Sukkah 27 - Fourteen obligatory meals in the Sukkah

One must eat fourteen meals in the Sukkah during the seven days of the Holiday, one during the day and one in the evening. This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. What is his logic? One should live in the Sukkah like at home, and just as at home, he eats a day meal and an evening meal; he must do the same in the Sukkah.

The Sages disagree: only the first evening meal is obligatory. What is their logic? Don't they agree that he should live in the Sukkah? Yes, they agree, but their logic is different: just as at home, eating is not obligatory but is his choice, so in the Sukkah, he is not obligated to eat. But if so, why is the first meal required? - They compare Sukkot to Pesach. Just as Pesach starts on the fifteenth of the month and the first meal - matzah - is required, Sukkot also starts on the fifteenth, and the first meal is required.

Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer said that if one missed the first meal in the Sukkah, he can compensate it by eating another meal, and even on the Holiday right after Sukkot, which is called Shemini Atzeret, the Eighth-day Holiday. But how could Rabbi Eliezer say that - one is not allowed to sit in the Sukkah for an extra day! - By then, Rabbi Eliezer changed his mind. He agrees that fourteen meals are not required, and now he argues that one can fulfill his obligation after Sukkot, just as it is true on the eighth day of Passover.

The Prayer Before the Meal by Jan Steen

Sukkah 26 - A guarantor needs another guarantor in turn

Someone who is sick is exempt from the obligation of a sukkah: he does not have to sleep there, and he does not have to eat there. Even his attendants can go out of the sukkah and sleep outside. One who feels discomfort - such as the smell of the floor - is not obligated to be in the sukkah. If so, why did we have to mention the sick person? Surely, the sick is uncomfortable. The difference is that the sick can take his attendants with him, but it does not apply to the attendants of an uncomfortable person. 

One can eat a light snack outside the sukkah but not take a catnap. But with tefillin, catnap is allowed; what is the difference? Is it because he can appoint an overseer who will wake him up? Rav Mesharshia objected: that's not an explanation - guarantor needs his own guarantor, and your overseer may fall asleep as well! Rather, one should not nap outside the sukkah because even a nap refreshes him and counts as sleep. With tefillin, the concern is that he should not pass gas, and that won't happen while catnapping.

Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was extra strict with himself and ate and drank even small amounts only in the sukkah. Nevertheless, this kind of strictness is permitted and is not considered presumptuous.

Art: The Sick Child by J. Bond Francisco

Shabbat 95 - Nail biting and painting eyes on Shabbat

If one bites his nails on Shabbat or removes pieces of his nail with the help of the other - has he violated Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer says that he has because it is similar to shearing. But the Sages say that the Torah did not prohibit it. Why? Let us look at similar examples.

The same disagreement applies if one paints her eyes, plucks the hair of the head or a mustache, or braids her hair. The Sages say that this is not how the work was done in building the Temple. Why would Rabbi Eliezer prohibit braiding the hair? God has "built" Eve out of Adam's rib, and the word "built" also means that he braided her hair and then brought her to Adam.

What if one plucks the flowers in a pot? Has he violated Shabbat? No, because these flowers do not draw sustenance from the ground. The exception is a flower pot with a hole at the bottom facing the earth. In this case, we have an imaginary connection between the flower and the earth.

Art: Brading Her Hair by Christian Krohg

Shabbat 93 - Giant loaf of bread

If one takes a loaf of bread and carries it from his home to the street, then, of course, he is liable for violating Shabbat. We learned it throughout this chapter. 

If, however, two people carry the loaf together, neither of them is liable. Why is that? To be liable, one has to complete the action of a Shabat violation by "committing it that may not be done." The grammar points to him committing the act entirely without any help.

What if the loaf was so big that neither one nor the other could carry it alone, and they had to carry it together? They are again liable. Here, however, Rabbi Shimon considers them both exempt. Both Rabbi Shimon and his opponents are based on the same phrase. However, they disagree on what exactly the other phrases exclude from liability.

Art: Still life with stoneware jug, wine glass, herring, and bread by Pieter Claesz

Shabbat 91 - Storing food, and then carrying it

Previously, we learned that one should not carry food on Shabbat in the street. We also detailed the amount of food one must carry to incur liability, depending on the type of food.

Now, if he first stores food in a designated place, then his action shows that this stored amount is significant in his eyes. Then, he is liable for even a smaller amount of food if he carries it. Let's see the details.

If one stores a minute amount of seed for planting, or as a sample to show to prospective customers, or to use as medicine - and then he carries it to the street on Shabbat, he is liable. All other people, however, are only liable for standard amounts.

If he (the one who stored the grain) decides against planting, the seed loses the importance he attached to it. If he carries it back, he is only liable for the standard amounts.

A dissenting opinion: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that once the first person stores the food intending it for planting, anyone else becomes liable if he carries this amount. Thus, the thought of the first one made the second one liable.

Art: Sower With Setting Sun - Vincent van Gogh

Shabbat 92 - How tall was Moses?

On Shabbat, one is not allowed to carry objects in public areas. However, he is only liable for regular way of carrying.

For example, whether he carries objects in his right hand or in his left, in his bosom, or on his shoulders, he is liable because this was the normal way the priests carried objects in the Tabernacle. In general, the laws of Shabbat are determined by how things were done in the Tabernacle. Since building the Tabernacle was a model of construction for the whole world, "labor" is determined through that. On the other hand, if he carries it with his foot or in his mouth, in his armpit or in his ear, he is not liable for that.

In addition, if one carries an item above 10 handbreadths from the ground, he is also liable. But that is not a normal way of carrying?! - For the Levites, it is! We learn it from the Altar, which was 10 handbreadths high and which the Levites carried on their shoulders, leaving 10 handbreadths to the ground. 

But learn it from Moses, who was 10 cubits (3 meters) high? And all other Levites must have been the same height? - Not necessarily. Perhaps Moses was much taller than the other Levites. After all, we have a rule that Divine presence rests only upon someone who is wise, strong, wealthy, and tall.

Art: Bedouin Women Carrying Water Jars by John Singer Sargent

Shabbat 2 - From the house to the street

On Shabbat, one should not take things from his house into the street and vice versa. This is one of the thirty-nine "labors" prohibited on Shabbat.

At first glance, it seems strange and hard to find in the Torah. However, "and the people were restrained from bringing more" refers to this. The people were not allowed to carry from their private domain into a public one, and it happened on Yom Kippur, which has the same laws as Shabbat.

For example, if a poor man is standing outside a house and a householder is inside - and if the poor man extends his hand with an object and places it into the hand of a householder - the poor man is liable for bringing the object in on Shabbat. Similarly, the poor man should not take objects out of the house.

Thus, there are two prohibited acts that the man can do while standing outside. However, if the poor man extends his hand inside, but now the householder takes the basket from him - since the poor man performed only half of the act - he has not violated Shabbat. The Sages prohibited it, nevertheless, to prevent him from doing a complete act.

Thus, the rule is that "there are two ways to violate Shabbat, which are really four" - two more were added by the Sages.

Art: Pittoco Sitting by Giacomo Ceruti