit that one ascends, one proceeds forward three and a half cubits plus one and a third etzba (i.e. 3.555... cubits). The length of the diagonal, however, which is the actual distance that one traverses, is somewhat greater: it is the diagonal of a right-triangle with one leg being a cubit and the other leg being three and a half cubits plus one and a third etzba.

The total length of the ramp's slope, therefore, would be .

A supporting argument for this explanation can be found in the word zikhruta, which appears at the end of Rami Bar Hama's comment. Responsa Me'il Zedaka (par. 28) says that the word zikhruta alludes to this matter, since the meaning of this word is "in its principle, main [dimension]" (as found also in the gemara in Tractate Bekhorot 55a), and the main dimension of the ramp is its foundation on the ground. Thus, the ratio given by Rami Bar Hama would pertain to the ramp's extent over the ground and not to the length of its diagonal.

Panim Me'irot (loc. sit.) offers a different explanation: the last two cubits of the ramp were level, not at an angle (since that is where the priests used to stand as they threw the animal's parts on the altar):

According to this theory, there were thirty-two cubits not only along the ground under the ramp, but also along the diagonal ascending the altar, since the ramp was constructed of two segments: approximately 30.7 cubits horizontally measured beneath the sloping part of the ramp, so that the ramp was thirty-two cubits along the sloping part plus approximately another two cubits along its level section.

A parallel passage in the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 7.2) gives a completely different measurement:

19 It is taught: all ramps ascend one cubit for every three cubits that they draw inward, save for the ramp of the altar, which increased 10 tefahs out of three [cubits] and a third etzba; for the altar was ten cubits, and its ramp was thirty-two.

The difficulty with the Jerusalem Talmud's approach is that the height of the altar itself was nine cubits, and only the horns of the altar reached ten cubits. Clearly the ramp had to reach the height of the altar's surface, not the height of the horns.

Korban ha-Edah, in a gloss on the Jerusalem Talmud, compares the version there with the text of the Babylonian Talmud. The difficulty in such a gloss is that the version of the Jerusalem Talmud which we have, gives a different reading (see Sheyarei Korban, loc. sit.). Consequently, he suggests another solution: As we know, the Mishkan had cubits of five tefahs and cubits of six tefahs. According to his approach, the cubits of the ramp were five-tefah cubits. The total height of the altar was 53 tefahs, since it consisted of one cubit of five tefahs (the foundation) and another 8 cubits of 6 tefahs. Translating this into cubits of five tefahs yields a height of ten cubits and approximately another half cubit. For these ten cubits the ramp was 32 cubits (also 5- tefah units). Thus , so for every (5-tefah) cubit that the ramp rose, it extended approximately three cubits plus a third of an etzba in slope (therefore he emends the text of the Jerusalem Talmud to read "five tefahs " instead of "ten tefahs"). Sheyarei Korban notes that one should not make an issue of the difference between ten and a half cubits which we computed and the measurement of "ten" cubits given by the Jerusalem Talmud, since one could argue that the Jerusalem Talmud did not wish to give fractions of cubits.

A DEEPER LOOK – חבזמ MIZBEACH

denoting the slaughtering of an animal for חבז derives from the word חבזמ The Hebrew word sacrifice.

,Forgiveness, Merit) הליחמ תוכז הכרב יח םי Also, the Hebrew word can be seen as an acrostic of Blessing, Life).

The Mizbeach was the scene of three constant miracles: 1. The fire burned on the Mizbeach day and night, yet it did not burn through the copper place or char the wood. 2. The Mizbeach was in the open courtyard in the Bais haMikdash, yet the rain never extinguished the fire. 3. The smoke on the Mizbeach went straight up like a pillar, not affected by the wind.

The Altar serves as a connection between HaShem and the Jewish people. From one view, the Altar symbolizes Adam HaElyon (the supernal Man), with the fire from Heaven as one example. From the other view, the Altar symbolizes Adam Tachton (the flawed person) who can elevate the hidden sparks in this lower world, with the Altar resting on the ground and subject to being hewn.

The altar as metaphor goes back to Maimonides who sees the body of a person as the very curtain that separates him from the divine. Moses attained the dissolution of this partition. Boundaries and mechitzot therefore reflect the divide between the corporeal and the spirit world. This is seen both in the Heichal where strict boundaries, doors and curtains separated the Heichal from the olam, and the mavoi separating different eruvim and reshuyot.

