In the second Lashon, we translate 'Mechitzah' as a partition, adopting the interpretation that we rejected in the first Lashon, concluding 'Hezek Re'iyah Sh'meih Hezek'. We resolve the initial problem that we had with this (that the Tana ought then to have said 'she'Ratzu Lachatzos') - by ascribing this to colloquial speech, like people say 'Ta Na'aveid P'lugta' ('Come let's make a division' [instead of 'Come, let's divide']) .

And we refute the suggestion that 'Mechitzah' should mean a stone-Mechitzah, like the Beraisa 'Mechitzas ha'Kerem she'Nifretzah' (as we concluded according to the first Lashon) - because then, the Tana ought to have said (instead of 'Bonin es ha'Kosel') 'Bonin oso'(though we actually resolved this problem in the first Lashon).

To explain why it is, that in spite of the fact that the Tana holds 'Hezek Re'iyah Sh'meih Hezek', he does not obligate the partners to build a Mechitzah even if just one of them demands it, Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah - by a Chatzer of less than eight by four Amos (which is not fit to divide in two).

Even though we already know from the Mishnah later in the Perek ('Eimasai, bi'Zeman she'Ein Sheneihem Rotzin, Aval bi'Zeman she'Sheneihem Rotzin, Afilu Pachos mi'Ka'an, Cholkin') that, once they decide to divide such a Chatzer, they are obligated to put up a Mechitzah, the Tana nevertheless needs to mention it here - because otherwise we would have thought that a Mesipas will suffice.

In spite of our Mishnah, which teaches us the obligation to put up a proper Mechitzah, the Tana needs to add the Mishnah later - because of the Seifa 've'Chisvei ha'Kodesh, Af-al-Pi she'Sheneihem Rotzim, Lo Yachloku'.

Since our Mishnah is talking about a Chatzer which is normally too small to divide, 'Ratzu' alone is of no significance since either of them would be entitled to retract. Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore establishes the Mishnah 'be'she'Kanu mi'Yado' - which means that they reinforced their decision with a Kinyan Chalipin.

We object to this explanation however, on the grounds - that a Kinyan Chalipin can only take effect on something tangible, but not on something abstract (such as a decision to divide a Chatzer).

We overrule the objection by establishing Rebbi Yochanan 'she'Kanu be'Ruchos' - which means that the Kinyan Chalipin was not just on the decision, but that each one actually picked his half of the Chatzer and acquired it with a Kinyan.

Rav Ashi gives an alternative answer. He establishes our Mishnah without having to come on to 'she'Kanu mi'Yado' - by establishing it where each one went to the Chatzer and acquired his half with a Kinyan Chazakah.

We already defined G'vil, Gazis, Kefisin and Leveinin in our Mishnah. When Rabah brei d'Rava asked Rav Ashi how we know that the difference between G'vil and Gazis is that the former is rough and the latter, smooth. Perhaps G'vil is two half-stones of two and a half Tefachim each, and one Tefach in the middle for cement, whereas Gazis one stone of five Tefachim (like the difference between Kefisin and Leveinin)?, the latter retorted - that just as we know the difference between K'fisin ad Leveinin from 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', so too do we know the difference between G'vil and Gazis from 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

Others cite Rav Acha brei de'Rav Ivya, who asked Rav Ashi the opposite - (how we know that Kefisin and Leveinin are two half-bricks plus the cement and a whole brick, respectively. Perhaps the former is a rough brick, and the latter, a smoothened one [just like the distinction between Gvil and Gazis]), to which Rav Ashi gave him the same reply.

Abaye extrapolates from the above interpretations that it is standard practice to leave one Tefach in between two bricks or stones. The ramifications of this statement are - that a contractor is expected to build accordingly.

This applies specifically to a Mechitzah that is built with cement exclusively. Someone who is contracted to build a Mechitzah using cement and grit - must leave a gap of more than a Tefach in between.

That is the opinion of the first Lashon. The second Lashon holds - that it is for cement and grit that one leaves a Tefach, but if one uses cement alone, less than a Tefach is required.

The Amah Traksin was - the Amah partition that divided between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodshim.

To build the first Beis-Hamikdash - which was thirty Amos tall, Shlomo used Avnei Gazis (six Tefachim wide).

Based on Gazis in our Mishnah, the problem with the proportion between the height of the Beis-Hamikdash and the thickness of the Amah Traksin is - that it ought to have been at least thirty-seven and a half Tefachim thick (five Tefachim per four Amos), when in fact, it was only six!

We answer - that this did not work on a scale, as we thought, but that one extra Tefach rendered the Mechitzah sufficiently strong to hold up a Mechitzah of thirty Amos.

Rav and Shmuel (or Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar) argue over the Pasuk in Chagai "Gadol Yih'yeh Kavod ha'Bayis ha'Zeh ha'Acharon min ha'Rishon". According to one of them, the Navi is referring to the size, according to the other, to the years. Both opinions are correct.

The first Beis-Hamikdash stood for four hundred and ten years, the second, for four hundred and twenty.

The second Beis-Hamikdash was a hundred Amos tall.

The reason that, in the second Beis Hamikdash, they put up two curtains is - because six Tefachim would not have been wide enough to hold up a Mechitzah a hundred Amos tall,

Given that the Amah Traksin in the second Beis Hamikdash had to be one Amah thick (just as it was in the first), they did not build a Mechitzah of thirty Amos, and put up two curtains for the remaining seventy Amos - because even the thirty Amah Mechitzah in the first Beis-Hamikdash was only sufficiently strong at a thickness of six Tefachim because it was cemented to the roof above it. According to our suggestion, the thirty Amaos would have stopped in mid-air and would have required a greater width in order to stand firm.

And the reason that they did not build as much Mechitzah as possible at six Tefachim, and put up the rest as curtains - because traditionally, either one separates the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodshim with a Mechitzah or with curtains but not with a combination of the two.

We know that one may use ...

... a Mechitzah - from the first Beis-Hamikdash.

... a curtain - from the Mishkan.

We ask whether the Shiurim of three, four, five and six Tefachim in our Mishnah include the lime, or not, to which Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak replied - that they must include it, because if not, why did the Tana not add the thickness of the lime?

We counter Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's proof - by pointing out that the Tana is not concerned with Shi'urim that are less than a Tefach.

In spite of what we just said, our Mishnah teaches that in building a Mechitzah of Leveinin, each partner gives one and a half Tefachim (not because the Tana deals with half-Shiurim, but) - because there, the two half-Tefachim add up to one Tefach.

The Mishnah in Eruvin gives the width of the beam that one places at the entrance of a Mavoy (a blind alley), as sufficiently wide to hold an Ari'ach, which is half a Leveinah, which the Tana specifies as - three Tefachim (half a Leveinah of six).

We try to prove from there - that the six Tefachim of a Leveinah is without the lime (seeing as the Tana is referring there to a brick that has not been limed), a Kashya on Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

We answer - that the Tana in Eruvin is referring to large bricks, which are six Tefachim wide without lime, whereas out Tana is referring to small bricks, which are only six Tefachim together with the lime.

Rav Chisda forbids the demolishing of a Shul before another one is standing to replace it. Some say this is because we are afraid that one may be prevented from building another one. Others say - that it is because, in the meantime, there will be nowhere to Daven.

The difference between the two answers will be - when there is an alternative location to Daven in the interim, in which case the first reason will still apply, but not the second.

To circumvent the above problem, Mereimar and Mar Zutra, who had two Shuls, a low-ceilinged Shul with fewer widows and thicker Mechitzos for the winter, and a taller, more airy one for the summer - would rebuild the summer Shul in the winter and the winter Shul in the summer (see Rabeinu Gershom).

Rav Ashi replied in the negative, when Ravina asked him whether it would be permitted to demolish the old Shul first, if ...

... they had already collected the money to build a new one - because the money might be needed for the Mitzvah of Pidyon Shevuyim (redeeming a Jewish captive).

... the bricks and the rafters were already piled up ready for construction - because, for shortage of funds, it might become necessary even to sell the bricks and the rafters to redeem Jewish captives.

And when Ravina pressed him further why we do not then forbid demolishing an old Shul even if the new one has already been built, on the suspicion that the new Shul may need to be sold to obtain funds for Pidyon Shevuyim - he replied that it is unusual to sell a residence (which is the status of a Shul until it has been used) for Pidyon Shevuyim (because people prefer to make the effort to obtain the necessary funds).

Under specific circumstances however, it is permitted to demolish an old Shul before building a new one, like Rav Ashi, who demolished the Shul in Masa Mechasya although no new Shul yet existed - because he saw that it was beginning to crack and was threatening to collapse.

To ensure that he would not be lax in building the new one immediately however - he moved his bed into the ruins, until the Shul was built (since it was most uncomfortable sleeping in the sun and rain).

According to what we just learned, Bava ben Buta instructed King Herod to demolish the Beis-Hamikdash (in spite of Rav Chisda's prohibition) - due to the cracks that had appeared in the Mechitzos.

The alternative reason is based on a statement of Shmuel who said - that if a king undertakes to demolish a mountain, you can be rest assured that he will uproot it, come what may. Consequently, Bava ben Buta knew that Herod would keep his word.

Herod - was a slave of the Chashmonai kings. He rebelled after becoming infatuated with one of their daughters, and after hearing a Heavenly Voice announcing that any slave who rebelled would succeed, he killed all the members of his master's family with the sole exception of that young girl (whose name was Miri'am), whom he planned to marry.

The young girl reacted to his actions - by ...

... climbing on to the roof and throwing herself off, after declaring ...

... that anyone who claims to descend from the family of the Chashmona'im is a slave, since she was the last remaining survivor of the entire family.

After the girl's death - Herod placed her body in honey.

According to those who say that he did not have relations with her, he did that - to create the illusion that he had married a princess.

He killed all the Sanhedrin (see Tosfos) - because, based on the Pasuk "mi'Kerev Achecha Tasim alecha Melech" (Only the son of a Jewish mother can be crowned king), he was afraid that they would dethrone him.

He kept Bava ben Buta alive however - after blinding him with a porcupine skin, in order to have someone to consult.