דילמא אתי לאפרושי מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב
In that case, there is the concern lest one come to separate tithes from the obligated produce to fulfill the obligation for the exempt produce, or from the exempt produce to fulfill the obligation for the obligated produce. Produce that one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law has the status of exempt produce by Torah law. Since it is difficult to distinguish between produce that one is obligated to tithe by Torah law and produce that one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law, one might seek to fulfill his obligation by separating tithes from one for the other. In both cases, both the produce designated as a tithe and the produce for which it was tithed would retain the status of untithed produce. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda could not have said that a sukka is considered a house by rabbinic law.
אלא אמר אביי בשבעה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דמיחייבא כי פליגי בשאר ימות השנה רבנן סברי גזרינן שאר ימות השנה אטו שבעה ור' יהודה סבר לא גזרינן
Rather, Abaye said: The dispute with regard to the mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber must be explained differently. During the seven days that the High Priest lives in the Parhedrin chamber during his sequestering, everyone agrees that the chamber is obligated in the mitzva to affix a mezuza there. When they disagree is with regard to the rest of the days of the year, when no one resides there. The Rabbis hold: We issue a decree and require that a mezuza be affixed during the rest of the year due to those seven days that the High Priest lives there; and Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not issue that decree, and there is no obligation to affix a mezuza to the chamber the rest of the year.
א"ל רבא והא סוכת החג בחג קתני
Rava said to him: But isn’t it taught in the mishna cited above: The sukka that he constructed for the festival of Sukkot on the festival of Sukkot? Apparently, contrary to the opinion of Abaye, the dispute is whether or not there is an obligation to affix a mezuza to the sukka during the Festival itself. If, as Abaye said, the tanna’im agree that there is an obligation to affix a mezuza during the festival of Sukkot even though it is used for only a brief period, on what basis do the Rabbis rule that there is no obligation even on the Festival itself?
אלא אמר רבא בשאר ימות השנה כ"ע לא פליגי דפטורה כי פליגי בשבעה וסוכה טעמא לחוד ולשכה טעמא לחוד
Rather, Rava said: During the rest of the days of the year, everyone agrees that the Parhedrin chamber is exempt from the obligation to affix a mezuza there. When they disagree is with regard to the seven days that the High Priest lives there, and with regard to a sukka during the Festival. And in order to resolve the contradiction between the opinions about the obligation of the chamber and of the sukka, the Gemara asserts: With regard to the sukka the reason is discrete, and with regard to the chamber the reason is discrete.
סוכה טעמא לחוד רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר סוכה דירת קבע בעינן ומיחייבא במזוזה ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי סוכה דירת עראי בעינן ולא מיחייבא במזוזה
The Gemara explains: With regard to sukka, the reason is discrete. Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a well-built permanent residence. A permanent residence is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they say: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a temporary residence, not a full-fledged house. A temporary residence is not obligated in the mitzva of mezuza.
ולשכה טעמא לחוד רבנן סברי דירה בעל כרחה שמה דירה ורבי יהודה סבר דירה בעל כרחה לא שמה דירה ומדרבנן הוא דתקינו לה שלא יאמרו כהן גדול חבוש בבית האסורין
And similarly, with regard to the chamber, the reason is discrete. The Rabbis hold: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is nevertheless considered a residence. Although the High Priest resides in the Parhedrin chamber due to a mitzva and not of his own volition, its legal status is that of a residence and a mezuza must be affixed. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is not considered a residence. Therefore, there should be no obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, just as there is no obligation to do so in the other Temple chambers in which priests reside. However, the Sages instituted this obligation by rabbinic law so that people will not say: The High Priest is imprisoned in jail, as only in substandard residences that appear unfit for residence is there no obligation to affix a mezuza.
מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן
Who is the tanna who taught the following baraita? As the Sages taught: