(a)Queen Helen sat in a Sukah that was Kasher according to Rebbi Yehudah. What is the problem with that, according to the Amora'im above, who learn that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan argue by a small Sukah?
(b)Why is there no problem according to Rav Yoshiyah, who establishes the Machlokes by a Sukah whose walls do not reach the Sechach?
(c)R. Ashi concludes that she must have been sitting in a small room in the Sukah. What then, is the Machlokes between the Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah (as to why the elders did not object)?
(d)This answer will only go according to Rav Huna (who gives the minimum size Sukah as four Amos). Why will it not work according to Rav Chanan bar Rabah?
1)
(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 Rabanan 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 Sechach - 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 Rabanan, 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 small table).
2)
(a)According to the Halachah, what is the minimum size Sukah?
(b)Like which Tana does this go?
(c)What do Beis Hillel say?
(d)We ask how we know that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are not arguing by a large Sukah. What would be their Machlokes if they did ?
2)
(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 Shi'ur 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.
3)
(a)How do we reconcile ...
1. ... the Mishnah in the second Perek, which states the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel by someone most of whom was in the Sukah and his table in the house, with the Beraisa which states the Shi'ur Sukah by one which can hold most of him plus his table?
2. ... the Beraisa with another Beraisa which gives the Shi'ur as one that holds most of him (even without his table)?
(b)Rebbi argues in both Beraisos. What does Rebbi say?
(c)What do we prove from the Lashon of the Mishnah later, which presents the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel 'Mi she'Hayah Rosho v'Rubo b'Soch ha Sukah ... '?
(d)How do we finally reconcile one Beraisa where the Tana Kama of Rebbi validates a Sukah that holds 'Rosho v'Tubo v'Shulchano', with another one where the Chachamim of Rebbi validate one which holds 'Rosho v'Rubo'? What does this prove?
3)
(a)
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 Shi'ur Sukah by one which can hold most of him plus his table - is speaking about a small one.
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 Shi'ur as one that holds most of him (even without his table) is Beis Hillel.
(b)Rebbi argues in both Beraisos; according to him, the minimum Shi'ur of a Sukah is four Amos.
(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 Shi'ur 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.
4)
(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. Is it subject to Tum'as Nega'im?
(b)What does 've'Eino Nechlat b'Batei Arei Chomah' mean? What Din does it then have?
(c)A soldier does not return from the battle-front if he just built a house of less than four by four Amos. What is the meaning of ...
1. ... 've'Ein Me'arvin Bah'?
2. ... 've'Ein Manichin Bah Eruv'?
3. ... 've'Ein Mishtatfin Bah'?
(d)How do we initially interpret 've'Ein ha'Achin v'ha'Shutfin Cholkin Bo'?
4)
(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 Tum'as Nega'im.
(b)'ve'Eino Nechlat b'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.
(c)
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.
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).
(d)We initially interpret 've'Ein ha'Achin v'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).
5)
(a)Is it possible to establish the above Beraisa like the Rabanan of Rebbi, who validate a Sukah of less than four Amos?
5)
(a)The Rabanan 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.
3b----------------------------------------3b
6)
(a)A house that measures less than four by four Amos is not subject to Mezuzah, Ma'akeh, Tum'as Nega'im, Batei Arei Chomah and someone who built a new house returning from the battle-front. Why is that?
(b)Why is a house that is less than four by four Amos neither obligated to participate in an Eruv Chatzeros, nor to participate in a Shituf Mavo'os, nor is it eligible to house the bread of an Eruv?
(c)Then why is it eligible to house the food of a Shituf Mavo'os?
6)
(a)A house that measures less than four by four Amos is not subject to Mezuzah, Ma'akeh, Tum'as Nega'im, Batei Arei Chomah and someone who built a new house returning from the battle-front - because the Torah refers to them all as "Bayis".
(b)The owner of a house that is less than four by four Amos is neither obligated to participate in an Eruv Chatzeros, 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 (which is the basic function of a house).
(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 (as we shall see later).
7)
(a)Why does someone who lives in a gate-house, a stoep or a public balcony (that has an area of more than four by four Amos) not prevent the other people in the Chatzer (who made an Eruv) from carrying?
(b)What is the status of an Eruv Chatzeros that is placed in any of these three?
(c)Then what does the Mishnah in Eruvin mean when it says ...
1. ... 'Eruvei Chatzeros b'Chatzer'?
2. ... 'Shitufei Mavo'os b'Mavoy'?
(d)What is this Beraisa coming to teach us?
7)
(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 constantly pass through it, rendering it unfit to serve as a residence.
(b)An Eruv Chatzeros that is placed in any of these - is not Kasher.
(c)And when the Mishnah in Eruvin rules ...
1. ... 'Eruvei Chatzeros b'Chatzer' - it means in a house in the Chatzer.
2. ... 'Shitufei Mavo'os b'Mavoy' - it means in a Chatzer in the Mavoy.
(d)The Beraisa is coming to teach us - that the Eruv or the Shituf must be placed in one of the houses of that Chatzer, or in one of the courtyards belonging to that Mavoy, and not of another Chatzer or Mavoy.
8)
(a)What is an Ibur between two towns, and what is the maximum distance that the Ibur may be?
(b)What is 'Burganin'?
(c)Is a Burganin eligible to serve as an Ibur between two towns?
(d)Then why is a house that is less than four Amos by four Amos not eligible?
8)
(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, regarding the Din of Eruv Techumin; the house now combines them, turning them into one town.
(b)A 'Burganin' is - a small willow-hut used by bird-hunters.
(c)It is eligible to serve as an Ibur between two towns, whereas ...
(d)... a house that is less than four by four Amos is not - because, unlike a Burganin, it does not serve the purpose for which it was built.
9)
(a)What is the minimum size courtyard that one partner can force the other to divide?
(b)Then what does the Beraisa mean when it writes that brothers and partners do not divide a Chatzer that is less than four by four Amos?
(c)According to Rav Huna, a Chatzer is divided up into as many equal portions as there are entrances, and each partner receives as many portions as he has entrances. What does Rav Chisda say?
9)
(a)The minimum size courtyard that one partner can force the other to divide - is one that measures eight by four Amos - so that each partner will receive at least four by four Amos.
(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, a Chatzer is divided into as many equal portions as there are entrances, and each partner receives as many portions as he has entrances, whereas Rav Chisda maintains - that each partner takes four Amos of Chatzer per entrance, and the remainder of the Chatzer, they divide equally.
10)
(a)Why does a brother or a partner who has a house that is less than four by four Amos not receive a corresponding portion in the Chatzer?
10)
(a)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.
