הא קא משמע לן למטה כלמעלה מה למעלה אין משמש כלום אף למטה אין משמש כלום
The verse teaches us this: The area below the cherubs is like the area above them; just as the area above the cherubs’ 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.
מסייע ליה לר' לוי דאמר ר' לוי ואיתימא רבי יוחנן דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו מקום ארון וכרובים אינו מן המדה תניא נמי הכי ארון שעשה משה יש לו ריוח עשר אמות לכל רוח ורוח
This supports the opinion of Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אמר רבנאי אמר שמואל כרובים בנס הן עומדין שנאמר (מלכים א ו, כד) וחמש אמות כנף הכרוב האחת וחמש אמות כנף הכרוב השנית עשר אמות מקצות כנפיו ועד קצות כנפיו גופייהו היכא הוו קיימי אלא שמע מינה בנס הן עומדין
Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: The cherubs stood miraculously and did not occupy any physical space, as it is stated: “And 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 wings” (I 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 cherubs’ 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.
מתקיף לה אביי ודלמא בולטין כתרנגולין הוו קיימי מתקיף לה רבא ודלמא זה שלא כנגד זה הוו קיימי מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב ודלמא באלכסונא הוו קיימי
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 Aḥa bar Yaakov also objects to this proof: But perhaps they were standing in a diagonal [ba’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.
מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ודלמא ביתא מעילאי רווח מתקיף לה רב פפא ודלמא מיכף הוו כייפי ידייהו מתקיף לה רב אשי ודלמא שלחופי הוו משלחפי
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.
כיצד הן עומדין רבי יוחנן ור' אלעזר חד אמר פניהם איש אל אחיו וחד אמר פניהם לבית ולמ"ד פניהם איש אל אחיו הא כתיב (דברי הימים ב ג, יג) ופניהם לבית לא קשיא כאן בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כאן בזמן שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום
§ Continuing its focus on the cherubs, the Gemara asks: How were the cherubs standing? Rabbi Yoḥanan 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, isn’t it written: “And their faces were toward the House” (II 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 people’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.
ולמ"ד ופניהם לבית הא כתיב (שמות כה, כ) ופניהם איש אל אחיו דמצדדי אצדודי דתניא אונקלוס הגר אמר כרובים (דברי הימים ב ג, י) מעשה צעצועים הן ומצודדים פניהם כתלמיד הנפטר מרבו:
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says they stood as described in the verse: “And their faces were toward the House,” isn’t it written: “With their faces one toward the other” (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: “And in the Holy of Holies he made two cherubim of the form of children; and they overlaid them with gold” (II Chronicles 3:10), and their faces were angled sideways toward the Ark of the Covenant, like a student taking leave of his teacher.
מתני׳ מי שיש לו בור לפנים מביתו של חבירו נכנס בשעה שדרך בני אדם נכנסין ויוצא בשעה שדרך בני אדם יוצאין ואינו מכניס בהמתו ומשקה מבורו אלא ממלא ומשקה מבחוץ וזה עושה לו פותחת וזה עושה לו פותחת:
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.
גמ׳ פותחת להיכא אמר ר' יוחנן שניהם לבור בשלמא בעל הבור בעי לאשתמורי מיא דבוריה אלא בעל הבית למה ליה א"ר אלעזר
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 Yoḥanan 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: