Tractate Shabbat, Chapter One – Lesson 46

This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.

🔗 Link to the original lesson

🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. So now Rabbi Yohanan is uncertain. Ulla said: all the more so—if it serves as a partition for others, for itself all the more so. Okay? By the way, this really shouldn’t have a question mark here in the text, but rather a question mark and an exclamation point. It’s a rhetorical question. Meaning: if it serves as a partition for others, then for itself it certainly serves as a partition. There’s no real question here; it’s a statement. And the claim is that if this wall turns the area inside it into a private domain, then it itself is certainly considered the partition of a private domain. That’s apparently the straightforward meaning of the words. What does this mean here?

[Speaker E] That the wall is considered included in the area of the private domain. What do you hear? That the wall is considered included in the area of the private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] One possibility is to say that the wall is simply subsumed into the area inside it and becomes part of it, and the whole thing, including the thickness of the wall, is a private domain. In the plain wording of the Talmud, the medieval authorities (Rishonim) and later authorities (Acharonim) struggle with this here, but in the simple wording of the Talmud it sounds like this is some kind of consideration about a partition—not that the wall becomes the private domain, but that you think this wall has no partitions. It does have partitions, because since its partitions function as partitions with respect to the private domain, they also function as a partition with respect to itself.

[Speaker E] Then that’s a different claim. Okay? Now what happens here—so are there two private domains? Is there the private domain of the wall and the private domain of the area?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, right. That’s an extreme formulation of the second approach I mentioned. I’m not going into all the details here, but there are two directions that the commentators raise here. Okay? Now, simply speaking, what Ulla says is something different from the side of Rabbi Yohanan’s doubt. Because what was Rabbi Yohanan’s reason for saying that such a wall is a private domain?

[Speaker E] As if the floor is raised up to the end of the…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] As if everything is filled in, right? As if everything were filled in, and then the area is really one continuous area, including the top of the wall. Okay? Ulla, by contrast, seems to offer a different reason, another reason—a kind of a fortiori argument: if it is a partition with respect to the private domain, then it is also a partition with respect to itself. I suspect—and here the later authorities hesitate and leave it unresolved and so on—I definitely suspect that Ulla does not mean to say something different; it’s another formulation of the same thing Rabbi Yohanan is saying. Since it made it a private domain, it is considered as though it were filled in—the meaning is that because it makes it a private domain, it is considered part of the private domain in question. It’s just that, true, its top is higher up, so how can it join the area on the ground? And for that we say: it is considered as though it were filled in. This will come later in the Kehillot Yaakov with the question he raises; in my opinion, that’s exactly the question the Kehillot Yaakov is talking about here in the Talmud. But we’ll get to that in a moment. It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav, and Rabbi Yitzḥak also said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: a wall in the public domain ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and surrounded by a karmelit, and it made it a private domain—one who throws and it lands on top of it is liable, because if it serves as a partition for others, for itself all the more so. Okay? So he’s just repeating this, and he says that in the end this is how they rule in Jewish law. And in fact that is how the halakhic authorities rule in practice. So that’s the Talmud. Now we return to our issue. Okay? So what exactly is the Kehillot Yaakov claiming? That the hive, in a case where it has an internal empty space of four by four by four in the net inner space, right—what happens then, Ḥani?

[Speaker F] That what’s on top is considered a private domain, also inside, and then also the partitions? The partitions—the partitions themselves are also considered a private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, because of the Talmudic passage we just saw.

[Speaker F] And therefore if he throws the hive, then according to that view—according to both views—it works out. According to Rashi’s view, he’s literally throwing a domain, and according to the view of Tosafot, it is resting in a private domain—both the empty space is resting in a private domain and the partitions are resting in a private domain, because the partitions themselves are also a private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What happens when there is no net empty space of four by four?

[Speaker F] Then according to what he writes in the paragraph, if there is no empty space, then according to Rashi it isn’t a domain. Rather, the floor of the domain. Why?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why? What about the partitions? Why don’t the partitions…

[Speaker F] help here? Because they do not enclose a private domain, so how can they themselves be a private domain?

[Speaker E] Right, because—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] After all, the partitions do not turn the inner part into a private domain, because it doesn’t have enough area. Once they do not turn it into a private domain, then you don’t have the a fortiori argument that says: if they turn it into a private domain, then they themselves are a private domain. Therefore in such a case—sorry?

[Speaker G] Does it depend on the thickness of the partitions?

[Speaker E] No, it depends on the size of the empty space.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] As long as the partition itself doesn’t have a thickness of four by four on its own, then that’s not what we’re talking about here, obviously. And then what happens is that when the empty space is not a private domain—as we saw, by the way, in the law of a house—the empty space is not a private domain, the partitions do not enclose a private domain, and therefore they themselves are also not a private domain. So what is? On top. The roof—

[Speaker F] is a private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. And that is just a floor.

[Speaker F] But what he argues is that the roof is not—it is only the floor of a private domain; it is not itself the private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And therefore the hive—you can’t call the hive a “domain hive,” because the hive is the floor. The domain is what happens above its roof. So when I throw the hive, you can’t say that I threw a domain here. Right, and that’s the difference between whether it has a net empty space or whether it does not have a net empty space of four by four.

[Speaker F] And that also works according to Tosafot’s view, because then when it is resting, it is actually not resting in a private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That is basically the essence of Rav Chaim’s words regarding our Talmudic passage. Who continues?

[Speaker G] I don’t mind, but if Yael—if that’s okay? Should I continue?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, let’s continue.

[Speaker G] And apparently according to this, one who throws a solid body ten high and four by four wide should be liable. And in the commentary of Rav Ḥananel, may his memory be blessed, printed—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] in the Vilna Shas edition—Re’em is the publishing house of the Vilna Shas.

[Speaker G] in the Re’em Shas—I didn’t understand what some Re’em was doing here—it is explained that if the hive were not hollow, if it were solid, it would indeed be considered a private domain at four by four, and one would be exempt; see there. And perhaps his reason—wait, up to here.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What does Rav Ḥananel say?

[Speaker G] That—wait, wait. It is explained that if… meaning if the hive were solid—not, but he says “not hollow”—

[Speaker E] Not hollow means solid.

[Speaker G] Ah, if it were solid—no, I don’t understand the phrase “would indeed be considered.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It would indeed be considered a private domain if it has four by four, and therefore one who throws it is exempt—“and one would be exempt.” Meaning Rav Ḥananel writes against the conclusion of the Kehillot Yaakov. Rav Ḥananel says that if you have a solid hive—what?

[Speaker G] So that’s the opposite of the first two sentences.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, that’s exactly his difficulty here. He says: according to what we said above, it should come out that if the hive is solid and someone throws it, then he is liable, because it is an object and not a domain. But Rav Ḥananel writes that in the case of a solid hive one is exempt—that it is considered a domain.

[Speaker E] And that makes sense, because if there’s no empty space, then why not count the entire area? Once it’s a solid body, why not? It’s all one unit. Right? So four by four—why shouldn’t he be exempt? Why shouldn’t it be a private domain?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It would be—what do you mean?

[Speaker E] No, right, that’s what the Arukh says, but what he wrote earlier—“one who throws a solid body ten high etc.”—he says that he would indeed be liable.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of course, there’s no use of it; you can’t use it. Something that gives rise to a domain is not itself a domain. That’s what he said according to his conclusion from the previous paragraph. So one thing is built on the other. In light of his conclusion in the previous paragraph, what is he basically saying? That if the hive is constructed in such a way that its roof is considered a private domain, that is not considered to mean that it itself is considered a domain, and therefore if I throw it I am liable. Okay? Yes, yes. So therefore he says: but in Rav Ḥananel it says one is exempt, which means it is called a domain. So that goes against what we said above. “And perhaps”—go on reading.

[Speaker G] That the reason of the Arukh, may his memory be blessed, is that even though it has no inside space, nevertheless, since the top of it is considered a private domain, and we regard partitions above by the principle of “extend upward,” then those same partitions above, by force of the law of “extend upward,” also enclose below, like a suspended partition.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait—“like a suspended partition”; we’ll explain his example in a moment—but what is he saying?

[Speaker G] That permits in water.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no, wait, let’s pause the reading for a moment—what has he written up to here?

[Speaker G] Wait, wait a second. Since the top of it is considered a private domain. Ah—he says, if we related to the upper part, on top of it, as a private domain, then we can take that by way of “extend upward,” as though I have partitions, and the inner part too—even though it is solid—is a private domain. Why? Because when I am up above, I apply “extend upward,” as though I built partitions, and the partitions enclose a private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Meaning the partitions that are up above, by “extend upward,” reach down to the ground, descend downward, and therefore they are considered partitions that start from the ground—not from the roof of the hive, but literally from the ground. And if the partitions start literally from the ground, then contrary to what Rav Chaim says, in Rav Ḥananel we see not like Rav Chaim—that even if the hive is built in such a way that only its roof is a private domain and not it itself, it is still considered that it itself is a private domain, and if one throws it one is exempt. Why? So he says because the “extend upward” partitions in fact enclose all the way down. Even though they are above, they enclose all the way down. And now he brings the examples.

[Speaker G] But there are ten there—I’m saying, not only do they enclose below, they kind of create an empty space.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But there is no empty space there. There are partitions enclosing a sealed solid space. There’s no empty hollow there; the inside is solid.

[Speaker G] Okay, like a suspended partition that permits in water, because the passage of fish is not considered passage. Meaning, it is permitted when below there is, as it were, some sort of substance, so that even if something moves inside it, it does not interfere with the thing itself.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Let me explain the sentence. A suspended partition is a partition that is ten handbreadths high but does not reach the ground; it hangs from above and stops several handbreadths above the ground. That is called a suspended partition. If there are fewer than three handbreadths from the ground, then it is considered joined by the rule of lavud, but if it is more than three handbreadths then it is a suspended partition. Now, like this: if it hangs over ground on dry land, then it is not considered a partition. Why not? Because young goats pass under it. The goats pass through; it does not stop them. Even though there is a partition of ten and it encloses the whole area, since from below one can enter, it is a suspended partition and it does not permit. Meaning, it does not turn what is inside into a private domain. In water, even though fish can enter through that gap beneath, in water the claim is that this partition does permit. The water is considered as though it continues the partition; if below it is not air but water, then it is considered as though the partition reaches all the way down. That is the law; the reasoning and distinctions don’t matter right now, but that is the law. So what does he want to infer from there to our case?

[Speaker G] And just a moment—where am I? And only a suspended partition in the air does not permit, because the goats pass through it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Period. That was the example he explained; now he returns to our Talmudic issue.

[Speaker G] And here, underneath the partition, there is a solid body, and there is no passage of goats, so it indeed permits. Wait—“the partition above indeed permits making even the space below into a private domain.” And this requires further analysis.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What is he saying?

[Speaker G] So he says that since the partition here really continues down to the ground, there is no passage of goats here, no break in the partition, so it turns this whole unit—wait—“the partition above permits”—ah, so the partition really continues all the way down and defines the entire height, including the upper and lower parts, as a private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He is basically comparing our case to the case of a suspended partition. Now let’s try to see the analogy. What does “suspended partition” mean? Which is the partition and where is the air gap?

[Speaker E] The partition is—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] the “extend upward” above the roof of the hive, right? It is suspended in the air because it begins from the roof of the hive and upward. What is beneath it?

[Speaker E] But the solid body blocks the goats. Exactly.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Since below it is indeed more than three handbreadths, and apparently that shouldn’t have helped—but why doesn’t it help? Because there is passage of goats. But here, after all, it is sealed. And since it is sealed, there is no passage of goats. So it has the law of a suspended partition in water, not of a suspended partition on dry land. Therefore he says that this partition is basically considered a partition that seals all the way down, and then the whole area from the ground—not only from the roof of the hive—is considered a private domain. And therefore, this thing is considered a domain according to Rav Ḥananel as well, and therefore if one throws it, one is exempt. That is the claim.

[Speaker E] But why does he use the concept of a suspended partition? He could have just made the partition go down to the ground.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That is a real wonder.

[Speaker F] That’s an excellent question you’re asking.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I—

[Speaker F] I read this and it just seems crazy to me. Why? Because to say that the partitions that are suspended in the air are specifically the non-physical partitions, and that the partitions below are the—like, to say that the non-physical ones are the physical ones and the physical ones are the non-physical ones—it just runs contrary to all logic. I understand his move, but in the end, when you stand outside and look, you say: it’s an upside-down world.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Let me sharpen even more what Ruti and Ḥani raised here. It really is extremely strange. He basically wants to claim the following: on the roof of the hive, it is a private domain. What are the side walls around the roof of the hive? The “extend upward” that rises from below and continues to the sky. Those are the surrounding partitions. Now he says: okay, let’s see what the status is of the inside volume of the hive itself—the sealed hive, the volume of the hive itself—what is its status? We need to see whether there are partitions around it or not. So he says: around it there are no partitions, but above there are suspended partitions, and suspended partitions are also sufficient because below the goats cannot pass through, since the walls of the hive stop them. That’s his claim. And what is strange here is: why get to the point where the partitions above are the suspended ones and below there is only a function that stops the goats? What is below is the partitions themselves! The tangible partitions are the partitions, so below is fine. Why do all this? You are using those below to create “extend upward”? It’s like Baron Munchausen who took a ladder in order to climb out of the pit and then…

[Speaker D] Against that there is a reason that basically the solid body is not fit for habitation.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly—that is what lies behind his strange statement. His claim is the following: if there were only the solid body and, let’s say, nothing above it, would the partitions around it be considered partitions? Why not? Obviously not.

[Speaker G] Not for purposes of dwelling.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because they do not separate between two spaces. Right? So they are not partitions. Rather, when I stand above on the roof of the hive, I want to see whether there are partitions around me. So they tell me: now I apply “extend upward” by force of what is above, because now these partitions have something to enclose, and therefore they are considered partitions. Once they are considered partitions because they have something to enclose, now I look at them as suspended partitions, and what is below is not a partition, because it does not enclose an empty space. So these are like suspended partitions, but what is below—true, it does not enclose an empty space—but it stops the passage of goats, and therefore the suspended partitions above are considered the partitions of the entire private domain, including the sealed volume of the hive. That is his line of thought. Is what I’m saying clear?

[Speaker A] Can I ask a question? No, can I ask?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait a second—if what I said isn’t clear, then someone, anyone?

[Speaker A] Yes, can I ask something? Yes. I just don’t understand the picture. If we’re talking about “extend upward,” then “extend upward” has some measure, right? Of distance from the ground. And basically the object—the hive—the hive is in the air.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, the hive is on the ground.

[Speaker A] But we’re talking about throwing the hive through the air.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no, no. I’m talking now about what happens with the hive when it is standing on the ground, and from that the law will be derived—when we throw the hive, did we throw a domain or did we throw an object? But how do we test whether the hive is a domain or an object? We place it on the ground and look at what we see.

[Speaker A] So why does he apply “extend upward”? Why does he need to say “extend upward” if it’s on the ground?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because the partitions do not touch the ground.

[Speaker A] The hive is placed—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] on the ground. The roof of the hive is actually the floor of the domain, right? Because the hive is solid. Yes. So where are the side walls?

[Speaker A] They are only above, really just on the roof.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And that is the “extend upward.”

[Speaker A] Ah, okay. And that doesn’t matter—ah, yes.

[Speaker E] But now I have a question: in the case of a suspended partition too, even if we were to lower it to the ground, the goats would still pass through it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, but here the goats don’t pass through, because—

[Speaker A] there is a wall there.

[Speaker E] Right, but I’m asking why he needs that suspended partition, and why should he care whether it reaches the ground? In any case the goats could have passed through if not for the wall.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Let’s do this again. The partitions of the domain are the pure “extend upward” partitions, only those. Otherwise there are no partitions here. The lower part is not considered partitions. The lower part is considered only something that stops the goats from passing through. But still, when I ask myself, okay, but what are the partitions of this domain? The partitions of this domain are the “extend upward.”

[Speaker E] I understand, but why do they have to be suspended? That’s my question. Suspended?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because they are in the air! Because they are only above. But what is below is not considered a partition.

[Speaker E] Yes, yes.

[Speaker G] Because—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] it does not enclose an empty space.

[Speaker E] Fine, now I understand that it’s in the air.

[Speaker G] A question: if I had a body standing on legs, okay—a solid body standing on legs, and the legs really had the open space for goats to pass through—then above it would not be considered for me—no, above maybe yes, but below it would not be considered a private domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. Meaning above it would be considered one, but below it would not.

[Speaker G] No, yes, okay.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] All right? Now I want to say one more thing. So apparently I have answered Ruti’s and Ḥani’s difficulty, but I nevertheless want to say why I still don’t agree with him. And this actually already begins with Rav Chaim, not with him. Because in fact, in my opinion, there is no need to get to “extend upward” at all. The partitions that are below—the walls of the hive, I’m now talking about the solid hive—the walls of the solid hive are considered walls for the area on the roof. They themselves are walls, without “extend upward” continuing them. They themselves are walls. If I look, at least from the perspective of someone coming from outside, he sees in front of him a barrier ten handbreadths high. That is a wall. So true, that wall does not enclose an empty space, but it is a wall with respect to the roof of the hive. And even without “extend upward,” it would still be a private domain because it has partitions around it. True, the partitions are below it—so what? But relative to someone coming from the public domain—sorry—he sees in front of him a partition of ten handbreadths. So there is a partition here. I’ll say even more than that: the rule that we apply “extend upward”—what do the words “extend upward” mean? The wall rises. Right? The wall continues and rises. “Asik” means to ascend to the Land of Israel. “Asik” means to go up. Okay? So what does it mean that the wall rises? There is a wall here and I continue it. “Extend upward” is not inventing a wall out of nothing. For example, think of a case where below there is a wall of seven handbreadths, not ten. Would we say “extend upward”? Certainly not. We do not say “extend upward.” Why not? Because what is below is not a wall. “Extend upward” is only when there is already a wall below; then, since it is a wall, I continue it upward. But if what is below is not a wall, then we do not say “extend upward” about it. So if that is so, then even if I say like Rav Chaim and the Kehillot Yaakov that here we really do say “extend upward” around the roof of the hive, that “extend upward” is based on the fact that below there is a wall—there is a wall—because otherwise I could not apply “extend upward.”

