Today we are studying Masechet Eruvin (Tractate Eruvin). Beshem Hashem na'aseh venatzliach. Be'ezrat Hashem (With God's help), the second time will be a little clearer than the first time. Be'ezrat Hashem, inshallah (God willing). Today we have pictures, Baruch Hashem. Last time, when we used a certain book, we announced the page with the pictures. Today, everybody has different books, and everybody has pictures in all these books. These are foreign concepts, like I said an hour, years ago. Correct. Baruch Hashem, a little clearer. We are studying le'ilui nishmat (For the elevation of the soul) Avraham ben Ester (Abraham son of Esther), refuah shelemah (A complete recovery) Dinah bat Sarah (Dinah daughter of Sarah).
As an introduction to the masechet, let’s review things we are already accustomed to. Min haTorah (By Torah law), it is asur (forbidden) letaltel (to carry) chafatzim (objects) on Shabbat arba amot (four cubits) birshut harabim (Public domain). Carrying four amot in a reshut harabim is asur. What is a reshut harabim? A reshut harabim is streets that are sixteen amot wide. They learned that from the midbar (wilderness). That is how wide the area in the midbar was. We learned it from the wagons that used to travel in the midbar, which needed room for the wagons. Sixteen amot would be like thirty-two feet, let’s say, for argument’s sake, so it is a very wide road, and it has to be open on both sides. They call that mefulash—open on both sides. That means it is like a highway open on both sides; there are no gates and no doors.
Others say that for a reshut harabim, there has to be traffic of six hundred thousand people traveling through it. Fine. Those are the subjects: when they talk about a reshut harabim, you always hear sixteen amot, mefulash, and six hundred thousand people. The lashon (language) of the Gemara in Shabbat calls that seratya u-palatya—marketplaces and roads and highways. Min haTorah, it is asur to walk four amot—or carry, I should say, four amot—in the reshut harabim.
However, if the road is less than sixteen amah, it is a narrow road; or if it is closed on one side, we call that satum—closed on one side. You can enter one way, but when you get to the end there is a wall; it is blocked. So that is not considered a reshut harabim, and therefore, min haTorah, it is permissible to carry. However, Chachamim—the Rabbis—made a takanah (enactment) concerning an alleyway called a mavoi. What is a mavoi? In the olden days, people used to live in chatzerot. What is a chatzer? We don’t live like that today, but they used to have a courtyard with, say, five or six houses around it, and everybody shared the courtyard. The houses are called batim, the courtyard is called a chatzer, and people shared that common space.
When you left the chatzer, you went outside its gate, and there would be an alley. Next door there would be another chatzer, and next door to that another chatzer; across the street there would be another chatzer. There would be an alley between the chatzerot. They call that alley a mavoi. Now, let’s say the mavoi is closed on one side; we are calling it a mavoi satum, so it is closed on one side. You leave the chatzer, walk in the alley, make a left turn or a right turn, whatever it is, and go out to the reshut harabim. It is open to the reshut harabim. It has a door, an entrance, obviously. So, just to give you a picture of it, let’s say you enter this alleyway from the reshut harabim, make a right turn into a chatzer, make a left turn into another chatzer, and there are chatzerot all over, flanking the sides of the mavoi.
Min haTorah, you can carry in a mavoi. A mavoi is not a reshut harabim. Number one, it is narrow; it is not sixteen amot. Number two, it is satum; it has a wall at the end. So min haTorah there should be no problem carrying chafatzim four amot, ten amot, or twenty amot in the mavoi.
Chachamim came along and said that you need to make what is called a tikun mavoi, or hechsher mavoi (mavoi preparation). The hechsher of the mavoi is not going to let you carry in the mavoi. You are going to need another hechsher to carry in the mavoi, but this allows you to make the tikun to carry in the mavoi. What is that? The Rabbis wanted you to put a heker (recognizable marker), either a lechi—a pole, a vertical pole—or a korah, a horizontal pole, at the entrance of the mavoi, so that you will not make a mistake and carry in the reshut harabim. Once you make this hechsher mavoi, they say, “Okay.”
Now, why would you think a mavoi is a reshut harabim? There are a lot of people traveling in it. Everybody from the chatzer is in the mavoi, so there is a lot of foot traffic. Although it is not a reshut harabim, the Rabbis were concerned that if people carry this type of item, they might come to carry in the reshut harabim. So they allowed you to put a heker in front of it, a lechi or a korah. But that does not make you allowed to carry, by the way. Then you need to make something else called shitufei mevo’ot: join all the members of the chatzerot into the mavoi by collecting bread from them and putting it in one of the chatzerot. It is a separate thing, which we are not learning today, but it will come up. You should not think, “Oh, once I put a lechi and a korah, I can carry in the mavoi.” No. That just makes the mavoi fixable through a shituf (Joining), shitufei mevo’ot, and eruvei chatzerot (courtyard eruvs), which we’ll discuss on a later daf (page).
Today’s daf discusses a few things. The first is how high you are allowed to put this korah, this crossbeam. What difference does it make how high? The point is that if I make a heker, I can put it as high as I want. The Mishnah is going to say that you cannot. According to the Tanna Kamma (first tanna), you can only put it within twenty amot. Now, twenty amot is not low. Twenty amot is like forty feet. But if it is more than twenty amot high, the Rabbis are going to tell you that you cannot, for the simple reason that if the whole thing is a heker, something twenty amah high is too high. You don’t even notice that it is there. So they want it to be within twenty amah.
You’ll remember that we learned this twenty-amah rule in two other places. Bediyuk—keep it consistent—you learned it in Sukkah: a sukkah that is twenty amah high, we say, is pesulah (invalid). You learned it by Chanukah (Dedication): a ner Chanukah (Chanukah lamp) that you put above twenty amah is also pesulah. The third case is Eruvin: the mavoi, when you put this korah above twenty amah. So always remember, whenever you hear the twenty-amah rule, three halachot (Jewish laws) should come to mind: Eruvin, Sukkah, Chanukah. Those are the three laws. I’m saying that because the Gemara is going to remind us of some of those laws, and Tosafot is going to remind us of another law of Chanukah.
Anyway, the Mishnah begins: “Mavoi shehu gavoha lema'alah me'esrim amah yema'et” (An alley higher than twenty cubits must be lowered). It says here that if the mavoi is more than twenty amah high—that does not mean the mavoi; it means the beam, the beam of the mavoi, the crossbeam, the horizontal beam. If that is higher than twenty amah, no problem: fix it. How do you fix it? Yema'et—you lower it. That is the easiest way to fix it. I don’t care if the walls of the mavoi go to the shamayim (Heaven), as long as your beam is within twenty, you’re okay. So lower it.
Now Rashi gives a whole introduction to the masechet. We have to read this Rashi properly: “Mavoi shehu gavoha, shenichu et hakorah lema'alah me'esrim amah.” Rashi right away tells us that it is the korah, the crossbeam, that you put above twenty amah. “Vekorah zo lehachshir letaltel letochah ba”: this korah is coming to help you carry in the mavoi. Why does anybody need to help me carry? It is not a reshut harabim. “Demide'oraita, issur hotza'at reshut harabim beShabbat.” Mide'oraita, you cannot carry in the reshut harabim.
What is a reshut harabim? “Seratya u-palatya gedolah,” open marketplaces and roads, “ked'amrinan bePerek Yetzi'ot haShabbat, shedomim ledegley midbar.” It is similar to the people who were in the midbar, the sides of the midbar. “Vechol milei deShabbat, mimishkan gamrinan”: we learn all the laws of Shabbat from the Mishkan (Tabernacle). “Va'agalot shel levi'im,” the wagons of the levi'im (Levites), who used to transport the Mishkan’s equipment in the midbar, “berochav yud-vav amah azli”: they traveled in a width of sixteen amah. “Ked'amrinan be‘Hazorek,’ hilkach lo havey reshut harabim batzir miyud-vav amah.” A reshut harabim is not less than sixteen amot wide, and “u-mefulash mishnei rashim,” which means it has to be open on both sides.
“Aval mavoi”—the mavoi we are talking about, this alleyway—“katzar hu,” it is narrow, “ve'eyn lo rochav yud-vav amah,” it is not sixteen amah wide. “Ve'i nami rachav,” even if you want to say it is a wide mavoi, “eyno mefulash,” it is not open on both sides. Rather, one end is open to the reshut harabim and the other end is closed. “De'i havey mefulash lo havey mishtarey bekorah.” A mavoi mefulash, as we will see later in the Gemara, is not one in which they will allow you to carry with just a korah or a lechi. You are going to need a bigger tikun. A lechi and a korah work only for a mavoi satum.
“Vecheivan delav reshut harabim hu,” since this mavoi is not a reshut harabim min haTorah, “shari letaltulei beh, min haTorah beli shum tikun.” It is permissible to carry in it min haTorah without any tikun. “Verabbanan gazur aleyh mishum de'atey le'achlufei bereshut harabim.” The Rabbis made a gezerah (rabbinic decree), because you might confuse this area with a real reshut harabim. “Vesharya betakanta,” and they allowed it with a tikun. Which tikun? A lechi or a korah. “Delihavei hekara delo leiti lemishrei reshut harabim gemurah.” It should be a recognizable marker, so that you will not come to permit a real reshut harabim.
“Yema'et.” What does the word yema'et mean? Yashpil—lower it. The Gemara will explain the reason for twenty amah. What is the problem with twenty amah? What is the magic number? The Mishnah continues: “Rabbi Yehudah omer: Eino tzarich.” Rabbi Yehudah says, “What do I care? Make it as high as you want.” Eino tzarich: he does not give you a limit on how high the korah could be.
Next point: “Verachav me'eser amot, yema'et.” Now we are talking about the size of the opening, the gate of the mavoi. Here we talked about height; now we are talking about the width of the opening. If it is ten amah or less, beautiful. That is considered a proper door, called a petach, and you need a petach to make a korah or a lechi. Then you’re okay. If it is more than ten amah wide, no good, for whatever reason, and now you are going to have to block it, close it up a little, to make it within ten amah. So it says, “Verachav me'eser amot, yema'et”: if the opening is wider than ten amot, yema'et.
Rashi says: “Verachav me'eser amot yema'et, dezehu shi'ur rochav stam petachim.” The standard width of a petach is ten amah. “Utfei mehachi lo mikrei petach ela pirtzah.” More than ten is not called a door anymore; it is called a breach. “Va'anan ba'inan petach.” We need a petach in order to be mattir. “Vetzarich lin'otz kanim lema'et rochav kenisatah.” If it is more than ten, you are going to have to put poles in to reduce the width, “uleha'amidah al eser o al pachot,” to bring it to ten or less.
Then the Mishnah gives a rule: “Ve'im yesh lah [o lo] tzurat hapetach, af al pi shehu rachav me'eser amot, ein tzarich lema'et.” However, when do we say you need ten amah and not more? That is when you just have a regular opening without a tzurat hapetach. Tzurat hapetach means that you actually have a doorframe: two side posts and the top, the mashkof. Sometimes when you go somewhere, you see a frame, a doorpost. If you have a doorpost, then we don’t care how wide it is. The doorpost makes it a petach. The only time we say you need ten amah is when it is just a hole, just an opening, with two walls on the sides. Then you need ten amah.
You probably have a picture of a tzurat hapetach in your books, but you know what it is: basically, two side posts and, what do you call it, a lintel, a mashkof on top. I don’t care how wide it is then. Once you have a tzurat hapetach, it’s okay. We’re not saying any reasons yet; the Gemara is going to go through all these reasons. Rashi has a picture too. You see it? Okay, fine. Beautiful.
Before we go to the Gemara, there is a simple question that should bother everybody right at the beginning. You are already telling me that the mavoi has a korah, and that if you put the korah above twenty amah, you lower it. Who told me there is a korah at all? Start Masechet Eruvin by telling me, “A mavoi needs a lechi or a korah.” Fine, now we know the halachah. If you put the lechi or the korah above twenty amah, yema'et. You are already jumping into the details of a law that you have not even explained to me. Did we learn this in Shabbat? I don’t remember learning about lechis and korahs in Shabbat. Now we’re learning about a mavoi for the first time. Nobody told me you need to take a korah. Start Masechet Eruvin by teaching me the alef-bet.
Tosafot asks this question: “Hukshah Mahari me-Orleans.” Ashkenazim in yeshiva read it “me-Oleinish.” They don’t know geography. What is Oleinish? There is no Oleinish; it is Orleans. Orleans was a city in France. Now we have New Orleans; New Orleans is named after the city in France. They’re reading about Oleinish. No, what is Oleinish? It’s Orleans! “Dehavah leh le'ashmi'inan hechsher mavoi bereisha.” Tell me hechsher mavoi first, before you tell me the laws of lowering it and how high it is.
