Binyamin ha'Tzadik was in charge of the Kupah shel Tzedakah. In a year of draught - a widow once approached him for help for herself and her seven sons.

When he told her that there was no money left in the Kupah - she retorted that, unless he helped her, a woman and her seven sons would all die ...

... whereupon he sustained them all from his own pocket.

When, a short while later, he fell ill and was about to die - the angels 'reminded' Hash-m that He himself had said that someone who saves one person in Yisrael is considered as having saved a whole world. Consequently, it was not just for Binyamin ha'Tzadik who had saved a woman and her seven sons, to die so young.

Immediately - his decree was torn up, and he was given an extra twenty-two-year lease of life.

In a time of famine - Munbaz ha'Melech emptied the royal treasury containing the treasures that both he and his ancestors had horded, and distributed them among the poor.

His family objected - on the grounds that he was squandering the wealth that his fathers and his grandfathers had amassed.

He pointed to six advantages that his method of savings had over their's, each based on a Pasuk. From the Pasuk in Tehilim "Emes me'Eretz Titzmach, ve'Tzedek mi'Shamayim Nishkaf" he extrapolated that his treasury, as opposed to their's, was stored in Heaven. From the Pasuk ...

... also in Tehilim "Tzedek u'Mishpat M'chon Kis'echa", he extrapolated - that he had stored it in a place where it could not be stolen.

... in Yeshayah "Imru Tzadik Ki Tov, Ki P'ri Ma'aleleihem Yocheilu" - that he had stored away something that bore fruit.

From the Pasuk in Mishlei "P'ri Tzadik Eitz Chayim, ve'Loke'ach Nefashos Chacham", he learned that he, as opposed to his ancestors, had amassed souls. And from the Pasuk ...

... in Ki Seitzei "u'Lecha Tih'yeh Tzedakah" - that he had saved something from which he himself would benefit.

... in Yeshayah "ve'Halach Lefanecha Tzidkecha, K'vod Hash-m Ya'asfecha" - that he had saved something for the World to Come.

We learned in our Mishnah that the moment one purchases a house in a town, one becomes a resident. The author of our Mishnah not be Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - because, according to his opinion cited in a Beraisa, one needs only to purchase - a small plot of land in order to become a resident.

In another Beraisa however, he does agree with our Mishnah. There he rules - that one becomes a resident when one purchases sufficient land on which to build a house.

We reconcile the two Beraisos - by establishing this as a Machlokes Tana'im as to what Raban Shimon ben Gamliel really holds.

Our Mishnah now discusses the division of a jointly-owned Chatzer, which one of the partners is entitled to enforce - if it measures at least eight Amos by four (so that each partner will receive four by four Amos).

According to the Tana Kama, before one of the partners may insist on the division of ...

... a jointly-owned field, it must produce nine Kabin for each partner. Rebbi Yehudah says - nine half-Kabin.

... a jointly-owned vegetable-garden, it must produce half a Kav for each partner. Rebbi Yehudah says - a quarter of a Kav.

The Tana gauges what is fit to divide in this regard, by a large room, a dove-cot, a cloak or a bathhouse - by whether, after dividing it, each half retains its identity (whether people still refer to it as 'a dining-room' ... 'a dove-cot' ... ), or not.

The other two things included in the Tana's list are - an oil-press and a wheat-field with its own spring.

The reason that this wheat-field does not require nine Kabin for each partner is - due to the fact that it has its own spring. Consequently, even if is not fit to produce crops, it can be used to plant other seeds.

The Tana adds that if both partners agree, then the above Shi'urim are of no consequence. He needs to tell us this - only to balance the Seifa regarding ha'Kodesh, where the Mishnah rules 'Af-al-Pi she'Sheneihem Rotzim, Lo Yachloku').

When Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that the four Amos in the Mishnah does not include the entrances - he means that besides a minimum of four Amos in the Chatzer, each owner is also entitled to four Amos in front of his entrance ...

... which is considered part of the house, because he needs it to unload from his donkey into the house.

And his opinion is substantiated by a Beraisa - which gives the area required by each owner as eight Amos (four in the Chatzer plus four in front of the entrance) by four.

Others present the statement of Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan - in the form of an answer, to reconcile our Mishnah, which gives a minimum requirement of four Amos, and the Beraisa, which gives eight.

When Rav Huna says that a Chatzer is divided according to its entrances - he means that if, for example, Reuven inherits a part of the house with two entrances from the Chatzer to the house, whilst Shimon inherited a section of house with only one entrance, then Reuven will take two thirds of the Chatzer, and Shimon, one third.

According to Rav Chisda - each one takes four Amos in front of his entrance, and the rest, they divide equally.

The Beraisa supports Rav Chisda. Abaye explains, that when the Tana adds that if one of them has an entrance of eight Amos, he takes the eight Amos next to the entrance plus four Amos in the Chatzer, he means that - he takes eight by four Amos (and not eight by eight).

Ameimar rules that someone who owns a pit for date-stones in the Chatzer - takes four Amos next to the pit in each direction.

The date-stones - are used as animal food.

Ameimar's concession will not apply however - where the pit is close to the entrance to the owner's house, because then he can throw the date-stones directly into the pit (and he no longer needs the space next to the pit).

