Sukkah 41 – Remembering the Temple and building it again

The Sukkot bunch is taken and waved only on the first day of Sukkot, but it is done all seven days in the Temple. The Torah said, “on Sukkot, take the bunch and rejoice for seven days before God" - that is, do it once, but in the Temple - all seven days. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai decreed to take the bunch all seven days to remember how it was done in the Temple.

What is the source for the idea to remember the Temple? – Since Jeremiah said, “This is Zion, nobody is looking for it,” we see that there is a mitzvah to look for and remember the Temple.

He also decreed to keep the Temple in mind on the day after Passover, when the Omer offering used to be brought. This offering permits newly grown wheat to be eaten. The confusion may arise on the year when the Temple is built, and to prevent it, Rabbi Yochanan delayed eating the new grain for one day.

However, how can the confusion arise at all? If the Temple is built after the 16th of Nissan, then the new wheat is already permitted. And even if it was made before, the new grain (chadash) should be allowed right after midday because if the Temple stands, they would have brought the Omer already.

The answer: the Temple may be built at night on the sixteenth or just before sundown on the fifteenth. But this time is either night or a holiday, and one cannot construct the Temple at these times!? – True, but this applies only to the first two Temples, whereas the third one will come down miraculously from Heaven, following the verse, “The Sanctuary, my God, that Your hands established.” Others explain this differently.

Art: The Wheat Field by Claude Oscar Monet

Sukkah 40 - What is the difference between the palm branch and a citron?

Our last rule said that the etrog (citron) is a fruit and is subject to the laws of the Shmita year, but that lulav (palm branch) did not have this problem. But why? If etrog is subject to Shmita, so should be the lulav! Well, lulav did not begin growing in the fifteen days between Rosh HaShanah and Sukkot, when Shmita really started. But then the same can be said about the etrog! – No, the difference is that for palm tree, its Shmita starts when it is planted – which is before Shmita, but for etrog – at the time of picking it, which is on Shmita.

The last explanation may work, but it seems artificial. Why do we even need to use it? The difference is simpler: citron is food, and palm branches are not. So the laws of Shmita apply to one but not to the other. Actually, this is not so obvious. The laws of Shmita are defined as “for you, it will be for food.” This includes foods, but it also includes anything that is for you, anything at all. How do we reconcile this? – We include anything like food. Just like with food, the act of destroying it and enjoying it comes at the same time, so for example, ointments are also included. But palm branches are excluded because we burn them now and use their hot coals for cooking later.

Art: Still Life With Lemons On A Plate by Vincent Van Gogh

Sukkah 39 – Sukkot on the seventh year

When one buys a Sukkot bunch from his fellow on the seventh year (Sabbatical, or Shmita), then – since the etrog that he is buying is a fruit, and fruit should be treated with special care on the Shmita year – he should only pay for the lulav, the palm branch, and ask for the etrog to be given to him as a present. Why? – his fellow may not be all that knowledgeable in the laws of Shmita. He may not know how to deal with the money from this sale.

What if the fellow does not want to give him the etrog as a present? – Then he should include the price of it in the price of the lulav branch. Some say that the price should be high enough, so his fellow does not mind and verbalize that he is giving a present. Others – that it is enough for the buyer to have it in mind.

But why go through all these machinations, let him give the fellow the money outright!? – As we mentioned, the fellow might use the money to buy non-kosher foods or non-food items and be unaware that this is the wrong use of the Shmita money.

Art: Branch Of Lemons by Claude Oscar Monet

Sukkah 38 – You can do it all day

The actual mitzvah to be performed with the Sukkot bunch is to “take it,” and that is why the blessing is “...Who commanded us to take the lulav” – with the lulav (palm branch) being the highest of the rest. However, the Sages added the requirement to also wave the bunch in all the directions of the world and up and down. This is to show that one is doing it for the sake of the One to whom all directions of the world and heavens and earth belong. Another explanation: to protect from harmful winds on all sides, which shows that even the non-essential parts of a mitzvah (such as waving, which is not obligatory) have the power to stop bad things from happening.

If one was traveling on the road and did not have the lulav, he can wave it when he comes home, at the table – since he can take the lulav all day. The waving of the lulav is done while reciting the praises of God and gratitude, called Hallel. One should preferably say the Hallel himself, but if he does not know, then others, even if they are not obligated, can recite it for him, and he will answer “Amen!” He deserves a curse, though, for he should have learned it himself.

Art: Old Woman Waving a Stick at a Boy By George Morland

Sukkah 37 – Tying it all together

It is good to tie the bunch of Sukkot branches together. Rabbi Yehudah even considers this a necessary requirement: the branches must be bound together. Thus, the material that you use to tie it together is part of the mitzvah. If so, it must be one of the same four species that you are tying – otherwise, you are adding to a mitzvah and taking together five species, and not four, and the Torah said, “Do not add to the mitzvot or subtract from them.”

However, Rabbi Meir says that the binding is not strictly required; thus, it is not a mitzvah, and the binding can be made of any material. In fact, the important people of Jerusalem were using golden threads. What does Rabbi Yehudah answer? The gold was on top of the branches for beautification, but the real binding was done with one of the four species, most likely a lulav leaf.

Similarly, Rabbi Yehudah permits to make sukkah only out of the same four species. His logic? Here it is: sukkah is more stringent than the lulav bunch since it applies both day and night, whereas lulav is only by day. Therefore, if the lulav bunch can have only one of the four species, the sukkah must certainly be made of the same materials. And what did the Sages answer? That this logic, seemingly strict, is, in fact, lenient and thus does not apply. If he does not have the right materials, he may ignore the sukkah and go live at home – which is unacceptable lenience; thus, the logic is incorrect.

Art: Branches with Almond Blossom By Vincent Van Gogh

Sukkah 36 – Etrog must be beautiful

Etrog must be gorgeous since Torah called it the “fruit of a glorious tree.” Thus, for example, if it was split or punctured to miss a slight piece, it is invalid. However, if it was punctured with a needle but is complete, it still looks good, and therefore it is valid.

Rava asked a related query: “What if its internal part has rotted away, similar to a rotting lung? Would it be kosher?” On the one hand, the etrog looks good and similar to a lung that has rotten in the internal tissues; it may still be valid. On the other hand, a lung is completely protected from the outside air and thus does not rot further, but an etrog is open to elements and might deteriorate more. The Talmud tries to find proof from the law of a spoiled etrog but discards this attempt because perhaps that spoiling was from the outside, and Rava is asking about the inside. The question thus remains unresolved.

If one grew an etrog in a mold, and now it does not have the regular etrog shape – it is invalid because it is atypical. However, it is valid if he reshaped it, and the new shape is also characteristic of an etrog.

If mice punctured an etrog and made a hole in it, it is invalid. But Rav Chanina would dip his etrog, eat a piece, and then use it, and it was still valid!? - A mice bite is different because it is repulsive to people, and this is not beautiful.

Art: Dormice By Archibald Thorburn

Sukkah 35 – Etrog, or citron

Etrog (citron) is one of the species in the Sukkot bunch. However, since it is special in that it has taste and smell, its requirements are more strict. For example, the laws of orlah (fruit that is not eaten for the first three years) apply to it, and thus an etrog in the first three years is invalid. Technically, this is because, by law, it will be burned and thus is considered to have zero measurements even now.

If the etrog is the priest's portion (terumah) and is ritually impure – it is invalid because one cannot eat it. If it is the priest's portion and it is pure – then one should not take it so that he does not make it impure, but if he does – it is valid.

But how do we know that “etrog” is citron in the first place? Since the Torah calls it “beautiful tree-fruit,” we understand that it comes from such a special tree whose branches also have the taste of its fruit – and that is citron. But perhaps it is pepper? - No, that could not be: if you take just one pepper, it is too small. And if you take two or three – the Torah said to take one fruit, not two or three. Thus it must be citron.

