When Herod came to Bava ben Buta incognito, and ...

... asked him to curse 'that wicked slave', he replied - with the Pasuk in Koheles "Gam be'Mada'acha Melech Al Tekalel" ('One does not curse a king!').

... claimed that he was not a king - he replied with the continuation of the Pasuk "u've'Chadrei Mishkavcha Al Tekalel Ashir" and the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or" (Do not curse a rich man or a prince (a reigning monarch even if he is not legally a king) either.

... insisted that he was not 'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha' (meaning that he did not behave like a Jew, and was therefore precluded from "Amcha" in the latter Pasuk) - he replied that, in any event, he was afraid of him.

... pointed out that there was nobody else but them present, and that he could speak his mind freely - he cited the Pasuk in Koheles "Ki Of ha'Shamayim Yolich es ha'Kol ... ' ('because the birds will spread whatever one says further afield').

Herod - was amazed at Bava ben Buta's refusal to indict him, and he declared that had he known that the Chachamim chose their words so carefully, he would never have killed the Sanhedrin.

According to the first Lashon, Bava ben Buta advised him to kindle 'the light of the world' (that he had extinguished with the killing of the Sanhedrin). The second Lashon explains - that since he had blinded 'the eyes of the world', he should busy himself with 'the eyes of the world'.

To allay Herod's fears that the Romans would certainly not grant him permission to rebuild the Beis Hamikdash, the Tana advised him - to send a messenger to Rome to request permission to rebuild the Beis Hamikdash. This would take three years (one year on each journey, and one year in Rome). In the meantime, he should go ahead and demolish the old one and build a new one.

The Romans reacted to Herod request - by calling him a wicked slave who acted first and sought permission afterwards. If he had not yet demolished the Beis-Hamikdash, they said, then he should not do so; if he had, he was not to build; but if he had already built it, it could remain standing.

And they added that he was neither a Reicha nor the son of a Reicha. 'Reicha' means a king.

We learn this from one of two sources; one of them, a Pasuk in Shmuel "Anochi Ha'yom Rach u'Mashu'ach Melech" (said by Shlomoh); the other is a Pasuk in Miketz - "Va'yikre'u lefanav 'Avreich' (with reference to Yosef) meaning father [in wisdom] and king).

When they said 'Avda K'lanya Mis'aved', they meant - that he was a slave who set himself free.

People said - that whoever did not set his eyes on the Beis-Hamikdash that Herod built, never saw a beautiful building in his life.

Rava explains that he built it with green (or blue) and white marble. The reason that ...

... he staggered the rows was - to enable the lime to take hold.

... Rabbanan objected (when he wanted to overlay it with gold) - because it was more beautiful the way it was; in fact, when the sun shone on it, it resembled the waves of the sea moving.

Initially, we question Bava ben Buta - for having advised Herod to perform a good deed (as will be explained later in the Perek), and for not taking his cue from Daniel ...

... who was punished, says Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi), for offering Nevuchadnetzar good advice. He advised him - to atone for his sins and prolong his reign, by giving Tzedakah to the poor ...

And as a result - all the punishments that Hash-m had in store for him were postponed for one year.

One of the grounds on which we vindicate Bava ben Buta (in spite of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav [or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi]) is because a slave (Herod), unlike a Nochri (Nevuchadnetzar), is obligated to keep the Mitzvos; the other is - because (unlike Tzedakah; which can come from many sources), it is only a king who has the power to build the Beis-Hamikdash, in which case, Bava ben Buta had no choice.

Daniel's punishment is evident, if we explain that he was called 'Hasach' (in Megilas Esther "Va'tikra Esther la'Hasach"), because he was cut him down from his greatness (from the word 'Chatach', to cut). Alternatively, he was called 'Hasach' - because all affairs of state were decided ('cut') by him.

According to the latter interpretation of Daniel's name, Hash-m punished him for advising Nevuchadnetzar - by having him thrown into the lion's den.

After listing the various Mechitzos that the Shutfim are obligated to build, the Mishnah concludes 'ha'Kol ke'Minhag ha'Medinah' to include a place where the Minhag is to build a partition of Hutza ve'Dafna - meaning 'of palm and laurel branches'.

And the Tana continues 'Lefichach, Im Nafal ha'Kosel, ha'Makom ve'ha'Avanim shel Sheneihem'. Normally, it would indeed be obvious that if, to begin with, they provided the space and the bricks equally, they subsequently share them, should it collapse. The Tana is speaking however - where the bricks fell into the property belonging to one of the partners, or where he cleared them into his property (without witnesses). And our Mishnah is teaching us that his Chazakah does not help him to acquire them (because 'Anan Sahadi' [we are witnesses] that the space and the materials belong to them both).

Initially, we infer from the Mishnah ...

... 've'Chein be'Ginah, Makom she'Nahagu Ligdor, Mechayvin oso' - that a S'tam Ginah is considered a Makom she'Lo Nahagu Lig'dor.

... 'Aval Bik'ah, Makom she'Nahagu she'Lo Lig'dor, Ein Mechayvin oso' - that a S'tam Bik'ah is considered a Makom she'Nahagu Lig'dor.

These two inferences clash - inasmuch as if a S'tam Ginah is considered a Makom she'Lo Lig'dor, how much more so a S'tam Bik'ah?

Abaye therefore amends the Mishnah to read 've'Chein S'tam Ginah, u've'Makom she'Nahagu Lig'dor be'Bik'ah, Mechayvin oso'. Rava objects to Abaye's explanation however - because Abaye ignoring the word 'Aval Bik'ah ... ' (which distinguishes between a Ginah and a Bik'ah) compares them.

Rava therefore amends the Mishnah to read - 've'Chein S'tam Ginah, ke'Makom she'Nahagu Lig'dor; Aval S'tam Bik'ah, ke'Makom she'Nahagu she'Lo Lig'dor, ve'Ein Mechayvin oso'.

Our Mishnah states 'Ela Im Ratzah, 'Koneis le'Toch shelo, u'Boneh ve'Oseh Chazis', which Rava defines as - a projectile jutting out from the top edge of the Mechitzah at an angle.

In the first Lashon, Rav Huna explains that Reuven builds the Chazis on the far side of the Mechitzah that borders Shimon's field. Not on his own side - because then, Shimon will attach a Chazis on his side and claim that the Mechitzah is joint property.

We are not worried, by the same token, that now too, Shimon will lop off the Chazis and claim that the Mechitzah is joint property - because it would be easily noticeable if he did.

According to Rav Huna in the second Lashon, Reuven builds the Chazis on his own side, because otherwise, Shimon will lop off the Chazis and claim that the Mechitzah is joint property. We are not worried, by the same token, that now too, Shimon will attach his own Chazis and make the same claim - because if he does, it will be easily noticeable.

How Rav Huna, in the second Lashon, can argue with our Mishnah, which writes explicitly 'mi'ba'Chutz' - is precisely what we ask, and remain with a Kashya.

Rebbi Yochanan interprets 'Chazis' as 'Neshayeih be'Amsa le'Bar', meaning - that he smears the top Amah of the Mechitzah on the outside with cement.

Not from the inside - because then his friend will do likewise.

We are not afraid that now too, he will scrape off the lime from his side of the Mechitzah - because if he did, it would be easily noticeable.

In the case of a partition of palm and laurel branches, Rav Nachman defines a Chazis as - cutting the ends of the canes from the outside.

Abaye disagrees. According to him, the only safe method to employ to ensure that the partner who puts up the partition gets it back should it collapse is - - by writing a Shtar to the effect that it was he alone who put it up.

Where they built the Mechitzah jointly, the Tana rules that both partners must build a Chazis. In fact, it would been more logical for neither to build one. The Tana is speaking however - where one of them built one without consulting his partner.

The problem with the current ruling is - that it is unusual for the Tana to teach us how to deal with swindlers.

The Din of Chazis in the Reisha is indeed coming to teach us how to handle a swindler - but only after teaching us the initial Din that a valley is a place where it is not customary to put up a Mechitzah (whereas the Seifa does not teach us any Chidush, besides the Din of the Chazis).

Ravina answers - by establishing the Seifa by a partition of palm and laurel branches, and the Din of Chazis itself is a Chidush, since it precludes Abaye, who (as we just learned) maintains that the only solution in such a case is a Shtar.

The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that if Reuven, whose fields surround Shimon's on three sides, builds a Mechitzah on all three sides dividing between his fields and Shimon's, the latter is not obligated to share the costs - because at this point, he has not benefited from the Mechitzah (seeing as it is open on the fourth side).

The reason cannot be because it is customary not to build partition Mechitzahs in a valley (as we learned in our Mishnah) - because that reason only holds by a partition between two valleys (where it is only a matter of Hezek Re'iyah), but not when it comes to fields where animals graze, where a Mechitzah is necessary to prevent them from straying from one field to the other.

Rebbi Yossi says that if he added a fourth wall, he must pay retroactively for the other three as well.

Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi, adding - 'irrespective of whether it was Reuven or Shimon who built the fourth Mechitzah'.

Rav Huna obligates Shimon to pay half the costs of whatever materials Reuven used. According to Chiya bar Rav - he can argue that he is happy with a partition of cheap canes, and that is what he will pay for.

Based on Rav Huna Amar Shmuel's ruling, we query Chiya bar Rav from the Machokes Tana'im in our Mishnah. We can extrapolate from the Tana Kama ('Gadar es ha'Rishonah, ve'es ha'Sheniyah ve'es ha'Shelishis, Ein Mechayvin oso') - that if he put up the fourth Mechitzah, we do obligate him to pay?

According to Rav Huna - the Tana Kama will hold that Shimon only needs to pay for a cheap cane fence, whilst Rebbi Yossi obligates him to pay for whatever Reuven built.

The problem with Chiya bar Rav is - that if Rebbi Yossi obligates Shimon to share the costs of a cheap cane fence, then what will the Tana Kama hold?

The Machlokes cannot be that the Tana Kama confines Shimon's obligation to pay to where he builds the fourth Mechitzah, whereas Rebbi Yossi obligates him to pay there where Reuven built it - because if Shimon has to pay when Reuven built the fourth Mechitzah, how much more so if he built it himself!

To resolve the problem, we extrapolate from the Tana Kama - (not that Shimon must pay for the fourth Mechitzah, but) that he can claim that he would have been quite happy to pay someone to guard his field, which is what he is then obligated to pay.

Alternatively, we suggest that the Tana'im are not arguing about the fourth Mechitzah at all - but about the other three. The Tana Kama exempts Shimon from paying for them, whereas Rebbi Yossi obligates him retroactively.

The Tana Kama's reason is - that since Shimon was already absolved from paying (see Rashash), he cannot become liable afterwards.

As a third alternative, we propose - that their Machlokes is as we just established it, but only when Reuven built the fourth Mechitzah.

If Shimon was the one who built it, then - even the Tana Kama will concede that he becomes obligated retroactively, to share in the costs of the other three.

In the final answer, we reverse their roles, and Rebbi Yossi is the one who is lenient - obligating Shimon specifically when he was the one to build the Mechitzah, whilst the Tana Kama obligates him even when Reuven built it (see Tosfos). Note that all the explanations until now assumed Rebbi Yossi to be the more stringent opinion of the two. This is due to the presumption that the latter opinion usually comes to add to the former one (and not vice-versa).