[Speaker E] It is a wall at a height that creates another domain. Right.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Therefore I claim—and this is what I’m saying—that you are right that it can’t be a wall in the usual sense, because there is no empty space that it encloses; it is all solid. But if I look at the roof, when I look at the roof, from my perspective it encloses the roof. And once I see that it encloses the roof, then it is indeed a wall. After all, that is the only reason I could even make “extend upward” out of it—because if it were not a wall, I couldn’t. But if it is a wall, then we no longer need the “extend upward,” and we no longer need the passage of goats, and we no longer need the whole ingenious move of the Kehillot Yaakov. It itself is a wall. It is the wall of the roof above. And then what happens? In previous classes I explained to you Rashi’s view and also Rav Ḥananel’s view, in effect—that the domain in the hive is really what is above, unlike Tosafot, who said the domain is what is inside. But both Rav Ḥananel and Rashi—in my opinion, and I think according to the calculation we made that is what came out—basically hold that the domain is what is above. Now Rav Chaim does not accept that, because Rav Chaim argues that if the domain is what is above, then you cannot treat the hive as an object that is itself a domain, so that you are throwing a domain here. Because it is only a floor for the domain.

[Speaker E] It is only the infrastructure for the domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but I already argued otherwise. In all the previous classes I said not so. That is not what he wrote. I argued precisely on the basis of this point, because I saw that according to both Rashi and Rav Ḥananel the domain is determined by what is above, not by what is below. So therefore it is obvious that even if the domain above is a private domain, that is enough to give the hive itself the status of a domain and not of an object. How exactly? How exactly? Because who are the walls of the private domain above?

[Speaker G] The hive.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The body of the hive. And if you then say “extend upward,” it will continue, and if not, then you don’t need it. Bottom line, either way you also need the walls of the hive. So if that is so, then even though what is above is the private domain, that still causes the hive itself to be considered a domain and not an object. Because the walls of the hive are the walls of the roof, of the private domain on the roof. Do you understand what I’m saying? Therefore the whole foundation and distinction of Rav Chaim is, in my opinion, incorrect.

[Speaker E] He—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] assumed that if only the roof is a private domain, that is not enough to turn the hive itself into something considered a domain. And I say that it is enough. And that is what the Kehillot Yaakov proves here from Rav Ḥananel. From Rav Ḥananel himself you see this. Because Rav Ḥananel himself talks about a solid hive, which according to Rav Chaim cannot work. Because in a solid hive only the roof is a private domain. And Rav Chaim said that if only the roof is a private domain, then the hive cannot be considered a domain, so it is an object. So then how do you explain Rav Ḥananel, who treats the hive as a domain even when it is solid? So the Kehillot Yaakov himself infers this, and rightly so. That is exactly what I did in the class without having seen them. In Rav Ḥananel we are forced to say not like Rav Chaim. I hadn’t even seen Rav Chaim yet then. Meaning, in Rav Ḥananel we are forced to say not like Rav Chaim, because Rav Ḥananel tells us that even though the roof is the private domain here, nevertheless the hive itself is considered a domain and not an object. I only argued there—and here I think there is no need to reach this subtle pilpul of the Kehillot Yaakov—I argued that this is because the walls of the hive are the walls of the roof, and therefore the hive itself is also considered a private domain. And therefore I claim that this is true even with a solid hive.

[Speaker E] By the way, “asik” is related to soaring upward, ascent upward, of course.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] All right? Is what I’m saying clear? Okay.

[Speaker G] What—wait, you went too far upward. “And this can be further analyzed.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait, we’re not finished—sorry, continue, yes Yael, “and this can be further analyzed.”

[Speaker G] “And this can be further analyzed,” meaning—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] he himself feels that what he said here is not complete; it needs more analysis. Okay. Wait, what?

[Speaker G] “And therefore, in any event…” “And in any event it is explained in Rav Ḥananel, may his memory be blessed, that even a solid body is a private domain, and if so—”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “the question returns to its place.”

[Speaker G] Again?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The question returns to where it was.

[Speaker G] “The question returns to its place.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “Returns”—that means returns—“the question…”

[Speaker G] “…to its place,” to where it was. “…to its place,” yes, “…to its place.” “That even when there is not four inside it…” Yes—what is he basically saying?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] After all, Rav Ḥananel tells me that even a solid body, if it has the proper measure, is perfectly fine, right? Very good. But if so, then why does Rav Ḥananel explain that there must be a net 5.6, and the thickness of the walls is what is beyond that? After all, then even if it were solid it would be fine. In other words, the gross 5.6 should also suffice. Why do you need a gross six? He returns to Rav Ḥananel in his dispute with Rashi about whether the thickness of the walls is counted within the 5.6 or not. Okay. All right? So he says: if something fully solid is fine, then when there is an empty space of 5.2 plus 0.2 on each side, giving together 5.6, treat that as if it were solid. How can it be that Rav Ḥananel says that is not enough? You need a net empty space of 5.6 plus 0.2 on each side. Why does the empty space need to be a net 5.6? After all, even a solid body is fine. Okay?

