Today we are studying Masechet Eruvin (Tractate Eruvin). Beshem Hashem na'aseh venatzliach. Be'ezrat Hashem, the second time will be a little clearer than the first time. Be'ezrat Hashem, inshallah. Today we have pictures, Baruch Hashem. Last time we used a certain book and announced the page with the pictures, but 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 Esther (Abraham son of Esther), and refuah shelemah (complete recovery) Dinah bat Sarah (Dinah daughter of Sarah). As an introduction to the masechet, let’s discuss things we are already accustomed to. Min haTorah (from the Torah), asur letaltel chafatzim beShabbat arba amot birshut harabim (It is forbidden to carry objects four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat). Carrying four amot (cubits) in a reshut harabim (public domain) is asur. What is a reshut harabim? A reshut harabim is a street that is sixteen amot wide. They learned this 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; the space was wide enough to fit those wagons. Sixteen amot would be about 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, meaning it is like a highway open on both sides, with no gates or doors. Others say a reshut harabim has to have traffic of six hundred thousand people traveling through it. Fine. Those are the subjects, and when they talk about a reshut harabim, you always hear sixteen amot, mefulash, and six hundred thousand people.
The lashon (wording) of the Gemara in Shabbat calls that seratya ufelatya: market places, roads, and highways. Min haTorah, it is asur to walk four amot—or, I should say, to carry four amot—in a reshut harabim. However, if the road is less than sixteen amah, so that it is a narrow road, or if it is closed on one side, we call that satum. You can enter from one direction, but when you get to the end there is a wall blocking the way. That is not considered a reshut harabim, and therefore, min haTorah, it is permissible to carry.
However, Chachamim—the Rabbis—made a takanah (rabbinic enactment) for 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 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, where there would be an alley. Next door there would be another chatzer, and then another chatzer; across the street there would be another chatzer. There would be an alley between the chatzerot. They called that alley a mavoi. Let’s say the mavoi is closed on one side; we call it a mavoi satum. You leave the chatzer, walk down the alley, make a left or right turn, whatever it is, and go out to the reshut harabim. It is open to the reshut harabim. It has an entrance, obviously. To give you a picture of it, you enter the alleyway from the reshut harabim, make a right turn into a chatzer, 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 wide. Number two, it is satum; it has a wall at the end. So min haTorah there should be no problem carrying chafatzim (objects) 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 (remedy for an alleyway), or hechsher mavoi (preparation of an alleyway). The hechsher of the mavoi is not going to let you carry in the mavoi. You will need another hechsher to carry in the mavoi, but this allows you to make the tikun for carrying in the mavoi. What is that? The Rabbis wanted you to put a heker, either a lechi—a pole, a vertical pole—or a korah, a horizontal pole, at the entrance of the mavoi, so you will not mistakenly carry in the reshut harabim. Once you make this hechsher mavoi, they say, “Okay.”
Why would you think a mavoi is a reshut harabim? There are a lot of people traveling through it. Everybody from the chatzer is in the mavoi, so there is a lot of foot traffic there. Although it is not a reshut harabim, the Rabbis were concerned that if people carried this type of item, they might come to carry in the reshut harabim. So they allowed you to put a heker, something at the front of it—a lechi or a korah. But that does not permit you to carry, by the way. Then you need to do something else, called shitufey mevo'ot (partnerships of alleyways). You still need to join all the members of the chatzerot into the mavoi by collecting bread from them and putting it in one of the chatzerot. That is a separate thing, which we are not learning today, but it will come up.
You shouldn’t 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 (partnership): shitufey mevo'ot and eruvei chatzerot (courtyard eruvs), which we will 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 the height make? If I make a heker, I can put it as high as I want. The Mishnah is going to say you cannot. According to the tanna kamma (first Tanna), you can put it only within twenty amot. Now, twenty amot is not low; it is about forty feet. But the Rabbis are going to tell you that you cannot put it higher than twenty amot, for the simple reason that if the whole thing is a heker, something twenty amah high is too high. You do not even notice it is there. So they want it within twenty amah.
You will remember that we learned this twenty-amah rule in two other places. Bediyuk, you learned it in Sukkah: a sukkah twenty amah high is pesulah—invalid. You learned it by Chanukah, too: a ner Chanukah (Chanukah lamp) that you put above twenty amah is also pesulah. The third case is Eruvin: the mavoi where you put the korah above twenty amah. So always remember: whenever you hear the twenty-amah rule, three halachot—laws—should come to mind: Eruvin, Sukkah, and 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.” It says that if the mavoi is more than twenty amah high—meaning the beam of the mavoi, the horizontal crossbeam, not the mavoi itself—there is no problem; fix it. How do you fix it? Yema'et: lower it. That is the easiest way to fix it. I don’t care if the walls of the mavoi go to the shamayim (heavens), 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 tells us right away that it is the korah, the crossbeam, that was put above twenty amah. “Vekorah zo lehachshir letaltel letochah ba.” This korah is there to help you carry in the mavoi. Why would anybody need help carrying? It is not a reshut harabim. “Demide'oraita, issur hotza'at reshut harabim beShabbat.” Mide'oraita (of Torah law), you cannot carry in the reshut harabim. “Umai reshut harabim? Seratya ufelatya 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 meylei deShabbat, mimishkan gamrinan.” We learned all those matters of Shabbat from the Mishkan (Tabernacle).
“Va'agalot shel levi'im”—the wagons of the Levi'im that they used to transport the Mishkan’s equipment in the midbar—“berochav yud-vav amah azley.” 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, “umefulash mishnei rashin,” meaning it has to be open on both sides.
“Aval mavoi”: the mavoi we are talking about, this alleyway, number one, “katzar hu”—it is narrow—“ve'eyn lo rochav yud-vav amah.” It is not sixteen amah wide. “Ve'i nami rachav,” and 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 permitted for carrying just with a korah or a lechi. You will need a bigger tikun. A lechi and a korah work only for a mavoi satum.
