ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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
(a) Queen Helen sat in a Sukah that was Kasher according to Rebbi Yehudah.
According to the Amora'im above, who learned that Rebbi Yehudah and the
Rabbanan argue by a small Sukah (of four by four Amos or of seven by seven
Tefachim) - this means that she actually sat in a small Sukah. But since
when does a Queen sit in a small Sukah?
(b) There is no problem according to Rav Yoshi'ah, who establishes the
Machlokes by a Sukah whose walls do not reach the S'chach - because there is
nothing unusual about a Queen sitting in such a Sukah.
(c) We therefore conclude that she must have been sitting in a small room in
the Sukah - and the reason that the elders did not object according to the
Rabbanan, is because, according to them, her sons were sitting in the large
section of the Sukah; whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains that they were all
sitting together with their mother in the small Sukah.
(d) This answer will only go according to Rav Huna (who gives the small size
Sukah as four Amos, but not according to Rav Chanan bar Rabah - because, how
can one possibly fit Queen Helen's seven sons into a space of seven by seven
Tefachim (which is the equivalent of one head, most of one's body and one's
(a) According to the Halachah, the minimum size Sukah is *seven by seven
Tefachim* - one which can hold a person's head, most of him and his small
table (consisting of one Tefach by one Tefach).
(b) This goes like Beis Shamai.
(c) According to Beis Hillel, a Sukah of *six by six Tefachim* (which can
hold one's head and most of one's body) is Kasher.
(d) If they would argue about the Shiur of a Sukah Gedolah, they would be
arguing about someone who is sitting in a large Sukah, but whose table is
inside the house. Beis Shamai forbids this - in case one will be drawn after
one's table; Beis Hillel is not worried that this might happen.
1. The Mishnah (on 28a) which describes the Machlokes between Beis Shamai
and Beis Hillel when most of the person *was* in the Sukah and his table in
the house - speaks about a *big* Sukah, and they are arguing about whether
or, not, we issue a decree here or not; whereas the Beraisa which states the
Shiur Sukah by one which can *hold* most of him plus his table - is speaking
about a *small* one.
(b) Rebbi argues in both Beraisos; according to him, the minimum Shiur of a
Sukah is four Amos.
2. The author of the latter Beraisa which requires the Sukah to fit in the
table as well - is Beis Shamai; whereas the author of the other Beraisa
which gives the Shiur as one that holds most of him (even without his table)
is Beis Hillel.
(c) The Gemara proves from the Lashon of the Mishnah later, whose wording is
'Beis Shamai Poslin, u'Beis Hillel Machshirin' - that Beis Shamai and Beis
Hillel also argue over a large Sukah, when one's table is inside the house,
because, if they their Machlokes was confined to a the Shiur of a small
Sukah, then the Tana ought to have said (instead of 'Poslin' and
'Machshirin', 'Machzekes' and 'Einah Machzekes'.
(d) According to Gemara's conclusion, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue both
by the minimum size of a small Sukah, and by a large Sukah, if one's table
is in the house.
(a) According to the Beraisa, a room which is less than four Amos by four
Amos is Patur from a Mezuzah and from a parapet; neither is it subject to
The Rabbanan of Rebbi validate a Sukah of less than four Amos - because a
Sukah is supposed to be a temporary dwelling (that is made to last only
seven days) but in other areas, even they will agree that it is not
considered a house.
(b) 've'Eino Nechlat be'Batei Arei Chomah' means - that if someone buys a
house (or a room) that is less than four by four Amos in a walled city, the
sale does not become finalized at the end of a year; but, like a field, it
may be redeemed any time until the Yovel. Otherwise, it reverts to the
original owner when the Yovel year arrives.
1. ... 've'Ein Me'arvin Bah' - means that the owner of a house less than
four by four Amos, does not need to participate in the Eruv Chazteros, as if
he was living in the Chatzer.
(d) We initially interpret 've'Ein ha'Achin ve'ha'Shutfin Cholkin Bo' - to
mean that one brother or partner cannot force the other to divide a house
that is less than four by four Amos (see answer to question 9b).
2. ... 've'Ein Manichin Bah Eruv' - that the participants of the Eruv (who
are obligated to place their Eruv in one of the houses in the Chatzer),
cannot use *this* house as their base.
3. ... 've'Ein Mishtatfin Bah' - that if this is the only house in a
particular Chatzer, that Chatzer does not need to participate in the Shituf
Mavo'os (to permit the members of the other Chatzeros in that Mavoy to carry
in the Mavoy).
(a) Mezuzah, Ma'akeh, Tum'as Nega'im, Batei Arei Chomah and someone who
built a new house returning from the battle-front have in common - that the
Torah refers to them all as "Bayis".
(b) The owner of a house that is less than four by four Amos is not
obligated to participate in an Eruv Chatzeros, nor does he need to
participate in a Shituf Mavo'os, nor is it eligible to house the bread of an
Eruv - because it is not fit to serve as a residence (and the reason for all
of these is because of the house's function as a residence).
(c) It is nevertheless eligible to house the food of a Shituf Mavo'os -
because it is not worse than the air of the Chatzer, which is eligible, too.
In fact, the reason here too, is because we consider the roof and walls of
the house as if they had been removed (see answer to question 10).
(a) Someone who lives in a gate-house, a stoep or a public balcony does not
prevent the other people in the Chatzer from carrying - because people are
forever passing through the house, and it is unfit to serve as a residence.
(b) An Eruv Chatzeros that is placed in any of these - is not Kasher.
(c) When the Mishnah in Eruvin says ...
(d) The Chidush of the Beraisa is that the Eruv or the Shituf must be placed
in a house of *that* Chatzer, or in a courtyard belonging to *that* Mavoy,
and not of another Chatzer or Mavoy.
- ... 'Eruvei Chatzeros *be'Chatzer'* - it means '*be'Bayis* she'be'Chatzer'.
- ... 'Shitufei Mavo'os *be'Mavoy*' - '*be'Chatzer* she'ba'Mavoy'.
(a) An Ibur between two towns - is a house that is located between two towns
that are more than 70 2/3 Amos and less than 141 1/3 Amos apart. Had the
house not been there, they would have been considered *two* towns, as far as
Eruv Techumin is concerned; the house combines them, making them into *one*.
(b) A 'Burganin' is a small willow-hut used by bird-hunters.
(c) It *is* eligible to serve as an Ibur between two towns.
(d) A house that is less than four Amos by four Amos is *not* - because,
unlike a Burganin, it does not serve the purpose for which it was built.
(a) The minimum size courtyard that one partner can force the other to
divide is eight Amos - so that each partner gets at least four Amos.
A brother or a partner who has a house that is less than four by four Amos
does not receive a corresponding portion in the Chatzer - because his house
is not permanent; it stands to be demolished.
(b) When the Beraisa writes that brothers and partners do not divide a
Chatzer that is less than four by four Amos - it is referring to the Din
that partners divide a Chatzer according to its entrances - which we are
about to explain.
(c) According to Rav Huna, the Chatzer is divided into as many equal
portions as there are entrances, and each partner receives as many portions
as he has entrances. Rav Chisda says - that each partner takes four Amos of
Chatzer for each entrance, and the remainder of the Chatzer, they divide