וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ עִיבּוּר בֵּין שְׁתֵּי עֲיָירוֹת וְאֵין הָאַחִין וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין חוֹלְקִין בּוֹ.

And one does not render it an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities. Two cities between which there is a distance of more than 141⅓ cubits cannot be joined and considered as a single city for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit for one city from the edge of the second city. However if there is a house equidistant between the two cities, i.e., a bit more than seventy cubits from each town, the house joins the two cities together for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit. A house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits cannot serve this function; and brothers and partners do not divide it, as it is too small to be divided.

לֵימָא רַבִּי הִיא וְלֹא רַבָּנַן? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן סוּכָּה, דְּדִירַת עֲרַאי הִיא. אֲבָל לְגַבֵּי בַּיִת, דְּדִירַת קֶבַע הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ, דְּאִי אִית בֵּיהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – דָּיְירִי בֵּיהּ אֱינָשֵׁי, וְאִי לָא – לָא דָּיְירִי בֵּיהּ אֱינָשֵׁי.

In answer to the question with regard to the identity of the tanna of the baraita , the Gemara says: Let us say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not the Rabbis, as it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who holds that a sukka with an area of less than four by four cubits is unfit. The Gemara rejects this contention: Even if you say that the tanna of the baraita is the Rabbis, the Rabbis say that a structure with an area smaller than four by four cubits is fit only there, with regard to a sukka , which is a temporary residence, because in a temporary residence one is willing to confine himself to a small area. However, with regard to halakhot relating to a house, which is a permanent residence, even the Rabbis concede that if it has an area of four cubits by four cubits, people reside in it, as it is a functional house, and if not, people do not reside in it, and its legal status is not that of a house at all.

אָמַר מָר: פָּטוּר מִן הַמְּזוּזָה וּמִן הַמַּעֲקֶה וְאֵין מְטַמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים וְאֵינוֹ נֶחְלַט בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה וְאֵין חוֹזְרִין עָלָיו מֵעוֹרְכֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּ״בַּיִת״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ בְּכוּלְּהוּ.

§ The Gemara briefly discusses the halakhot listed in the baraita : The Master said that a house in which there is an area of less than four by four cubits it is exempt from the mitzva of placing a mezuza on its doorpost, and it is exempt from the obligation of establishing a parapet around its roof, and it does not become ritually impure with leprosy of the house. And its sale is not rendered final in the same manner as the sale of houses within walled cities, and one does not return from the ranks of soldiers waging war for a house that size. What is the reason for these halakhot ? It is due to the fact that “house” is written in the Torah with regard to all these halakhot . The legal status of a structure with an area of less than four by four cubits is not that of a house.

וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ וְאֵין מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בּוֹ וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין בּוֹ עֵירוּב. מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּלָא חֲזִי לְדִירָה. עֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת אֵין מַנִּיחִין בּוֹ, אֲבָל שִׁיתּוּף – מַנִּיחִין בּוֹ.

And by rabbinic law, one need not join the houses in the courtyards for a house with that area, and one need not merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway for a courtyard in which the area of its only house is less than four by four cubits. And one does not place the food collected for the joining of courtyards in this house. What is the reason for these halakhot ? It is due to the fact that it is not fit for residence. The point of the joining of courtyards is to transform the courtyard into a residence shared by the residents of all its member households, and this can be accomplished only by placing the joint food in a place whose legal status is that of a house. The Gemara infers this from the fact that it is taught in the baraita : And one does not place the food of the joining of courtyards in this house, but the food of the merging of alleyways, one places in it.

מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא גָּרַע מֵחָצֵר שֶׁבַּמָבוֹי. דִּתְנַן: עֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת – בֶּחָצֵר, שִׁיתּוּפֵי מָבוֹי – בַּמָּבוֹי.

What is the reason for this distinction? It is due to the fact that it is no less a residence than a courtyard in the alleyway. An unroofed courtyard is not fit for residence, and nevertheless the food for the merging of alleyways may be placed there, as we learned in a baraita in tractate Eiruvin (85b): The joining of courtyards may be placed in the courtyard and the merging of alleyways may be placed in the alleyway.

וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: עֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת בֶּחָצֵר?! וְהָתְנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ בְּבֵית שַׁעַר אַכְסַדְרָה וּמִרְפֶּסֶת – אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב, וְהַדָּר שָׁם אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר!

And we discussed this halakha : How can the joining of courtyards be placed in the courtyard? Didn’t we learn in the mishna: With regard to one who placed his joining of courtyards in a gatehouse or in a portico [ akhsadra ], a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, or on a balcony, it is not a fit eiruv . And one who resides there, in any of these structures, does not render it prohibited for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry, even if he did not contribute to the eiruv , as the legal status of these places is not that of a house.

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת בַּבַּית שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר, וְשִׁיתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת בֶּחָצֵר שֶׁבַּמָבוֹי. וְהַאי לָא גָּרַע מֵחָצֵר שֶׁבַּמָבוֹי.

Rather, emend the mishna and say: The joining of courtyards is placed in one of the full-fledged houses that is in the courtyard, and the merging of alleyways is placed even in one of the courtyards that opens into the alleyway. And this house whose area is less than four by four cubits is no less a residence than one of the courtyards that open into the alleyway.

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ עִיבּוּר בֵּין שְׁתֵּי עֲיָירוֹת – דַּאֲפִילּוּ כְּבוּרְגָּנִין לָא מְשַׁוֵּינַן לֵיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? בּוּרְגָּנִין – חֲזוּ לְמִילְּתַיְיהוּ, וְהַאי – לָא חֲזִי לְמִילְּתֵיהּ.

It is taught in the baraita : And one does not render it an extension of the city limits when it is located between two cities. The Gemara explains: This means that we do not even render its halakhic status like that of huts [ burganin ] used by grain watchmen in the fields, which join the two cities between which they are located for the purpose of measuring the Shabbat limit. What is the reason that it is considered less a residence than a watchman’s hut? The Gemara answers: Watchmen’s huts, even though they are not sturdy, are suited for their matters, while this house with an area less than four by four cubits is not suited for its matter, as it is not fit for residence.

וְאֵין הָאַחִין וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין חוֹלְקִין בּוֹ. טַעְמָא – דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, הָא אִית בֵּיהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חוֹלְקִין.

It is taught in the baraita : And brothers and partners do not divide a house that does not measure at least four by four cubits, as it is too small to be divided. The reason that a house that size is not divided is due to the fact that there is not an area of four by four cubits in it; however, if there is an area of four by four cubits in it, they divide it.

וְהָתְנַן: אֵין חוֹלְקִין אֶת הֶחָצֵר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לָזֶה וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לָזֶה!

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna: One divides the courtyard at the request of one of the heirs or partners only if its area is sufficient so that there will be in it four by four cubits for this partner or heir and four by four cubits for that partner or heir? Apparently, in order to divide a courtyard it must be at least four by eight cubits.

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֵין בּוֹ דִּין חֲלוּקָה כְּחָצֵר. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: חָצֵר לְפִי פְּתָחֶיהָ מִתְחַלֶּקֶת. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: נוֹתֵן לְכָל פֶּתַח וּפֶתַח אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וְהַשְּׁאָר חוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה.

Rather, emend the baraita and say that the halakha of division like that of a courtyard does not apply to it. As Rav Huna said: A courtyard is divided according to the number of its entrances. When the residents of the houses in a courtyard divide the courtyard between them, the division is not based on the number of houses in the courtyard, nor is it based on the size of the houses. Instead, it is divided based on the number of entrances that open into the courtyard. Rav Ḥisda said: One gives the homeowner for each and every entrance four cubits, and the rest of the courtyard is divided equally among the residents of the courtyard.

דְּהָנֵי מִילֵּי – בַּיִת דִּלְמֶהֱוֵי קָאֵי, יְהָבִינָא לֵיהּ חָצֵר. הַאי דִּלְמִיסְתַּר קָאֵי – לָא יְהָבִינַן לֵיהּ חָצֵר.

The principle that entrances are factored into the division of a courtyard applies only with regard to a house that stands to endure, as the owner needs use of the yard to ease access to his house, so we provide him with four cubits according to Rav Ḥisda, or part of the courtyard according to Rav Huna. However, in the case of this small house, which stands to be leveled, its owner has no need for the adjacent courtyard, so we do not provide him with any part of the courtyard, as if it were not even there.

הָיְתָה גְּבוֹהָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה וּבָא לְמַעֲטָהּ בְּכָרִים וּכְסָתוֹת לֹא הָוֵי מִיעוּט,

§ With regard to the halakha in the mishna that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is unfit, the Gemara states: If the sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one comes to diminish its height by placing cushions and blankets on the floor, it is not a decrease of halakhic significance. It does not render the sukka fit, because in that case one is concerned that the bedding will be ruined and therefore does not intend to leave it there very long.