Rav Huna does not grant someone whose Achsadra (sun-porch) opens into the Chatzer four Amos next to the entrance - because, since it has no walls, the owner can take his donkey inside and unload it there (so he doesn't need four Amos in the Chatzer).

Initially, he reconciles this ruling with the Beraisa quoted by Rav Sheishes, which specifically equates an Achsadra with a house in this regard - by establishing the latter by an Achsadra de'bei Rav, which has four full walls, and windows to let in the sunlight.

We object to this answer however - on the grounds that it would then be obvious that he has four Amos, and a Beraisa would not be needed to tell us that it does.

Rav Huna finally establishes the Beraisa - by an Achsadra Rumisa (a Roman Achsadra, which has walls, only they do not reach the ceiling). And the Tana is teaching us that he has four Amos in the Chatzer, and is not obligated to take his donkey into the Achsadra and unload it there.

The Beraisa - grants the owner of a porch, a Roman Achsadra and a balcony four Amos in the Chatzer.

The Tana grants the owner of a balcony with five doors which open out onto it - four Amos at the foot of the ladder leading up to the balcony.

Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Yanai whether a chicken-coop with an entrance to the Chatzer is also allowed four Amos. He replied - in the negative, because the chickens can jump via the top of the wall into the chicken-coop.

Rava asked Rav Nachman whether, if a house with an entrance to the Chatzer is only half walled, the owner has four Amos in the Chatzer next to the entrance or not. He answered - in the negative ...

... even if it is the outer half that is walled, because even there, he is able to lead the donkey through the walled section of the house and unload it in the section that is open.

Rav Huna asked Rav Ami whether, if Reuven, whose house adjoins two Chatzeiros, and who has until now used Chatzer a., now wishes to switch over to Chatzer b., the members of Chatzer b. are entitled to stop him from doing to. He answered that - they are.

When he asked him whether the king's soldiers, whom the residents of the town are obligated to put up, are billeted according to the number of people per household (see Rabeinu Gershom) or according to the number of entrances to the Chatzer - he ruled like the first side of the She'eilah.

We cite a Beraisa in support of Rav Ami's ruling, which then rules that the manure in the Chatzer - is divided according to the number of entrances (because they tend to throw the trash out on to the trash-heaps via the entrances).

Rav Huna rules that if a resident of a Mavoy wishes to enclose the four Amos outside his entrance from the Chatzer to the Mavoy (see Tosfos DH 'Echad') - the other residents of the Mavoy can stop him, because it causes them to have to walk an extra stretch round his walls when traversing the Mavoy.

The Beraisa rules that the residents of the other four Chatzeros that open into the Mavoy ...

... may all use the section of Mavoy corresponding to the outer Chatzer (nearest the street).

... may not use the section of Mavoy corresponding to the inner Chatzer.

The determining principle behind this Halachah (based on the fact that a Mavoy is closed at one end) is - that the residents of each Chatzer may only use as much of the Chatzer as they need to get to the main road at the other end (but not the section of Chatzer that leads back to the dead-end).

This clashes with Rav Huna's previous ruling - since he authorizes all the residents of the same Mavoy to stop another resident from enclosing his four Amos in the Mavoy, even those who live closer to the Mavoy's exit.

We answer this - by presenting a Machlokes Tana'im on this point (as we shall now see).

The Tana of another Beraisa authorizes the residents of one Mavoy to stop a resident of another Mavoy from opening a new entrance on to their Chatzer, as we explained earlier. Rebbi rules that a resident of a Mavoy who has a door that opens on to the Chatzer which he sealed off - has the right to reopen it, should he so wish.

For Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar to have responded 'Chamesh Chatzeros he'Pesuchos le'Mavoy, Kulan Mishtamshos be'Mavoy', the Tana Kama must have said - 've'Chein Chamesh Chatzeros ha'Pesuchos le'Mavoy, Kulan Mishtamshos Im ha'Chitzonah, ve'ha'Chitzonah Mishtameshes le'Atzmah ... '.

This proves that Rav Huna's Din is a Machlokes Tana'im (as we explained).

... and that Rav Huna himself follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

We just learned in the Beraisa that a resident of a Mavoy is permitted to reopen the former entrance to the Chatzer that he sealed. Rava qualifies this ruling however - by confining to where he did not remove the door-posts and lintel, before doing so (a sign that he intends to reopen it some time in the future). But if he did, then he will need permission from the other residents of the Mavoy before reopening it.

Abaye supports Rava's ruling with a Beraisa. The Beraisa repeats this distinction with regard to Tum'as Meis, where the Tana rules that if there is a Meis in a house whose only entrance the owner sealed-off ...

... leaving the door-posts intact - only the area outside the sealed doorway is Metamei whoever enters it, but not the area surrounding the rest of the house.

... after removing the door-posts - then four Amos next to the entire house is Metamei whoever enters.

The reason for the latter ruling is - because, since the house does not even have a potential exit, the Chachamim gave it the Din of a grave, which is Metamei whoever comes within four Amos of it.

Chazal issued this decree - to prevent people dealing with Taharos from coming too close to the grave and becoming Tamei be'Ohel without even realizing it.