due to the fresh air that circulates through the openings in the wall. However, according to the one who said that it is specifically in the case of a small sukka that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, in which case the baraita is referring to a case where Queen Helene resided in a small sukka, is it customary for a queen to reside in a small sukka whose area is less than four cubits squared? Rabba bar Rav Adda said: This ruling is necessary only in the case of a sukka that is constructed with several small rooms [kitoniyyot]. The sukka was large, but it was subdivided into many small rooms, each of which was smaller than four square cubits.

Again, the Gemara asks: Is it then customary for a queen to reside in a sukka constructed with several small rooms without leaving a large room in which she could assemble her family and servants? Rav Ashi said: This ruling is necessary only with regard to the compartments in the sukka. It was indeed a large sukka with a large central room; however, there were many small rooms adjacent to the main room. It is with regard to this type of sukka that there is a tannaitic dispute.

The Rabbis hold: Her sons were residing in a full-fledged sukka with a large central room, which everyone agrees was fit. However, she often resided in the small rooms due to modesty, to avoid being in the public eye. And for that reason the Elders did not say anything to her, as even if the small rooms were too small relative to the height of the sukka, there was no problem since her sons did not sit in them. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Her sons would occasionally reside with her in the small room, and even so, the Elders did not say anything to her, indicating that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is fit even in a small sukka. Now that the Tosefta can be explained according to all the statements cited by the amora’im in the name of Rav, no proof can be cited with regard to the essence of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to a small sukka more than twenty cubits high.

§ Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: The halakha is that one’s sukka must be large enough to hold his head, and most of his body, and his table. Rabbi Abba said to him, astonished: In accordance with whose opinion did you rule? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? This is the subject of a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and according to Beit Hillel it is sufficient for the sukka to be large enough to hold one’s head and most of his body; it need not be large enough to hold his table as well. The halakhic ruling that you issued is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, despite the fact that in disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said to him: Rather, in accordance with whose opinion should I rule? Yes, my ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai because in this case that is the halakha.

Some say that the exchange between the amora’im was slightly different. Rabbi Abba said: Who stated that opinion to you? Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said to him: It was Beit Shammai, and nevertheless do not budge from it, as that is the established halakha. Based on either version of the exchange, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak strongly objects to this assumption: From where do you conclude that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka? Perhaps it is with regard to a large sukka that they disagree, and in a case where one is sitting at the entrance of the sukka and his table is inside the house. As Beit Shammai hold that we issue a decree to prohibit one from sitting that way lest he be drawn after his table while eating, to the extent that his head and most of his body will be inside the house and not inside the sukka. And Beit Hillel hold that we do not issue that decree.

And the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And if it is so that the dispute is with regard to the minimum measure of the sukka, the formulation of the mishna is missing the essential point. The distinction between a sukka that holds and a sukka that does not hold his head and most of his body is what the mishna needed to say. Since the mishna does not make that distinction, apparently the dispute is not with regard to the minimum measure of a sukka.

The Gemara questions this conclusion: And in the case of a small sukka do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel not disagree? But isn’t it taught in another baraita: A sukka that holds his head, and most of his body, and his table is fit. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is unfit until it measures at least four cubits by four cubits.

And it is taught in yet another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Any sukka that does not have an area of at least four cubits by four cubits is unfit. And the Rabbis say: Even if it holds only his head and most of his body, it is fit. However, the term: His table, is not taught in this baraita. If so, these two tannaitic sources contradict each other, as each attributes a different opinion to the Rabbis. Rather, must one not conclude from it that this baraita, in which: His table, is taught, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, while that baraita, in which: His table, is not taught, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? Apparently, they do dispute the minimum measure of a small sukka.

Mar Zutra said: And the language of the mishna is also precise, and it indicates that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel indeed dispute the minimum measure of a small sukka from the fact that it teaches: Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. And if it is so that the dispute is with regard to the conduct of one sitting at the entrance of a large sukka, then Beit Shammai say: He did not fulfill his obligation, and Beit Hillel say: He fulfilled his obligation, is what the mishna needed to say. However, the terms fit and unfit indicate that the dispute is with regard to the halakhic status of the sukka itself, not the individual’s behavior.

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, the formulation of the mishna: One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, is difficult, as it indicates that the dispute is with regard to where in the sukka he was sitting. The mishna does not say: A sukka that holds his head and most of his body, which would indicate that the dispute is with regard to the minimum measure of the sukka.

The Gemara answers: Actually, they disagree with regard to two issues; they disagree with regard to the minimum measure of a small sukka, and they disagree with regard to where one may sit in a large sukka. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: One whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai say that he did not fulfill his obligation and Beit Hillel say that he fulfilled his obligation. And with regard to a sukka that holds only his head and most of his body, Beit Shammai deem it unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit. In this way, the dispute in the mishna is understood as relating to the measure of a small sukka and the manner in which one fulfills his obligation in a large sukka.

§ Apropos the above discussion, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught: The halakhic status of a house in which there is not an area of four cubits by four cubits is not that of a house? Therefore, halakhot in the Torah or the mishna that are relevant to a house do not apply to a house that size. Consequently, it is exempt from the mitzva of placing a mezuza on its doorpost; and it is exempt from the obligation of establishing a parapet around its roof; and it does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the house. And its sale is not rendered final in the same manner as the sale of houses within walled cities. The owner of a house in a walled city who sells his house has the option to buy it back from the purchaser within one year of the sale. If he fails to do so, the sale is rendered final and the house does not return to the original owner during the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:29–31).

And one does not return from the ranks of soldiers waging war for a house that size, as would one who built a house with an area greater than four by four cubits (see Deuteronomy 20:5). And one need not join the houses in the courtyards for a house with that area. If there is more than one house in a courtyard, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry in that courtyard unless the residents of each of the houses contribute food that is placed in one of the houses, thereby rendering them joint-owners of the courtyard. The resident of a house with an area of less than four by four cubits need not participate in this joining of courtyards. And one need not merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway for a courtyard in which the area of its only house is less than four by four cubits. In this case, too, the resident of that courtyard need not participate in the merging of alleyways. And one does not place the food collected for the aforementioned joining [eiruv] of courtyards in this house but rather in a house with an area of at least four by four cubits.