(Gemara) Question: Why does it suffice for the Korah to be a Tefach? A half-brick is one and a half Tefachim wide!

Answer: The extra quarter Tefach on each side is plastered with mud to hold the half-brick.

(Rabah bar Rav Huna): The Korah must be strong enough to hold a half-brick. What holds up the Korah need not be strong enough to hold up a Korah and a half-brick. (It suffices that it can hold up a Korah.)

(Rav Chisda): The Korah must be strong enough to hold a half-brick. What holds it up must be strong enough to hold up a Korah and a half-brick.

(Rav Sheshes): If one put up a Korah and spread a mat over it and the bottom is three Tefachim off the ground, it is not a Mechitzah nor a Korah. (It does not permit):

It is not a Korah, for it is covered. (Even the opinion that considers a Korah to be a Mechitzah requires some Heker. What is visible (the mat) is not strong enough to hold a half-brick - Rashba; Me'iri - the mat hangs down 10 Tefachim. A Korah may not hang down so much.)

It is not a Mechitzah because Gediyim Bok'im Bo. (Goats could stick their heads through underneath the mat. (See note 6 in Appendix.)

(Beraisa): If a Korah comes out of one wall and does not reach the other wall, or if a Korah comes out from each wall and they do not reach each other:

Another Korah is needed [to fill the gap] only if the gap is at least three Tefachim.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, another Korah is needed only if the gap is at least four Tefachim.

Similarly, if there are two parallel Koros, and neither is wide enough to hold a half-brick;

They suffice only if together they hold the width of a half-brick. (Rashba - each is at least a quarter Tefach wide, and at most half a Tefach separates them);

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, [if their combined actual width is a Tefach,] they suffice as long as they hold (i.e. are separated by at most) the length of a half-brick of three Tefachim.

If one Korah was below and one above (neither is wide enough) -

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, we consider ('Ro'im') them to be at the same height, as long as both are between 10 Tefachim and 20 Amos above the ground.

(Abaye): R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds like his father in one way, i.e. Ro'im. (R. Yehudah considers a Korah made of straw or reeds as if it was metal);

He argues with his father in one way. R. Yehudah is Machshir a Korah above 20 Amos.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): It suffices if it is wide enough, even if it is not strong enough.

Rav Yehudah (to Chiya bar Rav): [It suffices to be] wide enough, even if it is not strong enough.

Rav: The proper text says 'it is wide enough and strong enough.'

Question: R. Ilai cited Rav to say that if it is four Tefachim wide, it need not be strong!

Answer: The law is different when it is four Tefachim wide.

(Mishnah): If it is made of straw...

Question: This teaches that we say Ro'im. The previous clause teaches this!

Answer: One might have thought that we say Ro'im only regarding the same material, but we do not consider it to be made of a different material. This clause teaches that is not so.

(Mishnah): If it is bent, we consider it to be straight.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: This teaches R. Zeira's law:

(R. Zeira): If a Korah is placed properly in a Mavoy [it rests on the walls between 10 Tefachim and 20 Amos], but part bends outside the Mavoy or above 10 or below 10 (see Perush Chai diagrams, Perek 1 numbers 183,184, in the English Charts section), if we would remove the part that is bent [outside the Kosher region] and less than three Tefachim would separate what remains, no other Korah is needed. If not, another Korah is needed.

Question: Also this is obvious!

Answer: The Chidush is when it is inside the Mavoy and the bent part is outside;

One might have thought that we decree to forbid, lest one be drawn after it [and carry under it, even though he is outside the Mavoy]. He teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If it is round, we consider it to be square.

Question: Why do we need this clause?

Answer: It is needed due to the Seifa. If the circumference is three Tefachim, it is a Tefach wide.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (R. Yochanan): [The Yam Shel Shlomo (a Mikveh) was] "Eser ba'Amah mi'Sefaso Ad Sefaso Soviv v'Chamesh ba'Amah v'Kav Sheloshim ba'Amah Yasov Oso Soviv." (See note 7 in Appendix)

Question: Why was the circumference only 30? It should exceed this [by three times the thickness of the wall], for it is measured "Soviv" (around the outside)!

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): "V'Avyo Tefach u'Sefaso k'Ma'Aseh Sefas Kos Perach Shoshan"- at the bottom it was a Tefach thick, and at the top it was as thin as rose petals.

Objection: Still, 30 is not exact!

Answer #2: The circumference was measured from the inside. (Tosfos R. Peretz - surely, the verse records the circumference to teach that it is three times the diameter. We learn this only if it was measured from the inside.)

(R. Chiya - Beraisa): The Yam Shel Shlomo contained 150 times the amount needed for a Mikveh, which is 40 Sa'im:

(Beraisa): "V'Rachatz ba'Mayim" - [the water must be gathered, i.e.] in a Mikveh;

"Kol Besaro" - a Mikveh must contain the entire body [of an average size person].

Question: How big is this?

Answer: It is [the volume of] an Amah wide, an Amah deep and three Amos tall. Chachamim calculated that this is 40 Sa'im.

Question: What was the volume of the Yam?

Answer: It was [10 Amos long, 10 Amos wide and five Amos deep, i.e.] 500 cubic Amos.

Question: Three cubic Amos (one Mikveh) times 150 is only 450 Amos!

Answer: The calculation assumed that the Yam was square (10 by 10, so the area of a cross-section is 100). Really, it was round.

Question: The area of a square exceeds that of a circle [inscribed] in it by a fourth [of the square's area]. If so, we must deduct 125 (a fourth of the Yam's volume), leaving only 375!

Answer (Rami bar Yechezkeil - Beraisa): The bottom three Amos of the Yam were square. (Their volume was 300 Amos.) The top two Amos were round. (Their volume was three fourths of 200, i.e. 150, making 450 in all.)

Question: Granted, we cannot say oppositely, that the top was square, for the verse says that it was round. However, perhaps only the top Amah was round [and the Yam held more than 150 Mikva'os]!

Answer: It says "Alpayim Bas Yachil" (it holds 2000 Bas);

Bas is three Sa'im (a tenth of a Kor) - "Masar ha'Bas Min ha'Kor."

It follows that the Yam was 6000 Sa'im (150 Mikva'os).

Question: It says "Machazik Batim Sheloshes Alafim Yachil" (9000 Sa'im)!

Answer: That includes the Godesh (the amount that can be piled above the top);

(Abaye): We learn from this that the Godesh (3000 Sa'im) is a third of the [total] volume. (See note 8 in Appendix.)

Support (Mishnah): The following are Tehorim (they are too big to be considered Kelim), even if they have bottoms, if they hold 40 Sa'im of wet measure, which is like 60 Sa'im of dry measure (which includes the Godesh) - coaches, boxes, cabinets, chests of straw or reeds, and a water cistern in a big ship.

(Mishnah): Lechayayim must be [at least] 10 Tefachim tall. The width and thickness can be any amount;

R. Yosi says, they must be [at least] three Tefachim wide.

(Gemara) Observation: The Mishnah discusses [two] Lechayayim.

Suggestion: Our Stam (anonymous) Mishnah is like R. Eliezer, who requires Lechayayim!

Rejection #1: No, it refers to Lechayayim [of Mavo'os] in general [but a Mavoy needs only one Lechi].

Objection: If so, the previous Mishnah should have discussed Koros in general!

Rejection #2: Our Mishnah means that the Lechayayim that R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue about must be [at least] 10 Tefachim tall. The width and thickness can be any amount.

Question: How much is 'any amount'?

Answer (R. Chiya - Beraisa): It can even be like a drawstring of a coat.

(Beraisa): If a Lechi was put in the middle of a Mavoy, one may carry only in half (what is further in than the Lechi).

Objection: This is obvious! (One may not carry past the Lechi.)

Correction: [It does not teach the Isur to carry past this,] rather, it teaches the Heter to carry in the half inside the Lechi.

Objection: Also this is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that we forbid, lest one come to use all of the Mavoy. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Rava): If a Lechi is three Tefachim off the ground or three Tefachim from the wall, it is invalid;

Even R. Shimon ben Gamliel says Lavud [up to four Tefachim] only above, but not near the ground, for then Gediyim Bok'im Bo invalidates the Mechitzah.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): They must be three Tefachim wide.

Version #1 (Rav Yosef): The Halachah does not follow R. Yosi regarding Lechayayim and Hilmi (saltwater. R. Yosi forbids making it on Shabbos, unless one puts oil into the water or salt first.)

Rav Huna bar Chinena: You taught this to us regarding Hilmi, but not regarding Lechayayim!

Rav Yosef: The Halachah does not follow R. Yosi regarding Hilmi, because Chachamim argue with him. Likewise, the Halachah follows Chachamim who argue regarding Lechayayim!

Rav Huna: Lechayayim is different, for Rebbi agrees with R. Yosi!

Version #2 - Rav Rechumi - (Rav Yehudah brei d'Rav Shmuel): The Halachah does not follow R. Yosi regarding Hilmi and Lechayayim.

Rav Rechumi's Talmidim asked if he taught this. He denied it.

Rava: I swear that I learned this from him! He retracted because we say about R. Yosi 'Nimuko Imo' (he brings great proofs for his laws. The Halachah follows him even against a majority - 46b.)

Version #1 - Question (Rava bar Rav Chanin): Whom does the Halachah follow?

Answer (Abaye): Go see whom people follow! (They are lenient like Chachamim.)

Version #2 (Mishnah): One who drinks water due to thirst blesses [beforehand] sheha'Kol Nihyeh bi'Dvaro;

R. Tarfon says, he blesses Borei Nefashos Rabos v'Chesronan [Al Kol Mah she'Barasa - some delete these words].

Question (Rava bar Rav Chanin): Whom does the Halachah follow?

Answer (Abaye): Go see whom people follow (i.e. Chachamim)!