Sukkah 44: Chavata

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In our daf we the amoraim dispute the status of the aravah ritual.

According to both of these amoraim, the aravah ritual is attributed to the prophets. However, they dispute the exact nature of how it originated. According to one amora it seems to have been a formal institution enacted by the prophets, whereas according to the other amora, it was a custom, not a formal institution.

Rashi explains that the ramification for this dispute is whether one says a blessing over the aravah ritual.

On the last day of Sukkot, Hoshana Rabba, we beat a bundle of willow branches (actually one is enough) on the floor (SA OC 664:4).

We explore the (midrashic) meaning of this chavata and even the mythic theory of Dr Rabbi Zev Farber.

Sukkah 43: Betrayal, Then and Now

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The commandment of the aravah does not appear explicitly in the Torah, and several possible sources are cited, among them that it is a halakha l’Moshe mi-Sinai or that it was established by the prophets. In any case, the Sages felt that it was so important that it was to take place even when the seventh day of the holiday fell out on Shabbat. This ruling disturbed the Baitusim, who went so far as to hide the aravot that had been prepared for use on Shabbat. The Gemara relates that the aravot were uncovered by the local people who handed them to the kohanim to use.

The Baitusim were one of the deviant sects during the second Temple period who did not accept the ruling of the Sages. The Gemara does not make clear what differences existed between the Baitusim and the Tzedukim, although from the stories that appear it is the Baitusim who tried to use trickery in order to uproot the rules of the Sages and impose their rulings on the populace.

We explore another episode of trickery and betrayal in the history of the Venetian community and the tragic history of the troubled Scuola Canton and the pain and suffering caused by the converts….down to our own times during the Nazi deportations.

Sukkah 42: Lulav As a Weapon (of Mass Confusion)

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The next day everyone rises early and comes to the Temple, and the attendants throw the lulavim before them. And in the confusion, the people snatch the lulavim and in the process strike one another. And when the court saw that they came to potential danger, they instituted that each and every person will take his lulav in his house and fulfill the mitzva there.

Thinking about how beis din had to rearrange the order due to concerns for people bashing each other with their lulavs!!!

This got me thinking about the hagiographical legends about brotherly love that formed the basis for the site of the temple…

Sukkah 41: Bayis Shlishi Who Builds?

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah relates that RabanYochanan ben Zakai instituted a Mitzvah d'Rabanan to hold the Arba'as ha'Minimon all seven days of Sukos outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara explains that this enactment was made as a commemoration for the Beis ha'Mikdash("Zecher la'Mikdash").

What is the source for the concept of making aZecher la'Mikdash? The Gemara cites the verse, "For I shall raise up (A'aleh) for you a cure, and from your wounds I will heal you -- the word of Hash-m, for 'abandoned' did they call you: 'She is Tziyon -- no one remembers her'" (Yirmeyahu30:17).

The verse in Jeremiah describes Jerusalem Post-destruction as a wounded outcast, completely forgotten by all who used to care for her. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai reads this verse as requiring us to actively remember this destroyed outcast, in the hopes that it will hasten herhealing.

We explore the question as to How will the Third Beit HaMikdash be rebuilt?There are two accepted approaches to our first question, answering the “how” with regards to the rebuilding of the Temple:

1. The first is that God willr ebuild the Beit HaMikdash in the heavens and when the time is right it will be revealed to the people and lowered down to its final resting place upon theTemple Mount.

2. The second approach is that the Jewish People themselves will take an active stance towards its rebuilding — both physically and literally rebuilding a sanctuary of bricks and mortar to serve as a Temple for modern times.

Sukkah 40: Lulav, Sh’viis and Eco-Theology

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemara continues discussing the rules of the Sabbatical year that were introduced by the last Mishnah (39a) in the context of purchasing an etrog during the shemitta year.

The Gemora had said that the Mishna didn't apply Shemittah rules to the lulav, since it was from the sixth year, implying that in principle Shemittah does apply to a lulav. The Gemora asks why it does, since it is not food, but simply wood, and the braisa says that if one gathered twigs and vines from the field on Shemittah, they only have the sanctity of Shemittah if he did so for animal feed, but not if he is using them as wood.

