## Bava Batra Daf 3a

###### Bava Batra 3a:1
[Bava Batra 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:1)

דְּאִיצְטַנַּע מִינָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**so that I can hide from you** at that time and avoid coming under your gaze.


###### Bava Batra 3a:2
[Bava Batra 3a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:2)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ: סַבְרוּהָ, מַאי ״מְחִיצָה״ – פְּלוּגְתָּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתְּהִי מֶחֱצַת הָעֵדָה״; וְכֵיוָן דְּרָצוּ – בּוֹנִין אֶת הַכּוֹתֶל בְּעַל כּוֹרְחָן, אַלְמָא הֶיזֵּק רְאִיָּה שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara has so far presented one version of the discussion of the mishna. **A different version relates** the discussion as follows: The Sages initially **assumed: What** is the meaning of the term ***meḥitza*** mentioned in the mishna? **A division,** not a partition, **as it is written: “And the division of [*meḥetzat*] the congregation was”** (Numbers 31:43). According to this interpretation, the mishna means to say: **Since they wished** to divide the jointly owned courtyard, **they build** a proper **wall** in the center even **against the will** of one of the partners. **Apparently,** it may be concluded that **damage** caused by **sight is called damage.**


###### Bava Batra 3a:3
[Bava Batra 3a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:3)

אֵימָא: מַאי ״מְחִיצָה״ – גּוּדָּא; דִּתְנַן: מְחִיצַת הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״גְּדוֹר״. נִפְרְצָה – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״גְּדוֹר״. נִתְיָאֵשׁ הֵימֶנָּה וְלֹא גְּדָרָהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה קִידֵּשׁ, וְחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects to this conclusion: **But** why not **say: What** is the meaning of the term ***meḥitza*** mentioned in the mishna? It means **a partition.** This usage would be **as we learned** in a *baraita*: Consider the case where **a partition of [*meḥitzat*] a vineyard** which separates the vineyard from a field of grain **was breached,** resulting, if the situation is not rectified, in the grain and grapes becoming items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. The owner of the field of grain may **say to** the owner of the vineyard: **Build a partition** between the vineyard and the field of grain. If the owner of the vineyard did so, and the partition **was breached again,** the owner of the field of grain may **say to him** again: **Build a partition.** If the owner of the vineyard **neglected** to make the necessary repairs **and did not** properly **build a partition** between the fields, the grain and grapes are **rendered forbidden** due to the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, **and he is liable for the** monetary **loss.**


###### Bava Batra 3a:4
[Bava Batra 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:4)

וְטַעְמָא דְּרָצוּ, הָא לֹא רָצוּ – אֵין מְחַיְּיבִין אוֹתוֹ, אַלְמָא הֶיזֵּק רְאִיָּה לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes stating the objection: **And** according to the understanding that the term *meḥitza* means a partition, one can infer: **The reason** that they build a wall is **that they** both **wished** to make a partition in their jointly owned courtyard. **But if they did not** both **wish** to do so, the court **does not obligate** the reluctant partner to build such a wall, although his neighbor objects to the fact that the partner can see what he is doing in his courtyard. **Apparently,** it may be concluded that **damage** caused by **sight is not called damage.**


###### Bava Batra 3a:5
[Bava Batra 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:5)

אִי הָכִי, ״בּוֹנִין אֶת הַכּוֹתֶל״?! ״בּוֹנִין אוֹתוֹ״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא מַאי – פְּלוּגְתָּא? אִי הָכִי, ״שֶׁרָצוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְחִיצָה״?! ״שֶׁרָצוּ לַחֲצוֹת״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: תָּא נַעֲבֵיד פְּלוּגְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **If so,** the words: **They build the wall,** are imprecise, as the *tanna* **should have said: They build it,** since the wall and the partition are one and the same. The Gemara retorts: **Rather, what** is the meaning of the term *meḥitza*? **A division. If** it is **so** that the term *meḥitza* means a division, the words: **Who wished to make a division,** are imprecise, as the *tanna* **should have said: Who wished to divide.** The Gemara answers: The phrasing of the mishna is **as people** commonly **say: Come, let us make a division.** Consequently, the mishna can also be understood as referring to two people who wished to divide a jointly owned area.


###### Bava Batra 3a:6
[Bava Batra 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:6)

וְאִי הֶיזֵּק רְאִיָּה שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק – מַאי אִירְיָא רָצוּ? אֲפִילּוּ לֹא רָצוּ נָמֵי! אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ – כְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ, וְהוּא דְּרָצוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks, according to the understanding that *meḥitza* means division: **But if damage** caused by **sight is called damage, why** does the *tanna* **specifically** teach that **if they wish,** they build a wall? **Even if they did not** both **wish** to do so, it should **also** be possible to compel the reluctant party to build a wall between them. **Rabbi Asi said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Our mishna** is referring to a courtyard **that is not subject to the *halakha* of division.** Joint owners of a courtyard cannot be compelled to divide the courtyard unless each party will receive at least four square cubits of the courtyard. **And** therefore, **this** ruling of the mishna applies only in the case **where they** both **wished** to divide the courtyard.


###### Bava Batra 3a:7
[Bava Batra 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:7)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּכִי לֵית בֵּיהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ, כִּי רָצוּ – פְּלִיגִי?! תְּנֵינָא: אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים – אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן חוֹלְקִין! אִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן – בִּמְסִיפָס בְּעָלְמָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הָכָא, כּוֹתֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to this understanding, **what is** the *tanna* **teaching us?** Is he teaching us **that when** a courtyard **is not subject to the *halakha* of division, if they** nevertheless **wished** to do so, **they divide** it? But **we** already **learned** this in the latter clause of a different mishna (11a): **When** do they not divide the courtyard because it is not large enough to compel division? **When** the joint owners **do not both wish** to divide it. **But when both of them wish** to divide it, **they divide** it **even** if it is **smaller than this,** i.e., smaller than four square cubits for each party. The Gemara answers: **If** we had learned this *halakha* only **from there, I would say** that they divide the courtyard **even** if it is **smaller than this by** constructing **a mere partition of pegs,** which does not prevent invasion of privacy. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us here** in this mishna that if they wish to divide the courtyard they can be compelled to build a proper **wall.**


###### Bava Batra 3a:8
[Bava Batra 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:8)

וְלִיתְנֵי הָא וְלָא לִיתְנֵי הָךְ! סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – וְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים – לֹא יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **let** the *tanna* **teach this** mishna **and not teach that** other mishna, as this mishna teaches more details than the later one. The Gemara answers: **It was necessary for** the *tanna* to teach the other mishna to introduce **the last clause** of that mishna, which states: **And** jointly owned **sacred writings** that are contained in a single scroll **should not be divided even if both** owners **wish** to do so.


###### Bava Batra 3a:9
[Bava Batra 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:9)

(לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: וְכִי רָצוּ מַאי הָוֵי? לִיהְדַּר בֵּיהּ! אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּשֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara brings **a different version** of the previous discussion: **And if they wished** to divide the courtyard, **what of it?** What forces them to build the wall? If one of the parties does not wish to build a wall, **let him retract. Rav Asi said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that the mishna is not discussing a case where they merely reached a verbal agreement to divide the courtyard, but rather with a case where each party **performed** an act of **acquisition with** the other, confirming their respective commitments. Therefore, neither side can retract.


###### Bava Batra 3a:10
[Bava Batra 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:10)

אַדְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ – וְהוּא דְּרָצוּ, לַישְׁמְעִינַן בְּיֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ – וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא רָצוּ! אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּיֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ – וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא רָצוּ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ – אֲפִילּוּ רָצוּ נָמֵי לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather than teaching us** a case **where** the courtyard **is not subject to the *halakha* of division, but** nevertheless **they wished** to divide it, **let** the mishna **teach us** a case **where** the courtyard **is subject to the *halakha* of division, even if they did not** both **wish** to divide it. The Gemara answers: **Had it taught us** only a case **where** the courtyard **is subject to the *halakha* of division** that applies **even if they did not** both **wish** to divide it, **I would say** that in a case where the courtyard **is not subject to the *halakha* of division** then **even if they** both **wished** to divide it, if one of the parties does not wish to build a proper wall he **cannot** be compelled to do so. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that he is compelled to participate.


###### Bava Batra 3a:11
[Bava Batra 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:11)

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי?! וְהָא קָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים – יַחְלוֹקוּ. מַאי, לָאו אַכּוֹתֶל? לָא, אַמְּסִיפָס בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But how can you say this? Doesn’t the latter clause** of the mishna (11a) **teach: When** do they not divide the courtyard because it is not large enough to compel division? **When the** joint owners **do not both wish** to divide it. **But when both of them wish** to divide it, **they divide** it even if it is smaller than this. **What,** is this clause of the mishna **not** referring **to** the fact that either one can force the other to build a proper **wall?** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is referring to **a mere partition of pegs** and not to an actual wall.


###### Bava Batra 3a:12
[Bava Batra 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:12)

לִיתְנֵי הַאי וְלָא לִיתְנֵי הַאי! סֵיפָא אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – וּבְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים – לֹא יַחְלוֹקוּ).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **let** the *tanna* **teach this** mishna **and not teach that** other mishna, as this mishna teaches more details than the later one. The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** to teach the other mishna for **the last clause** of that mishna, which states: **And** jointly owned **sacred writings** that are contained in a single scroll **should not be divided even if both** owners **wish** to do so. This concludes the alternative version of the discussion.


###### Bava Batra 3a:13
[Bava Batra 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:13)

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לְמַתְנִיתִין – בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ; אִי בְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ, כִּי רָצוּ מַאי הָוֵי? נֶהְדְּרוּ בְּהוּ! אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis of the mishna: **To what** case **did you interpret the mishna** to be referring? To a case **where** the courtyard **is not subject to the *halakha* of division.** But **if there is no *halakha* of division,** then **if they wished** to divide the courtyard, **what of it;** how can either one force the other to build a wall? If the parties no longer want to build a wall, **let them retract. Rabbi Asi said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** It is referring to a case where each party **performed** an act of **acquisition with** the other, confirming their respective commitments. Therefore, neither party can retract.


###### Bava Batra 3a:14
[Bava Batra 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:14)

וְכִי קָנוּ מִיָּדָן מַאי הָוֵי? קִנְיַן דְּבָרִים בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! בְּשֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדָן בְּרוּחוֹת. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָלַךְ זֶה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהֶחֱזִיק, וְזֶה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהֶחֱזִיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** even **if** each party **performed** an act of **acquisition with** the other, **what of it? It is merely a verbal acquisition,** meaning there was no actual transfer of property, but only a verbal agreement to act in a certain manner in the future and not a true act of acquisition. The Gemara answers: **They performed** an act of **acquisition with** the other **with regard to directions,** i.e., not only did they verbally agree to divide the courtyard, they also determined which of them would get which part of the courtyard. Consequently, the acquisition related to actual property, a particular plot of land. **Rav Ashi said: For example, this one walked through his** designated portion and **performed an act demonstrating ownership** there, **and that one walked through his** designated portion **and performed an act demonstrating ownership** there.


###### Bava Batra 3a:15
[Bava Batra 3a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:15)

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִבְנוֹת כּוּ׳. גְּוִיל – אַבְנֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁפְּיָא. גָּזִית – אַבְנֵי דִּמְשַׁפְּיָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כָּל אֵלֶּה אֲבָנִים יְקָרוֹת כְּמִדּוֹת גָּזִית (וְגוֹ׳)״ כְּפִיסִין – אַרְחֵי. לְבֵינִין – לִיבְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In **a place where it is customary to build** such a wall with non-chiseled stone [*gevil*], or chiseled stone [*gazit*], or small bricks [*kefisin*], or large bricks [*leveinim*], they must build the wall with that material. The Gemara identifies the various building materials: ***Gevil*** refers to **stones that are not planed. *Gazit*** means **stones that are planed, as it is written: “All these were of costly stones, according to the measures of chiseled stones [*gazit*],** sawed with saws, within and without” (I Kings 7:9). This teaches that chiseled stones are those that have been planed and smoothened. ***Kefisin*** refers to **small bricks. *Leveinim*** means **large bricks.**


###### Bava Batra 3a:16
[Bava Batra 3a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי דִּגְוִיל אַבְנֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁפְּיָא נִינְהוּ, וְהַאי טֶפַח יַתִּירָא – לְמוּרְשָׁא דְקַרְנָתָא? דִּילְמָא פַּלְגָא דְגָזִית הוּא, וְהַאי טֶפַח יַתִּירָא – לְבֵינֵי אוּרְבֵי הוּא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: From where** do you know **that *gevil*** refers to **stones that are not planed, and this extra handbreadth** that a wall of *gevil* has compared to what a wall of *gazit* has is **for the protruding edges?** That is, a wall of *gevil* is six handbreadths thick because the stones have not been planed and smoothened, and therefore protrude somewhat outward. **Perhaps** *gevil* refers to planed stones that **are half** the thickness **of *gazit*,** namely, just two and a half handbreadths, as compared to *gazit*, which is five handbreadths thick; **and this extra handbreadth** in a wall of *gevil* **is** for the space **between the** two **rows [*urbei*].** That is, a wall of *gevil* is actually two walls of planed stones that are each two and a half handbreadths thick; and the two walls are separated by one handbreadth, which is later filled in with mortar for added strength.


###### Bava Batra 3a:17
[Bava Batra 3a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:17)

כִּדְקָאָמְרִינַן: כְּפִיסִין – אַרְחֵי, לְבֵינִין – לִיבְנֵי, וְהַאי טֶפַח יַתִּירָא – לְבֵינֵי אוּרְבֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A proof for this explanation can be brought from **what we say,** i.e., that ***kefisin*** are **small bricks,** whereas ***leveinim*** are **large bricks,** twice the thickness of small bricks. **And this extra handbreadth** of thickness that a wall of *kefisin* has compared to what a wall of *levinim* has is for the space **between the** two **rows** of small bricks.


###### Bava Batra 3a:18
[Bava Batra 3a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, כְּפִיסִין – אַרְחֵי, מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, גְּוִיל נָמֵי – אַבְנֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁפְּיָא, גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: And according to your reasoning, from where do we** derive that ***kefisin*** are **small bricks? Rather,** the Sages **learned this as a tradition.** And **so too, they learned as a tradition** that ***gevil* refers to non-planed stones.**


###### Bava Batra 3a:19
[Bava Batra 3a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:19)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי כְּפִיסִין – אַרְחֵי נִינְהוּ, וְהַאי טֶפַח יַתִּירָא – לְבֵינֵי אוּרְבֵי? דִּילְמָא מַאי כְּפִיסִין – אַבְנֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁפְּיָין, וְהַאי טֶפַח יַתִּירָא – לְמוּרְשָׁא דְקַרְנָתָא; כִּדְקָאָמְרִינַן: גְּוִיל – אַבְנֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁפְּיָין, גָּזִית – אַבְנֵי דִּמְשַׁפְּיָין, וְהַאי טֶפַח יַתִּירָא – לְמוּרְשָׁא דְקַרְנָתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a different version of the discussion. **There are** those **who say** that **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From where** do you know **that *kefisin* are small bricks,** one-half the width of large bricks, **and this extra handbreadth** of thickness that a wall of *kefisin* has compared to what a wall of *leveinim* has covers the space **between the** two **rows** of *kefisin*? **Perhaps** you should say **what** are ***kefisin*? Stones that** are **not planed, and this extra handbreadth** of thickness that a wall of *kefisin* has in comparison to what a wall of *leveinim* has **is for the protruding edges.** And proof for this explanation can be brought from **what we say,** i.e., that ***gevil*** refers to **stones that** are **not planed,** whereas ***gazit*** means **planed stones, and this extra handbreadth** of thickness that a wall of *gevil* has compared to what a wall of *gazit* has **is for the protruding edges.**


###### Bava Batra 3a:20
[Bava Batra 3a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:20)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, גְּוִיל – אַבְנֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁפְּיָין, מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי – גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: And according to your reasoning, from where do we** derive that ***gevil* are stones that** are **not planed? Rather,** the Sages **learned** this **as a tradition. Here too, they learned as a tradition** that *kefisin* are small bricks.


###### Bava Batra 3a:21
[Bava Batra 3a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:21)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּל בֵּינֵי אוּרְבֵי – טֶפַח; הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּטִינָא, אֲבָל בְּרִיכְסָא בָּעֵי טְפֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּרִיכְסָא, אֲבָל בְּטִינָא לָא בָּעֵי כּוּלֵּי הַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Learn from it** that the space left **between the** two **rows** of a wall **is always a handbreadth.** The Gemara comments: **This matter** applies only when the two rows of the wall are filled in **with mortar. But** when they are filled in **with gravel [*berikhsa*], more** space **is required. And there are** those **who say** that **this matter** applies only when the two rows of the wall are filled in **with gravel. But when mortar** is used to fill in the space, **not as much** space **is required,** and less than a handbreadth suffices.


###### Bava Batra 3a:22
[Bava Batra 3a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:22)

לְמֵימְרָא דִּבְגָזִית; דְּכֹל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת גּוֹבַהּ, אִי הָוֵי פּוּתְיָא חַמְשָׁא – קָאֵי, אִי לָא – לָא קָאֵי?! וְהָא אַמָּה טְרַקְסִין; דַּהֲוַאי גָּבוֹהַּ תְּלָתִין אַמְּהָתָא, וְלָא הֲוָה פּוּתְיָא אֶלָּא שֵׁית פּוּשְׁכֵי; וְקָם! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא טֶפַח יַתִּירָא – קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: Is this **to say that** in the case of a wall of **chiseled stone, if for every four cubits of height there are five** handbreadths **of thickness** the wall **will stand,** and **if not it will not stand,** as this is the required ratio between a wall’s height and its thickness? **But wasn’t there** the **one-cubit-thick wall separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary of the Temple [*amah teraksin*]** separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary, **which was thirty cubits high and its thickness was only six handbreadths and** nevertheless **stood?** The Gemara answers: **Since there was an extra handbreadth** of thickness, it was able to **stand** even to such a great height.


###### Bava Batra 3a:23
[Bava Batra 3a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:23)

וּבְמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי מַאי טַעְמָא לָא עֲבוּד אַמָּה טְרַקְסִין? כִּי קָאֵי – בִּתְלָתִין קָאֵי, טְפֵי לָא קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that **in the Second Temple they did not fashion an *amah teraksin*** to separate between the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary, as they had done in the First Temple? The Gemara answers: **When** a partition **stands** even though it is only six handbreadths thick, **it is** able to remain standing up to **thirty** cubits in height. But **it will not** be able to **stand** if it is **more** than that height. The Second Temple was taller than the First Temple, and therefore the partition separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary also had to be higher.


###### Bava Batra 3a:24
[Bava Batra 3a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/3a:24)

וּמְנָלַן דַּהֲוָה גָּבוֹהַּ טְפֵי? דִּכְתִיב: ״גָּדוֹל יִהְיֶה כְּבוֹד הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן״ – רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל; וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; חַד אָמַר: בְּבִנְיָן, וְחַד אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And from where do we** derive **that** the Second Temple **was taller** than the First Temple? **As it is written: “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former”** (Haggai 2:9). **Rav and Shmuel** disagree about the meaning of this verse, **and some say** it was **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar** who disagreed as to its meaning. **One** of them **said** that it means that the Second Temple will be greater **in** the size of its **structure,** i.e., taller. **And one** of them **said**