[Speaker G] Should I read the last line for a moment? Yes, yes. “And if because it is not fit for use, but we say: if he wants, he can place something on it,” etc.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What does that mean?

[Speaker G] Even if it doesn’t—even if it has no interior space that can be used or is fit for use, they also said—wait, I didn’t understand—“place something on it,” meaning he can also go up on top?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Or place something on it. What he means is as follows. There was room to distinguish—there is a possible way to resolve the difficulty. One could distinguish and say that if the body is solid, then it can be used—I place things on it. But if the body is not solid and has an empty space and walls around it, then in principle that is worse than a solid body. Why? Because here I can’t use it—what am I going to do? There’s no surface here to place things on. To that the Kehillot Yaakov says: not true; one can place things even if it is not solid, and that is what the Talmud says: “if he wants, he can place something on it.” That is the Talmudic statement that all the later authorities bring here; we already saw this Talmudic passage—Tosafot himself brings it—namely that this is why the walls combine with the empty space, because he can place things on them. Therefore the Kehillot Yaakov says, practically speaking, in the last line: according to Rav Ḥananel’s view, it is not clear what the difference is between a solid body and a body whose net empty space is not 5.6, but only reaches that together with the walls. In the second case Rav Ḥananel says it is not a domain, and in the first case he says it is a domain. That is the reverse of logic. The solid one ought to be worse, not better.

[Speaker E] So according to the one who says that when the empty space is not four by four and it only serves as a kind of infrastructure for the private domain above it—then after all the private domain rests on it. So can one place something on it?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In any case one can place something on it, yes, of course.

[Speaker E] No, I mean—the private domain itself is resting on it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So what?

[Speaker E] So according to his view, that should also mean it itself is considered a private domain, because the private domain above it is being placed on it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Well, that’s the question—I don’t understand. Fine. That is the question. He says: according to Rav Ḥananel, you tell me that because there is a private domain above, then even if inside it is solid this is called a domain. So if so, then also when it is hollow inside, just the net area, the net volume, does not itself include four by four, but only reaches that together with the walls—since on top of it there is a private domain because one can place things on it—it should still be considered a private domain. Why there does Rav Ḥananel say it is not? Okay, who’s next?

[Speaker G] Thank you.

[Speaker A] I’m willing. Okay. But well, I’m a little delayed by a few seconds, and also this is a section I understood nothing from, so from the outset I’m…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Then better not. So who is ready? Raḥama, Hodi, what about you?

[Speaker E] I’m ready, but today I didn’t review this because we reviewed it last time.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I—

[Speaker D] I just have banging here, it’s confusing me—they keep banging all the time. If you don’t hear it, I can do it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We don’t hear it. So is that okay?

[Speaker D] Then that’s okay, yes.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I can’t see you, so every time I have to stop the screen share. Okay.

[Speaker D] “And in my humble opinion…” Yes. Yes. “And in my humble opinion, to resolve the view of Rav Ḥananel…” so according to—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “and those with him.” “Those with him” means those on his side, yes. Those who agree with him, yes.

[Speaker D] “and those with him,” yes. “Who hold that the thickness of the partitions of the hive does not complete the measure of four by four. Why is this different from a pit and its rim? From a pit and its rim? There the thickness of the partitions does complete the measure of four—”

[Speaker E] by four.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “—as in the difficulties raised by Tosafot.”

[Speaker D] “—as in the difficulties raised by Tosafot.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What does that mean? Again, before we continue: Tosafot challenged Rav Ḥananel. What did they ask?

[Speaker D] They asked—there is an example of a pit that is less than four by four and its rim completes it. And here we see that the walls combine with the empty space and complete it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The area, not the height, yes? We’re talking about area. Yes. So if so, Tosafot asks Rav Ḥananel: according to your view, Rav Ḥananel, if there is an empty space of less than four by four, but together with the thickness of the walls it does reach four by four, then that should be good enough. Right? That was Tosafot’s question. Now he wants to resolve Rav Ḥananel against Tosafot’s challenge.

[Speaker D] He says: and indeed he holds that “if he wants he can place something on it.” So now we have a reason that it only completes in the case of the rim, because the rim serves for things—one can place something there—therefore it combines with the empty space, right? “If he wants he can place something on it.” And this requires further analysis, because if so, then even where there is no four by four at all, even with the partitions included, here too, if he wants he can place something on it—there would be a plank—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What is “plank”? It means a piece of wood.

[Speaker A] What is that?

[Speaker D] A protruding board, something extending out on both sides, and it is usable—and even if something protrudes outward and is useful, therefore one would have to say that this too can complete it, as I understood it, yes?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. What is he really arguing? He says: let’s continue Tosafot’s challenge. Even if the empty space together with the thickness of the walls does not contain four by four—the whole thing together is only five handbreadths including the wall thickness—I can still place something on it, only it will stick out to the sides. Right? So why shouldn’t that be enough? Why does Tosafot stop when the gross measurement is four by four? I can ask the same question even when the gross measurement is not four by four. After all, you can place something on it, so it will stick out on the sides, but it still has some use.

[Speaker D] This whole reasoning based on use is a bit problematic for him.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, so that’s what he says. “And of necessity one must say…” here we are, yes, look for a second…

[Speaker D] Yes, I’m just reading not from the screen.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, yes, so I’m showing everyone on the screen.

[Speaker D] Fine, but on my side I enlarged it a bit, so that’s why I’m reading… “And of necessity?”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, one must say—

[Speaker D] “that where there is no place of four by four, we do not say the reasoning of ‘if he wants he can place…’” Meaning, as I understand it, when you do not have a total area of four by four, you do not activate this argument that one can place something there. “It requires a place…” yes.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The fact that one can place things on the pit and its rim, or on the hive with the partitions, or whatever you want—that only helps when there is an area of four by four. It does not serve as a substitute for the lack of sufficient area.

[Speaker E] Four by four including the partitions.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] At this point, yes, including the partitions; in a moment we’ll see. Go on.

[Speaker D] “Only where there is four by four by combining the pit and its partition, so that it is indeed considered a place, but it is simply not fit for use—and whenever something fit for use as four by four is lacking, the status of a domain falls away from it. And so too regarding a pit and its rim, since it is not fit for the use of four by four.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “And concerning that we say”—and about that we say, yes. “Aha” always means “concerning this.” When we say “aha,” it means “about this.”

[Speaker D] “And about this, what we said…”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “that it is indeed fit—”

[Speaker D] “for use,” and then I really do look at whether this area is fit for use. “And a place exists here because even without the reasoning of ‘if he wants he can place…’ it is considered a place of four by four, namely by combining the floor of the pit with the thickness of the partitions. And all this seems necessary.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Let’s pause here for a moment. What has he said up to this point? Like Rabbi Yohanan—as though you raise the floor. Wait, wait—no, that’s the continuation. Before that—don’t jump ahead. What has he said up to now?

[Speaker D] We are looking at the—I think we are looking at the whole pit together, as though the floor is joined to the walls.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No—again, that’s the continuation, the continuation. What has he said up to now?

[Speaker D] “By combining the floor of the pit with the thickness of the partitions.”

[Speaker E] That without a minimal area, you can’t bring in the argument of use.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. So what Idit is saying is that in order for something to be considered a private domain, we actually need two independent requirements. One requirement is that it have an area of four by four, period. A second requirement is that it be usable. If it does not have an area of four by four, it won’t help that it has use. Therefore he says: if the gross area, including the partitions, does not contain four by four, then the fact that it has use won’t help. If the area is indeed four by four and your whole problem is—wait, but what about use?—then he says: there is use; I can place things on it.

[Speaker G] Okay. Wait, okay, the use—if it’s solid and I can place things on it—it can count?

[Speaker D] No, no, no, no, no—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You’re right, he is talking now about the hollow case. No, no, no—wait, wait. She’s right, she’s right—this is about the solid case, because the next sentence will now tell me why this is also true when there is a hollow. For the moment, apparently this is about the solid case. And then he says: “but this requires further analysis.” Now continue reading.

[Speaker D] “But this requires further analysis: how can these combine with one another, seeing that the floor is below and the thickness of the partitions is above?”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What does that mean? What is the question?

[Speaker D] That this is like a pit—how do you combine the floor that is below with those walls, with those rims that come from the width of the walls, yes?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] How do you combine the area of the floor that is below with the width of the walls that is above, where in top-down projection—when you look at it from above—you see that there is an area of four by four, but the heights are different. How can you regard this as a floor of four by four?

[Speaker D] And here, I think, enters the question that it is somewhat similar to the way we look from the roof. If we can combine the—I don’t know whether above there is area—I don’t know.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No. He says: here enters the question of how we jump from a solid hive to a hollow hive. In a solid hive there is no problem: the thickness of the walls combines with the area of the inside because it is really all one area at one height. But when the hive is hollow, then you are right: there is an area of four by four and there is use and everything is fine. Only one thing is not fine: there is no continuous area of four by four, because there are differences in height.

[Speaker E] So that’s Rabbi Yohanan’s answer: we treat it as if it were filled in. Okay, so he—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] says—so what does he answer? “And it appears…”

[Speaker G] Wait, I have one more small question. If there are differences in height, then in one part I don’t have ten and in the other part I do have ten, or in one part I have ten and in the other part it’s more than ten?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Call it whatever you like; in terms of the height of the wall it doesn’t matter. I don’t have one continuous floor of four by four.

[Speaker E] They are not on the same plane—the floor of the pit and the…

[Speaker G] But that means that overall, if so, in the hollow part I have a problem—in the height I’ll have a problem if I don’t have…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The height is ten; the height of the partitions is ten.

[Speaker G] If the plane isn’t level, then that’s an imaginary height. Wait, Yael, right? Yael. He’s saying that if the plane isn’t flat, then at some point on the plane I don’t have a height of ten.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why? There’s a pit below. Some kind of hive. Okay? The bottom of the hive has five point two. Okay? And now it has walls of zero point two on both sides, so the gross area is five point six, the diameter. So that’s fine, right? And the height is ten. The Kehillot Yaakov says yes, but there’s still a problem here. There is use here, there is area here, everything is excellent. But something else is missing. The area is not on the same level. Meaning, the area—

[Speaker G] The upper and lower? Right. Okay.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The zero point two of the walls and the five point two of the floor are at different heights. So there is no area here designated for use of five point six.

[Speaker G] Okay, fine, sorry, thank you.

[Speaker D] But earlier they talked about the pit and its rim, right?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Same thing. And apparently its basis is? Yes—

[Speaker D] Or not?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, yes, same thing.

[Speaker D] And apparently its basis is from the law of… wait, where are we?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Here, I’m marking it here. Okay, thanks.

[Speaker E] Yes, that’s it.

[Speaker D] “Havot rami” — what is that?

[Speaker E] You raise up the lower thing, no?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “Havot rami,” I—

[Speaker F] I can explain it from Sukkah.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, yes, go ahead.

[Speaker D] Up to this point—

[Speaker F] As far as I remember, I just learned this. In Sukkah there’s a question about the roofing. What happens if the roofing has beams, beams, but they’re not at the same height? Now the difference between them is more than three handbreadths, because if the difference is less than three handbreadths then it’s considered joined by the rule of lavud. Right. Now someone looking from above—even if there’s one beam like this, one beam lower, one beam higher, one beam lower—apparently someone looking from above or from below can see, if I drew it in two dimensions, I’d see one large surface. I wouldn’t really see the difference. In top projection. From, say, an aerial perspective from above, it looks like one surface. The concept of top projection, because the top projection of this is an area. Yes, so you can do “havot,” as if with the beams, whether from above or below, you can force them as though they’re on one plane.

