אין חולקין את החצר עד שיהא ד' אמות לזה וד' אמות לזה. When there are two people owning property and they want to split, so if one wants and the other one doesn't want, you could force him because if you want one guy wants, the other guy, you can't has no choice, as long as when they split whatever is going to be given to each one will still keep the name and it'll still have the quality of what that thing was. So the goes here different things of how big it has to be in order to force somebody to split. So, it says when you want to split a yard, there's a yard, there are two houses into one yard, then they decided, you know, instead of owning together the yard, one guy says, \"I want to split.\" So, you could only split, in other words, you could only force him to split עד שיהא ד' אמות לזה וד' אמות לזה as long as each one will be left with four amot. And really what it means is four by four, because if it's not not less than that, it's not a yard anymore. So, it's not a peshat you're splitting the yard into two. You're you're mevatel it. You're making no more yard. So, therefore, it has to And then the Mishnah goes on with other things also. It has to be at least eight amot. So, it has to be 8x4 at least. Less than that? So, less than that you can't force him. You stay together. You stay You can't force him to split.

אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן so the Gemara says Rabbi Yochanan said, Rav Asi in the name of רבי יוחנן, ד' אמות שאמרו חוץ משל פתחים. This that we said in the Mishnah that each one has to have four amot, is besides that each one has to have four amot for his door. When you have a door, a door is made to bring deliveries, bring things in, and you can't take your horse, you can't take your truck into the into the house or the door, so you have to have a place in front, four amot. So, basically what the Mishnah is saying here what the Gemara is saying here, when the Mishnah said four amot, that's four amot for the chatzer, for the yard. Besides that, for the door, you have to have four amot also. Okay. Then the Gemara later, and I'm mentioning it now, because it'll be noge'a later, אמר רב הונא four cubits is it? אמר רב הונא חצר מתחלקת לפי פתחיה. A yard when you divide it, is divided according to how many doors you have. And I'll just say what Rashi says now. We'll get into it a little bit more.

Rashi says like this, if a father made a will and he said what things should go to his children, and he said, \"This house should go to this child. This house should go to this child.\" He didn't say anything about the yard. The yard is common area. Later on, these two brothers decide, you know what, let's split the yard. So, he says you split the yard according to how many doors you have. If this guy has two doors, this guy has one door, he gets two-thirds of the yard, he gets a third of the yard. Rav Chisda אמר Rav Chisda says, \"No, נותנין ד' אמות לכל פתח ופתח. You give this guy four amot for each door, והשאר חולקין בשוה.\" So, one guy gets has two two doors, he gets eight amot four amot for the yard, eight amot for the doors, and the other guy gets has one door only, he gets four amot for the door, and the rest you divide equally. This is the way Rashi Who who who's who said the first opinion? Rav Huna. Rav Chisda said what? Rav Chisda the second. Okay. This is the Gemara. Comes the Rashba, and the Rashba asks a kashya on the Gemara. In the Gemara it said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and just from this Gemara we see that besides the four amot that you have to leave for each one for the yard, there has to be four amot for for the door. That's what he said. So, then he asks a kashya on the Mishnah. How does the Why does the Mishnah say that you only divide if there's four amot for one and four amot for the other? Should have said if there is eight amot for one and eight amot for the other, because you can't divide unless you have eight amot for each. You have to have 16. Ah, house has no door? House has to have a door. You have a door on that side. A door to the outside? I mean, uh Okay, we happen to the yard is over here. You have a door on the other side. That's still to the I mean it's there's some yard there, I guess. You have to have four amot over there. I mean, normally a house has a door. So, you have to have So, he's asking, \"So So So, according to this Gemara, you have to have eight amot for each. So, it's not eight amot four and four, it's 16. Each one has to have eight amot. Why does it say four?\" So, he

answers not exactly like you said, but along those line, but not He said like this: the fact that you need four amot is a definite that each one needs four amot. The fact that you're going to make each one have another four, that's not necessarily true. Not all not always will it happen. And that's why the Why not? We'll see in a second. That's why the Mishnah doesn't mention it. And then he says, \"Every house has a door, so for the first What happens if a yard only has eight amot? You would split it. You would give him four for the door, and this guy four and there's no yard left, so you split it. What happens if you have ten 10 amot. They get five each? No, if you have 10 amot, then you can't split. You'll give each one five, four for the door, and then you're left with two, you can't split the yard if there's only two. You got to split the yard if there's eight. Only way you can split the yard if you have eight. And you could split, each one gets four for the yard. But when there's less than eight, you can't split. But if there's nothing, he says, if there's nothing for the yard, there's just four for the door and four for the door, you would split. So

therefore the Mishnah mentions the case of four because that's a hechreach, that's a must. The other one, there's a possibility that it shouldn't happen. That's why the Mishnah mentions it. Gives you an illogical result. How could it be that for an eight a small yard you're splitting, and a big yard you're not? Can't force you to split. It doesn't make sense. No, because there's no yard here. One second, we're going to get into this, we'll have to we're discussing this sugya. So therefore he says when the Mishnah says אין חולקין את החצר, remember what we're talking about, the Mishnah, you only divide if there is four for each four for each. That's a must. Why is there a must? Because four for the yard for the door you have to have in each one, and then possible that you don't have any more, so then you don't have you could split with this. Come the mefarshim and they ask a kashya on the Rashba. How does the Rashba say that the Mishnah when it says four, that you have to have at least four or four, that refers to four of the door? Look at the words of of the Gemara. I repeat again, אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן, and Rabbi Yochanan said, ארבע אמות שאמרו, the four אמות that the Mishnah said, is חוץ משל פתחים, that's besides the doors. So obviously the Mishnah is not talking about the doors. So the Mishnah is talking about the yard itself. And besides that you have four for the doors. So how does he say that the reason the Mishnah says only four, not eight, because the Mishnah is talking about four for the doors, and that's a possibility that if you have only eight, four for four or four you would split, but if you have to have for the 16 not if you have less more than more than eight you wouldn't, when when Rabbi Yochanan said clearly that the Mishnah the ארבע אמות, the four אמות of the Mishnah is חוץ משל פתחים, besides the doors? Where are these doors located in this eight אמות? Are they opposite They're they're in front of them. This is the door entrance to the courtyard, to the Entrance to the courtyard, yes, so you have to give him four אמות in front, four by four. There're two doors? That's a next case later. This Gemara is not talking about two doors. There's one door, you give him that. You give him four for the door, and then you have to one door, and then the other guy's four for the door. And besides that, you have to have four for the yard for תשמיש of the yard. Four for the door they say is for פירוק. פירוק means for for unloading and loading, you have to have a place, so each one has to have for this door, okay? It's only one door. At this point one door. Later came the Gemara said what happens if you have more than one door? Are they both using that one door? No, one door in each house. One door in each house, and they're splitting the חצר? Right, so you have one door in each house, so you get four אמות in front of that door. And then besides that you have to have four in the חצר for as a חצר. Besides that. And he seems to be saying that the Mishnah when it says you have to have four, it's talking about four for the doors. But Rabbi Yochanan said that these four are besides these these four are besides the doors, in other words it's not talking about the doors. Chatam Sofer, other the other מפרשים has this she'elah. So, to answer this she'elah, so let's start with another question first. The Rosh here brings a Yerushalmi. Although the the Yerushalmi it says that the four אמות that you give him in front of the door, he doesn't keep. That's only for his usage. איי he could have used it before also. So what's the idea So what's the idea of splitting it so before he also could use it, before when it belonged to everybody, to both, he could have used those, ah! The difference is, now that we split it, he gets דין קדימה, he gets first. If he's not using it, the other guy could use it. But if he wants to use it, even if the other guy needs it, too bad. That's the peshat we give it to him. That's what it says in Yerushalmi. And that the rebbe, the Rashba writes, my rebbe's, my rebbe's hold we pasken like Yerushalmi, the Rashba doesn't. The kushya is, according to this Yerushalmi, you could answer the Rashba's kushya very easily. Not the kushya on the Rashba. What was the Rashba's kushya? He started off with a simple question: according to the Gemara that you have to have four for each for the door, why does the Mishnah say four, the Mishnah should say eight. The Mishnah says each one you only split if each one has four. When lemaaseh each one must have eight, that's his kashya. And he answered because the four of the door is a must. Lechora you could have answered very simple according to the Yerushalmi: the Mishnah is talking only about the four that we give him, but not the four that we just allow him to use. That's why the Mishnah says four. So these four you give him, that's what we're talking you have to split. When you split, you have to have at least four to give. Then there is usage that you give him a zechut of of of using it, that's separate. So lechora, what was the Rashba's kashya to begin with? \"They're already part owners, why are they forced to split?