Implied Question: Rashi gave a forced explanation of the Gemara's proof according to Rav Chanan bar Rabah. Rashi was bothered by the fact that her seven sons clearly were not sitting in seven Tefachim. However, this is not a question. (Why not?)

Answer: It is possible that it was very long, and it was not seven Tefachim wide. Her children sat along the length of the Sukah.

Opinion: In Seder Rav Amram he ruled that in six places the law follows Beis Shamai.

Opinion (cont.): The first case is our Gemara's case that a Sukah must contain his head, most of his body, and his table.

Opinion (cont.): The second is regarding the case in Menachos (40a) regarding whether a linen sheet requires Tzitzis, as Beis Shamai says it is exempt (Kilayim) and Beis Hillel says it must have Tzitzis.

Opinion (cont.): A third case is when the Gemara there asks, "How many strings does one put on the Tzitzis? Beis Shamai says four (and one doubles the strings when passing them through the hole, turning them into eight strings), Beis Hillel says three."

Opinion (cont.): A fourth case is when the Gemara there asks, "How long should it be hanging below the corner of the garment? Beis Shamai says four (finger lengths), Beis Hillel says three." In all of these cases the law follows Beis Shamai's opinion.

Opinion (cont.): A fifth place is in chapter "Eilu Devarim" in Berachos (51b) where Beis Shamai says one first cleans the table and then washes his hands before Birkas ha'Mazon. The Gemara there says that in that entire chapter the law follows Beis Hillel besides for their argument in this law.

Opinion (cont.): A sixth case is at the end of the aforementioned chapter in Berachos regarding a person who ate, drank, and forgot to recite Birkas ha'Mazon (in his place, as Beis Shamai says that such a person must go back to where he ate in order to recite Birkas ha'Mazon). The Gemara there quotes an incident involving Rabah bar bar Chanah, who found a golden pigeon after following the opinion of Beis Shamai. A similar incident occurred to a student who followed the opinion of Beis Shamai, as he found a purse (with money). Another student acted upon the lenient opinion of Beis Shamai in this matter, and a lion ate him.

Question: It seems that the Gemara's statement there that the law is like Beis Hillel regarding everything in the chapter aside from cleaning the table before washing is difficult. (It would seem to include going to back to where one ate for Birkas ha'Mazon!)

Answer: Perhaps Beis Hillel agree to Beis Shamai that Lechatchilah one should go back and recite Birkas ha'Mazon where he ate.

Implied Question: One should not ask a question on Rav Amram's ruling like Beis Shamai in our Gemara from a Gemara in Berachos (11a). The Gemara there states that Rav Yosef says that if one does like Beis Shamai he has done nothing. It proves this from the incident in Sukah with Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani who became sick, and the elders of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel came to visit him. The found that he was sitting with his head and most of his body in the Sukah, and his table was in his house. The elders of Beis Shamai said to him, "If this is how you sit in a Sukah, you have never fulfilled the Mitzvah of Sukah!" The Gemara concludes there that the law is according to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani. (How can Rav Amram rule like Beis Shamai in our Gemara if this contradicts the law being according to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani?)

Answer: The argument there is regarding a Sukah that is very large, as it concludes that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue in two cases (one regarding the minimum size of a Sukah, and another in a case where the Sukah is large, and one is sitting with his head and most of his body in the Sukah but his table is outside the Sukah). In the case of the large Sukah, the law follows Beis Hillel. However, our Gemara is referring to the case of the minimum size of a Sukah. In that case, the law follows Beis Shamai.

Question #1: However, the Gemara there is difficult. How can one deduce from there that if one does according to Beis Shamai he has done nothing? The incident there is Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani acting upon the opinion of Beis Hillel!

Question #2: Additionally, do we need proof that if the law follows Beis Hillel that someone who does instead like Beis Shamai has done nothing?

Answer: We must say that the Gemara is teaching that when Beis Hillel enacts a Rabbinic stringency and Beis Shamai does not add this enactment to the Torah law, one does not even fulfill the Torah law if he does like Beis Shamai.

Proof: This is as we find according to Beis Shamai that when they saw Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani sitting by the opening of his Sukah, they decreed that he might follow his table out of the Sukah. They said, "You did not fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah your entire life!" They meant that he did not even fulfill the Torah command of Sukah. If this is true regarding Beis Shamai, it must also be true according to Beis Hillel.

Observation: The Yerushalmi adds that it does not cause produce to become Tevel regarding Ma'aseros (if it is not considered a house), and if someone makes a vow not to have benefit from houses he may enter this tiny structure.

Observation (cont.): Additionally, it could have said that there is a difference regarding stoning a girl who is found to have had relations while betrothed at the entrance "to her father's house." (It would not apply to this tiny structure.)

Explanation: It is not fit to live in it.

Implied Question: This is even true according to Shmuel who says in Eruvin (49a) that Eruv is due to Kinyan (not Dirah). (If it is not dependent on Dirah, why should it make a difference whether or not it is called a house?)

Answer: People do not give over their domain for a house that is not fit to live in.

Proof: We similarly find there that Shmuel himself says that the owner of the house where the Eruv is placed does not have to contribute bread to the Eruv. Why? Everyone lives in this house. He emphasizes living there even though he holds Eruv is due to Kinyan, and they give over to each other (i.e. to the person whose house it is in) since their Eruv is in his house.

Question: What is the nature of this house in this situation? According to Rebbi Meir who says in Eruvin (57a) that a Karfef (seventy plus square cubits) is added onto the Techum of each city, even without this house the cities can end up sharing the same Techum! This is also true according to Rav Huna's understanding of the Rabbanan's opinion. According to Chiya bar Rav who says that there is one Karfef for both cities together, that Karfef does not require a house.

Question (cont.): (One could suggest the following understanding.) If there is more than one hundred forty one and one third cubits between the two cities, which is the amount of two Karfefs, the house is in between them and can therefore combine the two Techumim. If it is four square cubits this amount is considered to be taken anyway from the space between the cities and therefore combine their Techumim, which is not the case if the house is not four square cubits. The house is considered as if it is not there, and the cities would not be connected both according to Rav Huna and Chiya bar Rav.

Question (cont.): If so, why should the Beraisa mention two cities? It should have said that it cannot be considered an extension to a city, since it does not have four cubits. If it did have four cubits and it was within seventy plus cubits of the city, it would extend the city's Techum to measure the end of the city from the end of the house. This is as we know that people can make small houses (every seventy plus cubits) to extend the Techum of a city and enable to go wherever they want (as long as they build a lot of these small houses).

Question (cont.): This is as stated in Eruvin (21a), "They say you went from Barnish to the shul of Daniel, which was three Parsah away. What did you rely on? We relied on making small houses to extend the Techum. Didn't your father say that one may not make such houses in Babylon? He went out and showed him destroyed houses that were within seventy plus cubits of the city."

Text #1: The Rashbam says that our text should read here, "And we do not make an extension to the city (with a house that is less than four cubits)." This is also implied by the Yerushalmi, as the text there is, "And one does not make it a connection to the city."

Text #2: Rabeinu Tam upholds our Gemara's text. He explains that we do not give this house the status of being an extension between two cities, as according to the Rabbanan there is no Karfef given to a single city. This is as the Rabbanan hold (57a) that they only said a Karfef is given in between two cities.

Text #2 (cont.): If this house was four cubits, it would have a law of being like another city in order to give it a Karfef, just as a Karfef is given to a city. This would mean that we would give this house and the city that is close to it two Karfefs according to Rav Huna, just as if there would be two cities near each other. According to Chiya bar Rav, one Karfef total is given to both of them (either two cities or a city and a house that is close to it).

Text #2 (cont.): It must be that the Rabbanan do not mean that two cities receive a Karfef, as a city and a house near it also receive a Karfef. Rather, since Rebbi Meir said "city" the Rabbanan said "two cities."

Text #2 (cont.): According to Chiya bar Rav who says that one Karfef is given to two cities, the Rabbanan must not have meant two cities. Certainly a city and a house are included, as this is determined through small houses that are within seventy cubits of the city, as stated in Eruvin (21a).

Text #2 (cont.): However, it does not appear that a house should be considered completely like a city to the point that we would give a Karfef to a single house according to Rebbi Meir, or according to Rav Huna's understanding of the Rabbanan to give two Karfefs to two houses without any cities being involved.

Text #2 (cont.): This is despite the fact that according to Chiya bar Rav's understanding of the Rabbanan that a house is indeed like a city we do give two houses without a city one Karfef.

Proof: If this were incorrect, how are the houses within a city that does not have a wall deemed connected to each other if not for the fact that each house is swallowed up within seventy cubits of another house? There is no reason to say that the houses must touch each other to be considered a city!