On our daf, we see the terrible consequences that befall one who trades commercially in the produce of shemittah. If it is not declared ownerless and open to the public, one may not use it. The Chazon Ish, zt”l, struggled mightily to halt the improper use of shemittah produce in Israel in modern times. We will address Rav look's approach elsewhere however we do explore the Arba' Minim in the context of an Eco-Theology proposed by Rabbi Dovid Seidenberg (my friend).

Sukkah 39: "OVER LA'ASIYASAH"

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 39

To download, click/tap here:  PDF

Tosfos rules that one who took the lulav and did not recite the blessing can still do so as long as he has not yet waved the lulav. Although one can fulfill the mitzvah of lulav without waving it, the mitzvah is not deemed to be complete until he waves the lulav. This follows the principle that one can recite a blessing for a mitzvah as long as he has not completed the mitzvah. Thus, one can recite the blessing of netilas yadayim after washing his hands because the mitzvah is not deemed to be complete until one dries his hands.

Rav Judah used the word “over” to mean “before,” in his statement about blessing before a mitzvah. Evidently, the rabbis sense that this is an unusual use of the word. Therefore, they try to look for biblical precedent for the word used in this manner, to mean “before.” They find three verses in which the word or the root עבר is used to mean to go before.

One example of this is regarding the laws of inheritance, where it is said, vhaavartem es nachalaso lebito, and you shall cause his inheritance to pass over to his daughter. The Gemara derives from the usage of the word vhaavartem that HaShem is angered by one who does not leave over a male child to inherit his estate. The same interpretation can be applied here.

Sukkah 38: Hallel

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 38

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishna rebukes a person who is illiterate and needs to rely on someone who is not obligated to lead him in prayer. If there is an adult leading the prayer, then the person can respond with the word Halleluya and fulfill his obligation in that way.

The Gemara teaches that the tradition was for the congregation to respond to the prayers of the hazzan with a refrain of Halleluya during those paragraphs of Hallel where that was the key word (Tehillim 113-117). In the portion of Hallel where the refrain was different, the congregational response matched that refrain (e.g. Hodu laShem in Tehillim 118). Already during Rava's time the vast majority of people were literate and were able to recite Hallel without assistance, nevertheless the tradition continued, remnants of which are retained in the recitation of Hallel to this day in many synagogues.

We explore the various origins of hallel....and the development of the hallel chant by Elizabeth Hayes.

Sukkah 37: Na’anuim

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 37

To download, click/tap here: PDF

-Aside from the simple mitzva of picking up the daled minim (four species) on Sukkot, there is also a mitzva of ni'anu'ah - to wave or shake the lulav during prayers.

 Rabbi Yohanan said: He moves them to and fro to dedicate them to He Whom the four directions are His. He raises and lowers them to He Whom the heavens and earth are His. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they taught it as follows. Rabbi Hama bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: He moves them to and fro in order to request a halt to harmful winds,storms and tempests that come from all directions; he raises and lowers them in order to halt harmful dews and rains that come from above.

The Jerusalem Talmud suggests that waving the lulav is an act of defense – an attempt to ward off the prosecuting angel.

We examine the mitzva and various ta'amim for this most curious of Mitzvot that has kaablistic overtones and magical properties.

Sukkah 36: Binding of Arba Minim (and Israel)

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 36

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to some sages, three of the species (all except the etrog) must be bound together. In the mishnah there is a debate whether the cord used to bind the three together must be from the same species as one of the three species. As we shall see in the Talmud, the problem with it being from another type of tree is that when he picks up the lulav, he will be carrying five species—the four mandated ones and the one from which he made his cord. This might be a violation of the prohibition of adding on to the Torah’s commandments. The Torah says four species—it would be prohibited to add a fifth.

The background of this dispute is Nehemiah 8:15, which is quoted below. In this verse Nehemiah and Ezra and the people who have returned to Israel after the first exile seem to interpret Leviticus 23:40 as if it mandates building the sukkah from the four species. However, their identification of the species slightly differs from the normative rabbinic interpretation and from the precise wording of Leviticus. Biblical scholars nevertheless interpret this verse as referring to building the sukkah from the four species.

Since the holiday is not called Sukkot in Nehemiah, but chag, the practice of taking four species is not mentioned, and the key requirement was to build a sukkah made of five species, it seems apparent that the holiday was named Sukkot after 430 BCE, when its practices and significance were changed, and the biblical mandates were placed in the Torah when these changes were made.

Recent scholars such as Ehrlich (a tragic figure unaccepted by both orthodox and reform) suggest an alternative historical development of the chag.

Sukkah 35: Corfu vs Corsica (?Mafia) Estrog

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 35

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Torah uses the word “tree/wood” and “fruit” in describing the etrog. According to the midrash, this means that the Torah refers to a fruit whose taste is like the wood of the tree on which it grows. The Talmud seems to think that the wood of the etrog tree tastes just like the etrog itself (never tried this). That’s how we know that the Torah refers to the etrog.

The Rishonim write that the word esrog is derived from the Aramaic word merogeg, which means desirable.

The Ritva points out that the discussion in the Gemara about how to define the passage commanding us to take a pri etz hadar cannot possibly be searching for the true identification of the fruit. By the time of the Gemara it is obvious that there were already long-standing oral traditions that the fruit that had to be taken was an etrog. Our Gemara is simply an attempt to investigate whether the well-known tradition could be shown to have a source in the written Torah, as well.

We explore the mediterranean islands of Corsica and Corfu through the eyes of Rabbi Kaganoff and review the Chazon Ish' issue with esrogim murkavim.

Sukkah 34: The Four Species

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 34

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishna chooses to arrange the arba minim in the following order: first the lulav, then the hadas, the arava and finally the etrog. This order is puzzling, as we might have expected that the Mishna would follow the order in which the arba minim are listed in the Torah: "And you shall take you on the first day fruit of a goodly tree, branches of palm-trees, a bough of thick trees, and willows of a brook..." (Vayikra 23:40). The Torah opens with the etrog, and from there on the order is similar to the order found in the mishna: lulav, hadas and arava.

Furthermore without the Oral Law, we would be unable to figure out exactly which four species we are to take. There are many fruits that are quite beautiful, and it is unlikely that many would, on their own, identify pri etz hadar as an etrog. Surely a hadas is not the only plaited tree, and there are many types of willow trees.

We explore the use of the four species as a iconographic motif on coins and in mosaics, as far back as the bar Kochbar revolt.

Sukkah 33: Salix Babylonica

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 33

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf moves on to the next mishnah, concerning the hadas.

The first two lines are the same as the previous mishnah concerning a lulav. The remainder of the mishnah is specific to the physical qualities of the hadas. The Talmud will discuss these as we proceed over the next few pages.

As the Talmud did with regard to the various parts of the lulav, it asks how we know that the Torah refers to the myrtle. After all Leviticus 23:40 only states “the branches of a thick tree.” How do we know that the tree is a myrtle?

We learn that a tzaftzefa is not kosher for use as an aravah.

What is an arava and what is a tzaftzefa?

We explore the willow/poplar in bible, midrash and the metaphor of the weeping willow in culture.

Sukkah 32: “Psychotic” Hadassim

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of selecting a Kosher set of the Four Minim is finding Hadassim that are "Meshulashim." This term refers to Hadassim whose three leaves emerge at the same level. There are many opinions regarding the precise parameters regarding Hadassim Meshulashim

Hadas Shoteh !!

Interestingly, the Gemara refers to a Hadas that is not Meshulash as a “Hadas Shoteh,” a psychotic Hadas. An explanation might be that a Hadas that is Meshulash is balanced whereas the Hadas that is not Meshulash is imbalanced.

A characteristic of a mentally healthy person is one who is balanced and one who is not mentally healthy is not balanced.

I love the anthropomorphic projection onto this beautiful myrtle DSM III categories of human mental pathology!

Sukkah 31: How to Steal Succah!

