Responsa for Bava Batra 196:15
מאי קמ"ל
THE HEIGHT … HALF ITS LENGTH AND HALF ITS WIDTH. PROOF OF THIS? — RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: LIKE THE TEMPLE STRUCTURE. Who taught, 'PROOF OF THIS…'? — Some say. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel taught it; and this is the purport of what has been said: Whence the PROOF OF THIS? — R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: All [dimensions must be in proportion] LIKE [those of] THE TEMPLE STRUCTURE. And some say, the first Tanna has taught this, and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is astonished [at it] and says to him [to the first Tanna] thus: Whence the proof? [Is it] from the Temple structure? Does everybody make [houses] LIKE THE TEMPLE STRUCTURE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Other houses do not require heights in similar proportion. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> It was taught: Others say [that] its height [must be] equal to [the length of] its beams.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Laid across the width of the house. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> Let it [then] be said [simply]. 'The height [must be] equal to its width'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> — If you wish, it can be said [that] a house is wider at the top;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was usual to make stone walls thinner on top than below, so as to give them a broader basis. The beams which span the house at the top would consequently be longer than the width of the house below. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> and, if preferred, it can be said [the expression 'equal to the length of its beams' is necessary] because there are apertures [in the wall in which the beams are fixed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ends of the beams, resting in the apertures, are included in the length of the beams. A beam, therefore, represents a greater length than the space between the inner side of the walls. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> R. Hanina [once] went out to the country, [and] a contradiction between [the following] verses was pointed out to him. It is written, <i>And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings VI, 2. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> but it is [also] written, <i>And before the Sanctuary which was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that the height was not thirty cubits, as stated in v. 2, but twenty. ');"><sup>19</sup></span></i> thereof!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. v. 20. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> He replied unto them: [The last mentioned verse] reckons from the edge of the Cherubim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose height was ten cubits. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> upwards. What does [this kind of measurement]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is the height measured from the Cherubim and not, as might be expected, from the ground? ');"><sup>22</sup></span> teach us?
Teshuvot Maharam
A. If the size of the room is ten cubits by ten cubits, A may force the other partners to agree to a partition since he, A, owning one quarter of the room, would receive a "usable unit" upon a partition even according to Ri who sets the minimum for such "usable unit" at six cubits by four cubits. For these measurements, the talmudic cubit of twenty-four thumb-breadths should be used. Even though such partition might leave C, D and E with parts smaller than this minimum, A would still be entitled to effect a partition of the property since before Jacob sold his share to C, D, and E each partner (A, B and Jacob) would have been entitled to a "usable unit." Moreover, A could have forced Jacob to agree to a partition even if he, A, would not have received a "usable unit." The restriction upon partners not to partition a house unless each partner receives a "usable unit", was decreed by the Rabbis for the benefit of those partners who were to receive the smaller parts. Therefore, A would have been entitled to waive this rabbinic decree that had been designed for his personal benefit.
SOURCES: Cr. 234: Am II, 178; Mord. B. B. 569; cf. Mord. B. M. 384; Agudah B. M. 158.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. The Talmud records a difference of opinion on this subject between the Rabbis who decided in the affirmative and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel who decided in the negative. Some post-talmudic authorities accept the former opinion, while others accept the latter. The talmudic discussion of the opinion of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, leads us to accept the opinion of the Rabbis.