“Vech eivan delav reshut harabim hu,” since this mavoi is not a reshut harabim min haTorah, “shari letaltuley beh,” it is permissible min haTorah to carry in it “beli shum tikkun,” without any tikun. “Verabbanan gazur aleyh mishum de'atei le'achlufei bereshut harabim.” The Rabbis made a gezerah (decree) because you might confuse this area with a real reshut harabim. “Vesharya betakanta.” They allowed it with a tikun. Which tikun? “Delechi o korah.” A lechi is the vertical pole, and a korah is the horizontal one. “Delihavei hekkera dela leiti lemishrei reshut harabim gemurah.” It should be a recognition marker, so people will not come to permit a complete reshut harabim.
“Yema'et.” What does the word yema'et mean? “Yashpil”: lower it. “Veta'ama mefaresh baGemara.” The Gemara will explain why twenty amah. What is the problem with twenty amah? What is the magic number?
Continue the Mishnah: “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 cap on how high the korah can be.
Next point: “Verachav me'eser amot, yema'et.” Now we are talking about the size of the doorway opening, the gate of the mavoi. Here we talked about the 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; it is called a petach (entrance). You need a petach to have a korah or a lechi, and then you are okay. If it is more than ten amah wide, it is no good, for whatever reason, and now you will have to block it, close it up a little, to make it within ten amah.
Rashi says: “Verachav me'eser amot yema'et, dezehu shi'ur rochav stam petachim.” A stam petach is ten amah. “Utfei mehachi lo mikrei petach, ela pirtzah.” More than that is not called a door anymore; it is called a breach. “Va'anan ba'inan petach.” We need a petach in order to be matir (permit). “Vetzarich lin'otz kanim lema'et rochav kenisatah.” If it is more than ten, you will have to put in poles to minimize the width of the entrance, “uleha'amidah al eser o al pachot,” and make it 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 it has to be ten amah and no more? When it is just a regular opening without a tzurat hapetach (doorway frame). Tzurat hapetach means that you actually have a doorframe: the two side posts and the top, the mashkof (lintel). Sometimes when you go somewhere, you see a frame, a doorpost. If you have a doorframe, we do not care how wide it is. The doorframe makes it a petach. The only time we say you need ten amah is when it is just a hole, an opening between two walls. But tzurat hapetach—you probably have a picture of it in your books. You know what it is: basically, two side posts and a lintel, a mashkof, on top. Then I don’t care how wide it is. Once you have a tzurat hapetach, it is okay.
We are not saying the reasons yet. The Gemara is going to go through all these reasons. But tzurat hapetach is the—you have the picture over there? Yeah, okay. Rashi has a picture too; do you see it? Okay, fine. Beautiful. Okay, Gemara.
Before we go to the Gemara, there is a simple question that should bother everybody right at the beginning. You are already telling me about a mavoi where you put the korah above twenty amah. Who told me there is a korah at all? You should start by telling me, “Mavoi tzarich lasim lechi o korah.” Fine, now we know the halachah. If you put the lechi or korah—or the korah—above twenty amah, yema'et. You are 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 are learning about a mavoi for the first time. Nobody told me you need to take a korah. Start Masechet Eruvin; teach me the alef-bet.
Tosafot asks this question: “Hukshah Mahari me-Orleans.” Ashkenazim in yeshiva read it “me-Orleans.” They don’t know geography. What is Orleans? There is no—it's Orleans! Orleans was a city in France. Now we have New Orleans; New Orleans is from the city in France. They are reading about Orleans and asking, “Orleans? What is that?” 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. “Shehu belechi vekorah, ve'im heni'ach lemalah me'esrim, yema'et.” “Vetiretz: detanna nicha leh lehatchil behai lishna, kemo shematchalat matnitin deSukkah.” Our Tanna was following another Mishnah. Bediyuk, keep it consistent. Sukkah also starts off like that: “Sukkah shehi gevohah me'esrim amah, yema'et.”
Okay, but in Sukkah, I guess you could start off like that because Sukkah already has a pasuk (verse) in the Torah. You do not have to tell me that you have to build a sukkah for Sukkot; I already know that from the Torah. There is information about sukkah. So in Sukkah, at least I can jump in: “Oh, the sukkah that you already learned about in the Torah—‘Sukkah shehi gevohah lema'alah me'esrim amah’—is pesulah.” Although Eruvin is a rabbinical law, you really should have told me the details first. But we want to keep it consistent with Masechet Sukkah and keep the Mishnah like that: “Sukkah shehi gevohah,” “Mavoi shehu gavoha.” Keep it the same.
“Vehachi parik shapir tefei baGemara, mai shena gabei sukkah detani pesulah.” You will see that the Gemara asks a good question, because right away it is going to connect the two Mishnayot. The Gemara will say, “Here, with a mavoi, if it is above twenty, tell me how to fix it. How do you fix it? Lower it. Beautiful, that is a good tikun. But in Masechet Sukkah, what did it say? ‘You have a sukkah twenty amah high? Pesulah.’ What does pesulah mean? Just tell me, ‘Lower it.’ Just as here you gave me the option to lower it, tell me the same thing in Sukkah.” By the way, that is the halachah. If I take the sechach (sukka roofing) and lower it to nineteen amah, it is kesherah. No, over there you tell me, “No, pesulah,” as if there is no tikun, while here you are giving me one. So you see the Gemara was already comparing the two Mishnayot. That is why they kept it this way. Even though it would have been better to tell me the law, consistency between the two Mishnayot is what it opted for.
Now begin: “Gemara: Tenan hatam,” we learned there in Masechet Sukkah, “Sukkah shehi gevohah lema'alah 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 (a remedy) by mavoi? It does not 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. “Sukkah de'Oraita, tani pesulah. Mavoi deRabbanan, tani takanta.” First answer. I am trying to understand the answer, but the Gemara is stating a rule. Sukkah, which is de'Oraita (of Torah law)—we know sukkah is from the Torah—uses the word pesulah. Mavoi, which is deRabbanan (of rabbinic law), a law the Rabbis instituted, gets a yema'et ruling. What is the difference between de'Oraita and deRabbanan? No, no, I don’t yet know what the answer is. Is pesulah a de'Oraita word and yema'et a deRabbanan word?