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A dark story about an old hag and the Reish Galuta :

The Gemara relates: There was a certain "old woman" (savta) who came before Rav Naḥman. She said to him: The Exilarch and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen sukka. She claimed that the Exilarch’s servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Naḥman did not pay attention to her.

She said to him: A woman whose father, Abraham, our forefather, had three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her? She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. Rav Naḥman said to the Sages: This woman is a screamer, and she has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. However, the sukka itself was already acquired by the Exilarch.

Reb Zadok has a sweet interpretation about not giving up...

This pericope still bothers me and goes to the deeper question as to the corruption of the resh Galuta, for the way the gemoro portrays the savta as a complaining old hag only begs the moral question as to the theft being permissible in a case of a disenfranchised old woman who wields no political power over the raih galuta....

Sukkah 30: Stolen for a Mitzvah

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We begin the third chapter of masechet sukkah. The Mishna (29b) begins "a stolen lulav is invalid", serving as the springboard to the principle of mitzva haba'ah baveriah, a mitzva committed by means of a sin, where the sin negates any potential mitzva.

In explaining this concept the gemara cites G-d Himself saying "I am the Lord, [I] love justice and hate robbery in an olah [offering]" (Isaiah 61:8). A korban olah is one in which the entire animal is offered to G-d. One who steals such receives no personal benefit and offers to G-d what is His anyway. Nonetheless G-d hates such theft and such a sacrifice is worse than worthless. And if G-d hates those who steal in order to offer a sacrifice to Him it stands to reason that He is no fan of those who steal for their own benefit.

Before introducing the four different species by name, the Torah uses the phrase: ‘And you shall take for yourself’ (Leviticus 23:40). In the Midrash (Vayikra Raba, 30:3), playing with this phrase, Rabbi Chiya taught that the lulav, ‘must be rightfully purchased and not stolen.' The notion that this commandment cannot be fulfilled with a stolen lulav is straightforward, and is the subject of a Talmudic discussion too.

But, the Midrash goes on to develop a Mashal/parable. ‘Somebody who uses a stolen lulav, to what can the situation be compared?’ A story is told of a highwayman who waits at a crossroad in order to accost passers-by. One time, an official of the king comes by to collect taxes from the province. The highwayman accosted him and stole everything that he had.

We explore the ethics of mitzvot hab'a be'avera from a variety of perspectives including Marxist.

Sukkah 29: Total Eclipse of the (Heart) Sun

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

This is a sad baraita. Israel (the “enemies of Israel is a euphemism for Israel) is presented as the abused school child, fearful of every bad sign for he is used to being beaten. Rabbi Meir points out that it is only natural for Israel to assume that a heavenly sign is a bad omen for them and not for the rest of the world, for Israel is the suffering child of God.

We should also perhaps note that this baraita is particularistic—heavenly signs are directed at Israel and not at the whole world. Nature acts on behalf of Israel, albeit as a sign of punishment. Throughout this sugya we would do well to keep track of when heavenly signs are directed against particular nations and when they are directed against all of humanity.

When the sun is stricken it is a bad omen for idolaters; when the moon is stricken, it is a bad omen for the Jewish people, since the Jews calculate (the yearly cycle) by the moon and idolaters calculate by the sun.

RAV YONASAN EIBESHITZ (Ya'aros Devash, volume 2, p. 67b) asks that an eclipse is a natural phenomenon that occurs according to a set astronomical pattern. How can a natural phenomenon be a harbinger of inauspicious times, if it occurs according to a predictable schedule?

We explore briefly the science behind solar and lunar eclipses.

Sukkah 28: Women in the Succah (?)

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf deals with the traditional exemption of women from the obligation of sukkah.

בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים; כָּל-הָאֶזְרָח, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, יֵשְׁבוּ, בַּסֻּכֹּת.

The exclusion of women is derived from the letter “heh” , the word “the,” that precedes the word הָאֶזְרָח “homeborn” in Leviticus 23:42.

Had the word just been אֶזְרָח “homeborn”, women would have been included (so the sugya says), but the extra "heh" comes to exclude them.

The problem with “the homeborn” excluding women from being obligated for the sukkah is that the same word is used in the context of Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16:29, וְכָל-מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ--הָאֶזְרָח, וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם. and the rabbis use the word to include women in the Yom Kippur obligation.

