Daf Ditty Succah 2: Dimensions

A kosher sukkah with 2.5 walls.

MISHNA: A sukkah, i.e., its roofing, which is the main and most crucial element of the mitzva, that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

Similarly, a sukkah that is not even ten handbreadths high, and one that does not have three walls, and one whose sunlight that passes through its roofing is greater than its shade are unfit.

Summary

Our masechet begins with an argument between Rabbi Yochanan and the rabbis. The Mishna speaks to the height of a sukka's roof. What happens if it is more than 20 cubits? It moves on to tell us more about the structure of a sukka: it must be more than 10 handbreadths high, have at least three walls, and allow for more shade than sunlight inside of the structure.

The Gemara reminds us of a similar argument in Eiruvin, where an alleyway is not to be more than 20 or less than 10 cubits high. It also reminds us that the arguments surrounding an alleyway are rabbinic in origin. The sukka, in contrast, is specifically commanded by G-d in the Torah to have certain measurements and characteristics. The stage is set for the seriousness of this discussion.

Rabba, Rabbi Zeira, Abaye and Rava present verses from the Torah that would prove their arguments. Each argues why they roof must be less than 20 cubits: to remind inhabitants that they are in a sukka and not a permanent dwelling; to ensure that shade is provided by the roof itself; to block the rain that might otherwise soak the inhabitants. Rabbi Zeira argues that a sukka is permitted in a valley that blocks all sunlight, for if the mountains were moved, the sukka's roof would provide shade.

The Gemara notes many arguments not applied by these rabbis. For example, we know from Isaiah 4:6 that the sukka will serve to protect us from the heat of the day. And we learn that this is a metaphor: G-d will shield and shelter G-d's people. Additionally, the height of the sukka roof is not significant; the issue is whether or not we notice the roof. As long as the walls reach the roof, Rabba argues that the sukka is permitted. Our eyes are drawn up the walls to the thatched roof where we remember that this is an impermanent structure.

The rabbis continue to debate the height of the sukka's roof, now focusing on the size of the structure itself. If the sukka is larger than four cubits by four cubits, the shade provided by the roof will differ as the sun moves across the sky. The rabbis go to great lengths to understand how and when the sukka might be shaded when it is smaller and larger.

From here, the rabbis wonder how large a sukka must be - is room enough for a table and a person's head and body enough? The rabbis agree that four cubits by four cubits should be the smallest permitted sukka.

We learn a wonderful story about Queen Heleni of Lod. Rabbi Yehuda reminds us that some sukkot have had roofs 40 or 50 cubits high. In fact, Queen Heleni had such a sukka and no one objected. Perhaps, argue the rabbis, she built a sub-standard sukka. After all, she was a woman and therefore not obliged to observe the mitzvot. But what about her seven sons? They would be subject to the mitzvot and thus the roof should be an accepted height. How old were they? Grown, Torah scholars? Or were they minors and not yet obligated, either? The rabbis are certain that at

least one of her children would be seven years old and not requiring his mother's constant care. But is that when children are obliged to reside in the sukka - once they are able to care for themselves?

It is understood that Queen Heleni, as a convert and a generous and righteous woman, would follow the advice of the Sages when building her sukka. And the walls may not have met the roof! At the end of today's daf, the rabbis are considering deference to the practice of a woman.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

MISHNAH: There is a debate regarding a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos (cubits) high. The Chachamim maintain that it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehudah maintains that it is valid. A Sukkah that is smaller than ten tefachim (handbreadths), or that does not have at least three walls, or if there is more sun than shade, it is invalid.

The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Eruvin that records a debate regarding a mavoi (alleyway) whose korah, crossbeam, is higher than twenty amos. The Chachamim maintain that it is not valid, and one must lower the korah to a height of less than twenty amos and Rabbi Yehudah maintains that one is not required to lower the korah. Why in our Mishnah does it state that the Sukkah is invalid, whereas the Mishnah in Eruvin states a remedy for the korah that is higher than twenty amos. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Sukkah, since it is a Biblical ordinance, it is proper for the Tanna to state that it is “invalid,” whereas regarding the korah over a mavoi, however, since the injunction is only Rabbinical, a remedy is given. Alternatively, you may say that even with a Biblical ordinance a remedy may be given, but with regard to the Sukkah, as the ordinances relating to them are numerous, it was stated that it is “invalid” (as that is a clear manner), whereas regarding the korah over a mavoi, since their details are not so numerous, a remedy is indicated.

From where do we know these words (that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is invalid)? Rabbah states that this based upon the following verse: So that your generations will know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in Sukkos. When one sits in a Sukkah whose s’chach, covering, is higher than twenty amos, he is not aware that he is dwelling in a Sukkah, as he does not notice the s’chach. Rabbi Zeira says that a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid is based upon the following verse: And a Sukkah will be for shade in the daytime from the heat. Until twenty amos, a person sits in the shade of the Sukkah; when the s’chach is higher than twenty amos, one is not sitting in the shade of a Sukkah, but rather, he is sitting in the shade of the walls. Abaye asked him: But if so, if a man made his Sukkah in Ashteros Karnayim (a lowland which is between two mountains), would the Sukkah also be invalid? He answered him: In that case, remove the ‘Ashteros Karnayim’ and there will remain the shade of the Sukkah, but here, remove the walls, and you have no shade of a Sukkah.

1 1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Sukkah_2-1.pdf

Rava offers a third reason why a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid: It is written: In Sukkos you shall dwell for seven days. The Torah declared: For the whole seven days leave your permanent abode and dwell in a temporary abode. [With a Sukkah] up to twenty cubits [high] a man makes his abode a temporary one; [in one] higher than twenty cubits, a man does not make his abode temporary, but permanent (and is thus invalid). Abaye asked him: But if so, if he made walls of iron and placed the s’chach over them, would the Sukkah also be invalid?

The Gemora asks: What, however, does Rabbi Zeira answer to this objection? The Gemora answers: He could answer: If so, the verse could read: And it will be for shade in the daytime. Why then was it stated: And a Sukkah will be for shade in the daytime from the heat? Therefore, you must infer both points (that “Sukkah” means something that provides shade, and that God will erect a structure in the Messianic era, and it will be one which provides shade and shelter). The Gemora notes further that they do not say like Rava, on account of the objection of Abaye. (2a2 - 2b1) In accord with whom is that which Rabbi Yoshiyah said in the name of Rav? The argument cited in the Mishnah is only when the walls of the Sukkah do not reach the s’chach, but if they do reach the s’chahc, even the Chachamim agree that the Sukkah is valid – even if it is higher than twenty amos. In accord with whom was this taught? This is according to Rabbah who holds that (in general, a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is invalid because) the eye does not notice the s’chach, and here where the walls reach the s’chach, we apply the reasoning that one’s eyes will travel up the wall and will notice the s’chach.

In accord with whom is that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rav? The argument cited in the Mishnah is only when the Sukkah’s interior is four square amos, but if the Sukkah is wider than four square amos, even the Chachamim would agree that the Sukkah is valid – even if it is higher than twenty amos. In accord with whom was this taught? This is according to Rabbi Zeira who said that it is because of shade, and here we apply the reasoning that the Sukkah is spacious, so the shade is coming from the s’chach. (2b1 - 2b2) In accord with whom is that which Rav Chanan said in the name of Rav? The argument cited in the Mishnah is only if the Sukkah is large enough that it will accommodate a person’s head, most of his body and his table, but if it will accommodate more than a person’s head, most of his body and his table, even the Chachamim agree that the Sukkah will be valid – even if it is higher than twenty amos. The Gemora notes that this is not consistent with any of the opinions cited above

The Gemora asks on Rav Huna and Rav Chanan bar Rabbah from the following Baraisa: A Sukkah which is higher than twenty amos is invalid. Rabbi Yehudah, however, validates it – even if it is up to forty or fifty amos. Rabbi Yehudah offers a proof to his opinion that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid from an incident concerning Queen Helena in Lod. The Queen was sitting in a Sukkah that was higher than twenty amos and the elders (came to visit her) were entering and leaving there and they did not inform her that her Sukkah was invalid. The Chachamim countered to him that this incident is not a proof, because Helena was a woman, and a woman is exempt from the mitzvah of Sukkah. Rabbi Yehudah responded that Helena had seven sons (and certainly one of them had reached the age where he would be required to dwell in a Sukkah), and furthermore, Queen Helena was scrupulous in that she performed all her deeds according to the words of the Chachamim.

Why did he say this second statement that furthermore, Queen Helena was scrupulous in that she performed all her deeds according to the words of the Chachamim? Rabbi Yehudah responded as follows: If you will answer that her sons were minors and minors are exempt from the obligation of the Sukkah; since however she had seven, there must have been at least one who was old enough not to be dependent on his mother. And if you will object that the obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah for a child who is not dependent on his mother is merely a Rabbinical one, and she took no heed of a Rabbinical injunction, come and learn: and furthermore, Queen Helena was scrupulous in that she performed all her deeds according to the words of the Chachamim.

A Little Bit Shady

A Sukkah is designed to provide shade. The Mishnah states that if the sunny area of a Sukkah is greater than its shaded area, the Sukkah is invalid. Rashi explains that the minority of shaded area on the Sukkah floor is negated by the majority of sunny area. The commentators wonder why it was necessary for Rashi to offer this reason. Is it not obvious that a Sukkah that does not have the necessary amount of shade is invalid? Why does Rashi have to mention that the minority of shaded area is negated? The Eimek Bracha cites Tosfos here to answer this question. The Gemara states that there are those that maintain that if a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos, but is wider that four square amos, the Sukkah will be valid. Tosfos explains that the Chachamim have established that even if a Sukkah is more than a thousand amos high, if it is wider than four squared amos, there still will be some shade coming from the s’chach into the Sukkah. It is evident from the words of Tosfos that for a Sukkah to be valid, it is required that the Sukkah should provide at least minimal shade. A Sukkah that has a minority of shaded area would be valid if not for the fact that it is negated by the majority of sunny area. Regarding a Sukkah that has a minority of valid shade and there is a majority of shade which is invalid, i.e. when the shaded area is due to the height of the walls, then the Sukkah is valid. The reason for this is because there is a principle that shade cannot negate shade.

Shade at Twenty Amos

The Chachamim maintain that a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid. One of the reasons offered by the Gemara is that one is obligated to sit in the shade of the Sukkah, which refers to the s’chach. When the Sukkah is higher than twenty amos, there will be no shade from the s’chach. Rather, the shade will be from the walls. Ritva wonders about this, because in the middle of the day, when the sun is directly above, the shade will be from the s’chach and not from the walls? Ritva offers two answers. One answer is that the sun is only directly above in the summer months when the sun travels in middle of the sky. In the month of Tishrei, however, when the sun is always to the side, there will be no shade from the s’chach even in the middle of the day. The second answer of the Ritva is that since in the middle of the day the walls do not provide shade, there will also not be any shade from the s’chach. The Aruch LaNer expresses his bewilderment to this answer, as the reality is that there is shade in the middle of the day. The Aruch LaNer offers a means of explaining the answer of the Ritva. Spelling of the Word “Sukkah” The Cheishek Shlomo notes that the word Sukkah is always spelled in the Talmud with the letter vav,

yet in Scripture the word Sukkah is always spelled without a vav. The word Sukkos in the plural form, however, is spelled with a vav.

Rabbi Chaim Vital in Pri Eitz Chaim and other kabalistic works write that the numerical value of the word Sukkah is ninetyone, which is the same numerical value as the two Names of HaShem, adon-oy and the Shem Havayah. This is true when the word Sukkah is spelled with the letter vav. The Cheishek Shlomo cites a verse in Tehillim 76:3 where the word Sukkah is spelled with a vav. It is said vayehi vesahleim sukko, which can be translated to mean then His Sukkah was complete, i.e. when the word Sukkah equals in numerical value ninety-one, then umnaso b’tziyon, the Name of HaShem and His throne will be complete in Zion. The Cheishek Shlomo suggests that this is the meaning of the words that we recite in the Friday evening prayers, haporeis sukkas shalom, Who spreads the shelter of peace. This shelter of peace alludes to the Gemara in Bava Basra 75 that states that in the future, HaShem will fashion a Sukkah for the righteous. Rava answered him: It is this that I mean to tell you: In a Sukkah up to twenty amos, which a man makes his temporary dwelling, even if he makes it permanent, he has fulfilled his obligation; but in a Sukkah higher than twenty amos, where a man generally makes it a permanent dwelling (for otherwise, it will not endure), even if he makes it temporary, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara notes: They all do not agree with Rabbah’s reason, since that verse refers to the knowledge of future generations (that the Jews in the Wilderness were surrounded by the Clouds of Glory; it is not teaching us that one should be aware that he is sitting in a Sukkah). Nor do they say like Rabbi Zeira, since that verse refers to the Messianic age.

Synthesizing Wisdom and Insight into Knowledge

The Gemara cites a verse as proof that a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos high is invalid. It is said so that your generations will know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in Sukkos. The word used for will know is yeidu. We beseech HaShem in the Shemone Esrei to grant us wisdom, insight and knowledge. Daas, knowledge, is a synthesis of wisdom, Chochmah, and binah, insight. On Rosh Hashanah we are instilled with awe of HaShem, and it is said the beginning of wisdom is fear of HaShem. On Yom Kippur we are granted atonement for our sins, and Yom Kippur is the culmination of the Ten Days of Repentance.

The Gemara in Megillah 17b states that the blessing of repentance in the Shemone Esrei follows the blessing of insight, because it is said and understand with its heart. Once one has insight, he can truly repent and be granted atonement. Following Yom Kippur is Sukkos, when the wisdom and insight are synthesized in a creation of daas, knowledge. This idea can be part of our focus when we dwell in the Sukkah for seven days and contemplate the miracles HaShem has performed for us throughout history.

A SUKKAH TALLER THAN 20 AMOS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara presents four opinions for why a Sukkah taller than 20 Amos is Pasul. There are practical differences between these opinions with regard to whether there are exceptions to the Pesul of a Sukkah taller than 20 Amos, and under what circumstances those exceptions apply.

1. Rabah (2a) says that the reason for why a 20-Amah-tall Sukkah is Pasul is because the Sechach is not readily noticeable. According to this reason, if the walls of the Sukkah reach all the way up to the Sechach, then a person's eye follows the walls and notices the Sechach, and thus the Sukkah is valid even if it is taller than 20 Amos.

2. Rebbi Zeira says that it is Pasul because the Sechach does not provide shade to the lower part of the Sukkah when it is so high. According to this reason, if the length and width of the Sukkah are at least four by four Amos, then the Sechach does provide shade even though it is higher than 20 Amos, and such a Sukkah is valid.

3. Rava says that a Sukkah taller than 20 Amos is Pasul because the Torah requires that the Sukkah be a "Diras Arai," a temporary dwelling. A structure taller than 20 Amos is normally built as a "Diras Keva," a permanent dwelling. A Sukkah cannot be built in the manner of the type of building that is a "Diras Keva." According to Rava, no Sukkah taller than 20 Amos can be valid.

4. The Gemara (2b) cites a fourth opinion. Rav Chanan bar Rabah says that a 20-Amah-tall Sukkah is Pasul only when it is so narrow that it "contains only his head, most of his body, and his table," which is defined as seven Tefachim long by seven Tefachim wide. (TOSFOS explains that such a small structure is considered a chicken coop and is not called a dwelling place.) If, however, the length and width of the Sukkah are larger than seven by seven Tefachim, the Sukkah is valid even if it is taller than 20 Amos.

Which opinion does the Halachah follow?

RABEINU CHANANEL says that the Halachah should follow the view of Rabah. His reasoning (as cited by the Rif) is that Rabah was an expert in Rav's teachings and knew best what Rav taught. If Rabah stated that a tall Sukkah is valid when its walls reach the Sechach, then he must have known that this is what Rav taught. Since Rav was a very early Amora, the Halachah should follow his view. (This is how the KORBAN NESANEL understands the intention of Rabeinu Chananel.)

The Halachah certainly should not follow Rava, because when the Amora'im (Rav Yoshiyah, Rav Huna, and Rav Chanan bar Rabah) quote Rav, none of the statements they quote in his name is consistent with Rava's opinion. The RA'AVAD and BA'AL HA'ITUR add that Rava was a student of Rabah, and thus the Halachah should follow the teacher, not the student.

However, the ROSH points out that the RIF rules in accordance with Rava. The Rosh explains the Rif's reasoning as follows. First, of all the Amora'im quoted in the Gemara, Rava is the latest ("Basra"), and the Halachah normally follows the latest opinion (even though he was a Talmid of

2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/Sukkah/insites/su-dt-002.htm

Rabah). Second, later in the Gemara (7b) Abaye records a list of Tana'im who maintain that a Sukkah is a "Diras Keva," and he includes Rebbi Yehudah of the Mishnah. This implies that the Rabanan and most other Tana'im maintain that a Sukkah is not a "Diras Keva," and that any Tana who maintains that it is a "Diras Keva" is expressing the opinion of a minority. According to all of the Amora'im other than Rava, the Rabanan of the Mishnah do permit a Sukkah over 20 Amos tall even though such a structure is a "Diras Keva." Hence, it is evident from Abaye that the Halachah should follow Rava, who says that a structure that is fit to be a "Diras Keva" should never be a valid Sukkah.

According to Rava, the Mishnah is more precise. The Mishnah makes no mention of any exceptions to the Halachah that a Sukkah 20 Amos tall is Pasul, as Rava maintains. This is the ruling of the SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 633:1):

1. The Laws of the Height of a Succah:

A sukkah which is taller than twenty amot is invalid, whether it is large or small, whether its walls reach the Sechach, or they do not reach the Sechach. However, a twenty amot tall sukkah is valid, even if all of its Sechach is above twenty [amot] because its interior is only twenty [amot].

palms leaves) come down (into it) - if its) יצוה ן If the sukkah is higher than twenty and .2 shade is larger than its sunlit area it is valid; and if not it is invalid.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The first Mishnah in Masechet Sukkah opens with some basic rules about how a sukkah should be erected. If the walls are too tall – over 20 amot (cubits) high – the Tanna Kamma rules that the sukkah cannot be used, a ruling disputed by Rabbi Yehuda.

3 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_sukkah25/

One of the proof-texts that Rabbi Yehuda brings to support his position is a story about Heleni ha- Malkah, whose sukkah was taller than 20 amot high, yet the Sages who came to visit her never commented that there was any problem with her sukkah. In response to a potential argument that, as a woman, Queen Heleni was not obligated in the commandment of dwelling in a sukkah, Rabbi Yehuda points out that she had seven sons – at least one of whom would be obligated on an educational level at the very least – and we know that she always followed the regulations of the Sages.

Heleni was the queen of Adiabene, a small kingdom in the north of Syria on the banks of the Euphrates. In the generation prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, Heleni, together with her sons Monbaz and Izates, began to study Torah with Jews who traveled through their kingdom, and eventually converted to Judaism. It appears that other members of the ruling elite did so as well. Heleni visited Jerusalem a number of times and made donations both to the Temple and to the destitute people living in Israel. Her children followed in her footsteps, and even sent troops to support the Jewish uprising during the Great Revolt.

It appears that she and other members of her royal family are buried in some of the ornate burial chambers in Jerusalem. As is mentioned in several places in the Talmud, Heleni was a giyoret tzedek – a sincere convert to Judaism – who accepted upon herself the constraints of halakha as taught by the Sages.

According to Rabbah, the height of a Sukkah, as well as the height of a pole of a mavoi, is limited be clearly noticeable to the eye. Rashi to Bamidbar 9:19 describes הרוק and the ךכס in order that the the movement of the Clouds of Glory in the desert.

When the Jews camped, it sheltered them like a Sukkah, and when they set out to travel, the Clouds folded over and hovered over the tribe of Yehuda like a pole.

Why does Rashi refer to the position of the Clouds in terms of a Sukkah and a pole?

who points out that we see in our Gemara that both a Sukkah and רמא ו לל ו י Sefer Daf al Hadaf cites a pole for a mavoi are items which are directly visible and placed before us to always be aware of them. The Torah teaches that wherever and whenever the Jews traveled in the desert, they were aware that Hashem was guiding them and leading them every step of the way.

Massechtos Sukkah and Eiruvin begin with this halacha of keeping these mitzvos well within our view, as we set out to remain focused and alert to the significance of the lessons they teach.

All poskim agree that a sukkah higher than twenty amos is invalid. There is, however, a dispute that rests higher than twenty amos. Rabbeinu Asher (1) cites the opinion ךכס regarding the status of that sits higher than twenty amos is considered invalid ךכס of Rabbeinu Yeshayah who writes that .similar to metal bars ךכס כ

higher than twenty amos is not ךכס Rabbeinu Tam (2), on the other hand, disagrees and rules that since its disqualification is a function of its placement. This dispute has a ךכס treated as invalid number of ramifications for other cases (3). One example would be a case of one sukkah produces its own ךכס constructed on top of another. Shulchan Aruch (4) rules that if the lower shade but is not strong enough to support the upper sukkah the lower sukkah is valid even if the .is higher than twenty amos ךכס upper

that is higher than twenty amos, does not , ךכס Commentators (5) question why the upper level of so why doesn’t ךכס invalidates kosher ךכס Normally disqualified ? ךכס disqualify the lower level of will disqualify ךכס that happen in this case? Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi (6) explains that invalid only when it is disqualified by virtue of itself, e.g., branches attached to the ground, or ךכס other something which is susceptible to tumah. If, however, something is not disqualified by virtue of that is higher than twenty amos, it ךכס ,.itself but is disqualified because of its circumstance, e.g .that is beneath it ךכס does not disqualify

This ruling follows the lenient opinion of Rabbeinu Tam (7) but according to Rabbeinu Yeshayah .that is beneath it ךכס would in fact disqualify the lower level of ךכס the upper level of

Mei Hashiloach, zt”l, explains that the true meaning of the mitzvah of sukkah is to “leave one’s permanent dwelling and reside in a temporary one.”

We must leave behind our natural tendency to think that the physical world is an independent and mask that conceals Hashem’s) ארע י ) and realize instead that it is just a transient) עבק ) fixed reality presence.

This is not a mere intellectual exercise; we must feel that each new moment of existence for every single creation emanates directly from Hashem. This is the foundation of all

During his younger years, the Beis Halevi, zt”l, learned in a designated room in his father-in-law’s house. His father-in-law, a chossid of Rav Moshe of Kovrin, zt”l, had agreed at the beginning of their relationship that he would never disturb his son-in-law’s study for any reason whatsoever.

Once, Rav Moshe came to visit at his follower’s home. Although the Beis Halevi’s father-in-law wanted his Rebbe to meet his son-in-law, he couldn’t see how it would be possible to introduce them since this would mean interrupting his constant learning. On the day his Rebbe was going to leave he had an idea. He couldn’t interrupt his son-in-law…but someone else could! When he noticed that the Beis Halevi had left his room for a moment, he placed Rav Moshe’s luggage inside. When the Beis Halevi returned and resumed his study, the Rebbe knocked at the door. “What do you want?” the Beis Halevi asked. “My bags are here. May I come in?”

The Beis Halevi was just then learning the final section of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim. Rav Moshe asked, “What about the first subsection? Do you manage to fulfill it?” The Beis Halevi answered, “I work on fifteen times a day. But I’m always troubled that although the Rema says that imagining being in the all-knowing presence of the King immediately fills a person with fear, it takes me time to feel it.”

The Rebbe explained, “That is because you are thinking with your head. Fear of Heaven is in one’s heart, and it takes time to reach from your head to your heart. That’s why the Rema says to ‘place it on his heart’—not ‘on his head!’

Sara Ronis writes:4

Welcome to Tractate Sukkah — the Talmud’s discussion of the rituals and laws relating to the holiday of Sukkot! If you’re new here, we’re so glad you’ve joined us.

Those who’ve been with us on the Daf Yomi journey for a while know that the Talmud’s discussion of the holidays of Yom Kippur and Passover center on sacrificial rituals performed by priests in the Temple in Jerusalem. While Sukkot also features special Temple sacrifices, in this tracate the rabbis’ focus turns to rituals that are less centralized and more domestic in nature: building a sukkah, the temporary outdoor hut for which the holiday is named, and purchasing, owning, and waving a lulav and etrog.

It should not surprise us that both rituals have their basis in the Torah. If you’re new to these rituals or just want a refresher, it might be helpful to read the biblical descriptions before we get started. Leviticus 23:39–43 lays out the laws of the holiday, and Nehemiah 8:13–18describes how the festival was actually observed by at least some Jews. A careful reader might even notice some key differences between the two accounts!

Today, we dive into the requirements for a sukkah. If you joined us for Tractate Eruvin, you’ll recall the rabbis like to define space carefully, and precisely. Likewise, the mishnah that starts our tractate introduces an extended discussion of the maximum height permitted for one’s sukkah:

A sukkah that is more than 20 cubits (about 30 feet) high is unfit.

Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

A sukkah — which imitates the temporary shelters in which Israel dwelt while bringing in the fall harvest and also while wandering through the wilderness on the way to the Promised Land — is supposed to be both like a home, but also profoundly temporary, with a roof made of organic material (s’chach). The rabbis insist that it is the roof that must do the work of casting shade onto the inhabitants of the sukkah — so the sukkah has to be short enough that the s’chach, not just the walls, cast shade inside.

As part of their discussion of this dispute, the rabbis cite the case of one particularly tall sukkah:

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Queen Helene in Lod whose sukkah was more than 20 cubits high, and the elders were entering and exiting and did not say anything to her (about it being unfit).

4 Myjewishlearning.com

The rabbis said to him: What does this prove? She was, after all, a woman and therefore exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah.

Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: Didn’t she have seven sons (and therefore require a fit sukkah)? And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the sages.

Queen Helene was the dowager queen of Adiabene, a small kingdom in northern Mesopotamia in the first century CE. Together with her sons, she famously converted to Judaism and spent much of her later years in Jerusalem. Both the first century Jewish historian Josephus and the rabbis describe her fabulous wealth and ardent commitment to the Jewish people.

Our daf tells us that she spent some of that wealth on a truly epic sukkah. And the rabbis apparently thought that it was kosher!

A sukkah is an outdoor hut, partially open to the elements. It’s supposed to be a private home but must be open to the community. It has to stand for seven days but must be temporary. It’s the ultimate liminal space. As such, Queen Helene’s story is the perfect one to open the tractate. After all, she herself is the ultimate liminal character: She’s an outsider (an Adiabene) who becomes an insider (a Jew in Jerusalem). She exemplifies the porous boundaries between Jews and non-Jews, and the commitments that those who enter into the Jewish people can bring to participating in Jewish ritual. She herself creates new ritual spaces that literally push boundaries, and then invites the rabbis in!

As we move through the tractate, we’re going to be debating all kinds of measurements and technicalities — but we’ll keep an eye out for that human dimension that pervades so much of rabbinic literature. Queen Helene’s story reminds us that Tractate Sukkah is as much about the people who participate in the rituals as it is about the details of the rituals themselves.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

The first Mishna of Massechet Sukkah begins by teaching us that ‘a sukkah whose s’chach is above twenty amot (approx. 10 metres) is invalid’, and in the subsequent discussion in the daf (Sukkah from where do we know this rule?’ is asked, to which the Gemara‘ – אנמ נה י ילימ 2a), the question of cites three different answers.

According to Rabbah, this law is derived from Vayikra 23:43 where we are taught that the mitzvah so that your generations“ – ןַﬠַמְל וּעְדֵי םֶכיֵתֹרֹד יִכּ תוֹכֻּסַּב יִתְּבַשׁוֹה תֶא יֵנְבּ לֵאָרְשִׂי of Sukkah was established will know that I made Bnei Yisrael live in sukkot”. This suggests that the mitzvah of sukkah requires that those dwelling therein be constantly aware of the s’chach. However, if the s’chach is so high that it is not clearly visible or noticeable by those who dwell in it, then they are unable to achieve this necessary level of awareness.

5 www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

An alternative answer is offered by Rabbi Zeira who suggests that this law is derived from a sukkah will be for shade in“ - הָכֻּסְו הֶיְהִתּ לֵצְל י מוֹ םָ ֵ מ ֹ ח בֶ ר Yeshayahu 4:6 where we are taught that the daytime from the heat”. From here we learn that the function of dwelling in the sukkah is to sit in the shade provided by the s’chach, whereas ‘if the sukkah is higher than twenty amot, then you are not benefitting from the shade of the s’chach, but instead, from the shade of the walls of the sukkah’.

תֹכֻּסַּבּ וּבְשֵׁתּ Lastly, Rava explains that this law is derived from Vayikra 23:42 which instructs that you shall dwell in sukkot for seven days” from where we derive the rule that a sukkah“ – תַﬠְבִשׁ םיִמָי תַﬠְבִשׁ must be a temporary dwelling place. However, if a sukkah is more than twenty amot tall, it requires sturdy and supportive walls - which negate the commandment of temporariness.

Reflecting on these three different insights, Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger (1798-1871) explains (in a final thought appended to his ‘Aruch LaNer’ commentary to Massechet Sukkah) that the mitzvah of Sukkah is meant to help us understand our relationship with God while we journey through life (just as the original sukkot protected our ancestors as they journeyed through the wilderness), and that each of these three insights communicate a different trait which should guide our relationship with God.

For Rabbah, the primary trait that each of us need to foster in our journey through life is awareness awe of God), and this is communicated through his explanation that we cannot – ' תארי ה .of God (i.e be fully aware of s’chach that is twenty amot high.

For Rabbi Zeira, the primary trait that each of us need to foster in our journey through life is trust only God ,( תשה ד ל ו ת ) and though we must do whatever we can to help our situation ,( חטב ו ן ) in God can truly provide salvation, with this idea emerging through his explanation that we should sit in the shade of the s’chach, rather than in the shade of the walls of the sukkah.

While for Rava, the primary trait that each of us need to foster in our journey through life is which is achieved by remembering the frail and fleeting nature of life – as ( נע ו הו ) humility communicated by his explanation that a sukkah with sturdy and supportive walls negates the commandment of temporariness.

From this stunning explanation of Rabbi Ettlinger we learn that the physical structure of the sukkah represents the values of awe of God, trust in God and humility - which not only is a profound idea unto itself but will likely help us find even deeper meaning in the many of discussions that we will .with God’s help) encounter as we proceed to study Massechet Sukkah) עב ' ' ה''ע

How Large Must a Sukkah Be to Be Called a Sukkah—And Yet Still Be Far from Heaven?

Adam Kirsch writes:6

6 https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/daf-yomi-70-sukkah

“You shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall dwell in booths; that your generations shall know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” These verses from Leviticus 23 are the basis for the holiday of Sukkot, one of the three major festivals on the Jewish calendar. In Temple times, Jews would celebrate Sukkot, along with Shavuot and Passover, by making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That part of the holiday is now obsolete, but Jews continue the ancient custom of building a sukkah—the word translated as “booth” in the verses above—and eating meals in it for a week. For city-dwellers, this is a chance to recapture in symbolic form the time when the Israelites were a nomadic people, wandering for 40 years in the desert.

This week, Daf Yomi readers begin Tractate Sukkah, which lays out the rules for the proper celebration of Sukkot. As always, the Talmud thrives on the gap between what is written in the Torah and the actual practices of Judaism. “You shall dwell in sukkot,” the Bible commands: But what exactly is a sukkah? It is clearly something different from a house, but what constitutes the difference? Does any temporary structure qualify, or does the sukkah have to meet certain specifications about height, seating capacity, and building materials?

These are the questions the rabbis take up in the first pages of the tractate. The opening mishna lays out one clear rule: “A sukkah that is more than 20 cubits high is unfit.” (A cubit is roughly 18 inches, which would mean that we are talking about a sukkah 30 feet tall.) But the mishna also notes that Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with this ruling, deeming even a very tall sukkah to be valid. Here is an example of the Talmud’s concern for dissenting opinions: What we have is not just a law but a dialogue, which the Gemara tries to explain. Why exactly did the rabbis and Yehuda disagree about the maximum height of the sukkah?

The Gemara gives several possible explanations for the 20-cubit rule. According to Rabba, it is because the verse in Leviticus gives the sukkah a memorial function. We dwell in sukkot to remember the years of wandering in the desert; but for this to happen, we have to be consciously aware that we are in a sukkah, rather than simply outdoors. For this to happen, Rabba reasons, a person in the sukkah has to be able to catch sight of the roof whenever he looks around. But a roof that is more than 20 cubits high is too far up to be seen without craning your neck, and so it doesn’t give you the sense of being in a sukkah at all times. This explanation makes more sense as the discussion continues and it becomes clear that, in a sukkah, the walls do not necessarily have to extend all the way up to the roof. Imagine that the walls extended only 10 cubits high, and then there were poles reaching up another 10 cubits to support the roof. In such a sukkah, the open space could create the illusion that you were sitting outdoors, since so much light would come in; and so, you would not necessarily remember that you were performing the mitzvah. But in a sukkah whose walls extend all the way to the roof, this would not happen. Your gaze would follow the walls directly up to the top, leaving no doubt that you were sitting in an enclosed sukkah. In that kind of sukkah, then, the Gemara agrees with Yehuda that the roof can be even higher than 20 cubits.

But Rabba’s is not the only explanation for the disagreement between the rabbis and Yehuda over the 20-cubit rule. In Sukkah 2a, Rabbi Zeira offers a different biblical verse to explain the matter, this time from the Book of Isaiah, which reads, “And there shall be a sukkah for shade in the

daytime from the heat.” This implies that a sukkah is not valid unless its roof gives shade from the sun. But if the walls of a sukkah are more than 20 cubits high, Zeira reasons, then someone sitting inside is not actually in the shade of the roof; he is in the shade cast by the wall itself, which is so high that it blocks out the sun. For this reason, the tall sukkah fails to do its job.

These are all theoretical arguments, based on speculative interpretations of Torah verses. But the Talmud gives great weight to the actual practices of leading sages, who are assumed to be living guides to the law; and Rabbi Yehuda has an example of this kind on his side. It involves Queen Helena of Adiabene, the ruler of a small kingdom in what is now Syria, who converted to Judaism sometime around the year 30 C.E., according to the Jewish historian Josephus. Helena became a zealous Jew and a generous patron of the Temple: We met her once before in Tractate Yoma, where it’s related that she donated splendid golden candlesticks to the Temple.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, “there was an incident involving Queen Helena in Lod where her sukkah was more than 20 cubits high, and the elders were entering and exiting and did not say anything to her.” Presumably the extra-tall sukkah must have been valid, or else the elders would have spoken up and told Helena to lower it. But the rabbis challenge this conclusion. After all, Helena was a woman, and women are not obligated to build a sukkah; perhaps the elders simply kept quiet because Helene’s sukkah was extra-statutory, and so it didn’t matter whether it was built properly. But Yehuda parries this objection by pointing out that Helena had seven sons, and for their sake the sukkah had to be valid. If the elders didn’t object to it, then a tall sukkah must be permitted.

As the discussion continues in this fashion, with each point proposed and debated in detail by various rabbis, a whole series of sukkah specifications emerges. A sukkah must be large enough to hold a man’s head, most of his body, and his table—this is the view of Beit Shammai, which in this case enjoys a rare triumph over the view of Beit Hillel, who believed that a table didn’t have to fit. (In the course of this discussion, we learn the general rule that a house has to be at least four cubits by four cubits to qualify as a legal dwelling—structures smaller than that don’t require a mezuzah.) Furthermore, a sukkah can’t consist of just four posts driven into the ground with a covering on top; it must have two full-length walls and at least a rudimentary third wall.

If a sukkah has a maximum height, it stands to reason that there must be a minimum height as well, and indeed the mishna holds that “a sukkah that is not 10 handbreadths high” is unfit. It sounds like just another regulation; but in explaining the biblical basis for this rule, the Gemara ends up speculating on the most sacred matter of all, the nature of God’s presence on Earth. The Divine Presence, the rabbis conclude, never reaches the surface of the Earth; it descends from heaven and stops 10 handbreadths from the ground. Likewise, human beings never reach Heaven, since there is a fixed gulf between God’s region and the human world below. Whenever the Torah seems to suggest otherwise—for instance, when it says that Elijah “went up by a whirlwind heavenward”— we have to conclude that it speaks figuratively. Even Elijah never got closer to Heaven than 10 handbreadths from the ground.

The sages deduce this rule by bringing together two seemingly unrelated Bible verses. In Psalm 115, we read, “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the Earth he gave to the children of man.” This establishes the idea of two domains, God’s and man’s, that are spatially separate and

nonoverlapping. But how do we know where to draw the line? Here the rabbis turn to the description of the ark in Exodus 25. God, the Torah says, speaks to the Israelites “from above the ark cover.” Now, if you add up the height of the ark and its cover, you get a figure of 10 handbreadths. God’s presence, then, must have hovered at that height. And if God came no closer to the ground than 10 handbreadths in the Ark itself, it stands to reason that he never came lower anywhere else.

It is highly characteristic of the Talmud that this cosmic principle should be announced with so little fanfare, in the course of a mundane discussion about the height of the sukkah. It is also a reminder of how differently our ancestors conceived of physical space than we do today. For them, it was quite impossible to ever get higher than 10 handbreadths above the ground (or above the roof of a building, which counted as the ground): You couldn’t jump that high, and there was no machine to take you there. For us, accustomed as we are to jetting around at 30,000 feet, the heavens are neither so inaccessible nor so divine. They are just another region of empty space. If God exists, he must keep withdrawing as we keep reaching higher.

It's Who You Know

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:7

We eat matza on Pesach to commemorate the matza eaten by our ancestors as slaves in Egypt and as newly freed people. The blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah parallels the mitzva to blow shofar on many an occasion (see Bamidbar, chapter 10). We light the menorah on Chanukah to commemorate the lighting of such in the Temple. The partying that accompanies Purim can be traced to the many parties in the Megillah. Even our fasting on Yom Kippur can be traced to the fasting of Moshe on Har Sinai. However, it is not at all clear that our Sukkot commemorates the actual dwelling in sukkot. "You shall dwell in booths seven days; all the citizens of Israel shall dwell in booths; l'ma'an yedu, so that your generations will know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt" (Vayikra 23:42-43). "Sukkot--these are the clouds of glory, [these are] the words of Rabbi Eliezer; Rabbi Akiva says actual sukkot" (Sukkah 11b). According to Rabbi Eliezer, the mitzvah to dwell in a sukkah is a symbolic one, commemorating God's protective cover for the Jewish people as He redeemed us from Egypt and led us in the desert. Being that our sukkah is "only" symbolic, unless one understands the message behind such symbolism one cannot properly fulfill the mitzvah [1][2]. Thus, the Tur, in his monumental 14th- century code of Jewish law (Orach Chaim #625), rules that we follow the view of Rabbi Eliezer; our Sukkah is a representation of the clouds of glory, and when one sits in a sukkah, one must be cognizant of God's protection.

7 https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/sukkah-2-its-who-you-know

Knowledge of the purpose of the Sukkah is the reason given by Rava to explain why a sukkah above twenty cubits is invalid (Sukkah 2a). At that height, one may not even realize that one is sitting in a sukkah, let alone that the sukkah reminds us of the protective cover of God. Further symbolism can be seen in the two other reasons the Sages invalidated such a tall sukkah. "And the sukkah shall be for shade in the daytime from the heat, and for a refuge and for a cover from storm and from rain" (Isaiah 4:6). The sukkah teaches that, despite the efforts of man, only God can provide complete refuge. When one sits a in sukkah over twenty cubits high, the shade comes from the walls, symbolizing the efforts of man--and not from the Sechach [3], symbolizing God's protection from above. The sukkah is a temporary structure. This is the reason Rava teaches that a sukkah must be less than twenty cubits high. A taller structure cannot be considered temporary and hence, is invalid. The temporary nature of the sukkah reflects the temporary nature of life. The oft-times inverted nature of man's priorities can be seen in the sukkah itself. The Sechach, that which makes the sukkah valid, consists of "the leftovers of the threshing floor and the winepress" (Sukkah 12a). Caught up in aspects of life that are all too often of a fleeting nature, we may fail to realize that which we dispose of is often the most valuable. And that is something to think about as we sit in the sukkah.

[1] The eating of matza, to use one simple example, commemorates actual historic eating of matza; and thus, it is not essential (though it is advisable) to fully understand why we eat the matza.

[2] The Bach, in his commentary to the Tur, notes a similar concept regarding the mitzvoth of tzizit and tefillin. Here, too, the mitzvoth are symbolic, and the Torah explains the mitzva with the use of the word "l'ma'an". We wear tzizit "l'ma'an tizcheru, so that you may remember and do all My commandments and be holy unto your God (Bamidbar 15:43). Our tefillin "shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, l'ma'an, so that the Torah of God will be on our lips (Shemot 13:9). Whether there is any significance in the fact that these three mitzvoth, all symbolic in nature, are mitzvoth in which women are exempt may be worthy of further exploration. [3] The Talmud notes that the source of the shade is dependent on the relationship between the length, width, and height of the sukkah; and thus, if the sukkah is greater than four by four cubits, it will be valid even beyond twenty cubits' height. Tosafot is uncertain as to whether the increased area must be proportionate to the increase in height, or if once a sukkah is greater than four by four cubits then any height would be acceptable. This Tosafot claims is because it's impossible for an area greater than four by four cubits not to receive some shade from the roof regardless of how high the roof may be. Any enlightenment from the scientists reading this would be appreciated.

Why a sukkah? With so many memorable events in the Torah, why do we commemorate the temporary dwellings of the Israelites in the wilderness, of all things?

Dena Rock writes:8

8 https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-a-sukkah/

Why on earth are we celebrating the holiday of Sukkot now? The Torah explicitly tells us that the reason God commands us to move into these booths for a week is to remember the way that God protected us in the wilderness when He took us out of Egypt (Leviticus 23:42-43). This holiday, then, should be celebrated on the heels of Passover when we relive the Exodus, not five days after Yom Kippur!

