The Gemara introduces the story of Hordos, who was originally a gentile, but became a Canaanite slave to the Hasmonean family. The Hasmoneans were a prominent family during the time of the Second Temple, known for conquering the Greek Empire. Hordos, a slave to this family, became infatuated with a Jewish girl from their lineage.
One day, Hordos heard a heavenly voice, a "bat kol," declare that any slave who rebels against the Hasmoneans at that time would succeed. Recognizing this as an auspicious moment, Hordos acted. He proceeded to kill all the kings and leaders of the Hasmonean family, leaving no one alive except the girl he desired. When she realized his intention to marry her, she refused. Ascending to a high place, she cried out that anyone claiming descent from the Hasmonean family must be a slave, as she was the last survivor. She then committed suicide by jumping from the roof, choosing death over marrying Hordos. This account is corroborated by the Gemara in Kiddushin, which states that any claim of Hasmonean lineage is impossible, implying such claimants must be of slave descent.
After her death, Hordos preserved her body in honey for seven years. There are two interpretations for this act. Some say he did so to preserve her body because he had relations with her after her death. Others contend that he did not have relations, but preserved her to display her to everyone, thereby proving his marriage into the royal family and solidifying his claim as an heir to the Hasmonean kingdom.
The Gemara then recounts another act of Hordos. He was angered by the rabbinic interpretation of the verse, "From among your brothers shall you set a king over you," which mandates that a Jewish king must be Jewish, not a slave. Even though a Canaanite slave is obligated in many commandments like a convert, the rabbis derived from this verse that a slave is disqualified from kingship. In his rage, Hordos killed all the sages who taught this law, viewing them as his enemies. He spared only one rabbi, Baba ben Buta, whom he kept as an advisor due to his great scholarship. Hordos then placed a prickly crown, described as a creature with needle-like hair, over Baba ben Buta’s eyes, blinding him.
One day, Hordos sat before the blind Baba ben Buta, who was unaware of his identity. Hordos, referring to himself, asked, "Look at what this wicked slave has done! What can we do about him?" Baba ben Buta replied, "What do you want me to do?" Hordos urged him to curse the slave. Baba ben Buta cited the verse, "Even in your thoughts, do not curse a king," explaining that one must not curse a king, even a wicked one. Hordos argued that this individual was not a true king, but an impostor. Baba ben Buta countered that even a wealthy person or a leader should not be cursed. Hordos then asked when it is permissible to curse a leader. Baba ben Buta explained that it is forbidden when the leader acts in accordance with the Jewish people's ways, but permissible if he does not follow the Torah. Hordos then changed his approach, saying, "I am afraid of him." Hordos tried to reassure him, saying, "Don't worry, no one else is here. It's just you and me." Baba ben Buta responded by quoting the verse from Kohelet, "For a bird of the heavens will carry the sound, and a winged creature will tell the matter," implying that even private words can become known. At this, Hordos revealed his identity, saying, "I am Hordos. If I had known that the rabbis possessed such loyalty to the king, not even cursing him, I would not have killed them."
Hordos then asked what his rectification (tikkun) could be for killing the rabbis. Baba ben Buta responded, "You extinguished the light of the world by killing the sages, for Torah is light. Therefore, go and involve yourself in bringing light to the world." He referenced the verse about the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple), stating that all nations would go to its light, thus equating the Beit HaMikdash with light. He further explained, "You blinded the eye of the world by killing the sages, for the sages are called the eyes of the nation. Therefore, go and involve yourself in the eye of the world," referencing the Beit HaMikdash as "the beauty of your eye." In essence, Baba ben Buta instructed Hordos to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash as his rectification.
Hordos expressed fear of the Romans, who held sway over him, should he undertake such a project. Baba ben Buta offered a clever solution: send a messenger to Rome to seek permission. The journey to Rome, the deliberations there, and the return journey would take three years. In the interim, Hordos could demolish the existing Beit HaMikdash and rebuild it. Hordos followed this advice. After three years, the message returned from Rome, stating: "If you have not yet demolished it, do not do anything. If you have already demolished it, do not rebuild it. But if you have already destroyed it and rebuilt it, then you are a wicked slave! After you do what you want, then you ask questions." The Romans added, "If you are boastful with your weapons," referring to his violence against the Hasmoneans, "we know your lineage; you are a slave, not a king or the son of a king." The term "Raka" (from Latin/Greek "Rex") was used to mean king. They told him, "Hordos, you are a freed slave by your own hand," meaning he freed himself but was not of royal blood. The Gemara clarifies that "Raka" indeed means kingdom, citing a verse where "Avrech" (interpreted as "Rakh") is used in reference to a king.
The Gemara then praises Hordos's architectural achievement: "Anyone who has not seen Hordos's building has never seen a beautiful building in their life." He used special marble, including green, white, and blue varieties, laying them in an elevated manner to ensure strong adhesion. He initially intended to cover the limestone with gold, but the rabbis advised against it, saying it was beautiful as it was, resembling the waves of the ocean. The Gemara then questions how Baba ben Buta was permitted to give advice to Hordos, citing the case of Daniel, who was punished for advising Nevuchadnezzar to redeem his sins through charity. Daniel's advice delayed Nevuchadnezzar's punishment by twelve months, yet Daniel himself was punished. This implies that one should not give advice to a gentile. The Gemara resolves this by distinguishing Hordos's status: he was a Canaanite slave, not a full gentile, making the situation different. The Gemara then clarifies Daniel's punishment, explaining that he was called "Hatach" because he was "cut down" from his high position during the time of Achashverosh. Alternatively, if "Hatach" means that all the king's advice was "cut through" Daniel's mouth, implying he was the king's top advisor, then his punishment was being thrown into the lion's den, even though he was saved, the initial fear constituted a punishment.
The Mishnah discusses the division of a courtyard (chatzar) between two partners. It states that if they wish to erect a dividing wall, they follow the local custom (minhag hamedina). The Mishnah previously specified brick sizes and wall thickness, then added that the custom of the region should be followed. The Gemara asks what this addition comes to include. It explains that it includes places where the custom is to build inexpensive walls, such as those made from palm branches or branches of the Armon tree. Even if such a cheap material is the custom, one partner cannot insist on a concrete wall; he is bound by the local custom of using palm branches.
The Mishnah then states that if such a wall falls, the bricks and the space belong to both partners. The Gemara asks, "Peshita!" (It's obvious!) Of course, they built it together, so they share it. Why does the Mishnah need to state this? The Gemara answers that the case is where the bricks fell on one side, or were cleaned to one side. One might think that since the bricks are now on one person's property, he is the possessor (muhzak), and the burden of proof is on the other. The Mishnah teaches that this is not the case; when a wall in the middle of a courtyard falls, it is assumed to have belonged to both partners, and thus they split the bricks, regardless of where they fell or were moved.
The Mishnah extends this law to a garden: if the custom is to put a fence in a garden, they must follow that custom. The Gemara raises a "gufa kasha," a contradiction between the implications of two statements within the Mishnah itself. The Mishnah implies that in a standard garden, a fence is not required unless there is a specific custom. However, in the next part, regarding a wheat field (bik'ah), the Mishnah states that if the custom is *not* to put a fence, then one is not required, implying that a fence *is* usually required in a wheat field. The Gemara asks: a garden has a greater reason for a fence due to "ayin hara" (evil eye) from people looking at each other's vegetables. If a standard garden doesn't require a fence, how could a wheat field, with less concern for "ayin hara," require one by default?
Abaye attempts to resolve this by reinterpreting the Mishnah: a standard garden (stam ginah) *does* require a fence, and in a place where it's customary to fence a wheat field, they must do so. However, the Gemara rejects this, noting that the Mishnah's language, "And so too in a garden," implies a different case. Rav Papa offers a different reading: "And so too in a garden" refers to a standard garden, where there is no known custom, and it is treated *as if* there were a custom to fence it, thus requiring a fence. But concerning a standard wheat field (stam bik'ah), where there is no known custom, a fence is *not* required. This resolves the contradiction: a garden, even without an explicit custom, requires a fence due to "ayin hara," while a wheat field does not, unless there is a specific custom.
