Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan requires at least *twenty-four* people to be able to sit round the inside of the walls of a round Sukah. The Gemara asks that even according to Rebbi, *twelve* should suffice.
On which principle is this Kashya based?

(b) On what grounds do we reject it?

(c) By how much is a square that surrounds a circle bigger than the circle, and how many people should the Sukah then be able to seat in this way?

(d) But this is wrong, since Rebbi requires a full four by four Amos (i.e. a minimum of four Amos at any given point). So we have to contend with a circle that surrounds a square of four by four Amos. How much must the diagonal now be per Amah, and how many Amos will that now give us round the inside of the circle?

(a) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that Rebbi Yochanan is only giving a rough figure?

(b) Mar Keshisha has a simple solution to our problem. He disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan, maintaining that, in fact, *three* people sit per *two* Amos (and not *one* person per *Amah*). In his opinion, sixteen people will be able to sit in such a Sukah, and the Sukah will be Kasher if it is sixteen square Amos instead of sixteen and 3/5 - only a slight discrepancy.
What is wrong with that contention?

(c) We conclude that when Rebbi Yochanan gave a figure of twenty-four, he was referring to the *outside* of the circle, whereas we are obviously concerned with the *inside*.
By how many Amos will that reduce the diameter of the circle, and how many people could one now seat around the inside of the Sukah?

(a) But did we not prove earlier that the perimeter of the Sukah concerned, according to Rebbi, is 16 4/5 Amos?

(b) The Dayanim of Caesaria have a radical way of answering answer Rebbi Yochanan (though they are wrong).
How do they do it?

4)

(a) Potters used to have two huts.
What was the purpose of ...

1. ... the inner hut?
2. ... the outer one?

(b) Why would one not be Yotze Sukah in the inner hut?

(c) Does a gate-house that leads into the house require a Mezuzah?

(d) Then why did the potter's outer hut not need one?

(a) Sukas 'Ga'n'ba'ch' is the acronym of four valid Sukos.
What is Sukas 'Ga'n'ba'ch'?

(b) On what condition are these Sukos Kasher? What is the Tana coming to warn against?

(c) Sukas 'Mikol Makom', which comes to include 'Sukas 'Ra'k'ba'sh' is Kasher too, under the same condition. The 'Shin' stands for Sukas 'Shomrei Peiros,' and the 'Reish' for 'Ro'im'.
What is a 'Sukas ...

1. ... Kayatzim'?
2. ... Burganin'?

(d) Why, if two Beraisos had not specifically included each one, would we have thought that, even though 'Sukas ...

1. ... 'Ga'n'ba'ch' is eligible, 'Sukas 'Ra'k'ba'sh' is not?
2. ... 'Ra'k'ba'sh' is eligible, 'Sukas 'Ga'n'ba'ch' is not?