“Vetiretz, detanna nicha leh lehatchil behai lishna, kemo shematchalat matnitin deSukkah.” Our tanna was following another Mishnah. Bediyuk—keep it consistent. Sukkah also starts like that: “Sukkah shehi gevohah me'esrim amah, yema'et.” Okay, but I guess you could start off like that in Sukkah, because Sukkah already has a pasuk (verse) in the Torah. You don’t have to tell me that you have to build a sukkah on Sukkot; I already know that from the Torah. There is information about Sukkah. So in Sukkah at least I can jump in and say, “Oh, the sukkah that you learned about already in the Torah: ‘Sukkah shehi gevohah lemalah me'esrim amah’ is pesulah.” Although in Eruvin it is a rabbinical law, and you really should have told me the details first, we want to keep it consistent with Masechet Sukkah (Tractate Sukkah): “Sukkah shehi gevohah,” “mavoi shehu gavoah.” Keep it the same.
“Vehachi parik shapir tefei baGemara, mai shena gabei sukkah detani pesulah, and you’ll see that the Gemara asks a good question.” The Gemara is right away going to connect the two Mishnayot. It is going to say, “Over here, when it came to a mavoi, if it’s above twenty, tell me how to fix it. How do you fix it? Lower it. Beautiful, it’s a good tikun. When it came to Masechet Sukkah, what did it say? ‘You have a sukkah that’s twenty amah high? Pesulah.’ What does pesulah mean? Just tell me, ‘Lower it.’ Just as over here you gave me the option to lower it, tell me the same thing in Sukkah.” And, by the way, that is the halachah. If I take the sechach—the roof—and lower it to nineteen amah, it is kesherah (valid).
“No,” you say, “over there you tell me ‘pesulah,’ as if there is no tikun, and here you’re giving me…” So you see, the Gemara was already comparing the two Mishnayot. That is why they kept it like this. Even though it would have been better to tell me the law, the consistency between the two Mishnayot is what they opted for.
Now the Gemara begins: “Tenan hatam.” We learned over there in Masechet Sukkah: “Sukkah shehi gevohah lemalah me'esrim amah, pesulah. VeRabbi Yehudah machshir.” Rabbi Yehudah says it is okay. “Mai shena gabei sukkah detani pesulah, vegabei mavoi tani takanta?” Why does it say pesulah by sukkah, but takanta by mavoi? It doesn’t actually say the word takanta; takanta means it gives you a tikun. What is the tikun? Lower it. Yema'et—that is the tikun.
The Gemara gives two answers. First: “Sukkah de'Oraita, tani pesulah. Mavoi deRabbanan, tani takanta.” I’m trying to understand the answer, but the Gemara is saying a rule: Sukkah, which is de'Oraita—from the Torah—we know Sukkah is from the Torah, so we use the word pesulah. Mavoi, which is deRabbanan—the Rabbis invented that law—we give a yema'et ruling. What is the difference between de'Oraita and deRabbanan? No, I don’t know what the answer is yet. Is pesulah a de'Oraita word and yema'et a deRabbanan word?
Rashi answers that question: “Sukkah deta'ama didei o didah de'Oraita, oh, I agree, keda'amar hatam lema'an yede'u doroteichem.” The pasul of a high sukkah—when we say “high sukkah,” we mean the sechach, right? Sukkah on account of the sechach—the sechach being higher than twenty amah is pasul in the Torah. Not that the law is from the Torah; the invalidity is from the Torah. The pasuk says, “Lema'an yede'u doroteichem.” You have to know you’re sitting in sechach. When the sechach is so high, the person is sitting in a skyscraper. He has no idea that he is sitting in the sechach anymore; he may think he is sitting beneath high walls. So the invalidity there is de'Oraita: lema'an yede'u. You have to know you are sitting in the sukkah. Therefore, it says pesulah.
“Ho'il uchevar miyemot Moshe nitnah middah zo,” this measure was already given in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses our teacher), “lema'an yede'u doroteichem.” The Chachamim are coming to explain to you that if you do not make it that way, it is pesulah. It is appropriate to state the existing law that Moshe Rabbeinu already gave us. “Ve'af al gav demahanya bah takanta”: of course you can fix it. There is no question; you want to lower it, lower it. “Kol kammah dela metaken lah, ikreya pesulah.” Until you fix it, it is pesulah.
“Mavoi dechol ikara deRabbanan”: a mavoi has no source from the Torah; it is all from the Rabbis. “Lo shayach lemeimar bah lashon paslut (Invalidity).” You cannot say pasul, because here they are teaching you the law of a mavoi and its Torah from the beginning. What does it mean to say pasul? On something the Torah already talked about—lema'an yede'u doroteichem—I can already tell you the halachah is pasul. It was pasul from the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. But when I am talking about a mavoi, I am teaching you the law now. So you don’t say pasul.
“Ad koh lo hodi'u hachachamim shi'ura deha, delitni im lo asah chen, pasul.” I never told you the measure, so I couldn’t teach, “If you don’t make it this way, it’s pasul.” That is how Rashi understands it. With Sukkah, which is de'Oraita, the Torah already talked about it: lema'an yede'u doroteichem. The Torah says that you have to know you are sitting in a sukkah. If you don’t know that you’re sitting in a sukkah, the Torah says it is no good. Therefore, the Rabbis in the Mishnah tell you that you have to know; that is what lema'an yede'u means, and if you don’t do it, it is pesulah. The fact already existed; it was already known.
Rashi admits that if the Mishnah had said, “Sukkah shehi gevohah lema'alah me'esrim amah, yema'et,” that would also have been good. It is not wrong to say yema'et by Sukkah. The chiddush is that the word pasul also works. But by deRabbanan, the word paslut doesn’t work, because what is pasul? We don’t know the law yet. We don’t know high, low, or anything. It can be pasul if you don’t lower it. No, whatever it is that makes it pasul. You’re saying it is pasul in the sense that the korah is pasul in its function of being matir a mavoi. A mavoi is not pasul or kasher. That is what it means: the korah is pasul for permitting the mavoi. So you don’t use that lashon there; you use yema'et.
Again, I’m making a very important point: Rashi is telling you not that you can’t use the word yema'et by Sukkah. You could use the word yema'et by Sukkah. But you can also use the word pasul by Sukkah, so we chose to use the word pasul. Mah she'ein ken by mavoi: you can’t use the word pasul, because we are teaching you the law from the beginning. Listen to what I just told you, because Tosafot is going to make a big deal of that little point.
Now look at the next answer of the Gemara. “Ve'iba'it eima” (And if you wish, say): “de'Oraita nami tani takanta.” You can also use the word takanta for de'Oraita. “Ela sukkah dinfeishei milei,” since there are a lot of laws in Masechet Sukkah, “pasik vetani pesulah.” It gives you a cut-and-dried bottom-line answer: pesulah. “Mavoi d'lo nefeishei milei, tani takanta,” but there are not a lot of laws about a mavoi, so it tells you how to fix it.
What does this answer mean? If you open Masechet Sukkah, there are many laws in that Mishnah. The first is “Sukkah shehi gevohah lema'alah me'esrim amah.” Then it says, “veshe'ein lah shalosh defanot,” it doesn’t have three walls; or if it is lower than ten tefachim (handbreadths), it is a short sukkah; or if there is more sun than shade. There are all these laws there. If you are going to start giving me the tikun for each one, the Mishnah will be very long. You’d have to say, “If it’s high, lower it. If it’s low, raise it. If it has fewer than three walls, add a wall. If there’s more sun than shade, add sechach.” So we’re not going to get involved with the tikun for every single item. We just say, “Pesulah.” Next.
As you know, the lashon of the Mishnah always chooses lashon katzar—the terse, short way. The Chachamim always speak concisely; the Gemara, of course, expounds. Mah she'ein ken, when it came to Eruvin, there is one halachah: “Mavoi shehu gavoah lema'alah me'esrim amah.” There is one halachah we are discussing there, so we can say yema'et. Saying yema'et does not require adding ten extra words to the Mishnah, explaining what to do in each case. So where we can state a quick halachah without becoming too verbose, we do it. But in Sukkah, once I start with a tikun, the whole Mishnah is going to become tikun.
Look at Rashi. He says: “De'Oraita nami tani takanta, be'alma bemilei acharinei.” In other places, you can use the word takanta by de'Oraita. “Dinfeishei milei, dekatani hatam,” over there in Masechet Sukkah it says, “veshe'ein lah shalosh defanot, veshe'einah gevohah asarah, veshechamatah merubah mitzilatah,” and all these laws. “Pasik vetani pesulah,” because you can gather them all together and say they are pesulah. If it had said takanta, meaning yema'et, you couldn’t use yema'et for all the other halachot. For “ve'ein lah shalosh defanot,” with fewer than three walls, you would have to say, “ba'ei lemitnei ya'aseh lah dofen.” For “veshe'einah gevohah,” you would have to say, “yagbi'ah”—raise it. For “veshechamatah merubah mitzilatah,” if it has more sun than shade, “yosif al hasechach”—add to the sechach.
“Ve'amar mar, le'olam yeshaneh adam letalmido derech ketzarah”: whenever you teach your students, you try to teach them in the shortest way so they can remember. You have to remember that in the old days they couldn’t write this stuff down. It was be'al peh—by heart. So the best way to teach it is in the shortest way, so they can remember.
Well, okay, fine. The only problem with this answer is that according to the way Rashi explained it to us, de'Oraita can use the word pasul. The word tikun also works, but the word pasul is appropriate, so we use the word pasul. Mah she'ein ken, the word pasul by deRabbanan doesn’t work. Then what is the next answer of the Gemara? The second answer says that even by de'Oraita, the word tikun works. But in the first answer, you also accepted that. In the first answer, you agreed that the word tikun works by de'Oraita. You just said the word pasul works, which is why we use the word pasul. Rashi didn’t say you can’t say yema'et by de'Oraita; he said the word pasul works. So the ve'iba'it eima, according to Rashi, doesn’t go smoothly. That is Tosafot’s issue with Rashi, and because of that he gives a slightly different nuance to explain the two answers.
Read Tosafot: “Sukkah de'Oraita tani pesulah. Peirush Rashi deshayach lemitni lashon pasul.” In the first answer, Rashi just said it is appropriate to use the word pasul, since this measure was already given in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. “Af al gav devide'Oraita shayach nami takanta”: even though you could use the word takanta. What does the ve'iba'it eima mean? “Devide'Oraita nami tani takanta.” That second answer doesn’t work according to Rashi, because in the first answer, by de'Oraita, he also used takanta; he only said that it is appropriate to use pesulah. Tosafot says, “Al ken nir'eh li lefaresh,” and gives another approach.
“Sukkah de'Oraita tani pesulah.” It is a very interesting way to look at it: the lashon yema'et sounds like a chumra, something preferably better—preferably, it is better to lower it. A person might make a mistake and think, “A sukkah: yema'et.” Yema'et sounds like a chumra, something good to do lechatchilah (from the outset), but bedi'avad (after the fact) it is still fine. We don’t want you to make a mistake on a de'Oraita, because it is pasul de'Oraita. If you use the word yema'et, you might not be yotze mide'Oraita (Fulfilled the Torah obligation), so we don’t want you to make that mistake. We use clear-cut language: pesulah.
“Aval bemavoi deRabbanan, ein lachosh.” A mavoi is only deRabbanan, so what’s the worst? Yema'et. Okay, bedi'avad, if a person doesn’t do it, at least he is okay mide'Oraita. Therefore, according to Tosafot, the word yema'et doesn’t work by a de'Oraita. The second answer says, no, even by de'Oraita we’re not worried; you can use the word yema'et. The reason they didn’t use it was other concerns. So that is how Tosafot resolves the issue for me.
The only problem is ner Chanukah. The Gemara in Shabbat told us, “Ner Chanukah shehinichah lema'lah me'esrim amah pesulah.” What do you mean, pesulah? If Chanukah is deRabbanan, you told me they aren’t worried by deRabbanan; it should say yema'et. That is Tosafot’s next question: “Veha de'amrinan bePerek Bameh Madlikin, ner Chanukah shehinichah lema'lah me'esrim amah pesulah kesukkah vekemavoi, ve'af al gav dener Chanukah havi deRabbanan, nakat pesulah agav sukkah debatrah.” Since it put it in the same sentence as Sukkah, it stayed next to Sukkah, so it used the word pesulah by association with Sukkah. If it had put ner Chanukah alone, for sure it would have said ner Chanukah yema'et.
Or, Tosafot says, “I nami, hatam lo matzi lemitni yema'et.” Over there, by ner Chanukah, even if it were written alone, you cannot use the word yema'et. Forget about association with Sukkah. You lit the menorah above twenty amah. What did you do? It is pasul. Now what do you do? Take it and lower it? No, lowering it is not correct. You have to put it out, lower it, and light it in the new place. Yema'et would give you the false impression that all you have to do is lower it, but that is not so. “Dehavi mashma kemo shehi doleket.” It sounds like yema'et means lower it while it is lit. “Yema'et, vezeh eino.” Even according to the one who says “hanachah osah mitzvah (Commandment),” that it is the placement of the menorah that makes the mitzvah, not the actual lighting, you still have to extinguish it and relight it. Why? “Shelo yomeru haro'im letzorcho hu de'adleka,” so that people will not think he lit it for his own purposes. Since it was lit in a pasul manner, that is why it says pesulah.
So Tosafot has answered two questions. Number one, he gave me a new approach to explain de'Oraita and deRabbanan: why de'Oraita says pesulah, and the first answer is that by de'Oraita the word pasul works, but not yema'et. He also explained why ner Chanukah says pesulah: either because it is placed alongside Sukkah, or because yema'et would give the false impression that you merely lower it as it is, which you cannot do.
Now, what was the question? I didn’t understand Tosafot’s first answer. Why is it not compatible with the ve'iba'it eima? Because it is not compatible with Rashi. In Rashi’s understanding of the first answer, when the Gemara says “de'Oraita tani pesulah,” the word pesulah works only by de'Oraita. Rashi committed himself when he said that you could also say tikun, that the word yema'et would work, but he is focusing on the word pasul. Pasul works only on de'Oraita, not on deRabbanan. What is the next answer? Ve'iba'it eima: you can use the word tikun even by de'Oraita. Rashi said that in the first answer too. It doesn’t change anything. Rashi didn’t say you can’t use the word tikun in a de'Oraita case.
So Tosafot is saying that ve'iba'it eima, the way Rashi set it up, doesn’t work. But the way Tosafot sets it up, it works. Tosafot says, no: by a de'Oraita case, you cannot use the word yema'et, because if you do, a person might make a mistake, and that would be a de'Oraita mistake. Ve'iba'it eima says, no, even by de'Oraita we are not worried about that mistake; you can use the word yema'et. It changes the premise from the first answer. That is a good ve'iba'it eima. That is the question he had on Rashi.
The Gemara continues. Now we start this sugya (Talmudic discussion). “Amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav.” Who is talking here? Rav is talking. “Chachamim, lo lamduha, or lamduha, ela mipetach mipitcho shel heichal.” You know the Beit HaMikdash (Temple)? The Beit HaMikdash had a heichal, an inner chamber, and an ulam, an antechamber. The mizbe'ach (altar) was in the heichal, and the shulchan (table), all the furniture, was inside. Then you have the ulam. What is the ulam? It is the antechamber, outside the heichal. Both rooms had gates, or doors, I should say. You walk into the ulam and keep walking west. You go through the ulam, keep walking, and then you reach the next door, the heichal.
Now, the gates of the ulam and the heichal had different measurements. For our purposes, we are discussing the height. Chachamim are saying, “Where did I get this number of twenty amah? Where did I get this shi'ur? I got it from the heichal.” The heichal in the Beit HaMikdash was twenty amah high, and it is called a petach. So I see from here that a petach is twenty amah high, and anything higher than twenty amah is not called a petach. Therefore, if you put this korah above twenty amah, it is not a petach. To be matir a mavoi, you have to have a petach. That is assumed.
Rabbi Yehudah didn’t give me a limit. Rabbi Yehudah said eino tzarich. According to him, it sounds like you could even put the korah high, because he is learning from the ulam. The ulam was very high, maybe forty amah high. So it was forty amah high, and therefore he says, “I’m learning from the ulam.” The ulam is also called a petach. So the machloket between Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim is about which room they are learning from. Chachamim learn from the heichal, which was twenty amah. Rabbi Yehudah says, “I learn from the ulam.” The ulam was forty. That is how they understand the machloket. He should say forty; he isn’t saying forty. Eino tzarich doesn’t mean it goes as high as you want. Your question is good; we’ll see that later.
The Gemara says: “Amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav, Chachamim lo lamdu ela mipitcho shel heichal, veRabbi Yehudah lo lamad ela mipitcho shel ulam.” It is taught: “Pitcho shel heichal govho esrim amah, ve-rochbo eser amot.” Perfect: those are the numbers we are looking for, twenty by ten. “Ve-shel ulam, govho arba'im amah, ve-rochbo esrim amot.” Leave the width; we’ll get to it later. Clearly, it says the height of the ulam was forty amah.
“U-shenehem mikra echad darshu.” Both of them are really learning from the same pasuk: “Ve-shachatu petach ohel mo'ed” (They shall slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting). Petach is the word we are looking for: petach ohel mo'ed.
“De-rabbanan savrei kedushat heichal lechud u-kedushat ulam lechud.” Chachamim say that although the heichal has kedushah (holiness)—of course, the mizbe'ach hazahav is over there—the ulam also has kedushah, but it is not the same kedushah. Any service that you have to do in the heichal, if you do it in the ulam, it is pasul. So the heichal is very precious. “Ve-chi ketiv petach ohel mo'ed, what's ohel mo'ed?” The ohel mo'ed is where the Shechinah is. Which petach is the pasuk referring to? “A-heichal ketiv”—it is referring to the inner chamber. Petach ohel mo'ed: that is where the Shechinah is. What are the measurements of the inner chamber? Twenty amah.
“Ve-Rebbi Yehudah savar heichal ve-ulam kedushah achat hi.” He says, no, the heichal and the ulam have the same kedushah. “Ve-chi ketiv petach ohel mo'ed a-tarveihu hu de-chtiv.” It refers to both of them. Therefore, the ulam is also called a petach. If the ulam is called a petach, you go up to forty. Understand?
Let me read the Gemara for you, and then let’s read Rashi. “Ohel mo'ed”: Rashi says that the ohel mo'ed is the heichal, where the mizbe'ach hazahav, the shulchan, the menorah, and everything else were placed. “Rabbanan savrei kedushat ulam lav ke-kedushat heichal, ve-chol avodot ha-amurot ba-heichal”: all the services done in the heichal, “i avid lehu be-ulam she-lefanav,” if you did them in the ulam in front of it, “lo mitkashrei,” they are not kasher. Therefore it is not called ohel mo'ed. We don’t find a pasuk that calls the ulam’s entrance its petach. The Torah only says petach ohel mo'ed, and what is ohel mo'ed? The heichal. How high is the heichal? Twenty. There is your answer.
Rabbi Yehudah says, no, the ulam and the heichal are the same thing. Therefore, even the ulam is called ohel mo'ed. It says petach ohel mo'ed, and it is higher than twenty.
“Iba'it eima le-Rebbi Yehudah namei kedushat ulam lechud u-kedushat heichal lechud.” Even Rabbi Yehudah can say that the kedushot are separate. The ulam is kodesh, a very holy place, and the heichal is very holy, while the ulam is less holy. “Ve-hacha hainu ta'ama de-Rebbi Yehudah”: Rabbi Yehudah has a different reason; he found another pasuk. “De-chtiv: El petach ulam ha-bayit (To the entrance of the hall of the house).” Could you get a better pasuk than that? “El petach ulam ha-bayit.” Ami says there is no pasuk like this. He looked in the whole Tanach; he is baki in the whole Tanach, and he said there is no such pasuk, even though the Gemara says it is a pasuk.
