Today in Jewish History
• Asher born (1562 BCE)
Asher, the son of Jacob, was born on the 20th of Shevat of the year 2199 from creation (1562 BCE). According to some accounts, this is also the date of his passing.
Daily Quote:
Said Rabbi Reuven ben Etzrovli: A person is not accused of something unless he did it; and if he didn't do it completely, he did it partially; and if he didn't do it partially , he thought of doing it; and if he didn't think of doing it, he saw someone else do it and was glad[Talmud, Moed Katn 18b]
Daily Study
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Mishpatim, 2nd Portion Exodus 21:20-22:3 with Rashi
• Chapter 21
20. And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. כ. וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם:
And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant: The text is referring to a Canaanite slave, or perhaps it is referring only to a Hebrew [slave]? To clarify this, the Torah says: “because he is his property” (verse 21). Just as his property is his permanent acquisition, so is the slave [in question] one who is his permanent acquisition. Now, was he [the one who kills his slave] not included in “He who strikes a man and he dies” (above, verse 12) ? This verse was written [lit., came] to exclude him [the owner of the slave] from the general rule [concerning murder], to be judged with the law of “a day or two days” (verse 21), that if he did not die under his hand but lingered an entire twenty-four-hour period, he is exempt. -[From Mechilta] וכי יכה איש את עבדו או את אמתו: בעבד כנעני הכתוב מדבר. או אינו אלא בעברי, תלמוד לומר כי כספו הוא, מה כספו קנוי לו עולמית, אף עבד הקנוי לו עולמית. והרי היה בכלל (פסוק יב) מכה איש ומת, אלא בא הכתוב והוציאו מן הכלל, להיות נדון בדין יום או יומים, שאם לא מת תחת ידו ושהה מעת לעת פטור:
with a rod: The verse refers to [a rod] that has sufficient [weight and strength] to kill [someone]. Or perhaps that is not so, but [the master is liable] even if it [the rod] does not have sufficient [weight and strength] to kill? Therefore, the Torah says concerning an Israelite: “Or if he strikes him with a stone that can be held in the hand, from which he may die” (Num. 35:17). (“Or if he strikes him with a wooden instrument that can be held in the hand, from which he may die” ) (Num. 35:18). -[Mizrachi version] Now could the matter not be understood by a kal vachomer [an inference from a major to a minor case], that if [in the case of] an Israelite [victim], [a case] which is treated more stringently, one is not liable unless he struck him [the victim] with an article that has sufficient [weight and strength] to kill and the blow is on an organ which could cause death, how much more should it be so [in the case of] a slave, [a case] which is treated more leniently? -[From Mechilta] בשבט: כשיש בו כדי להמית הכתוב מדבר. או אינו אלא אפילו אין בו כדי להמית, תלמוד לומר בישראל (במדבר לה יז) ואם באבן יד אשר ימות בה הכהו, והלא דברים קל וחומר מה ישראל חמור אין חייב עליו, אלא אם כן הכהו בדבר שיש בו כדי להמית, ועל אבר שהוא כדי למות בהכאה זו, עבד הקל לא כל שכן:
he shall surely be avenged: [with] death by the sword [decapitation], and so does the Torah say: “a sword avenging the vengeance of the covenant” (Lev. 26:25). -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 52b] נקם ינקם: מיתת סייף, וכן הוא אומר (ויקרא כו כה) חרב נוקמות נקם ברית:
21. But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property. כא. אַךְ אִם יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַעֲמֹד לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא:
But if he survives for a day or two he shall not be avenged: If one day[’s survival] exempts him [from punishment], then would not [survival of] two days be even more obvious? [Why then, is the word יומים written?] Rather [it must be that we are speaking of] one day which is as two days, and what [kind of day] is that? A full, twenty-four hour period. אך אם יום או יומים יעמוד לא יקם: אם על יום אחד הוא פטור, על יומים לא כל שכן, אלא יום שהוא כיומים, ואיזה, זה מעת לעת:
he shall not be avenged, because he is his property: But if someone else struck him, even if he lingered for twenty-four hours before he died, he [the other person] is liable [to incur the death penalty]. לא יקם כי כספו הוא: הא אחר שהכהו, אף על פי ששהה מעת לעת קודם שמת, חייב:
22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. כב. וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים:
