אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אוֹ דִילְמָא, בִּדְלָא מָלוּ גַּבְרֵי עָסְקִינַן, וְקָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?
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?
פְּשִׁיטָא בִּדְלָא מָלוּ גַּבְרֵי עָסְקִינַן, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּדְמָלוּ גַּבְרֵי עָסְקִינַן, מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? הָאָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּדִיר וְסַהַר וּסְפִינָה! אֶלָּא וַדַּאי בִּדְלָא מָלוּ גַּבְרֵי עָסְקִינַן, וּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.
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.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״יִכָּנֵס״. מַאי ״יִכָּנֵס״ — לָאו בְּלֹא מְחִיצָה?!
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?
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: נָפַל דּוֹפְנָהּ — לֹא יַעֲמִיד בָּהּ אָדָם בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים. וְלֹא יִזְקוֹף אֶת הַמִּטָּה לִפְרוֹס עָלֶיהָ סָדִין, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֹהֶל עֲרַאי בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי מֵהָא, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא לָךְ מֵהָא: עוֹשֶׂה אָדָם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ דּוֹפֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכַל וְיִשְׁתֶּה וְיִשַׁן. וְיִזְקוֹף אֶת הַמִּטָּה וְיִפְרוֹס עָלֶיהָ סָדִין כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּפּוֹל חַמָּה עַל הַמֵּת וְעַל הָאוֹכָלִין.
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.
קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא — רַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: פְּקַק הַחַלּוֹן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁקָּשׁוּר וְתָלוּי — פּוֹקְקִין בּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין פּוֹקְקִין בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ פּוֹקְקִין בּוֹ.
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.
וְהָא: אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֹהֶל עֲרַאי בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׁבָּת. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא לְהוֹסִיף, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹסִיפִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׁבָּת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹסִיפִין בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּיוֹם טוֹב!
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.
אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא — כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא: עֲשָׂאָהּ לִבְהֵמָה דּוֹפֶן לַסּוּכָּה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.
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.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקָא פָּסֵיל הָתָם — אַלְמָא לָא מְחִיצָה הִיא, הָכָא שָׁרֵי, דְּלָאו מִידֵּי קָא עָבֵיד.
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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּקָא מַכְשִׁיר הָתָם — אַלְמָא מְחִיצָה הִיא, הָכָא אָסַר.
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.
וְתִיסְבְּרָא? אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּהֵמָה. אָדָם וְכֵלִים מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?
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.
וְתוּ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — לְהוֹסִיף נָמֵי אָסַר.
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.
אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, אֵימַר דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לְהוֹסִיף, לְכַתְּחִילָּה מִי אֲמוּר?
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?
אֶלָּא: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן. וְכֵלִים אַכֵּלִים לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — בְּדוֹפֶן שְׁלִישִׁית, הָא — בְּדוֹפֶן רְבִיעִית.
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.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: נָפַל דּוֹפְנָהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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.