Rashi answers this question for me: “Sukkah deta'ama didei o didah de'Oraita.” Oh, I agree: “Keda'amar hatam lema'an yede'u doroteichem.” That means the invalidity of a high sukkah—when we say a high sukkah, we mean the sechach, right? “Sukkah al shem sechach.” If the sechach is higher than twenty amah, that is a disqualification from the Torah. Not that the law is from the Torah; the disqualification is from the Torah. The pasuk says, “Lema'an yede'u doroteichem.” You have to know you are 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 sechach anymore; maybe he thinks he is just sitting among high walls. Therefore the disqualification there is de'Oraita: “Lema'an yede'u.” You have to know you are sitting there. Therefore, “tani 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.” “Uva'u chachamim lefaresh lecha,” and the Chachamim came to explain to you, “she'im lo asah chen, pesulah.” “Shayach lemitni bah lashon paslut.” It is appropriate to tell you the existing law that Moshe Rabbeinu already gave me: if you make it higher than twenty amah, it will be pasul. “Ve'af al gav demahanya bah takanta.” Of course you can fix it; if you want to lower it, lower it. “Kol kammah dela metaken lah, ikreya pesulah.” But until you fix it, it is called pesulah.
“Mavoi dechol ikara deRabbanan.” Mavoi has no source in the Torah; it is all from the Rabbis. “Lo shayach lemeimar bah lashon paslut.” You cannot say pasul, “sherak kan hitchilu lehorot ikar esek mavoi vetorato.” Here it is teaching you the law from the beginning. What does pasul mean here? If the Torah already talked about something—“lema'an yede'u doroteichem”—then I can already tell you the halachah: it is pasul, already from the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. But when I am talking about mavoi, I am teaching you the law now. We are setting out the law for the first time, so you do not say pasul.
“Ad koh lo hodi'u hachachamim shi'ura deha, delitni im lo asah chen, pasul.” I never told you the measurement, so I could not teach, “If you did not do it this way, it is pasul.” That is how Rashi understands it. A sukkah, which is de'Oraita, was already discussed in the Torah: “Lema'an yede'u doroteichem.” The Torah says that everybody has to know he is sitting in a sukkah. You must know. If you do not know you are sitting in a sukkah, the Torah is telling you, it is no good. Therefore the Chachamim in the Mishnah tell you that if you do not do it, it is pesulah. The fact already existed; the fact was already known.
Now, Rashi admits that if the Mishnah in Sukkah had said, “Sukkah shehi gevohah lema'alah me'esrim amah, yema'et,” that would also have been fine. It is not false; you could say yema'et. The chiddush (novel insight) is that the word pasul also works, and so we chose to use it. But by deRabbanan, the word paslut does not work. What is pasul? We do not know the law yet. We do not know high, low, or anything. It can be pasul if you do not lower it. No, whatever it is, that is what makes it pasul. But you are saying it is pasul in its function as a korah, to be matir a mavoi. That is what it means: the mavoi itself is not pasul or kasher. The korah, in the function for which you are using it—to be matir—is pasul for a mavoi. So you do not use that lashon there; you use lashon yema'et.
Again, I am making a very important point: Rashi is telling you not that you cannot 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 pasul. Mah she'ein ken (unlike that), by mavoi you cannot use 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. It gives another answer: “Ve'iba'it eima, de'Oraita nami tani takanta.” Even by de'Oraita, you can also use the word takanta. “Ela sukkah dinfeishei milei.” Since Masechet Sukkah has many laws, “pasik vetani pesulah”; it gives you a cut-and-dried bottom line: pesulah. “Mavoi d'lo nefeishei milei, tani takanta.” Mavoi does not have a lot of laws, 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. First: “Sukkah shehi gevohah lema'alah me'esrim amah.” Then it says, “Veshe'ein lah shalosh defanot”—it does not have three walls. Then it says that if it is lower than ten tefachim, it is a short sukkah, or if there is more sun than shade, and there are other laws there. If you are going to start giving me a tikun for each one, the Mishnah will be very long. You would have to say, “If it is high, lower it; if it is low, raise it; if it has fewer than three walls, add a wall; if there is more sun than shade, add sechach.” So we are not going to get involved now with the tikun for every single item. We just say, “You know what? Pesulah. Next.” Once you start giving the tikun for the first halachah, you will have to give the tikun for all the halachot, so “pasik vetani.”
As you know, the lashon of the Mishnah always chooses lashon katzar (concise wording). The Chachamim always speak in a terse, short way; the Gemara, of course, expounds. Mah she'ein ken, when it comes to Eruvin, there is one halachah: “Mavoi shehu gavoha lema'alah me'esrim amah.” There is one halachah we are discussing there. So say yema'et. Saying yema'et does not require adding ten extra words to the Mishnah, explaining what to do in each case. Where I could state the halachah quickly without becoming too verbose, I did. But in Sukkah, once I start with tikun, the whole Mishnah will become tikun.
Look at Rashi. Rashi says: “De'Oraita nami tani takanta,” and elsewhere, in other matters, you can use the word takanta for de'Oraita as well. “Dinfeishei milei, dekatani hatam”: in Masechet Sukkah it says, “Veshe'ein lah shalosh defanot,” “Veshe'einah gevohah asarah,” and “Veshechamatah merubah mitzilatah”—all these laws. “Pasik vetani pesulah, dehashta matzi kayil vetani lehu lekulhu kechada.” That is, pesulah: they are all pesulah. “De'i havah tani takanta,” because if you gave me the word tikun, meaning yema'et, “lo havah matzi le'arvinehu ulemitninehu.” You could not use the word yema'et for all those other halachot. For a sukkah without three walls, “ba'ei lemitnei ya'aseh lah dofen.” For one that is not high enough, “ba'ei lemitnei yagbi'ah”: you have to raise it. If it has more sun than shade, “yosif al hasechach”: add to the sechach.