[Speaker D] So from a top view, in a sparse sukkah, and likewise two corresponding beams, one above and one below, they combine by the law of havot rami, even though apparently—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait, up to here. What is he saying? In a sparse sukkah, we— a sparse sukkah is a sukkah whose roofing is at different heights and with gaps of more than three handbreadths. We say havot rami. What does havot rami mean? Throw it downward. Bang it down, bang it down. We bring it down from above. And see it as though everything is on the same level, or in other words, when I look in top projection, I don’t care that there are different levels here. I see everything as though it’s on the same level.

[Speaker E] Or to raise up the “havot”?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Doesn’t matter, it’s all on the same level. Havot rami. Whether from above or from below. Simply speaking it means downward, but it doesn’t matter. Okay.

[Speaker E] Even—

[Speaker D] Though apparently we only say havot rami opposite empty air, where we see the upper one as if it were below. But it doesn’t make sense to say about the thickness of the partitions as though it were brought down below, since its substance is solid from top to bottom. Meaning, there’s no air there—how can you fill what is already filled?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Havot rami—what happens in a sparse sukkah? In a sparse sukkah I have a beam here and a beam here. Under this beam there is air, so I see this beam as though it descended downward and now it’s on the same level as the lower one. But in our case, what happens with the hive or with the pit and its rim? I have a pit, and around it on the sides there are rims, a wall of the earth, okay? Now what happens here is that under the top of the earth there is the earth itself. You can’t lower it down to the height of the pit, sorry. Because there’s no air here—it’s filled, it isn’t air. So therefore apparently you can’t apply havot rami in such a situation. So the Kehillot Yaakov says: nevertheless, you can.

[Speaker G] If I look from above, in any case I don’t see the lower part.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Doesn’t matter, but the claim is that only when there is air below am I willing to see it as though it lands below. If below it’s filled, then top projection is not enough, so it has to be on the same level.

[Speaker D] But he says, nevertheless, one can say the opposite: that we see the floor as though it rises upward, and that too is by the law of havot rami. Meaning, it doesn’t matter whether to lower or to raise—you can do either.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You can raise the floor of the pit upward, and above the pit there really is only air, right? In the pit the path passes through air. Lowering the rims into the pit is impossible, because here along the way there is earth, not air. But if I raise the floor of the pit to the height of the rims, there’s no problem, because this path is a path that passes through air. So that’s fine; havot rami actually operates here in the opposite direction. And as we say regarding beams, we see the upper one as though it were below and the lower one as though it were above, in the Talmud / Talmudic text in Eruvin.

[Speaker E] And if the pit is full of water and not air? I understand. If the pit is full of water, not air?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Then in any case it’s a cavity, so that’s not a problem.

[Speaker E] Ah, okay, thanks.

[Speaker D] And the lower one as though it were above; see there in the first chapter of tractate Eruvin, page 14, or there in Sukkah.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So too here, also in our case, regarding—

[Speaker D] Havot rami, we see the floor as level with the thickness of the partitions, and there is here a place of four by four. Except that in any event it still isn’t fit for actual use, and afterward we say: if he wants, he can place something there and use it. Meaning, okay, up to here.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What is he saying here?

[Speaker D] He says, as I understood it, that there’s a requirement that the partitions have to be usable.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Meaning he says like this: look, in practice there’s a question here that we haven’t even put on the table. Maybe above?

[Speaker D] He says if I place—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] If I take the floor of the pit upward—that’s my havot rami—then why do I need the reasoning of “if he wants, he can place something on it,” and so on? Then they’re all basically here. It’s an area of four by four. What’s the problem?

[Speaker D] No, no, that’s in terms of the area. But you also need the second requirement: if he wants, he can place—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The use has to be actual use. It’s not enough that halakhically it’s defined as being on the same plane, on the same level. The use has to be use in practice. And about that the Talmud / Talmudic text asks: what about use? And it answers that he can place something on it, and therefore there is use as well. So what do we have now? All three requirements are fulfilled.

[Speaker D] Wait, wait, so that’s what he said regarding the hive? If so, then no.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That he said—

[Speaker D] About the pit and its rim.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait, wait, no, that he said about the pit. One second. Three requirements are fulfilled. Requirement one: that there be an area of four by four. Requirement two: that this area be on the same level. Requirement three: that it be fit for use. Three requirements, not two. Now what happens with the pit and its rim? There is a pit, and the earth around it surrounds it, yes? So with the pit and its rim I say like this: in terms of area, that is fulfilled because the top of the earth together with the area of the pit gives me four by four. It is on the same level because there is the law of havot rami, so I see the bottom rising upward. And it is fit for use because I can place something on it. Each one of those solves one of the problems, a different problem that we have here in the matter. Okay? Now he comes to answer what he asked.

[Speaker G] Can we go back for a second to the part about what solves the four-by-four?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The joining of the area of the top of the earth together with the bottom of the pit in top view. In top projection we see it as four by four.

[Speaker E] What?

[Speaker G] The walls of the pit together with the cavity of the pit? No.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The area of the bottom of the pit together with the area found above the earth—of the earth. Look at it in top projection. In top projection you see here a total area of four by four, part of it pit and part of it piles of earth. Okay? Okay. Who’s next? Is that the end?

[Speaker E] I’m ready. Go ahead. And based on what has been explained, it follows that the basis of the law that the thickness of the partition completes the measure of four by four, and that havot rami is effective because we see them as though they are level, and there is here a place of four by four—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait, one second, let me remind you of one more thing. What was the difficulty he wanted to answer in the first place? You have to keep your head in the game. We’ve already come a long way. What is the difficulty he is trying to resolve? There was a difficulty on Rabbeinu Chananel.

[Speaker E] Why do the walls combine with the cavity?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What—

[Speaker I] What’s the difference between a solid object and an object where he requires from it—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What’s the difference between a solid object and an object whose gross width is five point six but is hollow in the middle? Apparently the second should be even more of a domain than the first, but Rabbeinu Chananel says the opposite. The solid one is a domain, and the second is not a domain. How can that be? So now he explains, in light of everything he prepared until now—now comes the punch line.