\" \"One guy wants.\" \"What does he want? I mean they're both using it.\" \"He wants He wants I should have exclusive rights.\" \"The other guy shouldn't come on. Yeah.\" \"How is it in legal law? Sure.\" \"Two partners, one can force the other to split?\" \"Yeah that's what I'm asking.\" \"Do they have a common element that...\" \"No, no what happens if you have like two people own a yard and I decide I want to split, could you... In any partnership, could force. Could force.\" \"Yeah, you can't you can't tell me I can't.\" \"No matter what.\" \"Now here we have a limit that you... There is a limit because... Maybe in the law also, no such thing as a limit?\" \"I don't think there should be so.\" \"Whatever, but but the idea is clear that you could force. But there has to be a limit. So So the question that that I'm asking now, in order to answer the kushya on the Rashba, the kushya on the Rashba again was that how does the Rashba say that the four of the Mishnah means the door, when Rabbi Yochanan said that the four of the Mishnah is besides the door? To answer the kushya on the Rashba, I'm going back some. I'm asking now a different she'eilah on the Rashba. Not on the Rashba. Why did the Rashba ask the kushya according to Yerushalmi, it's very simple why, cuz Yerushalmi says clearly that these four of the door is not to keep. The four of the yard is to keep. So the Mishnah is talking about the ones to keep. That's why it doesn't mention eight, cuz it's not eight. So lechora, why didn't the Rashba answer that? The answer is very simple: The Rashba brings that my Rebbe's pasken like the Yerushalmi. I disagree. His Rebbes's? Yeah. I hold that they... we don't pasken... the Bavli, our Gemara, does not agree with the Yerushalmi. Now if the Gemara doesn't agree with the Yerushalmi, the Rashba, our Gemara couldn't answer that. The Rashba couldn't answer that, why doesn't it mention eight, but four, because the other four are not to keep. He says that it is to keep! He says our Gemara, Bavli, holds it is to keep. Okay? So therefore, he couldn't answer that tei'utz, because it doesn't fit to his own shita, because he holds that it's to keep. Now, let's go further. We said that this is what the Yerushalmi says. He says that the Bavli argues. I have a kushya: How could he say the Bavli argues? If you look in the Yerushalmi, who is the man de'amar in Yerushalmi who says that? Who's the person who says that? Rabbi Yochanan! And here it's Rabbi Yochanan! How could he say that our Gemara doesn't agree? He says that the Gemara Bavli doesn't bring it, the Gemara Bavli doesn't agree. But the whole din of the four amot and the extra other four: אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן ארבע אמות שאמרו חוץ משל פתחים. And Rabbi Yochanan says in Yerushalmi that the פתחים the ones of the door, you don't give him. How could he say our Gemara doesn't hold like that? It's a very good question. The answer is, I quoted the later part of the Gemara.

Later we had a machloket between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, if you have more than one door. So Rav Huna said you go according to each door, and he even extended it. He says you even the whole yard is divided in the in the cheshbon of the doors. Rav Chisda says no, you just, but you give everyone everyone according to his door. So here we have, besides Rabbi Yochanan, who says that you have to give him four for the door, we find now Rav Huna and Rav Chisda also say that. They say you have to give for each door, you have to give four. Rav Huna extends it even further. So, obviously, he was saying that our Bavli doesn't hold like Rabbi Yochanan. So when he said we don't agree to the Yerushalmi, he was referring to Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Rav Huna and Rav Chisda also said that you have to have four for the doors. And he says we paskan like them, and that's not mentioned has nothing to and it's not that you don't give it to him, you do give it to them, according to Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. In other words, what I'm trying to say, according to him there's a machloket between Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Not on his point, though. No, it is on his point. It will be on his point. Yes! Rabbi Yochanan, here the Gemara says that you have to give four for the door, says it in says in Yerushalmi, the same, and must obviously he holds like that, that you don't give it to him. Rav Huna and Rav Chisda didn't mention a word about that. So he will hold that Rav Huna and Rav Chisda hold that you don't give him, that you do give him, not not like Rabbi Yochanan. So basically he is making a machloket between Bavli and Yerushalmi, also a machloket between Rabbi Yochanan, who in Yerushalmi says that you don't give it to keep, and Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, and when he says must be talking about Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, he can't be talking about Rabbi Yochanan, because you can't, Rabbi Yochanan says different, how could he say that Rabbi Yochanan holds like that? So he must be talking about Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. So why doesn't our Gemara talk about that? Because our Gemara doesn't mention it because, our Gemara that's what he says, our Gemara doesn't hold it, it's the same like the other four, our Gemara doesn't have to mention it. The only time you have to mention it if you hold that these four are different than these four. But if you don't hold like that? So they just discount it. So they discount it! So even though Rabbi Yochanan was brought before about the doors, right, but he and him, if you look in Yerushalmi it's like that, but our Gemara didn't bring it, because Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue. And Rav Huna and Rav Chisda don't hold like that. So mimela, we answer how the Rashba's able to say that our Gemara disagrees with the Yerushalmi. Yerushalmi says that it's not for keeps, and our Gemara holds it is. Either Rabbi Yochanan is the one that said it, and Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is not for keeps, because he was not holding according to Rabbi Yochanan, and he says our Gemara, the real halachah is according to Rav Huna Rav Chisda. What did we gain with that? The whole problem we had with the Rashba, how could the Rashba say that the four of the Mishnah is the four of the door? Why not, when Rabbi Yochanan said ארבע אמות שאמרו חוץ משל פתחים, that it's besides the door? He's not talking about Rabbi Yochanan. He's talking in the opinion of Rav Huna Rav Chisda. Rav Huna Rav Chisda never, in their words we don't find anything that the Mishnah is talking about the four of the yard. That's what he says. So what I'm bringing out, since we're saying that he cannot be talking about Rabbi Yochanan, when he says we don't hold like the Yerushalmi, it's obviously not like Rabbi Yochanan, so he's referring to Rav Huna Rav Chisda. So how could we ask a kushya on the Rashba, that how could he say that the Mishnah means the four of the door, when Rabbi Yochanan says differently? We're not talking about Rabbi Yochanan! See, normally when we think it's all one, then you could say we see from this Gemara that it's talking about the four of the yard, not the four of the door. But now that we came to a conclusion that he can't be talking about Rabbi Yochanan, because if he be talking about Rabbi Yochanan, how could he say that the Yerushalmi, Bavli doesn't pask like the Yerushalmi when he's he's going according to Rabbi Yochanan? So he's disregarding Rabbi Yochanan, he's talking about Rav Huna Rav Chisda. And Rav Huna Rav Chisda, he says, they hold, they don't mention anything about not keeps, then it's for keeps. According to them, how do you learn pshat in the Mishnah, which four are the Mishnah? It's very possible the four of the Mishnah are the doors. And that's what he said. That's why the Mishnah says four, not eight, because four of the doors you must have. And the Mishnah is talking about the four of the door, that's why it says it doesn't mention eight, because the other eight not always. If you only have eight, not 16 or not 12, you could divide. But if you have 12, you can't. But if you have eight, you could. So if you have four and four, you could divide. So this is how to answer pshat how he learns pshat in this Gemara. The question is over now on the sevara of the Rashba, because not everyone agrees. As a matter of fact, most Rishonim disagree with the Rashba in עצם דין. What did we say the Rashba holds? That if you have only eight, you give each one four for the door, there's nothing left for the yard, you split. Most Rishonim say no. The Mishnah they learn pshat that the Mishnah says that you have to have four for the yard. So that's a must. And then we say also you have to have four for the door. So according to most Rishonim, you only split if there's at least 16, not not eight. But the question is the middle ground, what about 10? Even No, no, 10 you can't split. You can't split. Because No, the yard you have to have four for each one for the yard. So you have to have at least 16: four for the yard for each one, four for the door, less than that you can't, whether it's eight or According to the Rashba, by 12 you wouldn't, but by eight you will. The question is why. The question is why. Lichorah,

since, and especially according to the Rashba that holds that we don't פסק like the Yerushalmi, מילא if you wouldn't פסק like if you would פסק like the Yerushalmi, you could say I understand that why if you have four and four, you do split. Why? Because you're not actually splitting. Because Yerushalmi says you're not giving anything. If you're not giving away, you're just giving a right, so why can't you give him? But according to him, he says we do give it to him, not like the Yerushalmi. So לפועל we are splitting, and if and the דין is you can't split unless you have four for the yard, and you don't have four for the yard. So how does the Rashba say, which basically the שאלה is what is the basis of the מחלוקת between the Rashba and the other ראשונים, that the Rashba holds if you have only eight, you give it to the doors, and you split, and the other ones say you can't split? There must be something here. There are more מחלוקת'ן in between the Rashba and his רבי'ס. You say only eight, which eight are you talking about? In front of your door or the חצר? No, if you have eight, we don't know. We have eight. So Rashba says, you know what you do? And they want to split. You know what you do? Give this guy four for the door, this guy four for the door, and split. And the other ראשונים say no. From our Gemara it says, in order to split you have to have four for the door and four for the yard, 16. I thought only eight you had to split, and the other four was just you could you could share. You didn't have to split the other four, thought that was an opinion. That in front of the door, that was common. They could they could share it. No, that's the Yerushalmi. Yerushalmi says we don't give it to him, but the Bavli holds we do give him, the way that the Rashba learns. So because of the way he learns that we don't agree to Yerushalmi, Yerushalmi, the קשיא becomes strong. So wouldn't if he himself would not would not hold, he would hold like the like the Yerushalmi, that you don't give it. Makes sense. If you only have eight, you're not splitting. You're giving him the right and give him the right. But he holds that you are giving it away, so you are splitting, and our Gemara says that you have to split, you have to have four for the yard. So you must have two times four plus the four for the eight for the doors. That, that that, two מחלוקתs we'll see if we'll get back to that or not. Let's see. Let's go to one מחלוקת, not in the Rashba and the רבי's, his רבי's, different מחלוקת. The

Beit Yosef I don't know if he writes, doesn't write a name. Says רבותיו. That's what this שיטה is called, רבותיו של רשב״א, because he calls them my רבי's. The Gemara says later on that if you have a door of four, you give four. What happens if you have a door of eight? He gets eight. Not eight by eight, eight by four, but he gets eight. In other words, you have to give him the space in front of the door as much as the door is. What happens if you has a door of two? So do you give him two or do you give him four? So, the Maggid Mishneh says, and he says that's how the Rambam holds, that you give four anyway, because less than four you The whole purpose of the door is the loading and unloading. You have to have at least four אמות in order to be able to to move, so you have to give him four, even though it's two. Only after more than four, then if he has five, you give him five, he has six, you give him, he has eight, you have eight. But less than four you can't you don't give him. If he has a door, you give him four. The

Bach says that from Rashi is משמע not like that, because Rashi, when it says eight, so Rashi says, I'll read you the words of Rashi: you give him the four כנגד הרחב, כפי רחב הפתח. You give him the width according to the width of the door. So it comes out, whatever the door is, if the door is four, it's four, if the door is two, you give him two. Not so pashut. Not so pashut. Right, some would say that's no raya from Rashi, that could be the four is the minimum, and then he says כפי רחב הפתח is more. Could learn like that. But definitely in the in the poskim we have a machloket when you have two, a door of two, do you give four or do you give two? Let's analyze what is the basis of this machloket, and if we'll see the same basis of this machloket, we'll try to explain that machloket, the first machloket whether when you have only eight if you split it or not. This din that you give in front of the door, the front ד׳ אמות in front of the door, there are two ways to explain it: is it a din on the gavra or a din on the cheftza? That means like this: is it a din of a zechut that a person has? Since you have a door, you have a right to your usage to to be able to bring an animal there, bring your horses there and be able to unload and load, it's a zechut that you have. Or you can say it's not a zechut that you have, it's an extension of your door. If you have a door, a door isn't you see, physically, if you just take it very literally, a door is this door. A door is something is is a wider understanding of a door. A door has a usage. The ד׳ אמות of the door is used, so the door is extended. So when we say that you have a פתח, you have a door, it extends into this outside, because that's part of what the door is. Since this is what you use a door for, it extends to the outside also. Pshitus to it? It's an idea of what it is. No, no, yeah, right, that door has a meaning, right? It's not just the door itself. The

first way, no, it has no extension for the door, a door is a door, but since you have a door, you have a right to use it. So the reason we give the ד׳ אמות to the door is because because you need to you have a zechut to use it. The other way is that it's an extension of the door. This is a she'elah in מקום, right? In space. The space of the ד׳ אמות, does the space of the door extend itself, or it's a din of the person, that the person has a right to use the door? It's similar, where do I get this idea בכלל? Because we know that zman and מקום go together, time and space. We find this chakirah in time. The Rebbe has it in different inyanim, but one of the major places is: we have Shabbos, and then there's a din of תוספת שבת, that before Shabbos you have to add a few minutes to Shabbos before the שקיעה, and then there is a din that after Shabbos there is have to you can't finish the second, you have to add. So there is The Rebbe has a chakirah: what is the din of תוספת שבת? One way you could learn it's a din on the person. Shabbos is only from this and this time, 24 hours that's Shabbos is. There's a chiyuv that the person has to take upon himself a few minutes before, or a few minutes later he has to accept upon himself, umemela he can't do melachah. In that gufa, you could say not only he has to accept upon himself, even if he doesn't, it's applied upon himself, upon him ba'al korcho, by force, whether he likes it or not, but it's not that Shabbos extends itself. Shabbos only starts from here to here, from this minute to this minute. Doesn't extend itself. But it's a gavrah. On the other hand, you can learn a different way, that this Shabbos expands. There's a hitpashtus of Shabbos into a few minutes before Shabbos and a few minutes after Shabbos. For him only? Huh? But for him only. No, for everybody. Everybody. He's adding, but it's not for everybody. No, that's the first tzad, he has to add. Everyone has to add. One way to say is that if he doesn't add, then to him it doesn't happen. Everyone has to add, if he didn't, it doesn't happen. He did an aveirah, he didn't add, but he's not אסור במלאכה. The other way, in the first way gufa, is that whether he adds or not, the Torah added it for him. But it's not the Torah added the day, extended the day. It's a din on the person. Shabbos is not extended. Or the other way is that Shabbos itself expands, and in that gufa the Rebbe has two ways, but Shabbos or expands, or the time before and after Shabbos is part of Shabbos. Whatever it is, that's getting into the details. But generally speaking, that's what it is. One of the nafka minas could really be, can you make kiddush in the time of תוספת שבת? Or havdalah. What about havdalah? What about when they take Shabbos early? Huh? Take Shabbos early in the summer time. Obviously, if you take Shabbos, it seems like if you take Shabbos early, you hold it's a din on Shabbos. The Rebbe quotes from a Mechilta, the Mekhilta gives a mashal to tosefet Shabbos, a משל לזאב, to a wolf, טורף מלפניו ומלאחריו, that a wolf when he eats, catches an animal, he doesn't only eat what he wants, he goes, I don't know exactly physically what it means, he goes to before, and he grabs from before, and he grabs from the end, I guess things that he really doesn't want to eat, but he grabs. So the Rebbe asks, what's the Mekhilta bring a mashal? What do you need a mashal, everyone knows what it means, tosefet Shabbos? To tell you that it's not just that it's a chiyuv on you, it's the time extends, it's the Shabbos itself is mitpashet. So just like we have this חקירה בנוגע זמן, the time of Shabbos, is it mitpashet, or is it a din that the person has to behave accordingly, that's all, he has to do something, but the time is not Shabbos? He has to be mekabel Shabbos, or it's on him, or is it on the that the Shabbos itself expands? The same thing here in makom. Huh? I just said, if you can make kiddush at the time of tosefet Shabbos. He brings more nafka minot there. So because we take Shabbos early and we make kiddush... What's the question on that? Huh? What's the, is there a... So obviously, you hold that Shabbos expands. Well, either way, whether it's gavra or Shabbos, why... No, the other way, it's not Shabbos. By the gavra it's not Shabbos? I'm just making kiddush. No, the gavra has a din to be mekabel Shabbos, but it's not Shabbos itself. And the truth is, the truth is, you could... Not to do melachah! He's asur bemelachah, yeah. He's asur bemelachah. Either way it's asur bemelachah. But the question is, is it because it's Shabbos and because of Shabbos it's asur bemelachah, or it's not Shabbos, but the Torah told you that you shouldn't do melachah in here like Shabbos? What do you call that, in between? Doesn't have a name. תוספת שבת. It's simple, תוספת שבת means addition to Shabbos. What does that mean? Is it not Shabbos, just you added something to the Shabbos, or the Shabbos became bigger? So the same way we have there, we have the same shaila here in the different inyanim, that when you have this door, and we say the daled' amot of the door, is the door מתפשט and it becomes, outside is part of the door, or is not like that, it's a din that the person has the right? You could say the same thing a little bit differently, a little different words. Is it the pshat that we take away from the person, the other guy? See, I'm getting this part of in front of my door, we're taking it away from the other guy, it's not, I'm not getting anything. It's a שלילה, let's call it שלילה or חיוב, we're taking it away from somebody else, umimela it's left with me. Or the pshat is, I'm getting, it's a din that it's part, so to speak, it's part of the division, part of the chatzer, for the chatzer when you divide, you have to have this to the person, or we give it to him, or we take away from the other guy. But the bottom line is this is the main shaila, is it התפשטות of the door or not? This bichlal explains a machloket whether