Tosafot comes along and says, “Zeh ha-pasuk eino be-shum makom.” He is right. How do we know that? Tosafot says it is actually a hybrid: we found one pasuk in this place and one pasuk in that place, put them together, and generated our own pasuk. The Gemara does that sometimes. “El petach ulam ha-bayit.” So, bottom line, however you made this hybrid pasuk, you found a pasuk that says petach ulam, and it calls the ulam a petach.
“Ve-rabbanan?” The Rabbanan don’t answer, “Hey, there’s no such pasuk.” They accept that you can put two pesukim together. They just say, “I havah ketiv el petach ulam kedika'amart.” If it only said petach ulam, I’d be stuck; I’d have to agree with you. But now that it says “El petach ulam ha-bayit,” it includes the word bayit: bayit ha-patuach le-ulam, the room that opens in front of the ulam. What room opens in front of the ulam? The heichal. So I’m still okay; that is the petach. He is slicing the words, splicing them. Tosafot says that because the pasuk they spliced includes the word bayit, they know they are right. You are right that you spliced it, but it is spliced with the word bayit. Look at Tosafot: “Ve-rabbanan, i ketav petach ulam, kedecha'amart, peirush shelo hayah katuv be-shum makom ulam ha-bayit.” If ulam ha-bayit were not written anywhere, then you’d be right. But since we found a place called ulam ha-bayit, that means the room in front of the ulam; bayit is the room.
Now, there is a big problem here. You are bringing me ohel mo'ed. Petach ohel mo'ed: where was ohel mo'ed? In which structure? In the Mishkan. But you are quoting measurements from the Beit HaMikdash. Those are two different structures. You are quoting a Mishkan pasuk, and then telling me the ulam is forty and the heichal is twenty. That was in the Beit HaMikdash. The petach ohel mo'ed is a much smaller structure.
Maybe the Gemara will say that Mishkan and Mikdash are synonymous, interchangeable. If it says petach by the Mishkan, it is the same petach by the Mikdash; if it says it by the Mikdash, it applies to the Mishkan. So don’t get nervous. When it says petach ohel mo'ed, if it calls these rooms petach by the ohel mo'ed, these rooms will also be called petach by the Mikdash. The sizes were different, but for Mikdash purposes I can use the word petach, written about the Mishkan, to apply to the Mikdash.
The Gemara says: “Veha ki ketiv hai bemishkan ketiv.” No problem. “Ashkechan mishkan de'ikri mikdash u-mikdash de'ikri mishkan.” They are interchangeable. The Mishkan is called Mishkan and Mikdash; the Mikdash is called Mishkan. If you don’t say that, consider what Rav Yehudah amar Shemuel says: “Shelamim she-shechatan kodem petichat daltot ha-heichal pesulin.” If you slaughtered a korban (Offering) shelamim before they opened the doors of the heichal, it is pasul. You don’t slaughter the shelamim inside the heichal; it is slaughtered outside. But the doors have to be open. If you didn’t open them and you slaughtered the shelamim, it is pasul. How do you know? “Shene'emar, ve-shachatu petach ohel mo'ed, bizman she-petuchin,” when the doors are open, “velo bizman shehen ne'ulin,” not when they are locked.
That was written about the Mishkan, but we are giving the law for the Beit HaMikdash. Here you see that petach written about the Mishkan applies to the Mikdash as well. So, we found that the Mikdash is called a Mishkan, as you see here. Rashi says, “Shelamim she-shechatan”: you slaughtered before the doors of the heichal were opened. He came early. They had locked it at night, and you slaughtered the shelamim early.
The Gemara says, “U-mishkan? Ela ashkechan mikdash de'ikri mishkan.” You told me that the Mikdash is called a Mishkan; no problem. But how do we know that the Mishkan is called a Mikdash? We know that the Mikdash is called a Mishkan from “Venatati mishkani betochechem.” That was talking about the Beit HaMikdash, and it is called a Mishkan. But how do we know the Mishkan is called a Mikdash? “Menalan?” Did we find a pasuk?
Perhaps from “Venase'u ha-Kehatim.” Who are the Kehatim? The Levi’im. “Nose'ei ha-mikdash.” When they carried the Mishkan, it calls the Mishkan a Mikdash. “Ve-hekimu et ha-mishkan ad bo'am.” The Gemara says, “No, no, no, no, no, not good. Hahu be'aron ketiv.” What did the Levi’im carry? The aron (Ark). So, yes, the aron is called a Mikdash, but you don’t see that the Mishkan is called a Mikdash. Rather, from here: “Ve'asu li mikdash ve-shachanti betocham (Make Me a sanctuary, and I will dwell among them).” Okay, beautiful. We fixed it. We found “ve'asu li mikdash,” which was talking about the Mishkan.
So let’s review what took place. This is all toldot—developments. Rav said that the source of all these Rabbis comes from the Beit HaMikdash. Rabbi Yehudah compares the law to the ulam; the other Rabbi compares it to the heichal. Why? Because of the petach. But all those words, petach, were written about the Mishkan. So what? Mishkan is Mikdash and Mikdash is Mishkan. They are interchangeable, no problem, and therefore we’re fine.
The Gemara says, “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Bein Rabbanan, bein Rabbi Yehudah, lilfei mi-petach sha'ar he-chatzer (Entrance of the courtyard gate)?” If you are learning from these places, and your rule is that wherever we see the word petach, that teaches me what a petach is, then until now we thought there were only two petachim in the world: petach ulam and petach chatzer, or petach ulam and petach heichal, and each Rabbi chose one. But we found a new petach: the petach of the chatzer. When you walk into the Mishkan, there is a big opening, and the Gemara is going to tell us it is very wide. Besides the width of the opening, the Gemara is going to teach us how it was structured.
What does it say? “Lilfei, learn, mi-petach sha'ar he-chatzer, dichtiv, orech he-chatzer me'ah ba'amah.” The chatzer itself, from point A to the end, was 100 amah. It is a big structure. “Verochav chamishim be-chamishim,” and the width was fifty by fifty. Don’t get stuck on how you could have a width of fifty by fifty. It is fifty, just fifty. The Gemara explains what fifty by fifty means. It doesn’t make sense as a width; it is fifty, so it is 100 by fifty. That is the Mishkan. “Vekomah chamesh amot.” How high was it? Five amot. We’ll have to see how it is five amot, but the Torah says it is five amot.
We’re not done yet. “Vachamesh esreh amah kela'im lakatef.” There are fifteen amah of kela'im—curtains—on one side. “U-chtiv velakatef hashenit mizeh umizeh lesha'ar he-chatzer kela'im chamesh esreh amah.” There are fifteen on the other side too. Let’s figure it out. You have a fifty-amah opening here. I have curtains on this side, fifteen; I have curtains on the other side, fifteen. That is already using up thirty of the opening. How much am I left with in between? Twenty. What do you see from here? That is called a petach, the petach sha'ar he-chatzer. What are the measurements of this petach? “Mah lehalan chamesh berochav esrim”: five by twenty. “Af kan chamesh berochav esrim”: here too, the shi'ur of a petach should be five high and twenty wide.