RAMBAM’s notion of boundaries

הרומ םיכובנ , קלח ג 'ט:אGuide for the Perplexed, Part 3 9:1

חה ו רמ - הציחמ הלודג ךסמו ומ ענ תגשה לכשה דרפנה יפכ המ ;אוהש וליפאו היה רמוחה ךז ו דבכנ - צר ו נ י ל ו רמול ינוצ רמוח לגה םילג - לכ ןכש הז רמוחה ךושחה רוכעה רשא אוה רמוחה נלש ו . נפמו י הז לכ רשא י תש ד ל ד ע ת נ ונתעד לדת ש גישהל הולאה וא דחא ןמ םילכשה אצמי הציחמ ךסמו לידבמ יב נ ו יבל .םנ לאו הז אוה זמרה לכב ירפס םיאיבנה ירפס לכב זמרה אוה הז לאו .םנ יבל ו נ יב לידבמ ךסמו הציחמ אצמי םילכשה ןמ דחא וא הולאה גישהל שיש נילע ו ךסמ לידבמ ניניב ו ןיבו הולאה אוהו רתסנ נממ ו ןנעב וא ךשוחב וא לפרעב וא בעב יכו אצו הלאב אצו יכו בעב וא לפרעב וא ךשוחב וא ןנעב ו נממ רתסנ אוהו הולאה ןיבו ו ניניב לידבמ ךסמ ו נילע שיש ימדה ו נ תו יהל נתו ו םירצקמ וגישהמ נפמ י .רמוחה ו תאז ה אי וכה הנ ורמאב נע" ן לפרעו יביבס "ו ריעהל לע יה תו הל יה וייסלרו ןנ" רא נוהא מה ו נ ע - תוריכע נמצע ו אל אוהש 'תי ףוג ףיגיש וב בע וא נע ן וא לפרע ענמי ותוארמ יפכ המ האריש יטושפמ האריש המ יפכ ותוארמ ענמי לפרע וא ן נע וא בע וב ףיגיש ףוג 'תי אוהש אל ו נמצע תוריכע … למ ו ת לשמה תול

The corporeal element in man is a large screen and partition that prevents him from perfectly perceiving abstract ideals: this would be the case even if the corporeal element were as pure and superior as the substance of the spheres; how much more must this be the case with our dark and opaque body. However great the exertion of our mind may be to comprehend the Divine Being or any of the ideals, we find a screen and partition between Him and ourselves. Thus, the prophets frequently hint at the existence of a partition between God and us…

מש ו נ ה פ ר ק י ם ז : ו RAMBAM Eight Chapters 7:6

רשאכו עדי השמ ניבר ו לש א ראשנ ל ו חמ י הצ אלש ריסה התוא יכו ומלשנ וב תולעמ תודמה םלכ תולעמהו ל ומ וע ו ולנ יו תארס ל , ילכשה תו םלכ שקב גישהל םשה לע תתימא ותואיצמ רחא אלש ראשנ ול ומ ,ענ רמאו נארה י אנ תא ךדובכ תא אנ י נארה רמאו ,ענ ומ ול ראשנ אלש רחא ותואיצמ תתימא לע םשה גישהל שקב םלכ תו ילכשה ועידוהו 'תי יאש רשפא ול הז יהב ותו לכש אצמנ ,רמוחב ל"ר רשאמ אוה םדא אוהו ורמא יכ אל נארי י םדאה י נארי אל יכ ורמא אוהו םדא אוה רשאמ ל"ר ,רמוחב אצמנ לכש ותו יהב הז ול רשפא יאש 'תי ועידוהו יחו , הנה אל ראשנ ול( ) יב נ ו יבו ן תגשה םשה לע תתימא ותואיצמ אלא הציחמ תחא הב הרי איהו לכשה נאה ישונהלש יו ר , וניאש ,לדבנ למגו ילע ו ותוא םשה דסח תתב ול ןמ הגשהה רחא ולאשש י רתו מ המ היהש ולצא םדוק ותלאש םדוק ולצא היהש המ … והעידוהו תילכתהש יא רשפא ול נפמ י אוהש לעב ,םשג הנכו תתמא הגשהה תיארב נפ םינ יר גה תאהכ םג ע וש פ ו שא אתלתשועדה

When Moses, our teacher, discovered that there remained no partition between himself and God which he had not removed, and when he had attained perfection by acquiring every possible moral and mental virtue, he sought to comprehend God in His true reality, since there seemed no

21 longer to be any hindrance thereto. He, therefore, implored of God, (Exodus 33:18) "Show me, I beseech Thee, Thy glory". But God informed him that this was impossible, as his intellect, since he was a human being, was still influenced by matter. So, God's answer was, (Exodus 33:20) "For no man can see me and live"…

Abarbanel connects the Mizbeach to heart;

