The Beraisa that we just discussed supports the tradition that Rebbi Levi (or Rebbi Yochanan) quoted 'Makom Aron (u'Keruvim) Eino min ha'Minyan'. We know that this miracle was not confined to the Beis Hamikdash, but occurred in the Mishkan too - because a second Beraisa specifically mentions the Aron that Moshe made.

The basic difference between the Keruvim that Moshe made and those of Shlomoh (besides their size) was that - whereas the former were formed from the lid of the Aron, the latter were made independently and stood on the floor.

As a result of what we just learned, the distance between the northern K'ruv and the north wall of the Heichal and the southern K'ruv and the south wall of the Heichal was ten Amos (as if the Keruvim [as well as the Aron] were not there). The distance between the eastern edge of the Keruvim (which stood just in front of the western wall of the Kodesh Kodshim) and the D'vir (the dividing wall between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodshim) was - twenty Amos (also as if they were not there).

Each wing-span of each K'ruv was - five Amos (making a total of twenty Amos [from which Ravna'i Amar Shmuel proves further that their bodies took up no space]).

The Amora'im actually query Shmuel's proof from six different angles. Abaye suggests that maybe their wings emerged from the same point in the middle of their backs (like the wings of a chicken). Rava asks 've'Dilma Zeh she'Lo K'neged Zeh havu Kaymi?' - Perhaps the two K'ruvim were not level (one stood immediately in front of the western wall, the other slightly forward (so that their wings overlapped?

Rav Acha bar Ya'akov asks that maybe they stood diagonally across the Kodesh Kodshim (like the picture on the page), leaving the extra space (the distance that the hypotenuse exceeds the other two sides of the triangle [see also Agados Maharsha])? And when Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua asks 've'Dilma Beisa me'Ila'i Ravach?', he means that - 'Perhaps the Heichal was twenty Amos wide at the top, but wider at the bottom? (leaving room for the extra space taken up by their bodies, which were more than two-thirds of the way from the ceiling).

Rav Papa asks 'Maybe their wings were slightly bent (in which case the space taken up by their wing-span [if measured in a straight line] was really less than twenty-Amos)?'. And When finally, Rav Ashi asks 've'Dilma Shalchufi Havu Meshalchefi?', he means that - 'Maybe the wing of one was lying on top of the wing of the other (up to the equivalent distance of their bodies)?'

Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over whether the Keruvim faced each other or whether they faced the Heichal. Their opinions are based - on two Pesukim (in Terumah and in Divrei Hayamim respectively) which will now be discussed.

We cannot simply reconcile the two seemingly contradictory Pesukim by pointing out that the first Pasuk "u'Feneihem Ish el Achiv" refers to the Keruvim of Moshe, whereas the second Pasuk ''u'Feneihem la'Bayis" refers to those of Shlomoh - because we take for granted that, in this regard, both sets of Keruvim were identical.

The one who learns that they faced ...

... each other, establishes the Pasuk which states that they faced the Heichal - when Yisrael failed to perform the will of Hash-m.

... the Heichal, interprets the Pasuk which states that they faced each other - to mean that they were slightly inclined towards each other even though basically, they faced the Heichal.

According to the first opinion, the significance of the fact that the Keruvim were initially made to face each other is - to symbolize the Hashra'as ha'Shechinah (Hash-m's love of K'lal Yisrael, which resembles the mutual love between a husband and wife).

The Beraisa quoting Unklus ha'Ger, links the second opinion to the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim, which refers to the K'ruvim as "Ma'aseh Tza'atzu'im" - which means children, because, he says, that is how children take leave of their Rebbe (partially facing him as they walk towards the door).

The second opinion declines to learn like his disputant (that the K'ruvim were made to face the Heichal, to denote that when Yisrael were not performing the will of Hash-m, the K'ruvim would turn away from each other) - because the Keruvim would not have been made initially in a way that denoted Yisrael's segating the will of Hash-m.

The Tana discusses a case of Reuven entering Shimon's house to get to his water-pit which is inside. Despite the fact that a purchaser does not automatically receive a path to the pit that he purchases, Reuven is permitted to enter Shimon's house to get to his pit (even assuming that he did not specifically stipulate it) - in a case where the two brothers divided the property in this way, in which case he has the right to get to his water-pit just like his father used to.

The Tana permits him to go in and out of Shimon's house to get to his water-pit - only at regular times (e.g. during the day, but not at night-time).

Reuven waters his animals - by transporting the water from the pit to the animals, but not directly from the pit.

The Tana requires each party to make himself a lock and key. Rebbi Yochanan explains - that this is in order to safeguard the pit.

Reuven requires the lock in order to safeguard his water from Shimon, whereas Shimon requires one - to deprive Reuven of access to his house (and his wife) when he is not there.

Shimon does not require the lock to safeguard his own water from Reuven - because his wife is capable of doing that.

Our Mishnah repeats the Din of the previous Mishnah with regard to Reuven passing through Shimon's vegetable-garden to get to his own. Despite the fact that he does not disturb Shimon by passing through his garden, and that he did after all, purchase the path, he cannot pass through whenever he pleases - because he causes damage whenever he does, and 'Anan Sahadi' (we are witnesses) that Shimon's sale of the path can therefore not have been unconditional.

The Tana issues two further prohibitions, one of them, to take merchants through Shimon's garden, the other - to use it as a short-cut to get to other property that belongs to him (Reuven).

It is the owner of the outer garden who is permitted to sow the path (albeit at his own risk) - because, seeing as it is in the middle of his vegetable-garden, the previous principle of 'Anan Sahadi' extends to this point too.

Most of the prohibition will fall away in a case where Shimon agrees to give Reuven a path that runs along the side of his field to get to his garden - with the sole exception of the last one (prohibiting Reuven use of his garden as a short-cut to get to other property belonging to him).

Neither of them is permitted to sow the path.

Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that, in a case where Reuven agrees to sell Shimon 'Amas ha'Mayim', the width of the stream that he sells him must be - two Amos (see Tosfos DH 'Nosen').

In addition, he must give him - one Amah at the crest of each bank (to enable him to repair the banks should they cave in).

According to the text that he promises him 'Amah Beis ha'Shalachin' - he must give him one additional Amah on the crest of either bank, besides the one Amah next to the stream itself (see Ritva).

If Reuven agrees to sell Shimon 'Amah Beis ha'Kilon (or Silon)', Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that - he must give him only one Amah width of stream (as opposed to the two in the first Lashon, and according to the second Lashon, an additional half-Amah on the crest of either bank [as opposed to one]).

According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, Reuven is even permitted to sow seeds on both banks. Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel - only permits him to plant trees ...

... but not to sow seeds, whose roots grow within three Tefachim of the surface, and which will therefore weaken the river banks in the process (unlike trees, whose roots grow too deep into the ground to harm the river banks).

Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains that if, in the previous case, the banks of the stream that Reuven sold to Shimon cave in, he latter is entitled to claim fresh earth from Reuven's field, to rebuild his river banks - because when Shimon's banks caved in, that is where the earth will have fallen.

The problem Rav Papa has with Shmuel's ruling is - how Shmuel could possibly know that all the earth fell into Reuven's field, and that it was not the water of Shimon's stream that swept the earth away.

So Rav Papa ascribes Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's ruling - to the fact that seeing as there is nowhere else from where Shimon can possibly take fresh earth, it is obvious ('Anan Sahadi') that Reuven automatically pledged fresh earth from his field should the banks cave in.

Despite the fact that Reuven has pledged his entire field towards the repair of Shimon's river-banks, the significance of the initial Amah on either side of the stream is - that he restricts his own use of that area to planting trees or seeds; whereas the rest of his field remains his entirely to do with as he pleases.

Our Mishnah rules that if someone claims a public path that runs through the middle of his field, and replaces it with one at the side - 'What he gave is given, and what he took he is not permitted to retain'.

The public came to be going through his field in the first place - either by means of a Chazakah going way back in time, or because the previous owner presented it to them.

The Mishnah's ruling that Derech ...

... ha'Yachid is four Amos - concerns a case where Reuven promises to sell Shimon a path, which must be four Amos wide.

... ha'Rabim is sixteen Amos - concerns the Din of carrying vis-a-vis a R'shus ha'Rabim on Shabbos.

From the word "me'Echav" (in the Pasuk in Shoftim "le'Vilti Rum Levavo me'Echav"), we learn - that a king must be elevated over and above all his subjects.

In practical terms - this is synonymous with the principle 'Derech ha'Melech Ein lo Shi'ur' (meaning that he has the right to break down houses and walls to make a path for himself).

'Derech ha'Kever' is - the road that leads to the grave.

When the Tana says 'Derech ha'Kever Ein Lo Shi'ur', he means that - (bearing in mind the Mitzvah for many people to accompany a Meis up to the grave) one is permitted to carry a Meis through cornfields without the need to circumvent them.

The source of this ruling is - a Takanas Chachamim based on Kavod ha'Meis.

Alternatively (and preferably), it might mean - that if Reuven promises to sell Shimon a path through his field to bury his dead, he is obligated to provide however large a path is needed for that purpose.

The Daynei Tzipori give Derech ha'Ma'amad (which will be explained in the Sugya) as an area of four Kabin. Based on the fact that a Beis Sa'ah (half the area of the Beis Sasayim of the Mishkan) is fifty times fifty Amos, and that there are six Kabin in a Sa'ah, four Kabin amounts to - thirty-three and a third by fifty Amos (two-thirds of a Beis-Sa'ah), the equivalent of forty Amos, four Tefachim and three and three-quarters finger breadths plus, squared.

We learned in our Mishnah that someone who claims a public path that runs through the middle of his field, and replaces it with one at the side, loses the former and cannot reclaim the latter. Based on the Din that one cannot take the public to court, we try and prove from here that - one is forbidden to take the law into one's own hands (even when there is not the least doubt that one's claim is justified).

We refute this proof however, in a number of ways. According to Rav Z'vid quoting Rava, the reason that he cannot do so is due to a decree that he might give the public a crooked path. Rav Mesharshaya says that - the Tana is speaking when he actually gave them a crooked path; Otherwise, he would be permitted to reclaim it.

Rav Ashi refutes the proof - by considering every path at the side of the field to be a crooked path (since although it is nearer than the path in the middle for those living on the one side, it is further for those living on the other side).