Additionally, if what God wants us to do on this festival is remember His benevolent protection in the desert, why is moving into booths the mechanism for doing so? In all the numerous verses throughout the Torah that describe our sojourn in the desert, not one single one mentions our “sukkah” abodes. In fact, it is only through this verse that commands us to dwell in sukkot annually to recollect the sukkot of the desert that we discover that God housed us in sukkot at that time. If I were God and instructing my people to recollect the Wilderness era, I might have invented a commandment involving some manna-like substance. Why does God select the sukkah as the symbol of the desert years?

I believe the key to answering both questions lies in reconstructing the events of that first year in the Wilderness. Our sojourn begins with our miraculous Exodus from Egypt as we march through the split sea a free people. Seven weeks later, we arrive at the foot of Mount Sinai, where we witness God, Himself reveal the Ten Commandments to us. Awesome as that experience is, it ends in disaster 40 days later, when Moses descends from the mountain to discover the nation dancing around a golden calf. After Moses begs and pleads on behalf of the people, God finally vouchsafes His forgiveness. And the nation then constructs the Mishkan – the Tabernacle — to house God’s presence in its midst.

But realize the following (I was stunned when I did): Thousands of years of history are covered in the Torah that is filled with events that could easily have generated an annual holiday. Consider the end of the Flood, the Binding of Isaac, the command to Abraham to move to the Promised Land, to name a few. Yet virtually all of our holidays commemorate events from the same single calendar year — that first seminal year in the wilderness. We start with Passover to celebrate the Exodus. We then count the omer — Sefirat HaOmer, which brings us to the holiday of Shavuot, when we receive the Torah. Forty days later, we fast on the 17th of Tammuz, to commemorate not only events leading to the destruction of the Temple, but also the Sin of the Golden Calf (Mishnah Taanit 4:6). We then observe Yom Kippur, when we were granted forgiveness for that egregious sin. This, finally, brings us to the holiday at hand, Sukkot. Within the above context, it suddenly becomes obvious what this holiday is about; why it must be celebrated precisely now immediately after Yom Kippur; and why it must be commemorated specifically with booths, rather than a symbol of manna, for example. The holiday of Sukkot commemorates the next event in that seminal year – the construction of the Mishkan.

Several compelling parallels between our sukkahs and the Mishkan support this notion. A defining characteristic of the Mishkan was its temporary nature; it was frequently deconstructed to accompany the Children of Israel on their travels through the desert. In fact, it is referred to as the Ohel Moed, the Tent of Meeting, in contrast to its later, more permanent counterpart, the Beit HaMikdash, the House of Sanctity. Similarly, in order to be a kosher sukkah, it must be a

temporary structure; if it is too permanent, it is in invalid (Masechet Sukkah 2a). In addition, Shemini Atzeret, the additional holiday that follows the seven days of Sukkot, is reminiscent of the inauguration ceremony for the Mishkan (described in Leviticus, chapters 8-9), which lasted for seven days, followed by the final eighth day, called, naturally, “Yom HaShemini.” Finally, I find it fascinating that the English title for the holiday seems to reflect this very conception, since Sukkot is designated the Feast of Tabernacles, the identical word used for the Mishkan. The comparison gives to a more pressing question, however. Namely, why was building the Mishkan so significant that it became part of our annual reliving of that seminal year’s events?

Perhaps because there could not have been a more powerful expression of the people’s repentance or of God’s forgiveness for their sin of the Golden Calf than the Mishkan.

To create the golden calf, the nation generously donated their gold, silver, and jewelry. The Mishkan is the quintessential tikkun, a commensurate repair, that gives the Children of Israel another opportunity to contribute their valuable possessions — this time toward the construction of a house for God.

At the same time, the Mishkan is the perfect vehicle for God to express His forgiveness, as the Mishkan is precisely what hangs in the balance during those fearful days when Moses pleads with the Divine to forgive the people for the Sin of the Golden Calf. The primary purpose of the Mishkan is for the Divine Presence to reside in the midst of the people, as expressed in Exodus 25:8, “Make for me a sanctuary and I will dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8). The Sin of the Golden Calf shatters the relationship between God and the Jewish people like the smashed Tablets. God essentially makes the decision to move out. Even after He agrees not to obliterate the nation and to still lead them to the Promised Land, He makes known that He will no longer reside in their midst (Exodus 33:2), and He even instructs Moses to move the Tent of Meeting “outside the camp far from the camp” (Exodus 33:7). If God will not dwell among the people, then, by definition, there can be no Mishkan, the entire purpose of which is to house God’s presence in the nation’s midst. Thus, if God will not fully forgive the people, there will be no Mishkan.

Now we can appreciate why nothing else would have been as effective in conveying the depth and fullness of God’s forgiveness than His instructions to the people to carry out construction of the Mishkan. It was essentially God’s way of telling the people: I am moving back in with you. I am reinstating our relationship to the pristine, intensely close way that it was, prior to this debilitating sin and betrayal.

And nothing could be more fitting than going straight from Yom Kippur into the holiday of Sukkot. Placing the holiday of Sukkot on the heels of Yom Kippur is God’s way of expressing to us that His forgiveness is deep, genuine, and sincere. This message can only be fully expressed if God in fact moves His Divine Presence into our sukkot parallel to what He did in the Mishkan. What’s remarkable is that that seems to be exactly the case. No wonder it is traditional to begin constructing our sukkot literally the very night Yom Kippur ends to demonstrate the sincerity of our repentance by spending that very night engaged in building a house for God (Rama Orach Chayim 624:5 and 625:1).

The most powerful reflection of God’s forgiveness, to my mind, is based on the minimum height of a sukkah. The Mishnah (see Sukkah 4b-5a) states that a sukkah must be at least 10 tefachim (handbreadths) high. The Gemara questions how the Mishnah knew this, and it answers: Based on the Ark, which was 10 tefachim! The Talmud explains the Ark was 10 handbreadths because that is the minimum height upon which the Divine Presence reveals Itself — God does not descend within 10 tefachim of the ground (based on the verse from Psalms 115:16, “the earth He has given to Mankind”). The powerful message conveyed by applying that same minimum height to our sukkot is that in order for a sukkah to be kosher, it must be a structure into which the Divine Presence can descend. As we eat, sleep, and simply live our lives as much as possible in our sukkahs this week, we should be conscious of the fact that we are doing so in the presence of the Shechina.

We can now circle back and answer the questions with which we began. Once we recognize that our sukkahs represent not only the way God protected the Children of Israel in the desert, but also the Mishkan, then it makes sense that we build them immediately after Yom Kippur. Moreover, the only symbol that captures the message of God’s forgiveness from that time is a sukkah. We can also appreciate that the holiday of Sukkot is the culmination of our annual re-enactment of that original year in the Wilderness, our nation’s foundational year. The final climax is not the awesome experience of the Exodus on Passover nor the inspiring splendor of Mount Sinai on Shavuot, nor the attainment of divine forgiveness on Yom Kippur. The ultimate goal of that year and every year since is channeling the powerful experiences of the year into building a community that houses the Divine Presence at its core.

Rav David Brofsky writes:9

The halakhot relating to the sukkah, which can be found in the first two chapters of masekhet Sukkah, concern the walls, the dimensions and structure of the sukkah, the sekhakh, the sanctity of the sukkah and its decorations, and the time and order of the construction of the sukkah. The laws are numerous and complex; we will attempt to summarize the central and relevant halakhot of sukkah construction.

9 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/holidays/dimensions-sukka

In the upcoming shiurim, we will discuss the different measurements and concepts used in the laws of sukkah. The Acharonim disagree as to whether a tefach (handbreadth) is approximately 8 cm (R. Chaim Na’eh), or approximately 10 cm (Chazon Ish). As a result, three tefachim, the measurement of “lavud,” ranges between 24-30 cm; seven tefachim, the minimum length of the sukka’s walls, ranges between 56-70 cm; and ten tefachim, the minimum height of the sukka’s walls, is between 80-100 cm. While some claim that one should preferably adopt the larger measurement of the Chazon Ish for matters of biblical origin, others insist that the halakha is in accordance with R. Chaim Na’eh. We will also encounter the measurement of four amot (190 cm– 232 cm), ten amot (470 cm–590 cm), and twenty amot (940 cm-120 cm).

In addition, we will also encounter the concept of lavud. The Talmud (Shabbat 97a, Sukkah 6b) records that halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai teaches that, at times, two parts separated by a gap of less than three tefachim are considered to be “lavud” – connected. Therefore, as we shall see, if a wall is within three tefachim of the ground, the sekhakh, or the corner, we overlook the gap and view the wall as connected to the other area.

The Dimensions of the Sukkah

The Chayye Adam (146:3) writes that it is a mitzva min ha-muvchar, halakhically preferable, to construct a sukkah of four complete walls. The Talmud, however, records that a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai teaches that when constructed properly, two walls and an additional piece may suffice.

In this shiur, we will first discuss the general principles relating to the dimensions of a standard sukkah of three or four complete walls, and then discuss how to construct a sukkah consisting of fewer than three complete walls.

Regarding the height of the sukkah walls, the Talmud teaches that the walls of the sukkah must be at least ten tefachim high (Sukkah 2a; Shulchan Arukh 633:8). The gemara (16b) also teaches that the walls may be suspended within three tefachim of the ground. Thus, one may theoretically use walls slightly more than seven tefachim high and suspend them slightly less than three tefachim from the ground. In addition, the gemara relates that even a wall of slightly more than four tefachim may be used.

R. Chisda stated in the name of Abimi: “A mat slightly more than four tefachim [wide] is permitted as a sukkah wall.” How does one place it? One suspends it in the middle, less than three [tefachim] from the ground and less than three from the top, and whatever [space] is less than three tefachim is treated as lavud. But is not this obvious? One might have said that we apply the law of lavud once, but we do not apply lavud twice

[to the same wall]; therefore, he informed us of this. It was objected: A mat slightly more than seven [tefachim] is permitted as a sukkah wall! With reference to what was this taught? With reference to a large sukkah.

In other words, when constructing a tall sukkah, one may use a wall of slightly more than seven tefachim suspended within three tefachim from the ground. When building a short sukkah, ten tefachim high, one can even use a wall of slightly more than four tefachim, suspended within three tefachim of both the ground and the sekhakh, using the principle of lavud twice (Shulchan Arukh 630:9).

Often, especially when sukkot are built using pre-existing walls (such as on a balcony [mirpeset]), the walls of the sukkah do not reach the sekhakh. The Talmud (Sukkah 16a) teaches that the walls don’t have to reach the sekhakh, as long as they line up with the sekhakh (Sukkah 16a). Upon what is this leniency based?

On the one hand, one might base this upon the halakhic principle of gud asik mechitzta, which states that we consider a valid mechitza as if it projects upwards or downwards (see Ritva 16a). Interestingly, however, we find that the gemara (4b) cites a dispute regarding whether and the extent to which this principle should be applied to the laws of sukkah. The gemara, for example, relates that R. Yaakov maintains that one can place sekhakh on four poles positioned on the top of a building; the four walls of the building, projecting upwards, will serve as the walls of the sukkah. R. Yaakov bases this upon the principle of gud asik mechitzata, but the Sages disagree. Furthermore, the gemara questions whether one must align the poles and the sekhakh with the outer walls of the building, or whether the poles and sekhakh may even be positioned in the middle of the roof.

The Rambam (Hilkhot Sukkah 4:11) rules in accordance with R. Yaakov; one may employ the principle of gud asik mechitzta, but only at the edge of the roof. The Rosh (1:6), however, rules that regardless of whether the poles are on the edge of the house or the center, the sukkah is invalid. The Ran (2a s.v. ve-garsinan) explains that if we reject R. Yaakov completely, then we don’t find any application of gud asik mechitzta in the laws of sukkah. The Shulkhan Arukh (630:6) cites both opinions, and the Mishna Berura (30) rules stringently.

Some Acharonim (Penei Yehoshua 6b; Arukh La-Ner 6b; see also R. Tzvi Pesach Frank’s Mikra’ei Kodesh, Sukkot 1:7) note that according to the Ran, who seems to completely reject the application of gud asik mechitzta to the laws of sukkah, one must find an alternate basis for allowing walls of ten tefachim that do not reach the sekhakh. We might suggest that the four walls of the sukkah do not, even theoretically, need to reach the sekhakh, as the gemara never

intended that the four walls fully enclose the sukkah, but merely demarcate the area of the sukkah. As long one uses halakhically valid mechitzot, the sukkah is valid.

The question of why we permit ten tefachim high walls that do not reach the sekhakh may have a practical ramification. The mishna (17a) teaches that as long as the walls of the sukkah, which extend to the height of the Sechach, are within three tefachim of the sekhakh, the sukkah is valid. The Tur (630) and Shulchan Arukh (630:9) extend this ruling even to walls that are only ten tefachim high, which are not directly under the sekhakh. As long as the walls are within three tefachim inwards or outwards of the sekhakh, the sukkah is valid.

R. Akiva Eiger (Responsa 12) challenges this ruling. Assuming that one permits using walls of ten tefachim based upon the principle of gud asik mechitzta, he questions whether one may rely upon the leniencies of both lavud AND gud asik mechitzta simultaneously. The Ran (Sukkah 9a) suggests that one may not rely upon both lavud and another leniency when validating a sukkah. Although R. Eiger and other Acharonim attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction, it is certainly true that if we allow walls of only ten tefachim because that is the base requirement of the walls of the sukkah and not because we view them as projecting upwards (gud asik), his question does not concern us.

Regarding the maximum height of the sukkah, the mishna on our daf (Sukkah 2a) records the following debate:

A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. R. Yehuda, however, declares it valid.

The gemara offers three explanations of the first view.

Whence do we know this? Rabba answered: Scripture says, “That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot” - [with a sukkah] up to twenty amot [high], a man knows that he is dwelling in a sukkah, but with one higher than twenty amot, he does not know that he is dwelling in a sukkah, since his eye does not see it. R. Zeira replied: From the following verse, “And there shall be a booth for a shadow in the daytime from the heat” - [with a sukkah] up to twenty amot [high], a man sits in the shade of the sukkah; but with one higher than twenty amot, he sits not in the shade of the sukkah, but in the shade of its walls… Rava replied: [It is derived] from the following verse, “You shall dwell in booths seven days.” The Torah declared, For the whole seven days, leave your permanent abode and dwell in a temporary abode. [With

a sukkah] up to twenty amot [high], a man makes his abode a temporary one; [in one] higher than twenty amot, a man does not make his abode temporary, but permanent.

The gemara explains that there are numerous halakhic differences between these views. For example, what if the sukkah is more than twenty amot high but the walls reach the sekhakh? According to Rabba, in this case one may still be conscience of the sekhakh, but according to the R. Zeira and Rava, the sukkah is still invalid. Alternatively, what if the sukkah is higher than twenty amot, but the sukkah is also wider than four amot? While according to R. Zeira, the sukkah may be valid, as one sits in the shade of the sekhakh, according to Rabba and Rava, the sukkah would still be invalid.

Assuming that the halakha is in accordance with the view in the mishna and a sukkah taller than twenty amot is invalid, which reason offered by the Amoraim is accepted? Although some (Rabbeinu Chananel, Ra’avad, the Ittur) accept the view of Rabba, the Rif and the Rambam (Hillkhot Sukkah 4:1) rule in accordance with Rava: the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and therefore regardless of whether the walls reach the sekhakh or the width of the sukkah exceeds four amot, the sukkah is invalid.

The gemara (Sukkah 4a) discusses numerous ways of validating a sukkah whose walls are over twenty amot high.

The Talmud also discusses the minimum area of a sukkah. The gemara (3a) records three opinions: Rebbe believes that the minimum area of a sukkah is four amot by four amot. Beit Hillel maintains that a sukkah into which one can fit one’s head and most of one’s body, which the Rabbis estimate at about six tefachim by six tefachim, suffices. Beit Shammai rules that the sukkah must also be able to hold a small table, and therefore it must be at least seven tefachim by seven tefachim. The gemara rules in accordance with Beit Shamai. Therefore, a sukkah should be at least seven tefachim by seven tefachim.

The Acharonim discuss whether a sukkah that is longer than seven tefachim but narrower than seven is valid. The Mishna Berura (634:1) writes that most Acharonim agree that this sukkah is invalid. Furthermore, one may construct a sukkah of other shapes, such as a circle, as long as a sukkah of seven tefachim by seven tefachim can fit inside of it (Shulchan Arukh 634:2).

Constructing a Sukkah from Two Walls

The Tosefta (1:6), cited in the gemara (Sukkah 6b), brings a debate regarding the minimum number of walls halakhically required for a sukkah.

Our Rabbis taught: Two [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions (shenayim ke- hilkhatan), and the third [may be] even one tefach (handbreadth). R. Shimon says: Three walls must be of the prescribed dimensions, and the fourth [may be] even one tefach (handbreadth).

The gemara suggests different reasons for this debate and rules in accordance with the first view, which requires a minimum of two full walls and another partial wall.

Based upon what we learned above, a sukkah consisting of three walls at least seven tefachim in length is valid. According to the gemara, if one has only two full length walls, one may still construct a valid sukkah using a partial wall. How and where must one construct the third, partial wall? The gemara discusses two scenarios of “shenayim ke-hilkhatan:”

1- The first scenario discussed by the gemara (6b – 7a) involves two walls placed at a right angle to each other.

Where is this tefach [of a wall] placed? Rav said: It is placed at a right angle to one of the projecting [walls]… It was also stated: Shmuel said in the name of Levi: It is placed at right angles to one of the projecting [walls], and so it is ruled in the Beit Ha- Midrash that it is placed at a right angle to one of the projecting [walls]. R. Shimon (or, as some say, R. Yehoshua b. Levi) ruled: One makes [the additional wall of the width of] a “loose tefach” [i.e. slightly more than a tefach] and places it within three tefachim of the wall, since whatever is less than three tefachim from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.

According to this gemara, the third wall may consist of a piece of material slightly larger than a tefach placed at a right angle to one of the walls. In total, the lavud and the piece of wall together constitute a majority of a valid mechitza (four out of seven tefachim).

In addition, the gemara that follows brings three opinions regarding whether one must add a tzurat ha-petach to the third wall. The Rishonim discuss this matter in great depth. The Shulchan Arukh (630:2) concludes:

Regarding the walls of a sukkah: If there are two [walls] at a perpendicular angle- one should take another wall, slightly wider than a tefach, and places it within three tefachim of one of the walls. Then one places a vertical beam opposite that tefach and makes a doorway and place a cross beam above it and above the tefach [of wall] - and [the sukkah] is valid…

According to the Shulchan Arukh, in addition to the piece of wall slightly more than a tefach long and ten tefachim high placed within three tefachim of the wall, one must add a doorway, a tzurat ha-petach, composed of a vertical beam and cross beam. (The Chazon Ish [Yoreh De’ah 172:2] writes that this tzurat ha-petach should be composed of two vertical beams - one next to the tefach of wall and one across from it.)

The Acharonim debate whether this tzurat ha-petach should extend to the end of the opposite wall (Chazon Ish) or whether it must merely extend three additional tefachim, completing a seven tefachim wall composed of a tzurat ha-petach, a tefach of wall, and less than three tefachim of space (see Sha’ar Ha-Tziyun 3). Some require the tzurat ha-petach to enclose an area of four tefachim (totaling at least eight tefachim), as the narrowest doorway is at least four tefachim wide.

In addition, the Rama rules that one may count the sekhakh, which extends from the end of one’s tefach of wall until the opposite wall, as a tzurat ha-petach. The Mishna Berura (11) cites the Magen Avraham, who suggests that one must place a cross beam specifically for this purpose and may not rely upon the sekhakh. The Mishna Berura concludes that one may follow the lenient opinion of the Rama.

Some Acharonim insist that this extra doorway is only a rabbinic requirement (Peri Megadim, MZ 630:3 and EA 630:7).

2- The second scenario described by the gemara entails two walls parallel to each other (known as a “sukkah in the shape of a mavuy [alleyway]”). In this case, the gemara explains:

R. Yehuda said: A sukkah made like an [open] alleyway is valid, and this tefach [wall] is placed in whatever side one pleases. R. Shimon (or, as some say, R. Yehoshua ben Levi) says: He makes a strip of slightly more than four [tefachim] and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall. But why did you say in the previous case that one “loose tefach” suffices while here you say that there must be a strip of four tefachim? In the previous instance, where there are two valid walls, a “loose tefach” suffices, but here, where there are no two valid walls, if

there is a strip of four tefachim it is valid; otherwise, it is not [valid]… He answered: I accept the other reading of [the statement of] Rava; in addition [to a board of the size of a handbreadth], the form of a doorway is also necessary.

The gemara explains that in this case, since neither of the two walls are valid because they are not connected, one must place a wall slightly more than four tefachim wide and ten tefachim high within three tefachim of one the walls, totaling a wall of seven tefachim. In addition, one must construct as tzurat ha-petach, like above, which extends from the four tefach wall until the third wall meets the other wall. This tzurat ha-petach joins all three walls together. Although the Shulchan Arukh cites a debate whether this tzurat ha-petach is necessary since the combination of the partial wall and the space add up to the length of a valid wall (seven tefachim), the Mishna Berura (16) rules that one should add this tzurat ha-petach.

While these scenarios may not sound so common, one who builds a sukkah on his balcony may encounter this halakha. Ideally, one who uses a balcony should use all four walls, i.e., the three walls of the balcony and the outer house wall, as the walls of the sukkah. Often, however, one intends to use the wall parallel to one’s house, as well as one of the perpendicular walls. In this case, one uses a portion of the house wall and the doorway, which serves as a tzurat ha-petach.

If so, then one should be careful that the doorway to the balcony is at least four tefachim from the perpendicular wall. These four tefachim, in addition to a tzurat ha-petach, combine to form the third wall. If the doorway is towards the edge of the balcony, within four tefachim of the perpendicular wall, then the sukkah would be invalid when the door to the balcony is opened, as the third wall must have at least four tefachim of wall, or at least a more than a tefach of wall joined with less than three tefachim of space, in order for the added tzurat ha-petach to complete the third wall. Furthermore, it may be prohibited to open and close the door on Shabbat and Yom Tov, as it violates, through validating and invalidating the sukkah, the labors of boneh and soter (Shemirat Shabbat Ke-Hilkhata p. 24 ft. 115; see also R. Tzvi Pesach Frank’s Mikra’ei Kodesh 1:11).

The Rishonim derive from these cases that at least two of the walls of the sukkah must connect at a perpendicular angle. The Rishonim (Rif, 2b; Ran s.v. se-amar, etc.) refer to this as “de-areivan” – the two walls must be connected. They may connect physically or through lavud, i.e. being within three tefachim of each other. A tzurat ha-petach at the corner will not suffice.

In addition, the Rishonim, based upon a passage in the gemara, discuss what percentage of the walls of the sukkah may be incomplete, consisting of gaps, windows, or doorways. When one constructs the third wall in the manner described above, the third and fourth wall are certainly made up of more empty space than physical wall. This is called meruba ha-omed al ha-parutz -

the area of gaps is larger than the area of wall material. What about the other two walls? Must the majority of the other two walls be comprised of solid material?

Meruba Ha-Parutz al Ha-Omed

Many people incorporate windows and doors into their sukkot. Others leave gaps in between multiple wooden planks, which combine to form a wall. Even if one’s wall is more than seven tefachim long, how much of the wall can be incomplete?

The gemara (7a) contrasts the laws of mechitzot for Shabbat and Sukkot:

And the [law relating to] Shabbat is more [stringent] than that of sukkah, in that the [wall for purposes of] Shabbat is valid only if its standing portion is more than that which is broken, which is not the case with the sukkah.

In the laws of Shabbat, a reshut ha-yachid, within which one may carry on Shabbat, must be surrounded with four walls, of which the halakha requires omed meruba al ha-parutz (Eruvin 15b; Shulchan Arukh 362:4). In other words, at least half of the sum total of the mechitzot must be composed of solid material. A wall made up of solid strips or wires within three tefachim of each other (lavud) is considered to be entirely solid (omed). Furthermore, although slightly less than half of the partition may be composed of windows, entrances, and holes, a gap of over ten amot invalidates the entire partition and may not carry within this area. One may, however, close a gap of ten amot with a tzurat ha-petach, consisting of two vertical posts, each ten tefachim high (lechi’im), and a horizontal beam placed across the posts (korah). While most Rishonim believe that one may always close a gap wider than ten amot with a tzurat ha- petach, the Rambam permits using a tzurat ha-petach to close a gap of more than ten amot only if the majority of the partition is composed of solid material (omed meruba) (Shulchan Arukh 362:10).

Regarding the laws of sukkot, the gemara cited above implies that the open area may be greater than the standing part (omed parutz al ha-meruba). The Rishonim, however, disagree as to how to understand this passage.

Some (Rashi s.v. mah; see Maggid Mishna to Rambam, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:12) explain that the gemara refers only to the case, discussed above, in which the third wall of the sukkah consists

of merely a tefach of solid material. However, the first two walls most certainly must be omed merubah al ha-parutz.

The Rambam (Hilkhot Sukkah 4:12) disagrees and rules that a sukkah which has many doors and windows, even if parutz omed al ha-meruba, is valid. Rabbeinu Yerucham (Toldot Adam Ve- Chava, nativ 5, chelek 1) concurs, adding that even if the standing part of the sukkah is spread along the wall and there is no continuous seven tefachim, the sukkah is valid! He cites his teacher, R. Avraham ben Ishmael, who insists that if overall, there is more solid wall than gaps, the seven tefachim of the wall need not be continuous. However, if overall, there are more gaps than solid wall, then in order to validate the wall, there must be seven continuous tefachim of wall. The Ritva (s.v. amar) disagrees with this leniency and validates the sukkah only if each of the two walls has seven tefachim of continuous wall adjoined at a right angle.

Seemingly, one might suggest that the Rishonim disagree as to whether the Torah demands that the sukkah be enclosed by mechitzot, in which case the sukkah must be omed merubah al ha- parutz, or whether the gemara simply requires shnayim ke-hilkhatan, two valid mechitzot, regarding which the Rishonim disagree whether the seven tefachim which compose these mechitzot must be continuous, or whether they may even be spread throughout the wall.

The Rishonim also disagree regarding a gap of ten amot or more in the sukkah. While the Rosh (1:8) maintains that one if one transforms this gap into a tzurat ha-petach, the sukkah is valid, the Rambam (4:12) will only permit a tzurat ha-petach for a gap more than ten amot if the overall ratio of the sukkah is omed merubah al ha-parutz (see Chiddushei Ha-Rav Chaim Ha-Levi Soloveitchik, Hilkhot Shabbat 16:16).

The Shulchan Arukh (630:5) rules leniently and validates the sukkah even if the two full length walls are parutz merubah al ha-omed. The Taz (6) and Magan Avraham (6) rule strictly, in accordance with Rashi, as does the Mishna Berura (22) and the Chazon Ish (75:13). The Mishna Berura (23) cites a view which allows the seven tefachim of the two original walls, the shenayim ke-hilkhatan, to be composed of one piece of at least four amot long, along with other pieces. In his Sha’ar HaTziyun, he cites those who insist that all seven tefachim be continuous. Finally, a gap of less than three tefachim, lavud, is considered to be omed and does not constitute a gap.

Regarding a gap of over ten amot, the Shulkhan Arukh brings both the Rosh and the Rambam cited above.

Needless to say, due to the complexity of these cases, the Rema (5) notes that it is customary (when possible) to construct the sukkah from complete walls, without relying on the above

leniencies. Similarly, the Mishna Berura (630:28) cites R. Yitzchak Ge’ut, who claims that it is a mitzva min ha-muvchar to have three complete walls, without any breaks.

The Sukkah as a Metaphor for Life

Rabbi Simon Jacobson writes:10

As we celebrate the Jewish holiday season, one of the important challenges facing us today is to make the holidays come alive by recognizing their personal relevance. Relevance is the key word and integration is the primary objective: To experience the holidays as a process of personal growth and improvement, and to integrate it into our lives, routines, talents and aspirations.

Mechanical holidays celebrated by rote will ultimately lead to waning commitment. Perpetuation of our rich heritage – in a crowded marketplace aggressively competing for our time and attention – cannot depend merely on guilt, fear or blind commitment; it must include a personal dimension that makes the tradition indispensable to our lives.

So, let us look at one aspect of Sukkot that resonates in our life experience.

One reason for the mitzvah of dwelling an entire week in a Sukkah — a portable shack — instead of the comforts of our home, is to remind us of the temporal nature of existence. The material

10 https://www.meaningfullife.com/sukkah-metaphor/ the comments do NOT reflect my worldview but bear presenting here to open us to exploring the metaphor of the succah in the next few months.

world is not our home. We must never succumb to the illusion that our man-made structures and mortal edifices are our natural environments. Corporeal life is a means, a road that leads us to a deeper, spiritual reality.

The transitory Sukkah reminds us that we are just travelers in this impermanent material world; we are spiritual beings on a material journey, not material beings on a spiritual journey.

By no means is this reminder a simple matter. Fighting the illusion of material reality is no simple battle. The world has a powerful hold on us – so powerful that it sucks us in, like a black hole, into its own reality, making us think that this material existence is the only thing real. Until it comes to a point that we are no longer neutral, and we become part of the illusion; in one vicious cycle we feed it and it feeds us: The blind leading the blind in a seemingly airtight Matrix.

Indeed, mystics have a name for our world: Alma d’shikra, a deceptive universe. [Olam – world in Hebrew – is rooted in the word “helem,” hidden]. Quite harsh, but quite accurate. Why is the world false? Because it lies all the time. What you see is not necessarily what you get. Some would even say, what you see is never what you get. PR and image cynics put it this way: It’s not important what happened, but what people perceive happened. Hence, spin, buzz, positioning, hooks and angles – all to create the proper package that will project an image that may or may not reflect the substance within.

My grandfather used to tell me that newspapers are filled with untruths. Even the date on the paper is false: Today’s paper was printed yesterday! I used to dismiss his extremism as the distrust of the older generation. But as I have grown older I see the wisdom of his words. True, the media may tell an objective story, but there is always the possibility, which unfortunately is often the reality, for subjectivity, distortions and worse. We do not live in a seamless universe. The body hides the soul within. Someone can smile at you and then stab you in the back. Abusive people are honored. Thieves rewarded. Good people suffer. Scientists falsifying data. Indeed, all crime is driven by the fact that our world is one where you can get away with murder, and the universe won’t cry out.

Wherever you turn, whether in business or relationships, science or education, in virtually every sector of life, deception (actual or potential) is part of our reality. This doesn’t mean that there is no truth and one can’t choose to be honest; yet that doesn’t change the fact that deception is always a lingering possibility. To the point that as adults we see no problem with this: This is the way of the world, the way of all flesh.

Above all, existence itself hides its true nature and can deceive us into thinking that nothing exists beyond the surface level. Had we not searched who would know, for instance, about DNA, or about the complex subatomic infrastructures that make up existence, the elaborate world under the sea and in outer space, or the sophisticated systems that keep us and the universe alive and

balanced. Even after all our research we have barely scratched the surface and cannot even fathom how much more there is to know.

A psychological study has yet to be made as to the myriad effects of this deceptive world, all its manifestations and consequences; the psychological toll that it takes on us humans. Such a study would be some project wouldn’t it?

However, such research would first require a level of clarity that could only come from a force outside of the deceptive world. As long as you are part of the universe, you are part of the problem. As the maxim goes: If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that we have Sukkot: A reminder from another place that the material world is not where’s it’s at. Or more accurately: Material existence is not airtight; it carries within profound truths that must be uncovered by us humans. Our role is to reveal the beauty that lies concealed within our deceptive universe.

With all the falsities in life, there are also majestic truths; with all the hypocrisy there can be found astonishing nobility and virtue.

Half the cure of the disease is knowing that you have it. To free yourself from the shackles of this lying universe, you have to first recognize the falsity around you and not get caught up in it.

As humans created in the Divine Image we have been charged with the power – and the responsibility – to transcend the cloaked universe and reveal its inner spirit. Sukkot is a time when we are asked to act on this awareness. Move out of your home, recognize the temporal nature of everything material, submit to the fact that security comes from above.

Sukkot focuses our attention to recognizing the real from the false. Seven days of the year we are asked to physically move out of our so called “homes” and comfort zones, and actually live in a temporary shack, teaching us that our physical homes are not necessarily our definitive source for security. Sukkot is meant to provoke us and imbue the entire year with a higher sense of priority. Perhaps a useful daily exercise would be to identify deception in our lives. Make a daily list of both your true and false experiences.

One example recently came my way. I was reading a fascinating article on the cosmological search for the beginning of existence. Every possible theory was being explored. The consensus among scientists is that “the great, great, great (to the power of a gazillion) grandparent of you and me and everything else that we see (or can’t see) living around us” is traced back to what they call LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). LUCA they believe is a hard-bitten little extremophile

(primitive bacteria, a single-celled organism) of some kind or other. Somewhere along the line these single-celled primordial superbugs and their specialized functions “got co-opted, in a kind of primitive symbiosis, into the greater service of the more secure, membrane-bound, multitasking complex that would become the eukarytic cell and its subsequent multicellular manifestations, most prominent among these (at least in our minds) being ourselves.”

What came before LUCA? “Many scientists now argue that before LUCA and the emergence of our current DNA-protein world, there was what’s referred to as an RNA world, one made up only of rudimentary RNA-based entities that were later subsumed into RNA’s current role as our DNA’s messenger. And before the RNA-world, there has to have been what might be described as the real prize for astrobiologists, the so-called first living organism, or FLO.”

Now FLO “had to have been an even tougher entity than LUCA was merely to overcome the universe’s most prohibitive law, the second law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation of energy. All life is in utter defiance of that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay against entropy.”

The other essential requirement for life to begin is that there had to have been a “first bit of information, some kind of biochemical message, or code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, in this case, to misconvey, the whole story of life’s emergence and evolution on earth being, in essence, a multibillion-year-long game of telephone, in which the initial utterance, the one that preceded all others, was increasingly transmuted and reinvented the further along it was passed. It is the precise nature of that first utterance that astrobiologists are trying to decipher.”

Throughout this entire article – and all the exhaustive material that addresses these issues – no mention of God is ever made. I am not stating this from a religious perspective, but simply from an intellectual one. When you are exploring the origins of life and you see a miraculous order, and you have the Biblical texts that describe creation, why should that not be included in at least as one of the possible theories? Perhaps the “initial utterance” was God creating the universe with “ten utterances”?

The possibility that perhaps, perhaps God created the universe from nothing is not even presented and dismissed. The entire concept is not even a consideration. The article mentioned creationism, not as a theory but as the belief of some fundamentalists who still embrace archaic texts.

Now tell me, even if you are the biggest skeptic, how could you not consider that maybe the universe was created by God from nothing, and the human perhaps is not just evolved bacteria, but created in the Divine Image? Can anyone utterly rule that out?

The only way I can explain how certain “facts” have become “facts”, with a complete disregard for the possibility in the truth of the Biblical narrative, is that the universe is an “agnostic” one, so

airtight that it can deceive anyone within this universe that there is nothing more than what we can empirically experience. If you so choose, God the can simply be totally disregarded by His creation…

I would greatly appreciate hearing from you any other examples of the deceptive world in which we live, especially in areas where we may not see the obvious deception. As the Baal Shem Tov says, there is a darkness that is so deep that it conceals the fact that it is dark: War is Peace. Deception is Truth. Evil is Good. It’s 20 years after 1984, but Orwell’s world is alive and kicking. Every day life is replete with falsities. Identify them and you are well on your way to freeing yourself and discovering truth.

That’s the true way to celebrate Sukkot.

And that’s the ultimate beauty of our Sukkot challenge: Not to escape a lying world, but to reveal its deeper truth.

Why these Dutch Christians are celebrating Sukkot?

Dutch churches build sukkot for their congregants in appreciation of holiday's ecological significance.

Cnaan Liphshiz writes:11

11 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/252249

From its exterior, the massive building known as The Ark in this Dutch town looks like a typical Reform synagogue.

On the Hebrew month of Tishrei, the ancient olive tree that dominates the yard of this large worship space is dwarfed by a reed sukkah, a ceremonial hut in which Jews consume their meals for one week each year on the holiday of Sukkot, in commemoration of the Israelites’ state of homelessness after they were freed from slavery in Egypt.

An attraction for The Ark’s young congregants, the sukkah stands opposite the spacious and modern-looking building servicing their community of relatively progressive worshippers.

But The Ark is no synagogue. It’s a popular Protestant church with a giant illuminated cross affixed to the wall behind the pastor’s pulpit.

Located 40 miles south of Amsterdam in Holland’s so-called Bible Belt, The Ark’s congregation of 1,500 members is celebrating Sukkot, which this year begins on Sept. 23, for the second consecutive year. The church has joined a growing number of Protestant churches in Holland where Sukkot, or the Feast of Tabernacles, has been celebrated in recent years by Christians who are drawn to the Jewish holiday’s theological and ecological significance.

“Sukkot, a harvest holiday, is deeply connected to the earth and heavens,” said Piet van Veldhuizen, a longtime camping enthusiast and survivalist. “It has always bewildered me that it had no mark on Christianity because, especially today with rising awareness to the environment, it has so much [spiritual] potential.”

His connection to Sukkot is immediate and intuitive, van Veldhuizen said, because as a pastor, part of his “mission is to emphasize the oneness between man and the environment.”

Van Velhuizen, 58, grew up in a devout Protestant family in Rotterdam, one of many such households in Holland where the Hebrew Bible enjoys equal standing to that of the New Testament.

“Because Sukkot is a part of the Bible, it’s part of my faith, as well,” he said, adding that he would not have adopted a foreign religious custom for his parish from outside Christianity no matter how lovely or appealing.

Whereas some Christians have been celebrating Tabernacles for years all over the world — in the United States and Brazil, evangelical Christians travel in the thousands to Jerusalem on the holiday — it is particularly popular here because of the commanding status of Protestant Christianity in the Netherlands.

Additionally, openness to Jewish traditions is perhaps high in the Netherlands because of the relatively low prevalence of anti-Semitism in Dutch society. In polls by the Anti-Defamation League conducted in 2014 and 2015, Holland came out as the second least anti-Semitic nation in Europe, with only 5 percent of the Dutch population displaying anti-Jewish attitudes in the earlier survey and 11 percent in the later one.

For whatever reason, it appears Dutch Christians began discovering Sukkot only over the past decade or so.

The phenomenon was first featured in the Dutch media in 2015, when the Reformatorisch Dagblad Protestant daily published an article surveying the custom’s growing popularity. Anecdotal information suggests that Sukkot is celebrated by thousands of worshippers in several Christian congregations in Holland today, whereas the custom was unheard of 20 years ago.

One of the pioneer parishes celebrating Sukkot is in a suburb of The Hague called Pijnacker, which began celebrating Sukkot seven years ago. That parish also helped van Veldhuizen set up a sukkah according to halachah, the rabbinic Jewish religious code. Its walls, the frame of a party tent lent by a congregant, are covered in reeds; the roof is fitted with leafy branches that rattle in the brisk autumn winds.

But van Veldhuizen said his congregation is “careful not to celebrate Sukkot as Jews.” That means using the sukkah to break bread once on the first day of the holiday – younger members of the community enjoy a hearty bowl of pumpkin soup between its walls — but not during the rest of what is a weeklong holiday in Judaism.

Van Veldhuizen said he had considered buying a lulav, a bouquet of palm, willow and myrtle leaves that Jews shake ceremoniously during Sukkot, “but only to show to the congregants.”

“We wouldn’t use it,” he said. “This is about acknowledging our commonalities with Judaism, not appropriating them.”

Awareness and even celebration of commonalities with Jewish holidays is nothing new among Dutch Christians.

“Christian communities have concentrated on Passover, which became Easter, and Shavuot became Pentecost,” van Veldhuizen told JTA on Tuesday in his church’s sukkah.

Sukkot and the two other Jewish holidays that van Veldhuizen named are the regalim — three major Jewish holidays during which Jews were commanded to perform a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem.

But Christianity for centuries had ignored Sukkot, which is also known as a Jewish harvest festival.

To van Veldhuizen, this disinterest is connected to a vision within early Christianity of life on Earth as mere preparation for the afterlife.

“There’s not much room for connecting to the soil, to the nature of this world, within that frame of mind,” he said.

But that’s changing amid growing awareness of the environment. Sukkot, with its agricultural roots, emphasizes how humankind uses the environment for its needs.

“The fact that camping became popular in the Netherlands only in the 1960s and 1970s is another factor creating openness for this experience,” van Veldhuizen said.

But some Christians — including conservatives within van Veldhuizen’s own community — and Jews feel uncomfortable with the new Sukkot trend.

In a 2015 column published in the Nederlands Dagblad, Rob van Houwelingen, a prominent Christian theologian, spoke of the phenomenon as inherently misguided.

“Just as I do not circumcise myself or refuse to eat pork, I do not build a sukkah,” he wrote in reacting to reports about the trend of Christians celebrating Sukkot.

Dutch Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs does not show a lot of enthusiasm for the phenomenon, either.

“If a Christian person wants to celebrate Sukkot because they feel it’s part of their faith, fine. I am certainly not going to say anything,” he said. But doing so in some cases can lead to a blurring of the line between Judaism and Christianity, he said, adding “This I cannot accept.”

Jacobs cited the construction each year for the past two decades of a sukkah by Moadim, a Dutch organization for people it calls Messianic Jews and who believe in Jesus. Set up at a camping site in the eastern Netherlands, it is advertised as a traditional Jewish holiday activity. The movement of Messianics, or Jews for Jesus, as they are also sometimes called, is deeply resented by many Jews, who regard it as Christian missionizing of a particularly misleading type. (Van Veldhuizen does not identify with the Messianics.)

“That’s when the line begins to blur,” the rabbi said. “People who believe Jesus is the son of God are not Jews, and when they invite people, mostly other non-Jews, to celebrate Sukkot, then it’s at Judaism’s expense.”

After all, Jacobs concluded, “a Jew is a Jew and Christian is a Christian.”