מאי קא משמע לן בשאין בה דין חלוקה—What is the משנה teaching us; when it cannot be divided legally

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited the לישנא אחרינא which maintains ה"ר ש"ה. Either partner can coerce the other to build a wall jointly. The reason the משנה says רצו which indicates it has to be done willingly; no coercion is permitted, is because the משנה is discussing a חצר שאין בה דין חלוקה. In such a חצר, no one can coerce the other to divide, unless they both agree. That is the meaning of שרצו השותפין; they agreed to divide the חצר שאין בד"ח. Once however they agreed to divide this חצר then either partner can coerce the other to jointly build a wall. The גמרא then questions this interpretation. The question reads (literally, somewhat) as follows: ‘what are you teaching us; that by a חצר שאין בה ד"ח they may willingly divide; we have already learnt this elsewhere’!¹ A cursory reading of this question would indicate that the questioner assumed that our משנה is (only) teaching us the rules of dividing a חצר שאין בה ד"ח. Therefore he asks we already know these rules from elsewhere! תוספות will challenge this assumption, that all the משנה is teaching us are the rules of division. The משנה is teaching us (in addition) that הרש"ה! What therefore is the s'גמרא question מאי קמ"ל?!

תוספות anticipates the following question: אף על גב דקא משמע לן דשמיה היזק² – Even though the משנה teaches us that היזק ראיה is considered damage. How can the גמרא ask מאי קמ"ל when the משנה is teaching us הרש"ה!? תוספות replies: הכי פירושו³ מאי קא משמע לן במאי דאיירי באין בה דין חלוקה – This is the explanation of the s'גמרא question. What is the משנה teaching us more by discussing a case of a חצר which is אין בד"ח**,** and telling us that in this situation הרש"ה – לישמעינן בשיש בה דין חלוקה [אף על גב דלא רצו]⁴ (כשרצו) פלגי – Let the משנה teach us this same דין of הרש"ה in a חצר that has כדי חלוקה,⁵ and the משנה teaches us that even though one of the partners did not want to divide, nevertheless we divide and force him to jointly build a common wall.⁶ תוספות explained that the question of מאי קמ"ל, is not merely that our משנה is superfluous since we know this דין from 'אימתי בזמן', but rather the question is why teach the דין of הרש"ה by אין בד"ח, instead of by יש בד"ח. When we see the s'גמרא answer to this question 'אי מהתם הו"א וכו, it seems however that the גמרא is responding only to the question that our משנה is superfluous, but not to the question that תוספות proposes, i.e. why teach הרש"ה by אבד"ח instead of יבד"ח. תוספות responds to this issue. ותירץ⁷ הא קא משמע לן דאפילו באין בה דין חלוקה⁸ – And the גמרא answered, this is what the משנה is teaching us, by telling us the דין of הרש"ה by a חצר שאין בה בד"ח that even if the חצר is אבד"ח – דאיכא למימר על מנת לעשות גודא לא איתרצאי⁹ כדפירש¹⁰ לעיל:¹¹ Where it is possible for the reluctant partner to argue that I did not agree to divide if it results in my obligation to build a wall,¹² as was explained previously in תוספות.We may have thought that the reluctant partner has a strong argument and is exempt from building the wall. Therefore our משנה teaches us that (even by 'רצו') by a חצר שאין בד"ח, once he agrees to divide the חצר, he is obligated to jointly build a wall.

SUMMARY Without תוספות we assume the following. The גמרא understands that the משנה by stating 'שרצו' is teaching us that by a חצר שאין בד"ח they may willingly divide. The גמרא asks that this דין was already taught elsewhere. The גמרא answers that from our משנה we know, that not only do they divide, but they must also build a כותל. תוספות asks how can the גמרא assume that the משנה is only teaching us that they may divide a חצר שאין בד"ח, when it is obvious that the משנה is teaching us the דין of הרש"ה. Something the other משנה does not teach us. תוספות explains that the גמרא originally knew that the משנה is teaching us הרש"ה. Nevertheless the question is why teach הרש"ה by a חצר שאין בד"ח as opposed to a חצר שיש בד"ח. The גמרא answers that even if we knew that הרש"ה by a חצר שיש בד"ח, we may still think that by a חצר שאין בד"ח one cannot coerce the reluctant partner to build a wall. The reluctant partner may argue that I only agreed to divide if I do not have to build a wall. Our משנה teaches us that this is not a valid argument and even by a חצר שאין בד"ח he is required to build a wall jointly.

THINKING IT OVER According to the מסקנא, is the משנה also teaching us the rule that by חצר שאין בד"ח, they may divide (and then not be permitted to retract)? Appendix The translation has followed the view of the מהר"ם who is 'גורס 'ותירץ; that תוספות is explaining the answer of the גמרא.¹³ Out text however reads (and the מהרש"א enforces it) 'ותימה'; that תוספות is challenging the s'גמרא question of מאי קמ"ל. According to this גירסא the explanation of תוספות may be as follows. תוספות explains the question of the גמרא: Why does the משנה teach us the rule of הרש"ה by a חצר שאין בד"ח, the משנה should have taught it to us by a חצר שיש בד"ח. In a חצר שיש בד"ח there is a greater חידוש;¹⁴ that even though the reluctant partner did not even agree to divide (as opposed to a חצר שאין בד"ח), nevertheless, he can be coerced (not only to divide, but also) to jointly build a wall. The fact, that the משנה ignores this reasoning and teaches us this דין by a חצר שאין בד"ח indicates that the משנה wants to teach us [also] the laws of dividing a חצר שאין בד"ח; that once they agreed (contractually) to divide they cannot retract this agreement.¹⁵ The גמרא therefore asks, that the laws of agreeing to divide a חצר שאין בד"ח are already clearly stated; why repeat them. To which the גמרא answers, that it is true that the laws of division were already stated; however from that other משנה we may have thought that the rule that once they agreed to divide they cannot rescind, is only when they agree to a מסיפס. However if one partner insists on a כותל, then the other partner has the right to retract his agreement. The חצר would then revert to its original status of a חצר שאין בד"ח.¹⁶ Our משנה therefore teaches us that they cannot retract this agreement even if one partner insists on a כותל. תוספות however, challenges the assumption of the גמרא. Why did the גמרא assume that out משנה wants to teach us the laws of division; when in reality our משנה wants to teach us the דין of הרש"ה? The reason the משנה teaches this to us by a חצר שאין בד"ח is because (contrary to the questioner’s assumption) the greater חידוש of הרש"ה is not by a חצר שיש בד"ח (as the מקשן assumed), but rather by a חצר שאין בד"ח. We may have thought that by a חצר שאין בד"ח the reluctant partner can argue I never agreed to divide with a wall. Therefore the חלוקה will remain without a wall; היזק ראיה cannot force one to build a wall by a חצר שאין בד"ח.¹⁷ That is why the משנה teaches us the דין of הרש"ה by a חצר שאין בד"ח, but not because the משנה wants to teach us any דין concerning dividing property. What therefore is the s'גמרא question!? תוספות does not offer an answer.

footnotes: ¹ The idea that שותפים may agree to divide a חצר שאין בד"ח, should be understood to mean, that once they contractually agree to divide, neither can retract his agreement. ² Why does the גמרא assume that the משנה is only teaching us that partners may divide a חצר שאין בד"ח; and therefore asks that this rule has already been taught elsewhere, where in fact the משנה is teaching us a new דין that הרש"ה. This דין was not taught in any other משנה. ³ The גמרא knew that the משנה is not just teaching us the דין that by a חצר שאין בד"ח the partners may willingly divide. It is understood that the משנה is teaching us the דין of הרש"ה. Rather the s'גמרא question is as follows: ⁴ The translation follows the text in the [brackets]; not in the (parenthesis). ⁵ The משנה should not have said שרצו indicating that willingness is required to divide the חצר, which limits the דין of the משנה to a חצר שאין בד"ח. This rule that a חצר שאין בה דין חלוקה may be divided willingly, we know from the משנה of 'וכו בזמן אימתי. ⁶ This may be a greater חידוש than by אין בד"ח. For by אבד"ח since he agreed to divide and we assume that הרש"ה, it would seem that he agreed even to build a wall. However, by יבד"ח where he never agreed to divide; the whole division is against his will, perhaps in such a case I may think that he is not obligated to build a wall. ⁷ The translation will be following the גירסא of the מהר"ם, namely ותירץ; not the printed גירסא in our תוספות (and גירסת מהרש"א) which reads 'ותימה'. See ‘Appendix’. ⁸ By a חצר שיש בה בד"ח, the reluctant partner has no choice; he must divide since it is יש בד"ח and he must build a wall since הרש"ה. ⁹ By a חצר שאין בד"ח it is required that they both agree to divide. ¹⁰ Perhaps this should be emended to read 'כדפירשתי' or 'כדפירש ר"י'. ¹¹ דף ב,ב ד"ה וכיון עיי"ש. ¹² When the גמרא answers the question and states 'אי מהתם ה"א וכו' במסיפס בעלמא' it means as follows: If our משנה would state the דין of הרש"ה by a חצר שיש בד"ח, we may (mistakenly) think that even though we maintain הרש"ה, but by a חצר שאין בד"ח, we may falsely assume that the reluctant partner can say I agreed to divide this חצר with a מסיפס, but not with a כותל of גויל וגזית. ¹³ There are difficulties with the s'מהר"ם view. Firstly is the change in the text from what actually appears in the תוספות. Secondly according to the מהר"ם the answer of the גמרא which states 'אי מהתם הו"א במסיפס בעלמא וכו is not the complete answer. The complete answer would require that which תוספות states: ע"מ לעשות גודא לא אתרצאי, which does not appear in the גמרא. A third difficulty is that in a previous (תוספות ב,ב ד"ה וכיון) it seems that תוספות there asks and answers the same question and answer that our תוספות maintains is the s'גמרא question and answer here. תוספות there however, stated that according to some texts this question and answer that תוספות is proposing actually is found in the גמרא. It is assumed that תוספות is referring to the גמרא in parenthesis beginning with (''ל"א וכי רצו וכו'). However, according to the מהר"ם, our גמרא itself, before the parenthesis, is asking and answering the same question and answer of that תוספות. Why does תוספות say that (only) in some texts does this question and answer appear, when in fact it appears in all texts according to the מהר"ם. The following interpretation according to the גירסא of the מהרש"א (seemingly), removes all these difficulties. ¹⁴ See footnote # 6. ¹⁵ See footnote # 1. ¹⁶ The גמרא did not think, even in the הו"א, that he could retain the division and refuse to build a wall. According to the גמרא the assumption of the מקשן; namely that there is a greater חידוש to build a wall by a חצר שיש בד"ח, remains. Therefore if he would want to retain the חלוקה by a חצר שאין בד"ח he would have to build a wall, with a כ"ש from a חצר שיש בד"ח. The גמרא (in the הו"א) is discussing only the issue of 'רצו'; that it is possible to break the agreement by a חצר שאין בד"ח, if the partner insists on having a wall. Our משנה, when it states ''שרצו' is teaching us a דין in חלוקה, not (only) a דין in היזק ראיה. ¹⁷ See footnote # 16 above. This can perhaps explain the difference between תוספות asking 'ותימה' and the s'גמרא answer of 'אי מהתם וכו that they are not identical. The גמרא is discussing the ביטול חלוקה while תוספות is discussing היזק ראיה. וצ"ע ודו"ק.

כי רצו מאי הוי ניהדרו בהו—What of it, that they wanted; they can withdraw from this

OVERVIEW The גמרא asks specifically¹ on the מ"ד מחיצה פלוגתא, why can we force them to divide and build a wall, based merely on their agreement to divide. What can stop either of the partners to rescind his previous commitment to divide? It is known that for any commitment to be binding there needs to be a קנין;² an act that effectively binds the parties legally to whatever they are committing themselves to do. There is no mention of a קנין in our משנה. Our תוספות will discuss why is this question limited to the מ"ד פלוגתא, and not on the מ"ד גודא as well.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: למאן דאמר מחיצה גודא לא פריך³ דאיכא למימר דקנו ושיעבדו נכסיהן לבנין הכותל – The גמרא does not ask this question (רצו וכו' כי) on the one who interprets מחיצה to mean a wall for we can say that the משנה is discussing a case where the partners **made a קנין (**a binding commitment to build the wall), and they pledged their assets to the building of the wall. The קנין was not merely that they are going to build a wall, but rather each partner made a קנין that he is committing and obligating his assets for the purpose of building this wall. The קנין creates a lien on his assets. This is a tangible קנין. אלא למאן דאמר פלוגתא לא מהני קנין דקנין דברים בעלמא הוא – However according to the מ"ד that they are merely agreeing to divide the חצר, a קנין for obligating oneself to divide a חצר is not a valid קנין, for it is merely a קנין on words. They agree to divide and make a קנין to obligate them to their agreement. However the קנין is not transferring anything tangible to anyone. There are no assets that are being transferred. There is no lien being placed on any assets. They will both own the same percentage of the property after they divided, as they owned before they divided. A קנין is effective for assets and liens; it is not effective on personal promises, where no transfer of assets is taking place.⁴