Now, the Gemara is asking not about the height. For the height, we already found another petach that you told me is twenty high. So I’m not rejecting what I just learned before: I learned that the heichal was twenty amah high. As long as I have the word petach applied to something twenty amah high, I take the twenty. I’m not worried about this five. But now we’re talking about width. In the Mishnah, you told me the width is ten. Why ten? That’s a petach. Good, but I also found a petach that is twenty. Why limit me to ten? You told me in the Mishnah that if it is more than ten, you need a tzurat hapetach. What are you talking about? There is a petach that is twenty!
That is the Gemara’s question now: when it came to width, why did you limit the mavoi to ten? You said, “I found a petach of the heichal that was ten by twenty.” Why does that mean I can’t use the same rule? The Torah calls it a petach. Even though this one is five high, as long as I found a petach that is twenty high, I go with the twenty, lekula, in the lenient direction. Why not? The Torah calls it a petach. But now I find a width of twenty, so I take that one. No, you took the chumra one, the ten-amah one. Why did you take the ten-amah one? In the same way that you took the height, take the width too. Take the lenient one.
Look at Rashi. Rashi says, “Lilfei mi-petach sha'ar he-chatzer.” Rashi right away sets up the question in two words: “Arochav parich.” The Gemara’s question is only about width. The Mishnah teaches, “Ve-harochav me'eser amot yema'et”: if it is wider than ten amot, you have to minimize it. We found the petach of the chatzer, which is twenty wide, and it is called a petach. The pasuk says “ve'et kal'ei he-chatzer ve'et masach petach sha'ar he-chatzer” in Parashat Naso (Naso portion). But about the height, you cannot ask that if it is invalid above five amot, because we found the petach of the heichal, whose height is twenty. So we found a petach that is twenty high; we’re good with that. Why minimize it? It is called a petach.
Rashi explains that the opening of the chatzer was fifty amah, as the Mishkan was fifty amah wide. He is bothered by the verse saying fifty by fifty, since the width is not fifty by fifty. We’ll get that answer in perek bet; don’t get nervous about it; wait till daf chaf gimmel. The entrance was in the middle. Its width was closed off by curtains: fifteen amah on this side of the petach and fifteen amah on the other side. Twenty amah remained in the middle. As it says, “chamesh esreh amah kela'im lakatef,” and katef means the side of the petach. What was the height? Five. All the curtains around the chatzer were five high, as it says, “vekomah chamesh amot.” That is talking about their height.
The Gemara answers: “Petach sha'ar hachatzer ikri, petach setama lo ikri.” Now we’re playing with words. There is a petach, and there is a petach sha'ar hachatzer. We’re looking for a petach, just a regular petach. The ulam and the heichal used the word petach; that is the accurate petach. This one is not called petach. It is petach sha'ar hachatzer, a different place. I want petach stam. That is the first answer: it is not a petach. What you see by sha'ar hachatzer is not a petach; it is called petach sha'ar.
The next answer: “Iba'it eima, ki ketiv kela'im chamesh esreh amah lakatef, begovhah hu dichtiv.” When it said the fifteen amah of kela'im, it was not talking about fifteen amah using up the width. We thought it meant curtains using up fifteen of the width. We said, “Fifteen on this side, fifteen on this side, twenty in the middle.” No, you misread the pasuk. We don’t know how wide it is, by the way. We don’t know the width of the opening of the Mishkan, so you can’t start making conjectures about it. We don’t know anything about the width. The fifteen amah was talking about the height of the curtains: they were fifteen amah high. It has nothing to do with the width. You thought fifteen went this way and fifteen went the other way, leaving a hole of twenty in the middle. No. You learned the pasuk wrong. It is talking about the height of the curtains. How wide was the opening? Who knows? It could be more or less. You have no idea, so you can’t ask, “It was twenty.” Who says it was twenty? You learned the pasuk wrong. The fifteen was talking about the height, not what the curtains use up across the opening.
The Gemara says, “Veha ketiv vekomah chamesh amot?” It says the height was five amot. 500, how can you tell me the curtains were fifteen amah high? You just told me the height of the entrance was five. 500? 515! Without the Gemara, you would never understand these pesukim. “Hahu misfat mizbe'ach ulema'lah.” The mizbe'ach was ten amah high. We were worried: what would happen if the kohen went up to the mizbe'ach to do the service? People would see him, exposed to the people outside, working on top of the mizbe'ach. Hashem doesn’t want that. Therefore, from the top of the mizbe'ach the curtain went up an extra five, so it covered the kohen. “Misfat mizbe'ach” means five, but not from the ground. Really, it is fifteen; it is just five more from the sefat mizbe'ach.
Again, we solved our problem. The source of petach is either the ulam or the heichal. We tried to involve another petach, but either we said it is petach sha'ar, or that it has nothing to do with width and we don’t even know the size of the petach. Fine.
The Gemara says: “Ve-Rabbi Yehudah be-fitcho shel ulam gamar?” After we finally figured all this out, the Gemara had this question in its pocket. What are you talking about? You’re telling me Rabbi Yehudah learns from the ulam, and therefore the ulam can be forty high. That is where he learns from? Why? “Ve-hatnan ve-harachav me-eser amot yema'et.” Didn’t the Mishnah say that if it is more than ten wide, you have to minimize it? Rabbi Yehudah did not argue on this one. He said nothing. So it sounds like he agrees that it has to be ten. Where did you get ten from? The heichal. So you’re back to the heichal. What are you telling me he learns from the ulam, when the ulam is much wider, twenty amah?
Rav told me on the amud rishon: “You know where Rav learns from? The ulam. That’s why, when the Mishnah said higher than twenty, Rabbi Yehudah said, ‘No, you can go higher than twenty; no problem.’ He learns from the ulam.” Oh, he learns from the ulam? Then how come he didn’t argue with the Chachamim about the width? The Chachamim said that if it is more than ten, minimize it. Rabbi Yehudah keeps quiet. That means he’s learning from the heichal. Make up your mind: does he learn from the heichal or from the ulam?
Abaye (Abaye) says, “Palig bi-vraita.” Calm down. Just because you didn’t see him arguing in the Mishnah, he argued in the Beraita (Tannaitic teaching). What’s the difference? It is taught: “Ve-harachav mi-yud amot yema'et, Rabbi Yehudah omer eino tzarich lema'et.” Okay, we found that he argues, and he argues about the width too. What’s the problem? It is in the Beraita. “Ve-liflig be-matnitin?” Let him argue in the Mishnah, then. Why did he keep quiet? “Palig be-govah ve-hu ha-din be-rochav.” Maybe you should have figured it out yourself. Just as I argue about the height, why do I argue about the height? Because I learn from the ulam. So use your sechel (common sense): just as I argue about the height, I argue about the width too. It’s logical; we don’t have to spell everything out, alef-bet-gimmel.
