Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask why Hadassim are different, as the Mishnah says it is invalid and instructs how to fix it (as opposed our Mishnah which just says it is invalid). This is as the Mishnah states there (32b), "Or if its berries were more than its leaves, it is invalid. If he lessened the berries it is valid." (Why does the Gemara here not ask why the Mishnah there explains how to fix the situation and our Mishnah does not?)

Answer #1: Our Gemara is only asking regarding Sukah and Mavuy because their laws are similar regarding height, and even so each uses different terminology.

Answer #2: Additionally, regarding Hadassim the Mishnah needed to say how to fix it to make valid, as I otherwise might have thought that since it grew in an invalid fashion it is not possible to make it valid.

Explanation #1: If it would say, "he should lessen it" I would suspect that a person might make a mistake to say that one should Lechatchilah lessen it, and b'Dieved it is valid (even if he doesn't).

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Tana was careful with the terminology he used lest a person come to transgress a Torah prohibition. He therefore wrote that it is invalid, even though it is not as nice of a term to use as, "he should lessen it." However, regarding Mavuy which is a Rabbinic law he did not worry about this, and he said "he should lessen it" which is a nicer term.

Proof: This is as we find in Pesachim (3a) that the Torah twisted many letters in order to avoid saying something that is inappropriate.

Observation: Rashi does not give this explanation.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is possible to say that the term, "he should lessen it" implies a mere Rabbinic stringency, whereas "invalid" implies according to Torah law.

Implied Question: In Shabbos (22a), Rebbi Tanchum says that a Chanukah candle that is placed more than twenty cubits high is invalid like a Sukah and an alleyway. (Why did the Gemara there use the term invalid instead of "he should lessen it" according to the above explanations?)

Answer #1: Since this teaching is similar to the Mishnah in Sukah, Rebbi Tanchum says regarding a Chanukah candle as well that it is invalid.

Answer #2: Alternatively, if it would say "he should lessen it" it would imply that he should lower it while it is lit. This is ineffective according to the opinion that the Mitzvah is only achieved at the time when it is lit (i.e. if it is lit in the proper place).

Answer #2 (cont.): Even according to the opinion that the placing of the Menorah creates the Mitzvah, we suspect that someone who sees this happening will say that he is doing so (lighting candles) for his own benefit (i.e. personal mundane use). This is similar to what we say regarding a person who lights inside and afterwards puts it outside.

Question: This is somewhat difficult according to the first version of the Gemara in Eruvin (3a) regarding some of the Sukah being within twenty cubits. Rabah says such a Sukah is invalid. However, one can still see the Sechach as some of it is within twenty cubits. (Why, then, should it be invalid?)

Question (cont.): Our text indeed reads "Rabah" there (and not Rava), as Rava there argues on Rabah and says that they (both a Mavuy and a Sukah) are valid in this case, as the amount of airspace of a Sukah or Mavuy cannot be twenty cubits (but if Sechach is hanging down it is less than that).

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara there explains that since a Sukah is usually built for an individual (i.e. a person or a family), the individual will not always remember to check (if the Sukah has some Sechach below twenty cubits). Sometimes this small amount of Sechach that is less than twenty cubits will be taken away somehow from the thickness of the Sechach, and the entire Sechach will be above twenty cubits. (However, if it would not be taken away, it would indeed be valid in Torah law according to Rabah.)

Answer (cont.): When Ravina in Eruvin (3a) answers that the Rabannan were stringent regarding Sukah because it is a Torah law, he also implies that according to Torah law it would be valid.

Explanation: Even though one could possibly explain the Pasuk as referring to living quarters that are only fit for seven days, it seems that it is merely excluding a permanent dwelling. The Pasuk wants to teach how tall the Sukah can be, meaning it should be a Sukah that is not so tall that one cannot build it in a temporary fashion.

Question: Since we only require that it should be able to be made in a temporary fashion even if it is made permanently, why does the Gemara say in Tanis (2a) that if it rains on Sukos it is a cursed sign? One should be able to take boards and nail them into the Sukah in order that rain should not fall into the Sukah!

Answer: One might want to say that it is forbidden due to Gezeiras Tikrah (and therefore, since the Sukah is invalid, one cannot use it . This is as stated later in our chapter (14a) regarding the argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah regarding whether one may use boards for Sechach, that if we say this is valid people will come to say, "What is the difference between using boards for Sechach and sitting under my roof?" A person's house is definitely an invalid Sukah, as the Torah said to sit in a Sukah and not one's house that they live in year round!

Question: Even so, since it is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law (to use boards as Sechach), one cannot say that rain is a cursed sign!

Answer: Even though we do not care if the walls are made in a permanent fashion, since the Sukah is mainly called a Sukah due to the Sechach, it is invalid unless the Sechach is made in a temporary fashion.

Answer (cont.): This helps understand Rebbi Zeira's opinion. Rebbi Zeira derives from the Pasuk, "And the Sukah will be for shade." Doesn't the Pasuk also say it should be a shelter from floodwaters and dew? This should mean that we should require Sukos to be rainproof! Rather, because we require the Sechach to be made in a temporary fashion, it is clear that we cannot require this or else it would have to be made in a permanent fashion.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not say that they do not hold like Rebbi Zeira because of the question of Abaye, even though the Gemara did say that they do not hold like Rava because of Abaye's question. (Why wasn't this answer also given regarding Rebbi Zeira?)

Answer: This is because Rebbi Zeira gave a strong answer to Abaye's question.

Implied Question: This is unlike Chanukah candles and a beam of an alleyway that are not considered to be noticeable above twenty cubits even though the beam is on a wall. (What is the difference?)

Answer: This is because people do not notice a beam that is a Tefach wide like they notice Sechach that is very wide (when both are above twenty cubits).

Explanation: The Gemara concludes that Rav Huna holds they argue regarding a Sukah that is between Rosho v'Rubo v'Shulchano and four cubits, but they agree that a Sukah that is more than four cubits wide is valid.

Question: This is difficult. Should we say that a Sukah that is slightly wider than four cubits and is much taller than twenty cubits is valid?! There certainly is no shade provided by the Sechach (in such a situation)!

Answer #1: The Gemara means that the proportions of the Sukah must be four cubits width to twenty cubits height. (Accordingly, if the Sukah is much taller than twenty cubits and only slightly wider than four cubits, it will indeed be invalid.)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Rabbanan understand that even if it is one thousand cubits tall it is impossible that there will not be a small amount of shade from the Sechach if the Sukah is even slightly wider than four cubits.

Proof: This is as stated in Yoma (80b) regarding the fact that food the size of a large date satisfies a person. The Gemara says that it satisfies (most of the people in) the whole world to a large degree, and it satisfies Og the King of Bashan (who was a giant) to a lesser degree (but it does satisfy everyone to some extent).

Explanation: However, this is certainly unlike Rabah who holds that the problem is that it is not seen by the eye, as even if the Sukah is very wide one will not see the Sechach if it is higher than twenty cubits.

Implied Question: The words of Rav Chanan bar Rabah require a reason. (What is his reasoning?)

Answer: Some explain that it is because it is like a chicken coop, since it is so tall and narrow. However, if it is wider than Rosho (v'Rubo v'Shulchano) it is no longer considered a chicken coop and it is considered a Sukah.

Text: Rabeinu Chananel writes, "And some have the text, "They do argue."

Observation: The same thing was stated regarding Mavuy in Eruvin (2b).

Implied Question: Do not ask why the Gemara here does not ask, "If fifty is valid, why even say forty?" The Gemara indeed asks this in Kesuvos (95a) on the statement that a widow who waited for two or three years and did not ask for food support loses her support. ("If three is valid, why say two?")

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara at the end of Bava Kama (118b) similarly says regarding buying animals from shepherds that one buys four or five sheep or four or five swaths of wool. (Why did these Gemaros ask this question?)

Answer: The Gemara there is understandable as it is "this, and we do not even have to say this." (In other words, when saying "four and five sheep" the five is redundant. If one is permitted to buy four, he is certainly permitted to buy five. This is why these Gemaros ask regarding "two and three" and "four and five," that the latter number is redundant. This is as opposed to "forty and fifty" where the fifty is not redundant, as it is a greater novelty that a Sukah that is even fifty cubits tall is valid than a Sukah forty cubits tall being valid.)

Question: However, there is a difficulty from a Gemara in Nidah (37b) regarding bleeding while having difficulty labor pains, as the Gemara there says that this is even for forty or fifty days. The Gemara asks, "If this is true regarding fifty days, it is certainly true regarding forty days!" (Why doesn't our Gemara ask this question?)

Answer: It is possible to answer our Gemara (not asking the question) based on the statement in Shabbos (127a) that people say, "four and five" and they mean even more than that. However, regarding bleeding while having labor pains it is not possible to give this answer, as it is not logical that we will say that this bleeding is always permitted.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, in Shabbos (60b) regarding the sandal that has nails in it where the Gemara discusses a sandal "that still has four or five nails" it is obvious that we will not permit more than this amount. This is also the case regarding the Gemara in Kesuvos (57a) that says that a person can stay with his wife for two or three years without a Kesuvah.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, when the Gemara in Kesuvos (60a) says that a child can nurse for four or five years, it is possible to say it means even more than that.