For the גמרא did not originally entertain the thought that they made a קנין concerning the location. That type of a קנין is not a קנין דברים. Originally the entire property was owned jointly by both partners. They agreed to partition it (let us assume) in a north-south division. Each partner is transferring to the other all of his rights to the other half of the property which he is presently relinquishing. This is a קנין on something tangible; notably his rights in the other half of the property. However the מקשן did not think that the משנה is discussing this type of a קנין.⁵

SUMMARY According to the מ"ד גודא, there was never a question that they could renege on their commitment, for it is assumed that they made a קנין and pledged their assets for the wall. However, according to the מ"ד פלוגתא, making a קנין for division is invalid since it is merely a קנין דברים. The מקשן did not entertain the possibility that they made a קנין ברוחות.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the דין if the partners said while making the קנין that they are committing themselves to build a wall, but they did not pledge their assets; is that considered קנין דברים or not?⁶

footnotes: ¹ תוספות is referencing the גמרא after the parenthesis, where the גמרא states אי 'בשאין בה דין חלוקה וכו. See (however) הגהות הב"ח (ד) ² The general term קנין usually refers to קנין חליפין (see רש"י here ד"ה קנין), where the granting party accepts a cloth (or something similar) [from the receiving party (or the witnesses)] and ‘in return’ commits himself to whatever he is granting. ³ Why does the גמרא ask the question ''כי רצו וכו'' only on the מ"ד that מחיצה means a division and not on the מ"ד who maintains that מחיצה is גודא. Seemingly the same question applies to the מ"ד that מחיצה גודא. They agreed to build a wall; however what stops either of them from reneging on this agreement. There is no mention of a קנין. Why are they obligated to build a wall just because they merely agreed to build it? ⁴ When the גמרא asked 'כי רצו וכ, the גמרא knew that they made a קנין (otherwise, ask the question on the מ"ד מחיצה גודא as well); however the גמרא maintained that a קנין to divide is a קנין דברים. When ר"א אמר ר"י answered that שקנו מידם it was their intent to say that it was קנו ברוחות. However the מקשן did not understand it as such. The מקשן thought that it means merely a קנין to divide. He therefore persisted to ask that it is merely a קנין דברים. The תרצן explained that ר"י אמר א"ר meant a קנין ברוחות. ⁵ The reason the גמרא understood that if מחיצה גודא, the קנין was on נכסים שעבוד; however if מחיצה פלוגתא, the גמרא did not entertain the thought of קנין ברוחות, may be as follows: The term רצו should be taken in context for each case. In the case of גודא, the רצו was to build a wall. A willingness to build a wall indicates a commitment of money. Otherwise there is no willingness at all. This commitment cannot be effective without a קנין pledging his assets for the building of the wall. In the case of פלוגתא, the רצו is to divide. The commitment seems to be only in their willingness; there is no expenditure required. The קנין is in accordance with their willingness. Therefore the קנין is merely to divide. That is a קנין דברים. In addition just as by גודא, their commitment to build a wall is a general one, not specifying the type of wall; similarly one would assume that according to פלוגתא their agreement is general; not specifying the details of the division. A קנין on such an agreement is a קנין דברים. ⁶ See מז אות י"בל.

קנין דברים בעלמא הוא—It is merely an acquisition of words

Overview¹ The גמרא maintains that making a קנין to do something (in our case – to divide property), is not a valid קנין. Such a קנין is referred to as a קנין דברים. It does not obligate the parties to keep their agreement. A קנין is valid only where it entails a specific commitment of transferring or relinquishing assets (or rights).

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: בפרק השוכר את הפועלים (בבא מציעא דף צד,א) דתנן מתנה שומר חנם להיות כשואל² – In פרק השוכר את הפועלים (where) the משנה states, ‘an unpaid watchman can conditionally obligate himself to be like a borrower’. The גמרא there asks; how can the mere verbal agreement of the ש"ח obligate him to pay as a שואל?**** The**** גמרא there answers that the משנה – ומוקי לה בקנו מידו³ – is discussing a situation where they acquired it from his hand; i.e. the ש"ח obligated himself through a קנין חליפין. Seemingly the ש"ח is making a קנין that he is to be considered a שואל. That however, is a קנין on mere words. Nothing tangible is seemingly being exchanged or granted. It should be considered a קנין דברים. תוספות answers; the case of 'וכו ש"ח מתנה –

There it is not considered a קנין דברים; rather it is a valid קנין, for he pledges himself that if there will be an unforeseen accident, then he will pay.

SUMMARY A ש"ח is liable for אונסים like a שואל if he pledges, with a קנין, that he is responsible and will pay for any אונס.

THINKING IT OVER In תוספות question, would it seem that the קנין by the ש"ח is the same קנין דברים, as in the הו"א of our גמרא, or is it different (either better or worse)? How did תוספות understand the term קנו מידו (in ב"מ) in the question, as opposed to how he understands it in the answer?⁵

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוספות ד"ה כי. ² A שומר חנם is not obligated to pay for unforeseen accidents to the item he is watching. A שואל however is liable for any damage that occurs to the item he borrowed. Someone can deposit an item by a ש"ח, on the condition that the ש"ח agree to take the responsibilities of a שואל on this item. ³ A קנין חליפין is performed by exchanging a cloth from the hand of one to the hand of the other; therefore the expression קנו מידו. ⁴ The קנין is not merely that he is a שואל; rather the קנין is that the ש"ח is obligating himself to pay for the deposited item should anything happen. That is a שעבוד of assets, not a קנין דברים. ⁵ See בל"י אות מט.

רב אשי אמר כגון שהלך כולי רב אשי—said; for instance, one went, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא is discussing the issue why the partners cannot renege on their agreement to divide the חצר. The גמרא answered that they made a קנין ברוחות, which binds them to their agreement. רב אשי offers an alternate explanation. They each actually made a קנין in their respective halves. It would seem more than obvious that once they were קונה their respective shares, they cannot renege. תוספות maintains that this answer is too obvious. It is stating that once they divided they cannot renege; but of course they cannot! תוספות resolves this issue.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו יצחק מה בא רב אשי להוסיף – The ר"י is astounded! What is רב אשי coming to add with his answer, that each of the partners made a חזקה in his respective share?! וכי איצטריך לאשמועינן דחזקה מועלת כמו קנין¹ – Is it then necessary to inform us that a חזקה is as valid as a קנין?! It is obvious that if each partner made a קנין חזקה in his part of the חצר, that they acquired it and they cannot go back on their agreement to divide. תוספות answers: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דהא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דקאמר לקמן בחזקת הבתים (דף נג,א) – The ר"י assumes that this is what ר"א is teaching us; that even though the גמרא says later in הבתים חזקת פרק**,** if someone wants to acquire a field through קנין חזקה, then if the חזקה is being performed – שלא בפניו צריך למימר לו לך חזק וקני – not in the presence of the previous owner, then it is required that the previous owner say to him before he makes the חזקה, ‘Go make a חזקה and acquire the property for yourself’. Otherwise, if he did not tell him this, and he made the חזקה not in the presence of the previous owner, the חזקה is invalid. The field still belongs to the previous owner. The question arises, what would be in our case of החצר חלוקת. Are they required to say to each other לך חזק וקני (or make the חזקה in the presence of each other), or not. תוספות continues: הכא כיון שאמרו אתה תקח רוח צפונית ואני רוח דרומית – Here in the case of החצר חלוקת since they said to each other, you take the northern half and I will take the southern half – והלך והחזיק לו כל אחד בשלו זה שלא בפני זה – And they subsequently went and each made a חזקה in his portion not in the presence of the other, nonetheless –

It becomes as if they made a קנין ברוחות, in which case it is a valid קנין. Similarly here too it is a valid חזקה even though they did not say to each other 'לך חזק וקני'. The חזקה that each one made שלו בתוך is not the usual קנין חזקה. A usual קנין חזקה would not be valid since it took place שלא בפניו and neither said to the other לך חזק וקני. Rather the effect of the חזקה is in lieu of the קנו מידו. Just as by קנו מידו each partner is making a קנין whereby he is relinquishing his rights in the other half of the property and granting it to his partner; similarly in the case of והחזיק 'וכו שהלך, this החזיק is a קנין that each partner only claims this half for themselves. The partners are relinquishing their rights to the other half and granting it to their respective partners.²