So which is it—does “the homeborn” include women (as in the case of Yom Kippur) or does it exclude women (as in the case of Sukkah)?

In general, men and women are equally obligated in positive non-time-bound commandments. These include loving our fellow person, returning a lost object, giving tzedaka, affixing a mezuza, and many other essential elements of Jewish observance.

Overall, the mishna has divided mitzvot into four major categories (positive time-bound, positive non-time-bound, negative time-bound, and negative non-time-bound). Women are generally obligated in three out of four.

In fact, out of the 613 Torah-level mitzvot, there seem to be only eight instances where women are exempted specifically from positive time-bound mitzvot: reciting Shema, donning tzitzit, laying tefillin on the head and on the hand, hearing shofar, taking lulav, dwelling in the sukka, and counting the omer. This is not a long list!

Why does the exemption from this single category loom large? and why so controversial?

We explore... from the traditional arguments and apologetics to orthodox feminist and academic readings in order to attempt to respect the perosnal autonomy of moderns yet bow to our halachic traditions.

Sukkah 27: The First Night

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah brings the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that over the course of Sukkot, a person is obligated to eat two meals per day in the sukkah, i.e. one should eat 14 meals in the sukkah over the course of the Biblically mandated seven-day holiday. According to the Chachamim, however, there is only an obligation to eat in the sukkah on the first night of the holiday. From then on, a person can choose to eat food that does not obligate him to sit in the sukkah, and he will not be obligated to do so.

A Beraisa relates that Rebbi Ila'i once went to greet his Rebbi, Rebbi Eliezer, during Sukos. Rebbi Eliezer asked him why he left his home when the Torah requires that one stay home and rejoice with one's wife during the festival.

We explore the ramifications of both mishnah and beraisa.

Sukkah 26: מצטער פטור מן הסוכה

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

This baraita on our daf teaches that one who is sick and would be discomforted by sleeping in the sukkah is exempt from the mitzvah. Even if this pain is minor, he is exempt.

The Gemora challenges this from the Mishna, which only says that the sick and those attending to them are exempt, implying that discomfort alone is not enough to exempt someone.

Rashi explains that suffering that “develops on its own” relates to discomfort stemming from the Sukkah itself. Typical examples include: discomfort from the heat of the sun beating down on the Sukkah, the cold temperature in the Sukkah, or a bad odor emitted by the structure’s leafy “schach” roof. Since a mourner’s sensitivity is not directly related to the Sukkah’s temperature or odor, he must put himself at ease so that he can perform the mitzvah.

We explore the notion of מִצְטַעֵר — פָּטוּר מִן הַסּוּכָּה

and the competing notions of whether one's discomfort stemming mainly from his own mental or emotional state, and not from the Sukkah, is not exempt from the mitzvah to dwell in the Sukkah.

This indeed is a revolutionary concept that the individual has the final say of what sukkah he wishes to use to fulfill the mitzvah and can reject a sukkah which the Torah considers permissible.

This is based originally in his right to accept or reject his year-round permanent home. The rights which the Torah grant him to select a home are the same rights which he has in selecting a sukkah as long as the sukkah fulfills the Torah requirements.

This is the true import of the concept of taishvu k’ain taduru.

Sukkah 25: Multi-Tasking and Wedding Nights

For the source text click/tap here: Sukkah 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The teaching in the mishna on our daf is explained in the gemara as an example of a well-known rule that “One who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from a different mitzvah.” Rav Huna derives this rule from the mitzvah of saying the “Sh'ma”. The verse states that “Sh'ma” is a mitzvah to do when “going in your way” – but not while in the middle of going in a way commanded by G-d — i.e. a different mitzvah.

The Gemora asks: If that is so, one who marries a widow should also be exempt? The Gemora answers: This one (who marries a virgin) is preoccupied for he is worried about her besulim; the other (who is marrying a widow) is not.

This leads us to explore the notion of multi-tasking which afflicts every aspect of our lives and whether there is a neurological substrate for these behaviors and are they healthy?