Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Highlights

1. The Gemara concludes that the Sukkah that Queen Helena sat in was comprised of different compartments. The Queen sat in a small room for reasons of modesty and since women are exempt from the mitzvah of dwelling in a Sukkah, the Queen was not concerned that the Sukkah was higher than twenty amos, thus rendering the Sukkah invalid. The debate between the Chachamim and Rabbi Yehudah was regarding where her children were dwelling. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the children were together with the Queen and therefore it is a proof that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid. The Chachamim, however, maintained that the Queen’s children were dwelling inside a room in the Sukkah where the s’chach was lower than twenty amos and therefore there is no proof that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid. (3a1)

...Read more

2. The Gemara concludes that Bais Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree in two instances regarding the minimum dimensions that are required for the Sukkah to be valid. Bais Shammai maintains that the Sukkah must be large enough to accommodate ones head, most of his body and his table. Bais Hillel maintains that it is sufficient even if the Sukkah cannot accommodate the table. Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai also disagree regarding a large Sukkah that is adjacent to a house and the table is inside the house. Bais Shammai maintains that one does not fulfill his mitzvah in this manner as we are concerned that he will be drawn after his table which is in the house and Bais Hillel disagrees. (3a2-3a3)
3. Rebbe maintains that a Sukkah must be at least four squared amos in order to be valid. A Baraisa lists many rulings that would not apply to a house that is less than four squared amos. Such a house will be exempt from the obligation of placing a mezuzah on its doorpost. Furthermore, one will not have to build a fence on the roof to prevent others from falling. The rationale for these rulings is that regarding these cases the Torah states the word bayis, a house, and a house that is this small is not deemed to be a house. (3a3-3b1)
4. A house that is less than four squared amos is not required to contribute to an eruv along with all the other houses in the courtyard. Furthermore, the eruv for the courtyard cannot be placed in this house. The reason for this ruling is because a house that is less that four amos squared is not fit for dwelling. (3b1)
5. Although the eruv for the courtyard cannot be placed in a house that is less than four squared amos, the shituf (a device that allows carrying between a courtyard and a mavoi, which is accomplished by the courtyards preparing through the mutual contribution of food) for a mavoi can be placed in this house. The reason for the distinction between an eruv and a shituf is because the purpose of an eruv is to allow all the residents of a courtyard to be legally viewed as dwelling in one house and the house where the eruv is deposited must be fit for dwelling, i.e. one that measures at least fore amos squared. A shituf for a mavoi, however, functions as a merger of all the courtyards of the mavoi for their use but not for dwelling. As long as the shituf is placed in a protected area of the courtyard, the shituf is valid, so a structure that is less than four amos squared also qualifies for the placement of the shituf. (3b1-3b2)
6. Two brothers inherited a courtyard that contained one large house and three small ones, and the brothers divided the houses, with one brother taking the large house and the other taking the three small ones. Rav Huna maintains that the brother who received the three houses is entitled to three-quarters of the courtyard while the owner of the large house receives the remaining quarter. His reasoning is that the courtyard functions primarily as a passageway between one’s house and the street and as a place where packages can be delivered and unloaded, so any claim to courtyard area is directly related to the amount of houses one owns in the courtyard. Rav Chisda, however, maintains that each brother receives four amos for each and every entrance and the partners divide the remaining section of the courtyard equally. A house that is less than four amos squared is not awarded part of the courtyard because only a house that will endure is awarded part of the courtyard, whereas this house that is not four amos squared is destined to be destroyed. This renders the house unusable and we do not award it part of the courtyard for its needs. (3b2-3b3)