ומשו לצא חבזמה הצור רמול םישיש םתוא תובשחמה תוערה ואתהו תו ירמחה תו לצא לצא תו ירמחה תו ואתהו תוערה תובשחמה םתוא םישיש רמול הצור חבזמה לצא ומשו מה ז חב הש ו א לה ב רמולכ ןתיש ובל םהילע ו ריכי םידספה םתותיחפו ד"ע יחהו ןתי לא לא ןתי יחהו ד"ע םתותיחפו םידספה ריכי ו םהילע ובל ןתיש רמולכ . ובל יכ בלב נ ודלו ומכ רמאש לכו רצי תובשחמ ובל קר ער לכ יה םו הל רק ולתבח צ לו מש מ ול בב כ ב

Commentary to Lev 6:2

בל It is possible that the gematria of 32x32 dimension makes the word

Rabbi Jablinowitz writes4

We read in the beginning of parshas Tzav the laws of the Karban Olah. The Olah is totally burned up on the Mizbeach all night long until the morning.

Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it 6 ו ,שֵׁא דיִמָתּ דַקוּתּ לַﬠ - ַחֵבְּזִמַּה -- ֹל א א ֹל .shall not go out .הֶבְּכִת }ס{ Lev 6:6 The pasuk says that the Olah is burned all night until the morning, and then the pasuk concludes that the fire should be burning on the altar.

And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby, it 5 שֵׁאָהְו לַﬠ - ַחֵבְּזִמַּה דַקוּתּ - וֹבּ ל ֹ א א ֹ ל וֹבּ shall not go out; and the priest shall kindle wood on it every ,הֶבְּכִת רֵﬠִבוּ ָהיֶלָﬠ ןֵהֹכַּה םיִצֵﬠ םיִצֵﬠ ןֵהֹכַּה ָהיֶלָﬠ רֵﬠִבוּ ,הֶבְּכִת ,morning; and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it רֶקֹבַּבּ ;רֶקֹבַּבּ ָﬠְו ַר ָהיֶלָﬠ ,הָלֹעָה ,הָלֹעָה ָהיֶלָﬠ ַר and shall make smoke thereon the fat of the peace-offerings ריִטְקִהְו ָהיֶלָﬠ יֵבְלֶח .םיִמָלְשַּׁה יֵבְלֶח ָהיֶלָﬠ ריִטְקִהְו Lev 6:5

4 http://www.ateret.org/torah/article/id/Parshat-Tzav-Shabat-HaGadol-5778

22 As Rashi teaches on Pasuk 5, the repetition of these pasukim teach that there were a number of arrangements of wood on the Mizbeach, and the Gemara in Yoma 45A brings a disagreement as to how many arrangements of wood there were. Two other points stand out in these verses. One is that it is mentioned a couple of times that the fire was constant and not to be extinguished. And the other is that the burning of the Olah took place all night and, adds the Torah, it went until the morning. Further, the Torah teaches us that the arrangement of the wood was also done in the morning. The Zohar Hakadosh teaches on our parsha that when negative thoughts go up on a person's mind, he must immediately burn away those thoughts with the fire of the Mizbeach. (see Abarbanel above). The Sfas Emes elaborates and teaches that the Mizbeach represents the heart of a person and one must have a fire constantly going on in his heart. That fire needs to be one of enthusiasm and desire to do the will of Hashem. And if a person resolves to maintain his enthusiasm constantly, the Torah tells us it will not be extinguished. As a result, any negative impulse to sin will be melted away by the fire of his enthusiasm. But we must maintain our enthusiasm ourselves and not rely on Hashem Himself to keep it going. As Chazal teach regarding the Mizbeach, Af al Pi She'eish Yoredes Min Hashamayim, Mitzvah Lehavi Min HaHedyot. Even though a miracle occurred, and the fire was constantly on the Mizbeach, there is an obligation nonetheless on the Kohanim to light the fire on the altar. In a similar manner, we must devise methods of maintaining our enthusiasm through deeds and actions and not just through desire. And when we manage to burn away our negative impulses and desires all night long on the altar of our hearts, it is ad HaBoker; it brings us to the morning. A new light results from our struggle to burn away our negativity. Hence the wood on the Mizbeach is arranged BaBoker BaBoker. The burning away of the bad leads us to a clearer understanding and as such, parallels the creation of the world. Each day was created with Vayehi Erev Vayehi Boker. First there was darkness and confusion; Erev means a mixture. But ultimately the light of Hashem brought with it the clarity of the morning. The Avodah in the Beis Hamikdash parallels creation and expresses the notion of Hashem being Mechadesh Betuvo Bachol Yom Tamid Ma'aseh Bereishis.Hashem is constantly involved in our lives and recreating for us the wonders of creation.

23 Hassidic Dimensions

Cited in Keser Shem Tov in Baal Shem Tov Beshalach 18:1

לשב ח , ח״י Baal Shem Tov Beshalach, Comment 18

, עב נ י ן רע ו ב י רצח ו ת בשב ת , פד י שר ראה "י ז"ל בוריע אוה ףוריצ ע"ב יר "ו הש ם דסח הרובגו עודיו דסחד אוה חב י נ ת הבהא , הרובגו חב י נ ת הארי , תדובעלו םשה ךרבתי רצ י ך םדאה רעל ו ב ע נש י דמה ו ת לאה ו א

In the matter of Eruv Chazeros on Shabbat, according to the explanation of the ARI z’l, the word “Eiruv” consists of ayin beis and riv, meaning the combination of chessed and Gevurah, and, as is known, chesed is the bechina of Ahava and gevura is the bechina of gear/awe, and in holy worship a person has in integrate these two archetypes.

ומכו הש י ה רבב תאי םלוע , מכ ו דש שר ו בר יתו נ ו ז"ל ) תישארב יתבר פ 'י"ב ( תישארב ארב , הלא י ם הלחתב הלע הבשחמב רבל או עה ו םל תדמב דה י ן , האר אש י ן עה ו םל קתמ י י ם ישו ףת תדמ מחרה י ם ומידקהו תדמל דה י ן נש רמא יב םו שע ו ת ה ' הלא י ם ץרא ימשו םיש

Just as it was in the creation of the world, as our rabbis explained, (in Midrash Gen Rabbati,12) “ originally there arose in (His) thought to create the world with the Mida of Din, and saw that the world could not survive so He combined (shituf/partnered) the mida of Mercy (rachamim) and preceded it to the mida of Din, as it states (sequentially) “on the day the Lord (rachamim) God (din) created heaven (mercy) and earth (din).

לעו ךרד כש ת ב רפב י ץע יח םי םשב ברה הילדג םשב ברה ז”ל הלחתב היה חב י נ ת הארי , פסב י ר תו , לע ןכ אל הצר עה י הל תדרל דממ ר י ג ת ו יפשהל ע לעהל ו ת לש א פת ג ו ם דק ותשו , ןכו אל הצר לעה ו ל תחתה ו ן לעל תו לעל י ו ן , לש א לטבתי צממ י א ו ת ו מ

As is stated in the Pri Etz Chayim (ARI) by Reb Gedaliah citing the Rav (ARI), “in the beginning was the bechina of fear/awe in the sefirotic tree (emanation), `and there was consequently a reluctance in the exalted (sefirot) to lower itself from its level to influence and raise up since its sanctity might get contaminated, and there was equivalently a reluctance of the lower sefirot to be elevated to the exalted and thus lose their identity (reality).

והזו חב י נ ת הלע הבשחמב רבל או תדמב דה י ן יה י נ ו תדמב הארי , רחאו תה י ק ו ן היה נש ארב ו , תדמב הבהא , הש ע י ל ה דרת עיפשתו , תולעהו הלעי לבקיו , והזו נש רמא יב םו שע ו ת ה ' הלא י ם ל ] מר ז הבהא האריו [ ץרא ימשו ם , שש י ת ף תדמ מחרה י ם חב י נ ת הארי , לש א הלעי לעה ו ל הלעמל דממ ר י ג ת ו , ןכו לש א תדרל לעה י ו ן הטמל רתוי ארהמ ו י , םהו לע ידי םש מ"ב םשו ע"ב , לש אל הלעי אלו דרי לכ דחא ץוח חתמ ו מ ו , יכ םא דע חת ו ם ארה ו י ול

This is the meaning of “arousal in the thought to create the world with the midas hadin,” the mida of fear/awe, and later the Tikkun (repair? Restoration?) they were created with the mida of love, so that the lower (sefirot) might be able to rise and receive. This is the meaning “on the day the Lord (rachamim) God (din), created heaven (mercy) and earth (din): that the mida of rachamim

25 was partnered with the mida of fear/awe, so that the receivers might not ascend more than their level, and the higher (sefirot) would not descend more than appropriate, these through the divine (gematria) names Mem Beis and Ayin Beis so that each would not extrude beyond its boundaries only until the extent of its border.

: לעו ןכ הרוק במד ו י הש ו א הלעמל רשעמ י ם המא טעמי ) יבוריע ן ד"ד ע"א ( ןכו הטמל הרשעמ חפט י ם קה ו הר ) םש ד"ה ע"א ( וא יחל י ן אש מ ר ו אל חפ ו ת הרשעמ חפט י ם ) יע ןיבור יד "ד ע"ב( ןכו יפל נה "ל הש ע י ל ה דרת לולעהו הלעי . רמא י נ ן יפ הרקת דרוי םתוסו ) יבוריע ן ד"ח ע"ב( דוגו סא י ק חמ י אתצ ) םש ד"ד ע"ב ): So, we call in OUR DAF a beam higher than 20 amos …

והזו נע י ן עה י ר ו ב , קש ו ד ם עש י ר ב ו ופתתשנו רצ י ך יהל ו ת חב י נ ת הארי חל ו ד , הד י י נ ו לש א כהל נ י ס ה במהמ ו י רצחל תו תורצחמו םיתבל , כש י ו ן הש ח צ ר ו ת אובמהו םה שר ו ת לכל רבחה י ם , רצ י כ י ן נא ונ ובשחל תושרכ ברה י ם , וקלחו לש לכ דיחי ומצעל הש ו א ותיב אוה דבלב שר ו ת דיחיה , לע ןכ , רצ י ך יהל ו ת חב י נ ת הארי , לש א כהל נ י ס במהמ ו י תורצחהו םיתבל , הד ו ה היל ברעמכ לוח קב ו שדוק אלשו הל ו איצ תבהמ י ם רצחל תו יובמלו , הד ו י היל מכ ו צ י א שדוק חל ו ל , אמשד העטי איצויו םג תושרל ברה י ם ומג הר מ

And this is the (deeper) meaning of the Eruv, for before they collaborate and partner (the 2 chazeros) they remain in a state of fear/awe alone. And incapable of moving from the courtyard onto the house and vice versa, since the courtyard is the property of the collective, we must attribute the (legal)status of the courtyard as a reshu ha-rabim, a public thoroughfare. And the property of each individual member of the courtyard is his own Reshus ha-yachid , therefore in (aloness?) is the fear/awe mida to prevent (through the halachic restriction?) entry and egress from home to courtyard and vice versa, as it approximates the mixing (eruv) of sanctity with profane, and moving from home to courtyard is like bringing for the holy to the profane which might end up in him carrying into the reshu ha-rabim proper.

לבא םא ברע ו ופתתשנו , לכ רמו כש ל נ ו עמ ו בר י ם לכואו דחא לכל נ ו , כש מ ו אש נ ח נ ו וש י ן קמב ו ם , הז נש רחב לכל נ ו , ךכ לכ נ ו וש י ם םג קמב ו מ ו ת אש ח ז לכ דחא ומצעל , נלכו ו שר ו ת דחא , ושו ב לע : ידי השעמ הז אל ואובי עטל ו ת תומדלו מש ו ת ר הל ו איצ ושרמ ת דיחיה תושרל ברה י ם ומג הר מ םגו זמרב יע בור אוה ע"ב יר "ו חב י נ ת הבהא שמ ו ת ף יחבל תנ הארי , זא י רתומ כהל נ י ס במהמ ו יובה רצחל תו םיתבלו , םיתבהמו רצחל יובמלו

However, if they partner up (arvu as in areivus shouldering responsibility for one another?) meaning they all take responsibility and eat one for all, then all become one reshus, …and eiruv as the split letters AV and RIV meaning Ahava partnering with Fear/awe, then only is it permitted to carry from the courtyard into the home, and vice versa.

: לבא דע י י ן רצ י ך חב י נ ו ת האריה לש א הל ו איצ חל ץו במהמ ו י ושרל ת ברה י ם ומג הר ,

.( רתכ םש בוט ח"ב יד "ד ע"א)

We have travelled from the DAF to the RAMABAM through the history of measurements and the use of the mizbeach as the yardstick for our eruv, to the mystical value of 32x32 meaning the gematria of lev or heart… to the Abarbanel’s connection of the mizbeach as the heart of a person.. to the final mystical interpretation of the eruv chazeros as hinting back to the archetypal creation of the world… and the balance of the hierarchical type of love and fear that suffuses the creation holographically from its inception down to the halacha of eruv chazeros as it impacts in the delicate balance in the heart of mankind split between these two poles.

Thinking about the last 2 dafim connecting the mavoi/and the mechitzah of an eruv with the Hechal and the Mishkan, it seems that the drive behind the ARI and the Baal Shem Tov is not to resort to a mere halachic similitude of the boundaries and borders of two reshuyot.

The boundary of the chazter and the beam, and the opening of the Heichal have similarities that go deeper than the architectural. Boundaries signify separation of spaces, sacred and profane, public and private true, but at the deeper level they all express the same archetypal duality of din and rachamim, the individual and the collective, the holy and the profane.