My question is on the second attempted proof that Hezek Reiyah is objective nezek. After positing the case of the fallen wall, which needs to be rebuilt up to a minimum of 4 amot, as a proof for hezek reyah it is dismissed by the point that a falled wall is different either becuase the original decision requires one to upkeep the wall or becuase you are used to having the privacy of a wall.
What I don't understand is the next question and answer on this proof. The difference between the fallen wall and the new wall is so obvious that we assume the Rabbi who suggested this connection must have been aware???? When we say that we need the seyfa to teach 4 amot what are we refering to? We teach 4 amot in the context of the mishna or we teach 4 amot in the context of the gemarah figuing out what Hezek Reaya is?
Thank you for your time.
A. Salzberg, Jerusalem, Israel
We are teaching 4 Amos in connection with the Mishnah (below 5a) which states that even though the original wall was higher than 4 Amos, nevertheless, since it fell down, we do not force the neighbors to rebuild it higher than 4 Amos. Rashi 5a DH Mechayvin explains that this is because 4 Amos is sufficient to remove Hezek Re'iyah.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom