POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafSukah 3
SUKAH 3 - Mrs. Rachelle Potack with Marsha and Larry Wachsman are dedicating
this Daf in friendship and support of the Dafyomi Advancement Forum and
1) A SMALL SUKAH
(a) (R. Shmuel b. Yitzhok) A Sukah must be able to accommodate
most of a person (his head and most of his body) and his
table (7x7 Tefachim - 6 for his body and 1 for his table).
2) A HOUSE OF LESS THAN FOUR AMOS
(b) Question (R. Aba): Is this in accordance with Beis Shamai?
(c) Answer (R. Shmuel b. Yitzhok): Who else?!
1. Question (R. Aba): Who taught you this?
(e) Question: Maybe there is no Machlokes Beis Hillel and Beis
Shamai over a small Sukah!?
2. Answer (R. Shmuel b. Yitzhok): Beis Shamai and it is
1. Perhaps Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai argue only where a
Sukah is *large enough* for him and his table.
(f) Answer: We can demonstrate from the resolution of two
Beraisos that they argue by such a small Sukah as well.
2. When he, in that case, sits at the door and places his
table inside the house, they may argue over whether we
worry about him "following his table" into the house
[Beis Shamai] or not [Beis Hillel].
3. If, however, the Sukah were so small that only his body
(and not his table) could fit in, then even Beis Hillel
might agree that this is not considered a dwelling?
4. This suggestion gains support from the Mishnah which
speaks of one who has his table in the house, but does
*not* discuss the (more basic) issue of one whose Sukah
is too small for his table altogether (presumably
because that would not be a Machlokes).
1. The first Beraisa:
(g) (Mar Zutra) The Mishnah (28b) also indicates this extension
of the Machlokes since it uses the language of Kosher and
Pasul which indicates that it is speaking about the *Sukah
itself* being Kosher or Pasul (meaning its size), but not
about his ability to fulfil the Mitzvah with it (for fear of
being drawn into the house).
i. (Tana Kama) A Sukah needs only to be large enough
to contain the majority of his body and his table.
2. The second Beraisa:
ii. (Rebbi) It must be 4x4 Amos.
i. (Rebbi) It must be 4x4 Amos.
3. We see that the (second) Beraisa does not mention his
ii. (Chachamim) Even if it only can contain his head
and the majority of his body.
4. Question: But the Beraisos are contradictory!
5. Answer: We must conclude that the first Beraisa is Beis
Shamai (body plus table) and the second is Beis Hillel
(even body alone is sufficient), and they indeed argue
even by a small Sukah.
(h) Question: But the wording of the Mishnah is, "He who was in
a Sukah [and his table was in the house]..." which implies
that we are speaking of a sufficiently large Sukah!?
(i) Answer: They argue both by a large Sukah (if he is Yotzei if
his table is in the house) and by a small Sukah (is it a
1. To fit this into the Mishnah we need to emend the text.
2. It should read, 'If one were in and his table was
out... it is a Machlokes; and if it were so small... it
is also a Machlokes.'
(a) Question: Are we to understand that this Beraisa (which
lists 10 Halachos for which a house of less than 4x4 Amos is
not qualified) is Rebbi and not the Rabanan?
(b) Answer: No, the Rabanan could agree that regarding permanent
homes, four Amos is the minimum Shiur, without disqualifying
a Sukah (Diras Ar'ai) which is smaller.
(c) Five of the above disqualifications are clear since the word
Bayis is used in reference to these Halachos.
1. Bayis is written by Mezuzah, Ma'akeh, Tumas Negaim,
Chalatah of a house in a walled city, and by returning
from the battlefront for a new house.
(d) Three of the above are clear since they require a place fit
2. We understand that a house of less than four Amos would
not qualify as a Bayis.
1. Participating in an Eiruv Chatzeiros, restricting the
other B'nei HaChatzer, and storing the collected Eiruv
Chatzeiros in the home.
(e) The ninth disqualification (that it will not extend the
boundary of one city towards the other) is clear.
2. These require actual dwellings, not such a small house.
3. We can infer that the Shituf Mevuos *could* be stored
in that home.
i. This is inferred from the restriction stated
regarding storing the Eiruv Chatzeiros.
4. The Mishnah permits this by teaching that the Eiruv
Chatzeiros is stored in the Chatzer while the Shituf
Mevuos is stored in the Mavui.
ii. This is so since it is not worse than storing it
in the Chatzer itself.
i. Question: How can we say that we may store the
Eiruv Chatzeiros in the Chatzer (presumably,
anywhere in the Chatzer) given the Mishnah which
says that it is invalid if left in any of the
small structures in the Chatzer!?
ii. Answer: Rather, the Beraisa means by 'in the
Chatzer' that it is stored in one of the *homes*
of the Chatzer (as opposed to another Chatzer),
while Shituf Mevuos may, as stated, be left in any
protected place in the Mavui.
1. This is so because a house of less than 4x4 Amos is not
even considered as legitimate a dwelling as a Burgenin.
(f) The tenth disqualification is that brothers and partners
cannot divide it.
2. A Burgenin is, at least, fit for its defined function,
unlike this small 'house.'
1. We assume that this means that one cannot force the
other to divide a house of less than 4x4 Amos.
2. The inference is that anything larger *would* be
subject to a forced division.
3. Question: The Mishnah has taught that a division may
only be forced if *each* partner would end up with at
least four Amos!?
4. Answer: We mean that a house of less than 4x4 Amos does
not have the 'Din Chalukah in a Chatzer.'
i. This 'Din Chalukah in a Chatzer' is the method for
dividing the Chatzer adjoining its houses after
the partners have decided who will take each
ii. R. Huna holds that it is divided and allocated
according to the number of doorways which open
iii. R. Chisda holds that each door must be given four
Amos (depth, by the width of the door) with the
balance divided equally between the partners.
iv. Both would agree, however, that a house of less
than 4x4 Amos does not exact space allocation in
the Chatzer (since this structure is likely to be
taken down given its lack of utility).