"According to Abaye, the Reisha of the Beraisa (which specifies Levud up to three Tefachim) follows the opinion of the Rabbanan. How does he then explain the Seifa, which makes a distinction between a wall of less than four Tefachim and one of four Tefachim (which seems to follow the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - but in any event not the Rabbanan - see Tosfos DH 'Eima')?"
Is this the question of the gemara, according to Rashi? This does not seem to fit in with Rashi's words? Do you have an explanation for Rashi?
David Greenstone
Rashi also seems to understand the question of the Gemara like that. That is, since according to the Rabanan the principle of Lavud applies at three Tefachim, an area of three Tefachim should also be considered a "significant area" unto itself (Makom Chashuv). That is the Gemara's Hava Amina.
The Gemara concludes that even the Rabanan agree that although three Tefachim is Lavud, in order to be a Makom Chashuv it must be at least four Tefachim.
M. KORNFELD
Rav Kornfeld,
The reason that I didn't think that Rashi understood the question of the gemara the same way is because he implies that the question is only b/c it does not include exactly four but only up until 4. This seems to imply that the gemara wouldn't have had this question had the shiur been up to and including 4. According to the way you explained it, the question still should have been there unless it says 3.
Thanks!
David
It seems that, nevertheless, the intention of Rashi is to explain the same way as Tosfos, and as I wrote in the previous letter. What Rashi means is that the Gemara's question is not choosing sides between two particular choices, as I shall explain.
What I mean by that is that Rashi found the language of the Gemara difficult to understand when it says, "three and four are the same [i.e. have the same Halachah]." The Gemara should have asked explicitly, "Why is it not considered a Mechitzah in the place of the Omed when the Mechitzah is larger than three Tefachim wide." Since the Gemara instead says that "three and four are the same," it is implying that the question of the Gemara is in the form of a "Mi'Mah Nafshach:" if the Beraisa holds that even what is larger than the Shi'ur of Lavud has not yet come into the category of being a Makom Chashuv, then also when it is four Tefachim wide it should not be a Mechitzah where the Omed is; and if it is a Makom Chashuv, the even when it is less than four Tefachim, it should be a Mechitzah where the Omed is. Therefore, the main question of the Gemara is how the Beraisa makes a new cut-off point at four Tefachim wide, as far as being considered a Makom Chashuv.