“Ve'amar mar,” we have a rule: “Le'olam yeshaneh adam letalmido derech ketzarah.” Whenever you teach your students, try to teach in the shortest way so they can remember. In the old days they could not write this stuff down; it was all be'al peh (oral). So the best way to teach it is briefly, so they can remember.
Well, fine. The problem with this explanation is that, according to the way Rashi explained it to us, Rashi already told me at the beginning that by de'Oraita the word pasul works. The word tikun also works, but pasul is appropriate, so we use pasul. Mah she'ein ken, the word pasul by deRabbanan does not work. Then what is the Gemara’s next answer? “Ve'iba'it eima,” that even by de'Oraita you can use the word tikun. 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 that pasul works, which is why we use pasul.
The ve'iba'it eima, according to Rashi, does not go smoothly. Rashi’s principle in the first answer was what? Mide'oraita, you could say pasul. You could also say yema'et. Rashi did not say you cannot say yema'et; he said that pasul works. What is the second answer of the Gemara? Even by de'Oraita, you could say yema'et. No one said no; in the first answer I also agreed. I did not come to negate that. That is the issue Tosafot is going to have with Rashi, and because of that Tosafot will give you a slightly different nuance to explain the two answers.
Read Tosafot: “Sukkah de'Oraita tani pesulah.” The explanation of Rashi is “deshayach lemitni lashon pasul.” In the first answer Rashi just said that it is appropriate to say pasul, “veho'il umimot Moshe nitnah middah zu,” since this measure was already given in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. “Af al gav devide'Oraita shayach nami takanta,” even though you could also use the word takanta. “Velishna de'i ba'it eima, devide'Oraita nami tani takanta,” the second answer, “lo ati shapir lefeirush ken”—that explanation does not work according to him. “Ki gam belashon rishon tani bide'Oraita takanta, velo ka'amar ela deshayach lemitni bah lashon pesulah.” Even in the first answer, he allows takanta by de'Oraita; he only says that it is appropriate to say pesulah.
“Al ken nir'eh li lefaresh”—therefore Tosafot says, “I think we should explain it” another way. “Sukkah de'Oraita tani pesulah.” This is a very, very interesting way to look at it: “Delashon yema'et mashma chumra be'alma.” When you tell me yema'et, it sounds like it is preferable, better to lower it. “O de'ati lemit'ei,” or a person might make a mistake: “Ah, sukkah, yema'et.” Yema'et sounds like a chumra (stringency), something that is good to do, and one might say it is only lechatchilah, but bedi'avad it is fine. We do not want you to make a mistake regarding a de'Oraita, because it is a pasul de'Oraita. If you use the word yema'et, you might not be yotze mide'oraita (fulfill the Torah obligation). So we use clear-cut language: pesulah.
“Aval bemavoi deRabbanan, ein lachosh.” Mavoi is deRabbanan, only deRabbanan. What is the worst that can happen? Yema'et. If a person does not do it, bedi'avad he is at least okay mide'oraita. So according to Tosafot, the word yema'et does not work for a de'Oraita. The second answer says: no, even by de'Oraita we are not worried about that; you can use the word yema'et. The reason it did not use it is because of other concerns. That is how Tosafot fixes the issue for me.
The 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, and you told me that by deRabbanan they are not worried, 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 vechemavoi, ve'af al gav dener Chanukah havi deRabbanan, nakat pesulah agav sukkah debatrah.” Since it put it in the same sentence—“Ner Chanukah shehinichah lema'lah mekaf amah pesulah kesukkah”—it stayed alongside sukkah, so it uses pesulah agav sukkah. If it had put ner Chanukah by itself, it surely would have said, “Ner Chanukah yema'et.” But since sukkah is in the same sentence, by association it used pesulah.
Ah, very good. “I nami, hatam lo matzi lemitni yema'et.” There by ner Chanukah, Tosafot says that even if it had been written alone, you cannot use the word yema'et. Forget about its association with sukkah. Look at what happens: you lit the menorah above twenty amah. Okay, 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 to lower it while it is lit. “Vezeh eino.” Even according to the opinion that says “hanachah osah mitzvah”—that the placement of the menorah is what makes the mitzvah, not the actual lighting—you still have to put it out and relight it. We saw in the Gemara that you have to extinguish it and relight it. Why? “Shelo yomeru haro'im letzorcho hu de'adleka.” People will think he lit it so high for his own purposes. “Keivan dehudlekah befasul lefikach nakat pesulah.” Since it was lit invalidly, therefore it used pesulah.
So according to Tosafot, he answered two questions. Number one, he gave me a new derech to explain de'Oraita and deRabbanan: by de'Oraita it says pesulah, not yema'et. And he explained why ner Chanukah says pesulah: either because it is agav sukkah, or because it would give you the false impression that you just lower it as it is, which you cannot do.
Now, what is the kushya (question)? I did not understand Tosafot’s first teirutz (resolution). Why is it not compatible with the ve'iba'it eima? No, it is not compatible with Rashi. Rashi, in his understanding of the Gemara’s first answer, said, “De'Oraita tani pesulah.” How did Rashi understand that? The word pesulah works only by a de'Oraita. Rashi committed himself when he said that you could also say tikun, that yema'et would work, but he is talking about the word pasul. Pasul works only on a de'Oraita, not on a deRabbanan.
Good. Now what is the next answer? “De'i ba'it eima,” that you can use the word tikun even by a de'Oraita. Rashi said that in the first answer too. That is not changing anything. Rashi did not say you cannot use the word tikun for a de'Oraita. Tosafot is saying that the ve'iba'it eima, the way Rashi set it up, does not work. But the way Tosafot sets it up, it works. Tosafot says, no: in a de'Oraita case you cannot use yema'et, because if you do, people might make a mistake, and that would be a de'Oraita mistake. The ve'iba'it eima says, no, even for de'Oraita we are not worried about that mistake; you can use yema'et. So it changes a premise that the first answer had. Oh, that is a good ve'iba'it eima. That is the question Tosafot had on Rashi.