“Ve-achti, Rabbi Yehudah mi-pitcho shel ulam gamar?” Now the Gemara is pressing. The Gemara doesn’t want to learn from the ulam. You see, the Gemara got out of that one, but it is still not happy about the ulam. It keeps pressing: he doesn’t learn from the ulam. Why? “Ve-hatanya mavoi she-hu gavoh me-esrim amah yema'et, ve-Rabbi Yehudah machshir ad arba'im va-chamishim amah.” Now it’s tough. As somebody pointed out, if you’re learning from the ulam, it is forty, but now he tells me forty or fifty. “Ve-tanei Bar Kappara (Bar Kappara) ad me'ah.” It says even one hundred.
The Gemara begins its analysis. “Bishelama le-Bar Kappara guzma”—for Bar Kappara, I can say it is an exaggeration. He agrees that the maximum is forty, but he said one hundred; one hundred means a lot. Whatever the shi'ur is, it is forty. People talk like that. If you say, “No, it could only be twenty,” and someone says, “No, it could be twenty, even one hundred,” what do you mean, one hundred? It means forty. No problem. I don’t have a problem with that. When you see the word one hundred, I can say it is a guzma.
“Ela le-Rabbi Yehudah mai guzma?” But Rabbi Yehudah—you can’t say his language was guzma, exaggerated. “Bishelama le-Rabbi Yehudah arba'im gamar mi-pitcho shel ulam.” I know it is forty; that number comes from the ulam. “Ela chamishim mena leh?” Where did he get fifty?
Rav Chisda (Rav Chisda) says, “Hai matnita, at'eiteih le-Rav.” This Beraita made Rav make a mistake, and that is why he thought Rabbi Yehudah learned from the ulam. But really he did not learn from the ulam. Until now, the whole discussion was about Rav’s statement that Rabbi Yehudah learns from the ulam. Rav Chisda says, “No, no, no. I’ll tell you what happened. Rav saw a Beraita, which we’re going to read now. He read it wrong, or misunderstood it, and from there he concluded that Rabbi Yehudah learned from the ulam. But it was a mistake.” Let’s see whether you would make the same mistake when you read this Beraita.
It is taught: “Mavoi shehu gavoah mi-kaf amah”—a mavoi higher than twenty amah, “yoter mi-pitcho shel heichal,” higher than the heichal, “yema'et.” And Rabbi Yehudah said, “No problem.” Rav made the following deduction: “Hu savar, mididerabbanan mi-pitcho shel heichal gamrei, Rabbi Yehudah mi-pitcho shel ulam gamar.” Since the Chachamim clearly learn from the heichal, and that is why they say that if it is higher than twenty, higher than the heichal, yema'et, Rav said, “Well, if he is learning from the heichal, Rabbi Yehudah must be learning from the ulam,” and therefore he limited it to forty.
“Ve-la hi”: but that is not so. “Rabbi Yehudah mipitcha demalchin gamar.” Do you know where he learned from? The palace! The Palace of Versailles, he learned from the Palace of Buckingham Palace, he learned from the palace of the kings can be forty or fifty even. Don’t limit me to the heichal. That was Rav’s mistake. So if you ask me, what is Rabbi Yehudah’s source? Pitcho shel melachim. No, no, that is a pasuk for something else. Sukkah has a different reason. Rabbi Yehudah typically says about Sukkah, lema'an yede'u: you have to know you are sitting in sechach. But by a mavoi, which is miderabbanan, it has to be a petach. As long as it is called a petach, I found that pitcho shel melachim is called a petach. For Sukkah, you have to know you are sitting in sechach. If you don’t know that, why is it a problem? Because it is too high. But here, for a mavoi to be kosher, it has to be a petach. Who told you that you need a pasuk? I don’t need a pasuk. Ask someone, “What do you call this?” “Zeh petach shel hamelech.” Petach shel hamelech could be fifty amah.
“Ve-rabbanan, i mipitcho shel heichal gemiri, liv'ei delatot ke-heichal?” If you are learning from the heichal, shouldn’t it have doors like the heichal? You are being such a stickler. You’re telling me the height is twenty and the width is ten; everything is from the heichal. Good. You need doors too! There were doors in the heichal, and we know that in a mavoi you don’t need doors. The Mishnah says that to prepare a mavoi, Beit Shammai (House of Shammai) say you need a lechi and a korah, and Beit Hillel (House of Hillel) say you need either a lechi or a korah. But nobody says you need doors.
They answer: “Daltot heichal litzni'ut be'alma hu de'avidan.” The doors are not there to make it a petach; they are there for tzni'ut at night. You close them so people don’t see what is going on inside. It is a modest place; the mizbe'ach is there. We thought the doors were a halachah, that they were there to make it a petach. No, the doors are there for privacy.
“Ela me'atah, lo tehani leih tzurat hapetach.” You told me in the Mishnah that if it is more than ten amah, it is no good unless you have a tzurat hapetach. What do you mean? “Deha heichal tzurat hapetach havah leih, afilu hachi eser amot hu deravach.” The heichal had a tzurat hapetach, a doorframe, and what was the shi'ur? Ten. So you see that even with a tzurat hapetach, the maximum is ten. You told me in the Mishnah, “No, with a tzurat hapetach, it goes as far as you want.” What do you mean? Where do you see that? But we learned in the Mishnah, “Im yesh lo tzurat hapetach, af al pi she-rachav me'eser amot, eino tzarich lema'et.”
The Gemara says, “Wait. Midi hu ta'ama ela leRav?” What are you asking me? Who is the one who learned from the heichal? Rav! So according to the one who learned from the heichal, Rav himself will say that a tzurat hapetach is not going to help you if it is more than ten. Rav Yehudah taught this to Chiyya bar Rav (Chiyya son of Rav) in front of Rav. How did he teach it? “Eino tzarich lema'et”: if it is more than ten with a tzurat hapetach, you’re okay. Rav told him, “You’re wrong.” He said, “Atneih tzarich lema'et”—teach it as “you have to fix it.” So what are you asking? You are asking a question according to Rav. Rav himself will say that a tzurat hapetach does not help you if it is more than ten. According to Rav, who learns from the heichal, it doesn’t help you beyond ten. Therefore, he learns in the Mishnah: tzarich lema'et.
Baruch Hashem le'olam, amen ve'amen.