Art: Pepper And Lemon On A White Tablecloth By Odilon Redon

Sukkah 34 – The branches

On Sukkot, one must take a bunch of branches – which includes the etrog (citron), a palm branch (lulav), two willow branches (aravot), and three myrtle branches (hadassim). One waves them in all six directions. The four types of branches or fruit have similar laws, but the teacher enumerates them separately because of some differences between them. One should preferably procure the best.

The willow branch – if it is stolen – is invalid. That is because the Torah said, “Take for yourself,” which means – it should be yours, not stolen. If the willow branch is dried out, it is also invalid because it is no longer beautiful.

If one cuts off a branch from a tree that was grown to worship it, it is invalid. As an object of idol worship, it should be burned, and therefore even now, it is regarded as having zero dimensions, whereas a certain minimal size is required. However, if it only withered or a portion of its leaves fell off, it remains valid.

Earlier, we mentioned how many of each type is required. However, Rabbi Akiva has a different logic: just as citron and palm branch are one, willow and myrtle must also be one. What about the first teacher? – He derives the required numbers from the spelling of their names.

Art: Large Citron in a Landscape by Bartolommeo Bimbi

Sukkah 25 – Trees around your sukkah

If one made trees serve as walls of his sukkah, this is valid, and we don't say that perhaps the Sages decreed not to do this out of concern that someone may use a tree on holiday. They didn't.

However, Rav Acha bar Yakov stated that any partition that moves is not valid. What about our sukkah, which is surrounded by trees whose branches are always moving! - Rav Acha will answer that we don't know all the circumstances: the rule only applies if he has tied the tree branches with interwoven branches of palm trees. Thus, the permission that we had suddenly becomes very limited.

One who is busy with a mitzvah – such as traveling to study Torah, greet his teacher, or redeem a Jewish captive – does not have to observe the mitzvah of sukkah. Why? – Since he is busy with one mitzvah, he should not abandon it to do another one. And how do we know this principle? – Since the Torah said, "When you sit in your home." This is said about reading the "Shema" prayer, but it teaches us a general principle: one only has to do a mitzvah if he is “sitting in his home” and is not busy with another mitzvah. But maybe the Torah is talking about one who is sitting in his home and is already doing a mitzvah – which would then teach us precisely the opposite, namely, that one has to drop a mitzvah and do another one!? – No, the Torah said an extra word, “your” home, to teach that you are busy only with your affairs. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Art: The Artist's House Through the Trees by John Henry Twachtman

Sukkah 24 – Should one be concerned with improbabilities?

In discussing the use of an animal for walls of a sukkah, Rabbi Yehudah allows it: as long as it serves as a partition, it is a valid wall. However, Rabbi Meir says that the Sages decreed not to do this. Why not? The animal may die, and in doing so, bring its height to less than ten handbreadths. One may not notice this and continue sitting in a sukkah that is not kosher. According to this, an elephant, which is high enough even in death, would make a valid partition.

But is it Rabbi Meir's way to be concerned with improbabilities? For example, if one buys wine that may not have been tithed and needs to drink it on Shabbat, he can separate the tithe in his mind and do it physically after Shabbat – and there Rabbi Meir is not concerned that the wine bag will break and leave him with no tithe! - He will answer that it is more likely for an animal to die than for a wineskin to break.

But is Rabbi Yehudah not concerned with the possibility of death? Why, on Yom Kippur, he prepares another wife for the High Priest – lest his wife will die! – He will answer that Yom Kippur is special.

So you are saying that you are concerned about the animal's death, but otherwise, the animal could be a wall? If so, it is a utensil and can receive spiritual impurity. Why then does Rabbi Meir consider it pure even when used as a coffin cover? Because of this objection, we take away all of the previous discussion and say that the real reason why an animal cannot be a wall is that Rabbi Meir requires walls made by man's hands in a sukkah.

Art: The Display of the Elephant by Pietro Longhi

Sukkah 23 – Sukkah-mobile

If one makes his sukkah on top of a wagon – it is valid since it is definitely only a temporary dwelling.