The Gemara continues. Now we start. Now that we have that out of the way, we start this sugya (Talmudic discussion). “Amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav.” So who is speaking here? Rav is speaking. “Chachamim lo lamduha”—or “lamduha”—“ela mipetach mipitcho shel heichal.” You know the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple)? The Beit HaMikdash had a heichal and an ulam. The heichal is the inner chamber. That is where the mizbe'ach (altar) and the shulchan (table) were, so all the furniture was inside. Then you have the ulam, the antechamber, outside the heichal. Both rooms had gates—doors, I should say. You walk into the ulam and keep walking west through it; then you get to the next door, the heichal.
The gates of the ulam and the heichal had different measurements. For our purposes, we are discussing the height. The Chachamim are asking: where did I get the number twenty amah? Where did I get this shi'ur (measurement)? 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 that a petach is twenty amah; anything higher 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.
One Rabbi is going to say, “I learned it from the heichal.” Rabbi Yehudah did not give me a limit. Rabbi Yehudah said, “Eino tzarich.” It sounds as if, according to him, you can put the korah high, because he learns from the ulam. The ulam was very high, maybe forty amah high. So he says, “I’m learning from the ulam,” and the ulam is also called a petach. Therefore, the machloket (disagreement) between Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim is about which room they are learning from. The Chachamim learn from the heichal, which was twenty amah. Rabbi Yehudah says, “I learn from the ulam,” which was forty.
That is how they understand the machloket. He should say forty; he is not saying forty. “Eino tzarich” does not mean it can go as high as you want. Your question is good. We will see that they say that later. Eino tzarich sounds as though it goes as high as you want, but it does not.
The Gemara says: “Amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav, Chachamim lo lamdu ela mipitcho shel heichal, veRabbi Yehudah lo lamad ela mipitcho shel ulam.” As we learned: “Pitcho shel heichal govho esrim amah, verochbo eser amot.” Good, those are the numbers we are looking for: twenty by ten. “Ve-shel ulam, govho arba'im amah, verochbo esrim amot.” Leave the width; we will get to it later. But clearly, the height of the ulam was forty amah.
“U-shenehem mikra echad darshu.” Both of them are really learning from the same pasuk: “Veshachatu petach ohel mo'ed”—you shall slaughter at the petach. Petach—right away you see that the word petach is the key word we are looking for: “Petach ohel mo'ed.” “De-rabbanan savrei kedushat heichal lechud u-kedushat ulam lechud.” The Chachamim say that although the heichal has kedushah (sanctity)—of course the mizbe'ach hazahav is there—the ulam also has kedushah, but it is not the same kedushah. Any service that you have to do in the heichal would be pasul if you did it in the ulam.
Therefore, the heichal is very precious. “Ve-chi ketiv petach ohel mo'ed,” what is ohel mo'ed (Tent of Meeting)? It is the tent of meeting where the Shechinah (Divine Presence) is. When it said “petach ohel mo'ed,” which petach was it referring to? “A-heichal ketiv.” It refers 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-Rabbi 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 applies to both. Therefore, the ulam is also called a petach, and if the ulam is called a petach, you get to forty. Understand? Let me read it in the Gemara, and now let’s read Rashi.
“Ohel mo'ed”—see Rashi: “Hu heichal she-sham hayah natun mizbach ha-zahav veha-shulchan u-menorah ve-chulo ketiv ohel mo'ed.” That is really the ohel mo'ed; it is the inner chamber. “Rabbanan savrei kedushat ulam lav ke-kedushat heichal, ve-chol avodot ha-amurot ba-heichal, i avid lehu be-ulam she-lefanav, lo mitkashrei.” All the services you do in the heichal, if you did them in the ulam in front of it, would not be valid. “Hilkach lo mikrei ohel mo'ed.” Therefore, it is not called ohel mo'ed. “Ve-lo ashkechan kra de-karei leih petach dileih petach.” The Torah only says “petach ohel mo'ed,” and the ohel mo'ed is the heichal. How high is the heichal? Twenty. There is your answer.
That is the first answer. Rabbi Yehudah says, no, the ulam and 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. Then you shut up and go to—
“I ba'it eima le-Rabbi Yehudah namei kedushat ulam lechud u-kedushat heichal lechud.” Even Rabbi Yehudah can say the kedushot (levels of sanctity) are separate. The ulam is kodesh, a very holy place; the heichal is very holy, and the ulam is less so. “Ve-hacha hainu ta'ama de-Rabbi Yehudah.” Rabbi Yehudah has a different reason: he found another pasuk. “De-chtiv: el petach ulam ha-bayit.” Could you get a better pasuk than that? “El petach ulam ha-bayit.” Ami says there is no pasuk like this. He looked through the whole Tanach (Hebrew Bible); he is a baki, an expert in the whole Tanach, and he said there is no such pasuk, even though the Gemara says there is one.
Tosafot comes along and says, “Zeh ha-pasuk eino be-shum makom.” This pasuk is nowhere, and he is right; the fellow is right. How do we know that? Tosafot says it is actually a hybrid. We found one pasuk in one place and another pasuk in another 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 ha-bayit” and calls the ulam a petach.
What about the Rabbanan? They do not answer, “Hey, there is no such pasuk.” They accept that you can combine two pesukim. They say, “I havah ketiv el petach ulam kedika'amart.” If it had just said “petach ulam,” I would be stuck; I would have to agree with you. “Hashta de-chtiv el petach ulam ha-bayit.” It says “petach ulam ha-bayit”; it includes the word bayit. “Bayit ha-patuach le-ulam”—the room that opens in front of the ulam. What is the room that opens in front of the ulam? The heichal. So I am still fine. That is the petach. It is slicing the words—splicing them. Right, that is what Tosafot answers about what he is going to learn. Tosafot says that the fact that the pasuk you spliced included the word bayit is how I know I am right. You are right that you spliced it, but you spliced it with the word bayit. Look at Tosafot. “Ve-rabbanan, i ketav petach ulam, kedika'amart”—meaning, if “ulam ha-bayit” had not been written anywhere, you would be right. But since we found a place called “ulam ha-bayit,” that means it is the room in front of the ulam. Bayit means 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 the Mishkan. But you are quoting measurements from the Beit HaMikdash. Two different structures! You are quoting me a pasuk about the Mishkan 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 do not get nervous. When it says “petach ohel mo'ed,” if it calls these rooms a petach by the ohel mo'ed, these rooms will also be called a petach by the Mikdash. Even though their sizes were different, for Mikdash purposes I can use the word petach, which is 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: Mishkan is called Mishkan and Mikdash; Mikdash is called Mishkan. “De'i lo teima hachi,” because if we do not say this, consider what Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shemuel: “Shelamim sheshechatan kodem petichat daltot ha-heichal pesulin.” If you slaughtered a korban shelamim before they opened the doors of the heichal, it is pasul.
You slaughtered a korban shelamim, but what happened? You slaughtered it before they opened the doors of the heichal. The heichal had doors; they forgot to open them. What is the halachah if you slaughtered a shelamim? You do not slaughter the shelamim inside the heichal itself; it is slaughtered outside. But the doors have to be open. If you did not open the doors and you slaughtered the shelamim, it is pasul. How do you know? “Shene'emar: veshachato petach ohel mo'ed, bizman shepetuchin, velo bizman shehen ne'ulin.” It is when they are open, not when they are locked.
Now, “Veha ki ketiv hai bemishkan ketiv.” That was written about the Mishkan, but we are applying the law to the Beit HaMikdash. Here, then, you see that petach written about the Mishkan applies to the Mikdash as well. “Ela ashkechan mikdash de'ikri mishkan.” No problem; we found that Mikdash is called Mishkan. Rashi: “Shelamim sheshechatan,” early in the morning, before the doors of the heichal were opened. He came early; they had locked it at night, and he slaughtered the shelamim early.
The Gemara says, “Ela ashkechan mikdash de'ikri mishkan.” It told me that Mikdash is called Mishkan. But what about “umishkan de'ikri mikdash”? “Bishelama mikdash de'ikri mishkan”—it is fine that Mikdash is called Mishkan. How do I know? “Dechtiv: venatati mishkani betochechem.” That was talking about the Beit HaMikdash, and it is called Mishkan. “Ela mishkan de'ikri mikdash”—how do you know the Mishkan is called Mikdash? “Menalan?” Did we find a pasuk? “Ilema midechtiv: venase'u haKehatim.” Who are the Kehatim? The Levi'im. “Nose'ei hamikdash.” When they carry the Mishkan, it calls the Mishkan a Mikdash. “Vehekim(u) et hamishkan ad bo'am.” The Gemara says, “No, no, no, no, no, no, that is 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 do not see that the Mishkan is called a Mikdash. “Ela me'hacha: ve'asu li mikdash veshachanti betocham.” Okay, beautiful. We fixed it. We found “ve'asu li mikdash,” which was talking about the Mishkan.
Let’s review what took place. This is all toldot (developments). Rav said the source of all these Rabbis comes from the Beit HaMikdash. One Rabbi compares the law to the ulam; Rabbi Yehudah compares it to the heichal. Why? Because of the word 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 are fine.
The Gemara says, “Wait, wait, wait. Bein Rabbanan, bein Rabbi Yehudah, lilfei mi-petach sha'ar he-chatzer?” If you are learning from these places, and your rule is that wherever we see the word petach, it teaches me what a petach is, then until now we thought there were two petachim in the world: petach ulam and petach heichal, and each Rabbi picked 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 how wide it is. Besides the width, the Gemara is going to teach us how it was structured.
“Lilfei,” learn “mi-petach sha'ar he-chatzer,” “dichtiv: orech he-chatzer me'ah ba'amah.” The chatzer itself, from point A all the way to the end, was one hundred amah. It is a big structure. “Verochav chamishim be-chamishim,” and the width was fifty by fifty. Don’t get caught up in how the width could be fifty by fifty. It is fifty, just fifty. The Gemara explains what fifty by fifty means; it does not make sense as a width, but it is fifty. So it is one hundred by fifty. That is the Mishkan. “Vekomah chamesh amot.” How high was it? Five amot. We will have to see how it is five amot, but the Torah says it is five amot.
“Uchtiv: vachamesh esreh amah kela'im lakatef.” There are fifteen amah of kela'im (curtains) on one side. “Uchtiv: 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 an opening here, fifty amah. I have curtains on this side, fifteen; I have curtains on the other side, fifteen. That takes up thirty, so how much is left in between? Twenty.
What do you see here? That is called “petach sha'ar he-chatzer.” What are the measurements of this petach sha'ar he-chatzer? “Mah lehalan chamesh berochav esrim.” It is really five by twenty: five high and twenty wide. “Af kan chamesh berochav esrim.” Here, too, the shi'ur of a petach should be five high and twenty wide.
The Gemara is not asking about the height. Regarding the height, we already found another petach that you told me was twenty high: the heichal. As long as I have the word petach for something twenty high, I take the twenty; I am not worried about the five. But now we are talking about width. You told me in the Mishnah that the width is ten. Why ten? That is a petach. Good, but I also found a petach that is twenty wide. So 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: when it came to width, why did you limit the mavoi to ten? You said, “I found a petach of the heichal that is ten by twenty.” Who says that is a kelal (principle), a chok (rule), that I cannot use the same one? The Torah calls it a petach! I found 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? Just as you took the height, take the width too! Take the width lekula (leniently)! Look at Rashi.
Rashi says, “Lilfei mi-petach sha'ar he-chatzer.” The Gemara is asking only about the width: “Arochav parich.” “Detnan bematnitin veharochav me'eser amot yema'et.” The Mishnah says that if it is wider than ten amot, you have to minimize it. “De'ashkechan petach chatzer dahavei esrin rochav, vekeri petach.” We find a petach of the chatzer that is twenty wide, and it is called a petach. “Dichtiv ve'et kal'ei he-chatzer ve'et masach petach sha'ar he-chatzer beParashat Nasso ktiv.”
“Aval agovah,” regarding the height, which is invalid if it is more than five amot, “lo matzi parich.” The Gemara cannot ask that, because “de'ashkechan petach haheichal degavoha chaf.” We already found that the petach of the heichal is twenty high. So I found the petach and I am good with that. Why do you want to minimize it stringently? “Veka kari lei petach”—it calls it a petach! Again, if it is twenty and it is called a petach, why do you want to limit it to five?
Isn’t it the same thing by a sukkah, if it is big and wide and high? I don’t know what you are saying. I have a pasuk in the Torah that says that if it is twenty high, it is called a petach. Is that yes or no? Yes. So can you come along and tell me it is not called a petach? The Torah says it is a petach. It is only a petach if it has a certain width? I’m not talking about width; I’m talking about height. I am not saying the height—this does not come together. For height, it called it a petach. Now I am talking about width. You are right: there you told me the width is ten. Okay, now I am going to tell you the width is twenty. Take the easy one. What do I care? Rashi says, “Rochav chatzer kedichtiv haMishkan nun amah.”
“Veha dichtiv chamishim bachamishim”—Rashi is bothered by this: the width is not fifty by fifty. In perek bet you will get that answer. Do not get nervous about it; wait until daf chaf gimmel. “Mefaresh lah. Ufitchah be'emtza.” Its entrance was in the middle. “Rochbah setumah bikla'im tet-vav amah mitzad zeh shel petach vetet-vav amah mitzad zeh shel petach.” It was flanked on two sides by curtains of fifteen amah. “Venish'aru chaf amah rochav ha'emtza.” Fifty minus thirty is twenty. “Kedichtiv chamesh esreh amah kla'im lakatef, vekatef hu tzido shel petach.” Katef means the shoulder or side of the petach. “Mah lehalan govah chamesh,” since all the curtains around the chatzer were only five high, as it says, “vekomah chamesh amot.” That is about the height.
The Gemara answers: “Petach sha'ar hachatzer ikri, petach setama lo ikri.” Now we are playing with words. There is a petach, and there is a petach sha'ar hachatzer. We are looking for a petach—a plain petach. The ulam and the heichal used the word petach; that is the accurate petach. This 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.
Next answer: “I ba'it eima, ki ketiv kela'im chamesh esreh amah lakatef, begovhah hu dichtiv.” When it said that the kela'im were fifteen amah, it was not saying that they take up fifteen of the width. We thought it was talking about curtains taking up fifteen of the width. So we said, fifteen on this side, fifteen on that side, twenty in the middle. No, no, no, you misread the pasuk. We do not know how wide the opening was, by the way. We do not know the width of the opening of the Mishkan, so you cannot start making conjectures about how wide it was. We do not know anything about the width. The fifteen amah was talking about the height of the curtains; they were fifteen amah high. Nothing to do with the width.
You thought fifteen went this way and fifteen went the other way, leaving a hole twenty wide in the middle. No! You learned the pasuk wrong. It is talking about the height of the kela'im, fifteen amah high. How wide was the opening? Who knows? It could be more or less. You have no clue, no idea, and no basis for asking, “Oh, it was twenty!” Who says it was twenty? You learned the pasuk wrong. The fifteen was not talking about what the curtains took up; it was talking about their height. That is all: know that these curtains are measured in height, not width.
The Gemara says, what are you talking about? “Veha ketiv vekomah chamesh amot.” The height! How can you tell me the curtains were fifteen high? You just told me the height of that entrance was five. 500, how could that be the height? 515! Without the Gemara, you would never understand these pesukim. “Hahu misfat mizbe'ach ulema'lah.” That means the mizbe'ach was ten amah high. We were concerned about what would happen if the kohen went up to the mizbe'ach to perform the service. The people would see him; he would be exposed to the people outside. They would see him working on top of the mizbe'ach, and everybody would get a view. Hashem does not want that. So the curtain went up an extra five amah from the top of the mizbe'ach, covering the kohen. “Misfat mizbe'ach” means five above the mizbe'ach, not five from the ground. Really, it is fifteen; it is just five more from the sefat mizbe'ach.
Okay, Lag Ba'Omer. Again, we solved our problem. The source of petach is either the ulam or the heichal. We tried to bring in another petach, but either we said it was petach sha'ar, or it had nothing to do with width and we do not even know the size of the petach. Fine.
The Gemara says: “Ve-Rabbi Yehudah be-pitcho shel ulam gamar?” Oh! After we finally figured all this out, the Gemara had been holding this question in its pocket. It says, “What are you talking about? You are telling me he learns from the ulam, and therefore the ulam can be forty high. That is where he learns from? Why?” “Ve-hatnan: veharachav me'eser amot yema'et.” Didn’t the Mishnah say that if it is more than ten wide, you have to minimize it? “Ve-lo palig Rabbi Yehudah.” Rabbi Yehudah did not argue on this one. He said nothing. So it sounds as if he agrees that it has to be ten. Where did you get ten from? The heichal! So you are back to the heichal. What are you telling me, that he learns from the ulam? The ulam is much wider; it is twenty amah.
Rav told me on the first page that Rabbi Yehudah learns from the ulam. That is why, when the Mishnah said higher than twenty, Rabbi Yehudah said you can go higher than twenty; he learns from the ulam. But if he learns from the ulam, how come he did not argue with the Chachamim about width? The Chachamim said if it is more than ten, minimize it, and Rabbi Yehudah kept quiet. That means he is learning from the heichal! Make up your mind: does he learn from the heichal or from the ulam?
“Amar Abaye: palig bi-vraita.” Calm down. Just because you did not see him arguing in the Mishnah, he argued in the braita. What difference does that make? “De-tanya: veharachav mi-yud amot yema'et; Rabbi Yehudah omer eino tzarich lema'et.” We found that he argues about the width too, in the braita. “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 height, I also argue about width. Why do I argue about height? Because I learn from the ulam. Use your sechel (intelligence): just as I argue about height, I argue about width too. It is logical; we do not have to spell everything out, alef bet gimmel.
“Ve-achti, Rabbi Yehudah mi-pitcho shel ulam gamar?” Now the Gemara is pressing. It does not want to learn from the ulam. The Gemara got out of that one, but it is still not happy with the ulam; it keeps pressing. He does not 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 is tough. As somebody pointed out, if you are learning from the ulam, it is forty, but now he tells me forty or fifty! “Ve-tanei Bar Kappara ad me'ah.” Beautiful; Bar Kappara says even one hundred.
Now the Gemara begins its analysis. “Bishelama le-Var Kappara guzma.” I can say that Bar Kappara agrees the maximum is forty, but he said one hundred; one hundred means a lot. He meant whatever the shi'ur is—forty. People talk like that. You say, “No, it can only be twenty,” and someone says, “No, it can be twenty, even one hundred!” What do you mean, one hundred? It means forty. No problem; I can say the word me'ah is guzma, exaggeration. “Ella le-Rabbi Yehudah mai guzma?” But Rabbi Yehudah’s language cannot be dismissed as an exaggeration. “Bishelama le-Rabbi Yehudah arba'im gamar mi-pitcho shel ulam.” Fine, I know where the number forty comes from: the ulam. “Ella chamishim mena leh?” Where did he get fifty?
“Amar Rav Chisda: hai matnita at'eiteih le-Rav.” This braita made Rav make a mistake, which is why he thought Rabbi Yehudah learned from the ulam. But really, he did not learn from the ulam. Until now, the whole Gemara was based on Rav’s statement. Rav said he learned from the ulam. Rav Chisda says, “No, no, no. I’ll tell you what really happened.” Rav saw a braita, which we are going to read now. He read it wrong or misunderstood it, and from there he learned that Rabbi Yehudah learned from the ulam. But it was a mistake. What happened with the braita? Let’s see whether you would make the same mistake when you read it.
“De-tanya: mavoi shehu gavoah mi-kaf amah, yoter mipitcho shel heichal, yema'et.” A mavoi higher than kaf amah, higher than the heichal was, must be lowered. What did Rabbi Yehudah say? No problem. Rav made this deduction: “Hu savar, mididerabbanan mipitcho shel heichal gamrei, Rabbi Yehudah mipitcho shel ulam gamar.” Since the Chachamim clearly say they learn from the heichal, which is why they say that if it is higher than twenty—the height of the heichal—yema'et, Rav said, “Well, if they learn from the heichal, Rabbi Yehudah must be learning from the ulam,” and therefore he limited it to forty.
“Vela hi.” That is not so. “Rabbi Yehudah mipitcha demalchin gamar.” You know where he learned from? The palace! The palace of Versailles, Buckingham Palace—he learned from the palace of the kings. A palace can be forty or fifty amah high. Do not limit me to the heichal. That was Rav’s mistake. So really, if you ask me, what is Rabbi Yehudah’s source? “Pitcho shel melachim.” No, no, that is a pasuk for something else. That is something else.
Sukkah has a different reason. Rabbi Yehudah typically says, “Lema'an yede'u”: you have to know. But by mavoi, which is miderabbanan, it is about whether it is 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 do not know that you are sitting in sechach, why would it be a problem? Because it is too high. But here, to make a mavoi kosher, it has to be a petach. Who told you that you need a pasuk? I do not need a pasuk. Ask someone, “What do you call this?” He will say, “Zeh petach shel hamelech.” A petach of the king could be fifty amah.
“Ve-rabbanan, i mipitcho shel heichal gemiri, liv'ei delatot keheichal?” Now we go to the Rabbis. If you are learning from the heichal, should you not require doors like the heichal? Doesn’t the heichal have doors? You are being such a stickler: you are telling me that 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. But we know that in a mavoi you do not need doors. “Almah,” then why do we learn, “Tenan hechsher mavoi: Beit Shammai omerim lechi vekorah,” Beit Shammai says you need a vertical and a horizontal beam, “uBeit Hillel omerim lechi o korah,” Beit Hillel says you need either a vertical or a horizontal one? 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 privacy at night. You close them so people do not 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 is a tzurat hapetach? A doorframe. What do you mean? “Deha heichal tzurat hapetach havah leih, afilu hachi eser amot hu deravach.” The heichal had a tzurat hapetach; it had a doorframe, and what was the measurement? Ten. So you see that even with a tzurat hapetach, the maximum is ten. But you told me in the Mishnah, “No, with a tzurat hapetach, it can go as far as you want.” What do you mean? Where do you see that?
“Almah tenan,” we learned in the Mishnah: “Im yesh lo tzurat hapetach, af al pi sherachav 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. According to the one who learned from the heichal, “In hachi nami”: Rav himself will say that a tzurat hapetach does not help you if it is more than ten.
“Ha matni leih Rav Yehudah leChiyya bar Rav kameih deRav.” They taught this in front of Rav. How did they teach it? “Eino tzarich lema'et.” They taught the Mishnah: if it is more than ten with a tzurat hapetach, you are okay. Rav told him, “You are wrong.” “Va'amar leih: atneih tzarich lema'et.” He told him, “No, you have to fix it.” So what are you asking? You are asking me a question according to whom? Rav? Rav himself says, “In hachi nami.” You asked me, “If you are learning from the heichal, how does a tzurat hapetach help when it is more than ten?” In hachi nami, it does not. According to Rav, who learned from the heichal, it does not help you if it is more than ten. Therefore, he learns the Mishnah as “tzarich lema'et.”
Baruch Hashem le'olam, amen ve'amen.