SUMMARY רב אשי is teaching us that the קנין to divide can be either by specifically making a קנין to that effect, קנו מידו ברוחות; or by each of the partners making a חזקה in his share after they verbally agreed to divide the property (north and south). In the latter case too, they cannot renege on their agreement even though it was done זה שלא בפני זה and neither said to the other לך חזק וקני.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Where is there a greater חידוש that they cannot renege on their agreement; in the case of קנו מידו ברוחות or in the case of 'הלך זה והחזיק וכו'?
2. What would be the דין in the case of רב אשי if there was only a general agreement to divide without specifying north and south, etc.; could they renege on this agreement after they each made a חזקה?
3. What is the purpose of the חזקה in the הו"א of תוספות as opposed to the מסקנא?

footnotes: ¹ The term קנין is referring to (סודר) קנין חליפין. ² This type of קנין does not require saying לך חזק וקני. That requirement is limited to cases where there is a new owner, who previously did not have any interest at all in this property. We are not certain that the previous owner is willing to give up his ownership unless he states clearly, לך חזק וקני. In our case however, they are both partners; they each own (half of) the field. The קנין here is merely to effect their agreement of division. To accomplish this clarification as to their mutual relinquishing of interest in the property, לך חזק וקני is not required.

**ארבע אמות גובה אפותיא דה' קאי טפי לא קאי—**A wall wide five טפחים can support a height of four אמות but not more

OVERVIEW The גמרא infers from our משנה that a stone wall of גזית four אמות high requires a width of ה' טפחים¹ in order to be structurally sound. In fact a width of ה' טפחים will only support a wall of ד' אמות; but not higher than ד' אמות. תוספות will argue that both our משנה and life experience contradict this assumption.

תוספות asks: וקשיא לרבינו תם הא לבינין דגריעי קאי בשלשה טפחים – The ר"ת has a difficulty with this statement; for bricks which are inferior to גזית, and nevertheless they stand on a width of even three טפחים for a height of four אמות.² Why therefore does the גמרא assume that גזית which is stronger³ than לבינין require a full ה' טפחים width in order to be able to remain standing upright? תוספות has an additional question: ועוד הא קא חזינן דקאי בגזית טפי אפורתא – And furthermore we do actually see that even a גזית wall can stand more than ד' אמות high even on a width**** that is less than five טפחים wide.**** Why does the גמרא say that גזית requires ה' טפחים (and even then only for ד' אמות high). תוספות answers: ותירץ דהכי קאמר טפי לא קאי כמשפט גזית – And the ר"ת answered that this is what the גמרא is saying; more than ד' אמות high it will not remain standing for a sufficient time as is appropriate for גזית – שרוצים בני אדם לבנותו שיעמוד ימים רבים כשבונים בגזית: For people want to build גזית, provided that it should last for many years when they build with גזית. It is true that גזית walls can be supported for more than ד' אמות high even on widths of less than ה' טפחים. However the longevity of these walls will be shortened. People building with expensive גזית material want their walls to last much longer. Therefore the increase in width is required to assure maximum longevity. לבינין walls that are not that expensive; a width of three טפחים is sufficient to assure the limited longevity, commensurate with its cost.

SUMMARY To assure the maximum longevity for the expensive גזית wall a minimum of ה' טפחים width is required to attain a height of ד' אמות.

THINKING IT OVER What is the difference between the אמינא הוה and מסקנא of תוספות as to the reason for the various thicknesses of the walls?

footnotes: ¹ An אמה is usually considered approximately 18 inches; a טפח 3 inches. ² The משנה clearly states that for לבינין a total of only ג' טפחים is required for a כותל ד' אמות. ³ One would naturally assume that the stronger the building material the less width is required to attain the same height. In our משנה we see the opposite. לבינין which are inferior to גזית require a narrower width than גזית, which is a stronger material.

טרקסין—Dividing stone wall

OVERVIEW תוספות will discuss the etymology of the word טרקסין.

אומר רבינו תם דטרק הוי כמו טרוקי גלי ברכות (דף כח,א) וסין הוי סיני – The ר"ת says that 'טרק' of טרקסין is similar to the word(s) [גלי] טרוקי, meaning close [the doors] that is mentioned in מסכת ברכות . And 'סין' in the word טרקסין refers to הר סיני– כלומר שהיה מפסיק וסוגר את הלוחות שנתנו בסיני שהיו מונחות בארון – This means to say that the טרקסין was so named because it separated and closed off the לוחות, which were given atהר סיני, which were placed in the ארון – שהיה בבית קדשי הקדשים – which was in the קדשי הקדשים, the holy of holies. The טרקסין wall separated the קדשי הקדשים, in which there were the לוחות שניתנו בסיני; from the rest of the בית המקדש. תוספות offers another interpretation of the word טרקסין. ויש מפרשים¹ טרקסין פנים וחוץ שאותה אמה היתה ספק אם מקודשת פנים או חוץ – And others explain that טרקסין means inside and outside. The reason this טרקסין wall was so called is because for that אמה which the טרקסין occupied, there was a doubt if it was sanctified like the inner part; the קדה"ק, or like the outer part; the היכל. תוספות bolsters this point –

And therefore in the second ביהמ"ק where there was no אמה טרקסין, there was there in the place of the אמה טרקסין two curtains [פרוכת] with an אמה of air space between them², as the גמרא states in מסכת יומא. One פרוכת for the outer (eastern) side of the טרקסין; in case the טרסקין itself was קדה"ק.³ The other פרוכת was for the inner (western) side of the טרקסין, in case the טרקסין space was only קודש; not קדה"ק.⁴

SUMMARY The dividing wall between the היכל and the קדה"ק was called טרקסין for the following reasons; a) the word טרקסין means closing off (the לוחות which were given at) סיני; or b) the word טרקסין means inside and outside, indicating that there was a doubt as to the precise sanctification of the טרקסין space itself, whether it was קודש or קדה"ק.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What may be the advantages of each interpretation?
2. Was there a doubt in the times of the first ביהמ"ק as to the status of the אמה טרקסין?

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י יומא נב,א ד"ה טרקסין which states; לשון פנים וחוץ הוא כך ראיתי בתלמוד ירושלמי וראיה לדבר חסידים הראשונים היו מכניסין פירותיהן דרך טרקסמון כדי לחייבם במעשר (ברכות דף לה,ב) למדנו שהטרק לשון כניסת פנים הוא: See also רש"י גיטין פא,א ד"ה דרך טרקסמון where he writes: דרך הכבושה מחוץ ליכנס לפנים ודומה לי שהוא לשון יוני כמו טרקסין (יומא דף נא). ² The areas of the קודש and קדה"ק had to be distinctly separated. ³ The outside curtain served then as a boundary for the קודש. The קדה"ק then began in the air space. ⁴ The inside curtain served then as a boundary for the קדה"ק. The קודש then began in the air space.

שאני התם דאיכא טפח יתירא—It is different there; for there is an additional טפח

OVERVIEW The גמרא inferred from our משנה that a wall requires a width of five טפחים to support a height of four אמות. However a width of six טפחים can support even a height of thirty אמות, as witnessed by the תוספות. אמה טרקלין suggests that there may a different explanation¹ how a wall of thirty אמות high was supported by a width of (only) six טפחים.

הוה מצי לשנוי דאגב תקרה ומעזיבה קאי טפי כדאמרינן בסמוך:² The גמרא could have answered this apparent anomaly; for on account of the weight of the ceiling and the plaster, which rested and weighed down on the wall, therefore it supports much more than four אמות high for each five טפחים wide, as the גמרא shortly states.

SUMMARY A wall can support a greater proportional height (than four אמות for each five טפחים width) provided it is not a free standing wall; but is braced by the weight of a roof/ceiling bearing down on it.

THINKING IT OVER Can a wall of five טפחים wide, with a תקרה ומעזיבה on it, support a height of thirty אמות?

footnotes: ¹ תוספות perhaps finds it difficult that the addition of only one more אמה width (a 20% increase), can support an additional twenty six אמות of height (a 650% increase)! ² See 'עמוד ב. See 'תוס there, ד"ה אמר, which seems to contradict our תוספות.