Review of Last Wednesday Night's Shiur

אמר רב שמואל בר יצחק: הלכה, צריכה שתהא מחזקת ראשו ורובו ושולחנו.

Consistent with the way the Gemara approached the halacha on 2b - in which both R. Huna and R. Chanan were quoted as ruling that the minimal shiur of a succah is Rosho Rubo V'Shulchano - R.Shmuel Bar Yitzchak rules the same.  This is consistent with the view of the Rabanan as opposed to Rebbe .

אמר ליה רבי אבא: כמאן - כבית שמאי? - אמר ליה: אלא כמאן?

R. Abba says to R. Shmuel  - who is this consistent with ? With Bet Shammai.  Rashi explains that B. Hillel does not require the measurement to include the Shulchan.  So although the overall approach seems to be consistent with the Rabanan vs Rebbe camp , R. Abba is troubled by the fact that R. Shmuel seems to be ruling like Beit Shammai as opposed to Beit Hillel. R. Shmuel rhetorically asks him, “Well, who else do you think I’m ruling like?

איכא דאמרי, אמר רבי אבא: דאמר לך מני? אמר ליה: - בית שמאי היא, ולא תזוז מינה.

Another version of the interaction, separated by an איכא דאמרי – there are those render the conversation differently:  R. Aba said instead, ‘who told you that such was the measurement of the succah?” To which the answer came: It’s Beit Shammai’s view (and even so) don’t depart from it.  Ie that’s the halacha!

מתקיף לה רב נחמן בר יצחק: ממאי דבית שמאי ובית הלל בסוכה קטנה פליגי? דלמא בסוכה גדולה פליגי, וכגון דיתיב אפומא דמטולתא, ושולחנו בתוך הבית

.

We noted that a מתקיף is always an attack question, based not on a Baraita or mishna alone, but on a logical point.  The questioner – Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak – questions the validity of assuming that Beit Shammai and Hillel were arguing over the minimal shiur of a succah.  Perhaps the ruling of R. Shmuel is not controversial at all.  Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai are instead arguing over a case of a large succah, in a case where the person is sitting at the entry to the succah, with his table in the house, or out of the succah.

 דבית שמאי סברי: גזרינן שמא ימשך אחר שולחנו, ובית הלל סברי: לא גזרינן. ודיקא נמי, דקתני: מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושולחנו בתוך הבית, בית שמאי פוסלין ובית הלל מכשירין. ואם איתא מחזקת ואינה מחזקת מיבעי ליה. ובסוכה קטנה לא פליגי? 

In this approach, Beit Shammai issues a decree that a person cannot fulfill his mitzvah in this way, because he may be drawn after his table; Beit Hillel does not make such a decree.  In other words, the table/no table concern doesn’t relate to whether the minimal shiur of a succah includes the area of a table, BS requiring it and BH not requiring it – but whether there should be a gezeira of non-fulfilment of the mitzvah because of such a decree.

The Gemara then cites the wording of the machloket BH and BS.  We will review this at the start of Sunday night’s shiur – but it basically focuses on the choice of words of the baraita – the case of which seems to be in a large succah w/the concern being such a Gezeira.   Were they to be arguing about the minimal size of a succah, the scenarios should have referred to a succah that does contain vs. doesn’t contain a table…