If he makes it on a ship, it is valid too. It once happened that Rabbi Akiva and Rabban Gamliel were traveling on a ship, and Rabbi Akiva made his sukkah on top of it. The following day a wind blew and toppled the sukkah. Said Rabban Gamliel, “Akiva, where is your sukkah now?” However, he was not taunting; rather, in Rabban Gamliel's view, a sukkah on top of a ship is invalid. Why? – Because it cannot withstand the strong sea winds, and is thus as if non-existent. If so, what does Rabbi Akiva answer? – He says that if it could stand on land, that is enough permanence, which is valid.

If he makes his sukkah on top of a tree, this is valid, but since one cannot climb trees on holidays, one cannot go up into this sukkah on the first day of Sukkot (a Holiday.)

If he makes a sukkah on top of a camel, it is valid between the camel's humps, and here too, he cannot go up into this sukkah on the holidays. Some say that the sukkah should be equally fit for all seven days of Sukkot and, since here he cannot use it on the first day, it is invalid for the rest. The Talmud continues with discussions of when live animals can be used for walls or coverings, or even for writing a Get on them, and what the problems with this might be.

Art: The Storm at Sea with Shipwreck By Jan The Elder Brueghel

Sukkah 22 – Little s'chach, much s'chach

A sukkah with a meager covering (s'chach), just enough to have more shade than the sun, is nevertheless kosher. Some say that by “meager,” we mean that the s'chach is on two levels, even beams lower and odd beams higher. This is valid because we apply the principle of “throw down” and regard the upper s'chach as being on the level with the lower one. This is similar to the “edge of the roof coming down,” only called a different name here.

On the other extreme, if a sukkah is covered with too much s'chach so that the stars cannot be seen through it at night, it is not ideal but is still valid. In fact, even if the s'chach keeps out the sun's rays in the daytime, it is also valid, albeit only according to Beit Hillel.

Art: Starry Night Over The Rhone By Vincent Van Gogh

Sukkah 21 – Under the bed in a sukkah

Earlier, we said that being under the bed in a sukkah is not considered fulfilling the mitzvah of the sukkah and quoted a precedent for this. But why not? Usually, a bed is lower than ten handbreadths; it is not considered a roof to shield us from the sukkah's roof and should be nullified! You are right; this is correct: there is no argument in the case of a low bed; one can sleep under it. However, the teacher was talking about a tall bed.

And yet, Rabbi Yehudah quotes a precedent that goes in the opposite direction. He says, “We were sleeping under the bed in a sukkah in the presence of the Sages, and they did not say anything.” Now we need to explain Rabbi Yehudah's point of view. Rabbi Yehudah will say that even though the bed looks like a tent, it is made to lie upon it, not to hide underneath it, and thus it does not qualify as a regular tent with a roof, regardless of geometry. Alternatively, the explanation may be that according to Rabbi Yehudah's own opinion, sukkah has to be a permanent steady dwelling. A movable bed is only a temporary shelter, so the steady roof of a sukkah is considered a proper roof, while the bed is not, and we can ignore it.

Art: The Bedroom by Marius Borgeaud

Sukkah 20 – In a sukkah, under the bed

One who sleeps under the bed in a sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation of "dwelling in a sukkah." This is also true of eating and drinking, but the teacher chose to talk about sleeping because even a brief nap is not permitted outside the sukkah while eating a snack is allowed.

Rabbi Shimon tells a story to support this view. Tavi, the slave of Rabban Gamliel, was a Torah scholar. He was once sleeping under the bed in a sukkah, and Rabban Gamliel remarked to the Sages: “Do you see my slave Tavi? He knows that slaves are not obligated in the mitzvah of the sukkah (although they have to do many other mitzvot), and therefore sleeps under the bed!”

Why does Rabbi Shimon attract our attention to the word “remark?” – To tell us that Sages never chit-chat, but that even their casual remarks require study. Why? – King David compares a scholar to a tree planted near a stream, which yields fruit in season (students and teachings) and whose leaves (lighthearted remarks) never wither (that is, contain sap of knowledge).

Art: Woman Looking Under a Bed, By Edouard (Jean-Edouard) Vuillard