The Gemara then discusses how to mark a wall when one partner builds it alone, to prevent the other from claiming partnership. The builder must make a "chazit," a noticeable mark, on his side. This is done by having some stones protrude on the outside of the wall. The Gemara asks why the protrusion must be on the outside; why not on the inside? The answer is that if it's on the inside, the other partner could make his own protrusion on the outside and claim partnership. But if the builder makes his mark on the outside, the other partner cannot easily claim it. The Gemara then asks: what if the other partner chisels off the protruding stones, making the wall smooth, and then claims joint ownership? The Gemara says that one can tell when a stone has been chiseled, so the trick would be evident.
Another opinion, that of Rav Huna, suggests making the mark on the inside. The Gemara asks why not on the outside. Rav Huna holds that chiseling is not a concern because it would be detectable. However, if the mark is on the outside, the other partner could add more stones, making it protrude on both sides, and claim partnership. The Gemara again says that an addition would be detectable. The Gemara then asks a strong question against Rav Huna: the Mishnah explicitly states, "and they make a mark on the outside." How can Rav Huna interpret it otherwise?
Rabbi Yochanan offers a different interpretation of the "chazit": it means applying tar or white paint to the top layer of bricks on the outside. The Gemara asks why on the outside; why not on the inside? Because if it's on the inside, the other partner could paint the outside and claim partnership. The Gemara then asks: what if the other partner peels off the paint? Rabbi Yochanan responds that peeling would be detectable, so the trick would not work. Therefore, the mark is made on the outside with paint or tar, and one is not concerned about it being peeled off.
What if the wall is not made of stones, but of branches or palm trees, where paint or protruding stones are not feasible? The Gemara explains that one should tie together the protruding ends of the branches on the outside, creating a knot as a mark. The Gemara asks why on the outside; why not on the inside? Because if it's on the inside, the other partner could tie his own knots on the outside and claim partnership. The Gemara then asks: what if the other partner unties the knots? The Gemara suggests applying tar to the knots to secure them. The other partner could then peel off the tar, but this would be detectable. Thus, tying the ends with tar on the outside serves as a valid mark, as peeling would be evident.
Abaye, however, maintains that no physical mark can truly establish ownership for a wall made of branches, as any mark can be undone. He asserts that the only way to establish ownership for such a wall is through a legal document (shtar) with witnesses. The Gemara then considers the Mishnah's statement: "But if they agreed to make the wall together, then they split it." The Mishnah adds that in such a case, one partner makes a mark on the inside, and the other on the outside. The Gemara asks: why make any marks at all? If they agreed to build it together, it's automatically divided. Why trouble them? The Gemara answers that this refers to a case where one partner preemptively made a mark on his side. To prevent him from claiming the entire wall, the other partner must then make a mark on his side. The Gemara notes that this implies the Mishnah is discussing a "ramai" (a crook) who tries to steal the wall. It questions whether the Mishnah typically gives examples of crooks. It clarifies that the first part of the Mishnah, about one owner, teaches the general law that a mark is needed. Once that law is established, the method for making the mark is explained to prevent trickery. However, the latter part of the Mishnah, about two owners, seems superfluous if it's just about normal partners. Therefore, the latter part *must* be teaching about a "ramai" who made a mark first, requiring the other to respond. Ravina offers a different explanation for the latter part of the Mishnah: it refers to a wall made of palm trees. According to Abaye, such a wall cannot be marked effectively without a shtar. The Mishnah's novel teaching (chiddush) is that even for a palm tree wall, a physical mark *is* sufficient. Once this is established, the Mishnah then addresses the case where one partner preemptively makes a mark, requiring the other to do the same to protect his share.