The conclusion of the article states that the rambam and the rif hold of Beit shamai for both halachos because they hold the reason is the same by both. This is simply not true according to the rambam, as established earlier in this very article. He thinks there is a difference in reasoning. Perhaps his reasoning is that he holds the Rav Shmuel bar yitshak was referring to both rulings? What is his reasoning if not that?
Thanks a lot, looking forward to hearing back.
Avi Lent, United States
You are correct that the Mishnah Berurah understands the Rambam holds the two cases are unrelated, as previously stated in this very article. I would venture that the Rambam deduces from the language of Rav Shmuel's statement, "The Halachah is that it needs to contain Rosho etc." that he is referring to both cases. As I saw some Meforshim ask, it would seem that Rav Shmuel should merely say, "Sukah Sheyesh Bah Rosho v'Rubo v'Shulchano Kesheirah." Why say, "Tzerichah she'Tehei Machzekes?" While I did not see the following answer in the Meforshim, it could be the Rambam understands that Rav Shmuel is alluding to the fact that not only in the area of the Sukah, but also in that it has to be "Machzekes" "(physically) contain" his head, most of his body, and his table or else it is as if he has eaten outside the Sukah.
I will note that while looking at the commentaries on the Rambam, I did find those who argue with the Mishnah Berurah that the Rambam does indeed hold like the Rif (Biur Chadash Maspik, Sefer ha'Menuchah, and others), although in my humble opinion this does not seem to be the case since the Rambam separates these Halachos and uses very different terminology by each one.
All the best,