we hold like the Yerushalmi or not. Yerushalmi says we don't give it to him, the Bavli, according to the Rashba, says not, we do, we do give it to him. What's the machloket? I'll tell you what the machloket is. The Rabbi says of the, of the Rashba say we pasken like the Yerushalmi. They hold all it is is a zechut for the person. If it's a zechut, give him the zechut, why should he keep it? If it's only a zechut that a person has because he has a door, he has a right of usage, why should we give him those daled' amot? Daled' amot of the chatzer, he owns the chatzer, and when we want to split, we give him the daled' amot. But when he wants, we're saying that if he has a door, he has to get the daled' אמות to the door, why does he have to get the ד' אמות? It's not because it's part of what he's supposed to get, it's only because he has his right, give him his right! And what's his right? To use it. Why should we have to give it away to him? So the rabbeim of the Rashba learned the first way, that the din of the ד' אמות on the gavra. The Rashba learns it's on the chafza, it's an התפשטות of the door. If it's an התפשטות of the door, just like the door is his, whatever comes along with the door is it's part of the door. If it's part of the door, so he keeps it. So this is first of all to explain what is the machloket between Rash- the Rashba and his rabbeim, whether we give it to him to keep or not. This will also explain the other machloket, whether if you have two, whether you give him four or not. If it's because of usage, the normal usage is when you have four, so you got to give him four. Whether it's for keeps the way or- but על כל פנים בפשטות according to Yerushalmi you don't give him, but the idea of using the having the the אמות in front is to use, and using is four. If it's not because he has a right to use, it's because it's a התפשטות of the door, you can't have more than the door itself! A התפשטות of the door, the door extends itself, so if the door is two, you can't have more התפשטות than the door itself! וממילא, therefore the only would give him, if you give him is two. So we see in this machloket that this machloket depends on the So you have two machloket's in in this in this sugya that depend on this. How do you call it התפשטות but it doesn't get bigger? התפשטות door. No, the door extends itself. Extends itself, so... You look at like this. Not wide, not width, but... This door is not only it's out- the out- basically, the outside of the door is also part of the door. So the outside of the door... How far outside? That's only up to four, that's for sure. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's bichlal that when you give him four, it's up to four. Even when you give him eight, it's only you take eight by four. So it's two by four. Okay. Like a four-mile limit for a country? Like what? Like a four-mile limit around the country. Three-mile limit. Three-mile limit, whatever it is. Air rights, the same, it's part. It extends... Yeah, it extends. So extends how much? How much the door is. So you see that this machloket between the two, the way the Bach says that the Ran the Maggid Mishneh says that you only you give him four, and he says you give him two, depends on this also. And the same this machloket between the Rashba and his rabbeim, whether we pasken that we give it away like the Yerushalmi or not, his rabbeim learned we don't give it away because they learned it's not a התפשטות of the door, it's just a usage, and he holds it's a you- it's a התפשטות. The same way we could go to the other thing also. The other machloket that we had in the beginning, what we started, was that the Rashba learns if you only have eight, you give him the four and four for the door, and that's it, and you can split it. מה שאין כן the other people hold that if you have eight you need 16, you can't give it. Why? According to the Rashba, you're not really splitting, not because First of all, according to the Rashba you're not According to the rabbeim of the farkert, the other ones, according to the other ones, you're not really splitting. First of all, they hold like the Yerushalmi. They don't own it. Huh? They don't own it. You don't own it. So you really didn't split. And they want to split! Look at it this way: they come together, we want to split. So you'll say we'll give you four of this and four of this. That's not called splitting! Why? First of all, we don't give it away, but besides that, it's a it's a din because of the גברא, it's only a zechut that you have, but it's not that it's really because we're giving you something. The Rashba, who said learns that this is a התפשטות of the door, so what happens? When we give you four for the door and four for the door, we are giving you something, so you are splitting! So you mekayem the חלוקה! They come and we want to make a חלוקה, we mekayem the חלוקה. Because this is a חלוקה. According to the others, there's no חלוקה here. There's no division here. Besides the fact... 16. Huh? So why do you need 16 according to the other...? No, when you have 16, then you have four the eight to divide. But you don't need eight to divide because you're not really giving it away. No, only the door you're not giving away. The four of the door, so... So, but you need a- you need four more, no? Actually the חלוקה, you should need eight. The others should hold you also could do it with eight. No! The others say if you have eight, so you only give them for the door. No, that's the Rashba. The Rashba... Rashba says if you have eight you divide. Divide. They say you don't. Saying why those say that you don't? Because they hold that it's not a התפשטות of the door. So what they... they don't let you... So first of all, they hold like the Yerushalmi. So if you hold like the Yerushalmi, you didn't give him anything. Only תשמיש. Right, תשמיש, so you didn't split it! That's why you can't do that. They're asking to split, and you're not splitting. You're not splitting, so you can't do it. מה שאין כן the Rashba holds we don't hold like the Yerushalmi, so what happens when you give him the eight for the door? You're splitting, you're giving it. So you mekayem the חלוקה. So why can't you do it? So you mekayem the חלוקה, so you do it. So according to them, first of all, because they hold that you're not giving, so it's not called a חלוקה. And besides that, in idea it's not a חלוקה. It's not that you're giving, all you're doing is is you're taking it away from the other guy, or you're doing you're giving a right. Even if you're actually giving it to him, but it's not a din of what you're giving him. Besides, they hold like the Yerushalmi that you're not giving him. מה שאין כן the Rashba, the Rashba holds that when you split, it's התפשטות of the door, and that's why you give it to him. So what is happening here? When you have eight, are you splitting something or not? Yes. Because you're giving him these four and four, and it's part of what he owns, you're giving him something else to own as a התפשטות of what he owns. You're giving him that's a חלוקה. So why can't you do it? That's why he says you could do it. It's similar to another that's why I say it's similar to another מחלוקת. There's another מחלוקת, just another minute, another מחלוקת between the Rashba and his rabbeim. What happens if We said that every door that you have, you have to get for the door. So if a guy has two doors, he gets ד' על ד' amot. What happens if there is only 16? Only what? 16 amot, and this guy has two doors and this guy has one door? If there's two doors, the same, you just multiply it, the same thing. So the Rashba says You need four for each, so You need four for each, and you don't have. 16, what do you mean? 8 + 4 is 12. No no. You have to have four for the yard. 16 - 12. That's eight. Then you have to have four for the two doors, then you have another door. Why 20? 16 - 12. Yeah, you would need 20. And if a guy has four more doors, but if you only have 16, do you split? So here you also have a מחלוקת הראשונים whether you split or not. So you could say like this: If it's only for usage, and the peshat is we're not giving him really anything, it's only for usage, or let's put it another way, it's just who we're taking away from somebody else, so here we do the minimum. Lafo'al this guy has a door, so he has dalet' amot for one door. There is nothing more to take away from the other guy. There's nothing more to give. A zechut he has, and we give him the minimum. If it's hitpashtut of the

door, every door has hitpashtut. You have to split it only if you're hitpashtut for every door. So the Rashba holds in a case like this you can't split, because you'll be missing. Why? Because he holds התפשטות, התפשטות of the door you have to give. But if you hold it's not hitpashtut of the door, who says you have to give him? You have to give him a certain zechut. So he has the zechut of one door, and the other one there's nothing left to give him, and he has a certain zechut, so we give him the minimum, so he has the zechut. So it comes out that all these three, there's another more machloket, but these so far, this Rashba whether if you have only eight if you split, machloket whether you poskan like the Yerushalmi or not, and if you have only 16 and you have three there's three doors, all comes from the same yesod. And then there's more in this inyan which Why why would it it's is it common that we poskan like the Yerushalmi, that that we didn't have to mention the Yerushalmi, that the Rashba has to bring If the Bavli doesn't argue, then we poskan like the Yerushalmi. Oh yeah? Always. Oh, I didn't If there's no The Bavli is sure pasak in chart. The question is does the Bavli argue? So when the Yerushalmi does speak on the topic, then we have to take then Bavli has to take it into account, and and if If the

Bavli says something against the Yerushalmi, it's a מחלוקת בבלי ירושלמי, הלכה כבבלי, always. But if it's something in Yerushalmi that the Bavli doesn't mention, So this it's really not mentioned, is it not this one little part? Not mentioned here. Not mentioned here whether it's for kinyan or not. So after that But the Rashba's words that that since the Gemara doesn't mention it, it should have mentioned it, it's mistama a re'aya that it doesn't hold. Is there is there a book besides looking in the Yerushalmi itself that actually brings the things that are mentioned in the ירושלמי נוגע to what's mentioned in the Bavli? It's a list of all these I wonder. That's where we pasken like Yerushalmi? Yeah, התפשטות. You have any