[Speaker E] And behold, Nachmanides of blessed memory in Milhamot, in the topic / passage of the hive, wrote that we do not say lavud, or “bring down the partition,” or “extend the partition upward,” with vessels. Meaning, with vessels you can’t use “extend upward” and thereby make it a domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We don’t say all these fictional laws—“bring down,” “extend upward,” lavud, all these halakhic completions—we don’t say them with vessels in order to turn them into a domain. Meaning, when there is a large vessel like the hive, four by four and ten high, then if it has the proper measure, it becomes a domain. But if in order to complete its measure it needs various special laws, then we do not say that the vessel becomes a domain by means of those special laws. Those laws were said about domains, not about vessels.

[Speaker E] And although a vessel too can become a domain, that is only when… it has the required measure in reality, but not by means of a legal fiction. And this will be explained, God willing, later. And now the position of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) of blessed memory is very well settled: that with the hive the thickness of the vessel does not combine to four by four, because according to what has been explained, the fact that with the pit and its rim it combines to four is only by force of the legal rule of havot rami. And so it seems to me.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] As above, as above, like we already explained.

[Speaker E] And all this is with the pit and its rim. But with the hive, which is a vessel that does not have a cavity of four by four, we do not say havot rami in order to make it a domain by means of a legal rule, unless it has the required measure in reality. Therefore it is impossible here to combine the thickness of the partitions with the measure of four by four in order to make it a domain. And it is not similar to that case in Eruvin, which is speaking about the rim of the pit and the rock and not about vessels. And correct, with God’s help—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] blessed name. So what is he saying?

[Speaker E] So he’s saying that in the hive there is no cavity of four by four, so it’s a vessel—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But only together with the thickness of the partitions. And then what? What problem do we have? There is use, there is area too—

[Speaker E] But you can’t do havot rami.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Wait, wait, step by step. We have the hive. We’re talking about the hive, whose gross area is five point six.

[Speaker E] But—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In the cavity alone there isn’t five point six. So let’s see which of the three requirements is fulfilled here. The general area exists, right? Yes. And use too—use also exists, you can place things on it. But it’s not on the same level. Because it’s not on the same level unless we apply havot rami and say that the floor of the hive rises to be level with the top part of the partitions. But we do not say havot rami with vessels; a hive is a vessel.

[Speaker F] But regarding the solid one, we’ll basically have two possibilities here. If we go with Rabbeinu Chananel’s approach, if we explain him to mean “extend upward,” then we don’t say “extend upward” with vessels, and therefore the solid one is also a problem. But if we go with the approach you said, that here we don’t need “extend upward,” but simply that there are already partitions anyway, then it will indeed be considered a domain.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s a very interesting comment; actually I thought about it. Apparently that is evidence for what I said earlier against the Kehillot Yaakov and Rabbi Chaim, but I’m not one hundred percent sure. Because we have to check whether the “extend upward” that they say—after all, that “extend upward” doesn’t complete the measure here, it only—he says, everything is here overall, I just see the “extend upward” as partitions that surround the cavity. It doesn’t complete the measure of the hive so that it becomes the proper size. It may be that there too, even according to Nachmanides, they would still say the legal rule applies—I don’t know. But simply speaking you’re right that this is evidence for what I said earlier. Again, let me summarize what he said. What he basically said is this: in order for a domain to be a private domain, three conditions have to be fulfilled. One condition: it must have an area of four by four, even gross area. A second condition: there has to be use. Use. A third condition: that this area be on the same level. Each such thing has to be examined separately. Now he says: what happens with the pit and its rim? With the pit and its rim, overall there is area—the pit plus the rims have enough area. There is use, because you can place things on it. The same floor level also exists, because we apply havot rami to the bottom of the pit upward, right? So everything is fine. What happens with the hive? With the hive there is area, and there is also use because you can place things on it, but it isn’t on the same level. Because the law of havot rami was not stated with vessels, and the hive is a vessel. The pit and its rim are not a vessel; there we do say havot rami. But the hive is a vessel. With vessels we do not say havot rami. And since that is so, it is not on the same level, and therefore Rabbeinu Chananel says that the cavity itself must have five point six, without combining the area of the partitions to it. Not because the area doesn’t combine—the area does combine. Because of the level requirement, you can’t do it. That is the novelty of the Kehillot Yaakov. And therefore I have no problem with a solid hive, because with a solid hive this is not havot rami; it is physically on the same level.

[Speaker E] Okay, but what would Rashi say about that? I didn’t understand. What would Rashi say about that?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What does Rashi need to say about that?

[Speaker E] You’re saying that he includes in the area the walls together with the cavity, so then it doesn’t have a cavity of four by four.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] First of all, Rashi doesn’t owe Maimonides anything, and he can say that we do apply havot rami even with vessels. Okay. It’s only Nachmanides, whom I’m using to resolve the issue because I have a difficulty. Okay. Up to here. At least we managed to get through the Kehillot Yaakov. Rabbi Chaim we didn’t even manage to touch. I knew we wouldn’t finish, but I thought maybe we’d start. Fine. But I hope we got our lesson from this; I hope that overall we learned something.

[Speaker E] On Tuesday at the university.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Tuesday at the university, unless another notice comes out. Tuesday at the university. We start with his class, and then I’ll send you the work plan.

[Speaker E] The order—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] of work.

[Speaker C] So he says that we start at 8:45 at the university? Yes. And it’ll be until 1:15? Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker G] Thank you very much.

[Speaker H] Thank you very much, Sabbath peace.

[Speaker G] I just wanted to say for a moment that I won’t be able to come on Tuesday. Yes, I have something at work that I absolutely have to be there for, and there’s also something on the 24th, but that’s for another time. They moved it, they moved the first one to Friday; it was supposed to be this week. Yes. Right. Yes. Okay, fine. Thank you very much, Sabbath peace.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Sabbath peace.