או אין הלכה כרבן גמליאל או דילמא בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן וקא מבעיא ליה הלכה כרבי אליעזר או אין הלכה כרבי אליעזר
or is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? Or perhaps we are dealing with a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people who had established an eiruv and were permitted to establish a human partition for Neḥemya. In that case, there were enough people to establish partitions from where Neḥemya was standing to within two cubits from the limit, and the dilemma that Rav Ḥisda raised was: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that someone who went two cubits outside of his Shabbat limit may reenter it, or is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?
פשיטא בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן דאי סלקא דעתך בדמלו גברי עסקינן מאי תיבעי ליה האמר רב הלכה כרבן גמליאל בדיר וסהר וספינה אלא ודאי בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן ודרבי אליעזר קמיבעיא ליה
The Gemara answers: This is obvious that we are dealing with a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people, as if it should enter your mind that we are dealing with a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could be fully filled with people, what is Rav Ḥisda’s dilemma? Didn’t Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat? Rather, we must be dealing with a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people, and the dilemma that he raised was about the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer.
דיקא נמי דקאמר ליה יכנס מאי יכנס לאו בלא מחיצה
The Gemara comments: This interpretation is also precise and implicit in Rav Naḥman’s answer, for Rav Naḥman said to Rav Ḥisda: Establish a human partition for him, and let him reenter his Shabbat limit. Doesn’t the statement: Let him reenter, mean that he may reenter even without a partition along those two additional two cubits, i.e., that after he passes through the human partitions, he would still need to cross the remaining two cubits on his own without the benefit of a partition?
איתיביה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא נפל דופנה לא יעמיד בה אדם בהמה וכלים ולא יזקוף את המטה לפרוס עליה סדין לפי שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחילה ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raised an objection to the opinion of Rava with regard to the principle of making a human partition on Shabbat, from a baraita: If the wall of a sukka fell on a Festival or on Shabbat, thus rendering the sukka unfit for the mitzva, one may not position people, animals or utensils there in its place in order to form a wall, nor may one turn a bed upright in order to spread a sheet over it, which will thereby serve as a partition, because one may not make a temporary tent for the first time on a Festival, and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. This indicates that a human partition may not be erected on Shabbat.
אמר ליה את אמרת לי מהא ואנא אמינא לך מהא עושה אדם את חבירו דופן כדי שיאכל וישתה וישן ויזקוף את המטה ויפרוס עליה סדין כדי שלא תפול חמה על המת ועל האוכלין
Rava said to him: You state to me that this is prohibited from this baraita, but I can state to you that it is permitted from this other baraita: A person may position his fellow as a wall, so that he may eat, drink, and sleep in a sukka, and he is likewise permitted to turn a bed upright in order to spread a sheet over it, so that the sun should not beat down on a corpse, or on food.
קשיין אהדדי לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר הא רבנן דתנן פקק החלון רבי אליעזר אומר בזמן שקשור ותלוי פוקקין בו ואם לאו אין פוקקין בו וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו
The Gemara comments: If so, these two baraitot contradict one another. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this baraita that teaches that it is prohibited reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas this other baraita that teaches that it is permitted reflects the opinion of the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a window shutter that is not fixed to the wall with hinges, Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is tied to the wall and hangs from the window, one may shut the window with it; but if not, one may not shut the window with it, since one may not erect a tent, even a temporary one, on Shabbat. But the Rabbis say: In either case, one may shut the window with it. This indicates that the Rabbis permit constructing a temporary wall of this sort on Shabbat, and they also permit the construction of a temporary wall in the case of a sukka.
והא איתמר עלה אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחילה ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת לא נחלקו אלא להוסיף שרבי אליעזר אומר אין מוסיפין ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת וחכמים אומרים מוסיפין בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t it stated with regard to this dispute: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All agree that one may not make a temporary tent for the first time on a Festival, and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. The Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only with regard to adding a temporary tent to a permanent structure, as in the case of a window shutter. As Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add a temporary tent to a permanent structure even on a Festival; and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add a temporary tent to a permanent structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, this is permitted on a Festival. This indicates that there is no opinion that grants license to construct a temporary wall for the first time.
אלא לא קשיא הא כרבי מאיר הא כרבי יהודה דתניא עשאה לבהמה דופן לסוכה רבי מאיר פוסל ורבי יהודה מכשיר
Rather, the Gemara resolves the contradiction differently: This is not difficult, as this baraita that permits the positioning of an animal or a person as a wall was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and this baraita that prohibits it was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who positions an animal to serve as the wall of a sukka, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit, out of concern that the animal might leave, whereas Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.
רבי מאיר דקא פסיל התם אלמא לא מחיצה היא הכא שרי דלאו מידי קא עביד
Rabbi Meir, who deems the wall unfit there, with regard to a sukka, apparently holds that a partition established from a living creature is not a partition and he would here, in the case of Shabbat, rule that it is permitted to construct such a wall, as he is not doing anything, since it is not considered actual construction.
ורבי יהודה דקא מכשיר התם אלמא מחיצה היא הכא אסר
However, Rabbi Yehuda, who deems the wall to be fit there, with regard to a sukka, apparently holds that it is a proper partition; and he would here, in the case of Shabbat, prohibit the construction of such a partition.
ותיסברא אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר בהמה אדם וכלים מי שמעת ליה
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And how can you understand it in that manner? Say that you heard that Rabbi Meir deemed the sukka to be unfit in the case where an animal was used to serve as a partition, but did you hear that he deemed the sukka to be similarly unfit if a person or utensils were used as walls? The reason that an animal may not be used as a partition, according to his opinion, is because it might leave. This concern does not apply to people or utensils, since a person is under his own control and can remain standing, and utensils do not move themselves. Since the baraita validates partitions established with people and utensils as well as animals, it cannot be based on the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
ותו רבי מאיר אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבי אליעזר להוסיף נמי אסר
And furthermore, even if you do not differentiate as above, and instead assume that the consideration that the animal might leave is pertinent, according to whose opinion does Rabbi Meir state his opinion with regard to constructing a temporary tent on Shabbat? If it is according to the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Eliezer, this is difficult, as he even prohibited adding a window shutter, i.e., a temporary tent, to a permanent structure.
אלא אליבא דרבנן אימר דאמרי רבנן להוסיף לכתחילה מי אמור
Rather, you must say that he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, even according to their opinion, say that the Rabbis only said that one is permitted to add a temporary tent to a permanent structure; but did they say that it is permitted to construct a partition or a tent for the first time?
אלא הא והא רבנן וכלים אכלים לא קשיא הא בדופן שלישית הא בדופן רביעית
Rather, say that both this baraita and that baraita follow the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is the resolution of the various contradictions: With regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning utensils and the other ruling concerning utensils, this is not difficult, as this ruling that prohibits the construction of an additional wall refers to the third wall of a sukka, which renders it fit for the mitzva; whereas this other ruling that permits the construction of an additional wall refers to the fourth wall of a sukka, which is insignificant, as a sukka need not have four walls.
דיקא נמי דקתני נפל דופנה שמע מינה
This interpretation is also precise in the wording of the baraita, as the baraita that prohibits the construction of an additional wall uses the following phrase: If its wall fell. This indicates a wall that is significant, i.e., a wall that renders it fit for use, rather than any wall, as stated in the baraita that permits it. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that the correct resolution is to differentiate between the third and fourth wall of a sukka.