Question: Why doesn't it say also "I do not know whether Kalach is the big city?"

Since he is unsure whether [these words, i.e. "the big city"] applies to Resen or Ninveh, which are before [Kalach, which] before [these words], all the more so he should be unsure whether it refers to Kalach itself, which is just before [these words]!

Answer: Just the contrary! Because it is the last matter mentioned, if "the big city" referred to it, it should not have said "it is the big city", rather, [just] "the big city."

Question: We should count also Lishkas Beis Even, in which the Kohen who would burn Parah Adumah would live!

Answer #1: We consider only chambers in the Mikdash built in the Kodesh. Lishkas Beis Even was in Har ha'Bayis.

Answer #2: Since it was not every year [that the Kohen who would burn Parah would live there], only once in many years, it is not considered Dirah.

Question: In any case (even if it is mid'Rabanan), we can ask above regarding Lishkas Parhedrin, that he (R. Yehudah) should decree for this reason! (It is Dirah for the Kohen Gadol);

Why must he explain (Amud B) that it is lest people say that the Kohen Gadol is incarcerated in jail?

Answer: Now, the Hava Amina is that R. Yehudah obligates Lishkas Parhedrin for this reason, and not lest people say that he is incarcerated.

Question: What was the question "perhaps it is mid'Rabanan"? All the more so there is a contradiction in Rabanan's opinion!

Here they exempt [Sukah] even mid'Rabanan, and above they obligate [Lishkas Parhedrin] even mid'Oraisa!

Answer: There is no contradiction in Rabanan's opinion. Sukah is different, for it is Diras Arai (haphazard);

He can leave the Sukah easily, e.g. if he is pained there, or if rain falls, or many such reasons. Staying in Lishkas Parhedrin is fixed, so they obligate it [in Mezuzah].

Question: There are many cases in which mid'Oraisa it is exempt, and Rabanan decreed [to obligate], without concern lest one separate from Patur on Chayav, e.g. what one bought from an Am ha'Aretz!

Answer: Since Chachamim did not enact to separate Terumah Gedolah, and even the Ma'aseros one separates, but he keeps them, there is a great Heker (indication) that it is mid'Rabanan, so there is no concern lest one separate from Patur on Chayav.

Support: Similarly, in Beitzah (13a), if one brought sheaves into the house to make a dough, he may eat from them Arai (haphazardly) and he is exempt. If he will eat Keva (in a fixed way), he is obligated mid'Rabanan;

(We are not concerned lest one separate from Patur on Chayav.) Since he may eat from them Arai without tithing, there is a Heker, for one may not eat Arai after Miru'ach from something obligated mid'Oraisa;

(Mishnah - Pe'ah 1:6): One may feed Chayos and birds [Tevel] until Miru'ach.

This is forbidden after Miru'ach. Any eating of Behemos is considered Arai.

Question: Chachamim obligated separating from grain bought from a Nochri, according to the opinion that a Nochri can acquire Eretz Yisrael to uproot [the Chiyuv to separate] Ma'aser [so mid'Oraisa it is exempt].

Answer: No one will err about grain of a Nochri.

Support: We can similarly answer regarding grain of Chutz la'Aretz. They used to separate Terumah and Ma'aser from it, until the Rovim stopped this, like the Yerushalmi says. No one would err about this.

Implied question: [What grows in] a flowerpot without a hole is obligated mid'Rabanan. (Perhaps he will come to separate from Patur on Chayav!)

Answer: We say in Yevamos (89a), regarding one who separated from [what grew in] a flowerpot without a hole on a flowerpot with a hole, that he must separate again [from a flowerpot with a hole],

Regarding [what grew in] two different Kelim, a person will comply. (He understands that the Terumah was invalid.) Regarding [what grew in] one Kli, he will not comply.

However, here, if we obligate him to separate, he will err and think that mid'Oraisa it is obligated. He does not discern which Dirah is Kavu'a mid'Oraisa;

Since at the time he lives there b'Keva, and he sees that he must separate Ma'aser, he thinks that it is considered absolute Dirah, even to separate from Patur on Chayav.

Explanation: The Gemara means that he used to live there for seven days. Therefore, we decree the rest of the year due to these seven days.

Question (R. Yehudah): There were several chambers used for residence sometimes for some, and even so we do not decree the rest of the year due to these days!

Answer (R. Yehudah): Rather, Lishkas Parhedrin was a decree [even during the seven days].

Implied question: I explained that Rabanan agree that it was a decree!

Answer: R. Yehudah answers that it is a different decree, lest people say that the Kohen Gadol is incarcerated in jail.

Rashi's text: This is Rashi's text. The Gemara discusses the previous topic, i.e. Lishkas Parhedrin.

Explanation: Now one cannot ask a contradiction in R. Yehudah, for he obligates Sukah even mid'Oraisa, since he obligates it in Ma'aser, i.e. during the seven days of Sukos;

He exempts above (Lishkas Parhedrin) mid'Oraisa, i.e. during the rest of the year.

Question #1: Why did Rava need to ask from the text of the Beraisa, which says "Sukas ha'Chag during the Chag"? Even without the Beraisa, he can challenge Abaye from his (Abaye's) own words!

We establish the Beraisa to discuss [only] the seven days of Sukos to avoid a contradiction in R. Yehudah. If not, we did not answer the initial question at all (why R. Yehudah obligates Sukah more than Lishkas Parhedrin);

If so, even without the Beraisa's words "Sukas ha'Chag b'Chag", we can challenge Abaye, for you must say that the Beraisa discusses [only] during Sukos!

Question #2: Also, it is difficult to say that when we suggested above "perhaps it is mid'Rabanan", we must say that it is a decree due to proper Dirah (lest one exempt it);

If so, also above regarding Lishkas Parhedrin, we must say that R. Yehudah's decree is due to proper Dirah, like here.

If so, this is unlike the conclusion, that it is lest people say that the Kohen Gadol is incarcerated!

Question #3: Also, if we decree in Lishkas Parhedrin due to proper Dirah, if so also in other chambers in which there was Dirah, why was there no Mezuzah?

We should decree due to proper Dirah!

Answer to Question #3: However, this we can answer, and say that we asked from several chambers in which there was Diras Arai, e.g. chambers in which they guarded at night and not during the day, which did not have a Mezuzah;

If it is true that the Torah obligates such Diras Arai when he dwells there, we should obligate also these [chambers] at night!

Conclusion: Rather, you must say that it was a decree due to proper Dirah. Lishkas Parhedrin, in which he lived seven days and nights, can be confused with proper Dirah. The other chambers are not confused, therefore they did not decree about them.

Question #4: Why did [Rava] ask "the Beraisa says 'Sukas ha'Chag b'Chag'!"?

Inference: He asked only because it says "b'Chag", but had it said Stam 'Sukas ha'Chag', it would not have been difficult.

Why is this? In any case Rava could ask from the previous Beraisa, in which Rabanan obligate the entire year!

He could not distinguish between Sukah and Lishkas Parhedrin like I distinguished above, for if so, what was the question from Sukas ha'Chag?

We can say that even though Rabanan decree about Lishkas Parhedrin the rest of the year, they exempt Sukas ha'Chag even during Sukos, for it is not considered Dirah as much as Lishkas Parhedrin!

Answer: Rather, you must say that Abaye and Rava hold that this is not a reason to distinguish between Sukah and Lishkas Parhedrin;

Just the contrary, we should have said [in astonishment] 'is there a contradiction in R. Yehudah, but not in Rabanan?!'

Abaye's answer, which came to resolve R. Yehudah, makes Rabanan's opinion even more difficult!

Even without Abaye's answer, there was a contradiction in Rabanan, even if we establish both Beraisos to discuss seven days;

All the more so according to Abaye, who says that obligate even the rest of the year [they contradict themselves].. Here they exempt [Sukah] even during Sukos!

Question #5: Further, above Rabanan obligate only due to a decree, and R. Yehudah argues with them only about the reason.

He holds that it is not a decree due to the rest of the year, rather, lest people say that the Kohen Gadol is incarcerated in jail;

Therefore, he should not have said "Lishkas Parhedrin was a decree", for Rabanan agree about this. Rather, he should have explained that the decree is lest people say that the Kohen Gadol is incarcerated in jail;

Rejection of Rashi's text: Also, the text in all old Seforim is opposite - "Rabanan hold that we do not decree... R. Yehudah holds that we decree."

Tosfos' explanation: I explain the entire Sugya differently;

The suggestion "perhaps it is mid'Rabanan" is lest people say that one who sits in a Sukah during Sukos is incarcerated in jail... up to "they do not argue about seven [days], regarding both Lishkas [Parhedrin] and Sukah.

They argue about the rest of the year, regarding both Lishkah and Sukah. Rabanan hold that we do not decree.

Explanation (continued): "Regarding Lishkah" refers to chambers other than Lishkas Parhedrin, which was Dirah, i.e. while it was Dirah, i.e. all seven days. After this, it is not obligated mid'Oraisa. Rabanan hold that there was no decree [for the rest of the year];

R. Yehudah said to them, "you say that all seven days are mid'Oraisa. There was Diras Arai in many Lishkos like this, and they did not have Mezuzos, even at the time of Dirah!

Rather, Lishkas Parhedrin was a decree, lest people say that the Kohen Gadol is incarcerated.

Since this is the reason, it had a Mezuzah the entire year, to publicize that it is a first-rate Dirah, and people will not say that the Kohen Gadol is incarcerated in jail;

Explanation (continued): Also regarding Sukah, all agree that it is obligated during the seven days.

Rabanan hold that it is mid'Oraisa, and R. Yehudah holds that it is mid'Rabanan, like regarding Lishkas Parhedrin. They argue about the rest of the year;

Rabanan do not decree the rest of the year due to Sukos, and R. Yehudah decrees, lest people say that one who sits in a Sukah during Sukos is incarcerated in jail.

This would be shameful, and a disgrace to the Mitzvah. It would seem that Hash-m burdens Yisrael and imprisons them.

Therefore, it is obligated in Mezuzah the entire year, to publicize the matter and all will see that it is an esteemed Dirah.