And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a] וכי ינצו אנשים: זה עם זה, ונתכוין להכות את חבירו והכה את האשה:
and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14). ונגפו: אין נגיפה אלא לשון דחיפה והכאה, כמו (תהלים צא יב) פן תגוף באבן רגלך, (ירמיה יג טז) ובטרם יתנגפו רגליכם, (ישעיה ח יד) ולאבן נגף:
but there is no fatality: with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan] ולא יהיה אסון: באשה:
he shall surely be punished: to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a] ענוש יענש: לשלם דמי ולדות לבעל שמין אותה, כמה היתה ראויה למכר בשוק להעלות בדמיה בשביל הריונה:
he shall surely be punished: Heb. יֵעָנֵשׁ עָנוֹשׁ. They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta] ענוש יענש: יגבו ממון ממנו, כמו (דברים כב יט) וענשו אותו מאה כסף:
when the woman’s husband makes demands of him: When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that. כאשר ישית עליו וגו': כשיתבנעו הבעל בבית דין להשית עליו עונש על כך:
and he shall give [restitution]: The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses. ונתן: המכה דמי ולדות:
according to the judges: Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta] בפלילים: על פי הדיינים:
23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, כג. וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ:
But if there is a fatality: with the woman. ואם אסון יהיה: באשה:
you shall give a life for a life: Our Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must] actually [give up his] life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not actually a life, and if one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is exempt from the death penalty and must pay his [the victim’s] heirs his value, as [it would be if] he were sold in the marketplace. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 79] ונתתה נפש תחת נפש: רבותינו חולקין בדבר. יש אומרים נפש ממש, ויש אומרים ממון, אבל לא נפש ממש, שהמתכויון להרוג את זה והרג את זה פטור ממיתה ומשלם ליורשיו דמיו, כמו שהיה נמכר בשוק:
24. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, כד. עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל:
an eye for an eye: If [a person] blinds his neighbor’s eye, he must give him the value of his eye, [which is] how much his price to be sold in the marketplace has decreased [without the eye]. So is the meaning of all of them [i.e., all the injuries enumerated in the following verses], but not the actual amputation of a limb, as our Rabbis interpreted it in the chapter entitled הַחוֹבֵל, he who assaults. -[From B.K. 83b, 84a] עין תחת עין: סימא עין חבירו נותן לו דמי עינו, כמה שפחתו דמיו למכור בשוק, וכן כולם, ולא נטילת אבר ממש, כמו שדרשו רבותינו בפרק החובל (בבא קמא פד א):
25. a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise. כה. כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה:
a burn for a burn: Heb. כְּוִיָּה, a burn caused by fire. [Rashi probably alludes to מִכְוַת-אֵשׁ in Lev. 13:24.] Until now [the Torah] spoke of an injury that decreases the value [of the victim], and now of [an injury] that does not decrease the [victim’s] value [as a slave] but causes pain, for instance if he [the assailant] burned him [the victim] on his nails with a spit, they [the judges] compute how much [money] a person like him would be willing to take to endure such pain. -[From B.K. 84a, Mechilta] כויה תחת כויה: מכות אש, ועד עכשיו דבר בחבלה שיש בה פחת דמים, ועכשיו בשאין בה פחת דמים, אלא צער, כגון כוואו בשפוד על צפרנו אומדים כמה אדם כיוצא בזה רוצה ליטול להיות מצטער כך:
a wound: Heb. פֶּצַע, a wound that bleeds, where he wounded his [victim’s] flesh, navredure in Old French, all according to what it [the wound] is. If it decreases his value, he [the assailant must] pay [for the] damage; if he falls into idleness, he [must] pay for idleness, and for healing, shame, and pain. This verse is superfluous [because there is no difference between a wound and a burn. Whatever damage he inflicts he must pay]. In [the chapter] הַחוֹבֵל (B.K. 84a), our Rabbis interpreted it as making one liable for [the victim’s] pain even where there is [permanent] damage [which he must pay for], because although he pays him [the victim] the value of his hand, we do not exempt him from the [payment compensating for the victim’s] pain, reasoning that since he [the assailant] purchased his [the victim’s] hand [by giving the victim payment for its value], he may amputate it with whatever he wants. We say, however, that he should amputate it with a medication that lessens the pain. However, [if] he cut it off with [an] iron [implement] and caused him pain [he must give the victim compensation]. -[From B.K. 85a] פצע: היא מכה המוציאה דם, שפצע את בשרו, נברדור"א בלעז, [פציעה] הכל לפי מה שהוא אם יש בו פחת דמים נותן נזק, ואם נפל למשכב נותן שבת ורפוי ובשת וצער. ומקרא זה יתר הוא, ובהחובל דרשוהו רבותינו לחייב על הצער אפילו במקום נזק, שאף על פי שנותן לו דמי ידו, אין פוטרין אותו מן הצער לומר הואיל וקנה ידו יש עליו לחתכה בכל מה שירצה, אלא אומרים יש לו לחתכה בסם, שאינו מצטער כל כך, וזה חתכה בברזל וצערו:
a bruise: Heb. חַבּוּרָה. This is a blow in which blood collects but does not come out. It only reddens the flesh on that spot. The term חַבּוּרָה is equivalent to tache in Old French [meaning] a spot, like “or a leopard its spots (חִבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו) ” (Jer. 13:23). Its Aramaic translation is מַשְׁקוֹפֵי, an expression of beating, batedure in Old French, [meaning] beating, knocking, and so, שְׁדֻפוֹתקָדִּים (Gen. 41:23) [is translated by Onkelos as:] קִדּוּם שְׁקִיפָן, [which means] “beaten by the [east] wind,” and similarly, “on the lintel (עַל הַמַשְׁקוֹף)” (Exod. 12:7), [is given this appellation] because the door bangs against it [the lintel]. [See commentary on Exod. 12:7.] חבורה: היא מכה שהדם נצרר בה ואינו יוצא, אלא שמאדים הבשר כנגדו ולשון חבורה [טי"א] בלעז [כתם], כמו (ירמיה יג כג) ונמר חברברותיו ותרגומו משקופי, לשון חבטה בטדור"א בלעז [מכה], וכן ושדופת קדים (בראשית מא ו) שקיפן קידום, חבוטות ברוח, וכן על המשקוף (לעיל יב כג) על שם שהדלת נושק עליו:
26. And if a man strikes the eye of his manservant or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall set him free in return for his eye, כו. וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת עֵין אֲמָתוֹ וְשִׁחֲתָהּ לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת עֵינוֹ:
the eye of his manservant: [This refers to] a Canaanite, but a Hebrew [slave] does not go out with [the loss of his] tooth or [his] eye as we have stated on “she shall not go out as the slaves go out” (Exod. 21:7). את עין עבדו: כנעני, אבל עברי אינו יוצא בשן ועין, כמו שאמרנו אצל לא תצא כצאת העבדים (פסוק ז):
in return for his eye: And so it [the law] is with the twenty-four tips of limbs: [i.e.,] the fingers and toes, the two ears and the nose, and the רֹאֹש הַגְּוִיָה, which is the male organ. Why were [both] a tooth and an eye mentioned [when the Torah could have mentioned only one]? Because if it had mentioned an eye and did not mention a tooth, I would say that just as an eye was created with him [at birth], so [does this apply to] everything that is created with him, but a tooth was not created with him [at birth]. [Therefore, I would say that if the master knocked out his slave’s tooth, the slave would not be freed.] If it mentioned a tooth and did not mention an eye, I would say [that] even [if the master knocked out] a baby tooth, which would be replaced [by the natural growth of another tooth, the slave would be freed]. Therefore, it mentions the eye [which cannot be replaced, to teach us that if the master knocks out a baby tooth, the slave is not freed]. -[From Kid. 24a] תחת עינו: וכן בכ"ד ראשי אברים אצבעות הידים והרגלים. ושתי אזנים והחוטם וראש הגויה, שהוא גיד האמה. ולמה נאמר שן ועין, שאם נאמר עין ולא נאמר שן, הייתי אומר מה עין שנברא עמו אף כל שנברא עמו, והרי שן לא נברא עמו, ועם נאמר שן ולא נאמר עין, הייתי אומר אפילו שן תינוק שיש לה חליפין, לכך נאמר עין:
27. and if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or the tooth of his maidservant, he shall set him free in return for his tooth. כז. וְאִם שֵׁן עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ שֵׁן אֲמָתוֹ יַפִּיל לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת שִׁנּוֹ:
28. And if a bull gores a man or a woman and [that one] dies, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, and the owner of the bull is clear. כח. וְכִי יִגַּח שׁוֹר אֶת אִישׁ אוֹ אֶת אִשָּׁה וָמֵת סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי:
And if a bull gores: [This law refers to] either a bull or any domestic animal, beast, or bird, but the text spoke of what usually occurs [i.e., bulls usually gore]. -[From Mechilta, B.K. 54b] וכי יגח שור: אחד שור ואחד כל בהמה וחיה ועוף אלא שדיבר הכתוב בהווה:
and its flesh shall not be eaten: From the implication of what was stated: “the bull shall surely be stoned,” do I not know that it will become carrion [i.e., meaning not killed according to halachah], and carrion is forbidden to be eaten. For what purpose, then, does the Torah state: “and its flesh shall not be eaten” ? [To inform us] that even if one slaughtered it [according to halachah] after it was sentenced, it is forbidden to be eaten. How do we know that no benefit may be derived from it [this animal sentenced to death]? Therefore, the Torah says: “and the owner of the bull is clean (נָקִי) ”, as one says to his friend, “So-and-so lost his property [lit., was cleaned out (נָקִי) of his property], and he has no benefit at all from it” (B.K. 41a). This is its midrashic meaning. Its simple meaning is as its apparent meaning. Since it says concerning a habitual gorer: “and also its owner shall be put to death,” it had to say that in the case of a tame [bull]: “and the owner of the bull is clean [i.e., clear of any charges].” [The tame bull (ךְתָּם) is the bull that did not gore habitually, but only once or twice. In the case of the bull that killed a person, this bull is put to death, but the owner is clear; i.e., he does not have to pay ransom. Should the bull gore three people and kill all of them, it is called מוּעָד, warned. The fourth time it gores someone it is liable to death, and its owner is also liable to death by the hands of Heaven. In order to clear himself of this punishment he must pay ransom, as is delineated in verses 29 and 30.] ולא יאכל את בשרו: ממשמע שנאמר סקול יסקל השור, איני יודע שהוא נבלה, ונבלה אסורה באכילה, אלא מה תלמוד לומר ולא יאכל את בשרו, שאפילו שחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו, אסור באכילה. בהנאה מנין, תלמוד לומר ובעל השור נקי, כאדם האומר לחבירו יצא פלוני נקי מנכסיו ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום, זהו מדרשו. ופשוטו כמשמעו לפי שנאמר במועד וגם בעליו יומת, הוצרך לומר בתם ובעל השור נקי:
29. But if it is a [habitually] goring bull since yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner had been warned, but he did not guard it, and it puts to death a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death, כט. וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת:
since yesterday and the day before yesterday: This implies [a total of] three gorings. [From Mechilta, B.K. 23b] מתמל שלשם: הרי שלש נגיחות -:
and its owner has been warned: Heb. וְהוּעַד, a word denoting a warning in front of witnesses (Mechilta, B.K. 24a), like “The man warned us repeatedly (הָעֵד הֵעִד) ” (Gen. 43:3). והועד בבעליו: - לשון התראה בעדים, כמו (בראשית מג ג) העד העיד בנו האיש:
and it puts to death a man, etc.: Since it stated: “if [a bull] gores,” I know only that [the bull is liable to death] if it kills him [its victim] by goring [with its horns]. If it killed him through biting, shoving, or kicking, how do we know [that it must be killed]? Therefore, the Torah states: “and it puts to death,” [implying that in whatever way it kills its victim, the bull is liable to death]. -[based on Mechilta] והמית איש וגו': לפי שנאמר וכי יגח, אין לי אלא שהמיתו בנגיחה, המיתו בנשיכה, דחיפה, רביצה, בעיטה מנין, תלמוד לומר והמית [מכל מקום]:
and also its owner shall be put to death: By the hands of Heaven [and not through a court]. I might think that it [this verse] means [that he is liable to death] by the hands of man [i.e., through the court]. Therefore, the Torah states: “The assailant shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer” (Num. 35:21), [implying that] for his [act of] murder you [must] kill him, but you do not kill him [i. e., anyone] for his bull’s [act of] murder. -[From Sanh. 15b] וגם בעליו יומת: בידי שמים. יכול בידי אדם, תלמוד לומר (במדבר לה כא) מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא, על רציחתו אתה הורגו, ואי אתה הורגו על רציחת שורו:
30. insofar as ransom shall be levied upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul according to all that is levied upon him. ל. אִם כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו:
insofar as ransom shall be levied upon him: Heb. (אִם). This (אִם) is not [meant as a] conditional, but it is like “When (אִם) you lend money” (Exod. 22:24), a word meaning “that.” His sentence is that the court levy ransom upon him. אם כפר יושת עליו: אם זה אינו תלוי, והרי הוא כמו (לקמן כב כד) אם כסף תלוה, לשון אשר, זה משפטו, שישיתו עליו בית דין כופר:
he shall give the redemption of his soul: [This means] the value of the victim [as a slave]. This is the view of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The value of the damager, [i.e., the owner of the goring bull]. -[From Mechilta] ונתן פדיון נפשו: דמי ניזק, דברי רבי ישמעאל, רבי עקיבא אומר דמי מזיק:
31. Or if it gores a young boy or a young girl, according to this ordinance shall be done to him. לא. אוֹ בֵן יִגּח אוֹ בַת יִגָּח כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה יֵעָשֶׂה לוֹ:
Or if it gores a young boy: Heb. בֵן, lit., a son A son who is a minor. או בן יגח: בן שהוא קטן:
or a young girl: Heb. בַת, lit., a daughter who is a minor. Since it says (verse 29): “and it puts to death a man or a woman,” I may think that he (the bull) is liable only for [killing] adults. Therefore, the Torah states: “Or if it gores a young boy, etc.” to make one liable for minors as [for] adults. -[From Mechilta, Mechilta d’Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, B.K. 43b, 44a] או בת: שהיא קטנה. לפי שנאמר והמית איש או אשה, יכול אינו חייב אלא על הגדולים, תלמוד לומר או בן יגח וגו', לחייב על הקטנים כגדולים:
32. If the bull gores a manservant or a maidservant, he shall give silver [in the amount of] thirty shekels to his master, and the bull shall be stoned. לב. אִם עֶבֶד יִגַּח הַשּׁוֹר אוֹ אָמָה כֶּסֶף | שְׁלשִׁים שְׁקָלִים יִתֵּן לַאדֹנָיו וְהַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל:
…a manservant or a maidservant -: Canaanites. -[From Mechilta] אם עבד או אמה: כנעניים:
thirty shekels: This is a decree of the Scriptures [that the bull’s owner pay thirty shekels] whether he [the dead slave] was worth a thousand zuz or whether he was worth no more than a dinar. The weight of the shekel is four pieces of gold, which equal half an ounce according to the official weight of Cologne. שלשים שקלים יתן: גזירת הכתוב הוא, בין שהוא שוה אלף זוז, בין שאינו שוה אלא דינר. והשקל משקלו ארבע זהובים שהם חצי אונקיא למשקל הישר של קולוניי"א:
33. And if a person opens a pit, or if a person digs a pit and does not cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it, לג. וְכִי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר אוֹ כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ וְנָפַל שָׁמָּה שּׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר:
And if a person opens a pit: which was covered, and he uncovered it. וכי יפתח איש בור: שהיה מכוסה וגלהו:
or if… digs: Why was this stated? If he is liable for opening [a pit that had already been dug], is it not [true that he would be] even more [guilty] for digging [a new pit]? But this is to include a digger [who digs deeper] after a digger, that he is liable. [I.e., if one digs a pit nine handbreadths deep, which is capable of injuring an animal but not killing it, and another digs one handbreadth more, making the open pit capable of killing an animal, the second digger is liable in all cases.] -[From B.K. 51a] או כי יכרה: למה נאמר, אם על הפתיחה חייב, על הכרייה לא כל שכן, אלא להביא כורה אחר כורה שהוא חייב:
and does not cover it: intimating that if he covered it, he is exempt [from paying for any damages that could occur], and the text speaks of one who digs in a public domain. -[From B.K. 55b] ולא יכסנו: הא אם כסהו, פטור, ובחופר ברשות הרבים דבר הכתוב:
and a bull or a donkey: The same applies to all domestic animals and beasts, for wherever it says: “a bull and a donkey,” we [can] derive [that it applies to all domestic animals] through a גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, similar wording of שׂוֹר שׁוֹר, [which is] from [the law concerning the] Sabbath, as it is stated: “In order that your bull and your donkey rest” (Exod. 23:12). Just as there [referring to the Sabbath] every domestic animal and beast is like the bull [in reference to the law], for it says elsewhere [regarding the Sabbath] (Deut. 5:14) “[…you shall not perform any kind of work, neither you, nor your son…] and all your animals,” here, too, all animals and beasts are like the bull [in reference to the law]. The bull and the donkey are mentioned only [for us to understand that] for a bull [that falls into a pit the owner is liable] but not for a man [who falls into a pit], and [he is liable for] a donkey but not for utensils. -[From B.K. 10b] שור או חמור: הוא הדין לכל בהמה וחיה, שבכל מקום שנאמר שור וחמור, אנו למדין אותו שור שור משבת, שנאמר למען ינוח שורך וחמורך (שמות כג יב); מה להלן כל בהמה וחיה כשור. שהרי נאמר במקום אחר וכל בהמתך (דברים ה יג) אף כאן, כל בהמה וחיה כשור, ולא נאמר שור וחמור אלא שור, ולא אדם, חמור, ולא כלים:
34. the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall return money to its owner, and the dead body shall be his. לד. בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ:
the owner of the pit: [This refers to] the creator of the obstacle [i.e., the pit], although the pit is not his, for he made it in a public domain, Scripture made him its owner, insofar as he is liable for its damages. -[From B.K. 29b] בעל הבור: בעל התקלה, אף על פי שאין הבור שלו, שעשאו ברשות הרבים, עשאו הכתוב בעליו להתחייב עליו בנזקין:
he shall return money to its owner: Heb. יָשִׁיב. [The word] יָשִׁיב [is written] to include [anything] worth money, even bran. -[From B.K. 7a] (See Exod. 22:4: “the best of his field or the best of his vineyard he shall pay,” which Rashi explains to mean that damages are paid from the best land. Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua in the Talmud (B.K. 7b) solves this apparent discrepancy by concluding that it applies only if the defendant prefers to pay the damages with land, but if he prefers to pay with movable objects, everything is deemed the best, because if it cannot be sold here, it can be sold elsewhere.) [Addendum to Rashi] [It can therefore be easily converted to cash.] כסף ישיב לבעליו: ישיב, לרבות שוה כסף, ואפילו סובין:
and the dead body shall be his -: [The dead animal will belong to] the one [owner] who sustained the damage. They assess the carcass, and he [the owner] takes it for its value, and the damager pays him in addition to it [the carcass] payment for his damage. -[From Mechilta, B.K. 10b] והמת יהיה לו: לניזק, שמין את הנבלה ונוטלה בדמים ומשלם לו המזיק עליה תשלומי נזקו:
35. And if a man's bull strikes his friend's bull and it dies, they shall sell the live bull and divide the money received for it, and they shall also divide the dead body. לה. וְכִי יִגֹּף שׁוֹר אִישׁ אֶת שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ וָמֵת וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן:
And if… strikes: Heb. יִגֹּף, shove, either with its horns, or with its feet, or whether he bit him with his teeth All are included in נְגִיפָה, for נְגִיפָה is only an expression of striking. -[From Mechilta] וכי יגף: ידחוף, בין בקרניו, בין בגופו, בין ברגליו, בין שנשכו בשניו, כולן בכלל נגיפה הם, שאין נגיפה אלא לשון מכה:
a man’s bull: Heb. שׁוֹר-אִישׁ, a bull [belonging to] a man. שור איש: שור של איש:
they shall sell the live bull, etc.: Scripture speaks of [two bulls] of equal value a bull worth two hundred [zuz] that killed a bull worth two hundred [zuz]. Whether the carcass is worth much or worth little, when this one takes half [the value of] the live [bull] and half [the value of] the dead one, the result is that each one sustains half the damage that death inflicted upon him. We learn that the tame [bull] pays half the damage, for from the equal ones [the bulls of equal value] you learn [how it is with] the unequal ones [bulls of unequal value], for the law of the tame bull is to pay half the damage, not more or less. Or perhaps, even if they were unequal when they were alive, Scripture mandates that they sell them both [and divide the proceeds of the sale between them]? [This cannot be true since] if you say that sometimes the damager would gain very much, or sometimes the victim would receive much more than the amount of the complete damage, for half the value of the damaging bull [may] exceed the entire value of the bull that was damaged. If you say that, the [law regarding the] tame bull is more stringent than the [law regarding the] habitual gorer [which is illogical]. You are compelled to say that Scripture is referring only to the ones [bulls] of equal value. It teaches you that the tame bull pays half the damage, and from the [law concerning] equal ones, you learn about the unequal ones, that for the one who is awarded half the damage they [the court] assess the carcass, and the decrease of its value due to the death, [and] he receives half the depreciation and leaves (B.K. 34a). Now why did Scripture state it in this language? To teach [us] that the tame bull pays only with its body, and if it gored and subsequently died, the one [owner] who sustained the damage receives only the carcass, and if it does not equal half his damage, he has a loss. Or if a bull worth a maneh [one hundred zuz] gored a bull worth five hundred zuz, he [the owner] receives only the bull, for the tame bull did not become obligated to obligate its owner to pay from the best of his property (B.K. 16b). ומכרו את השור וגו': בשוים הכתוב מדבר, שור שוה מאתיים שהמית שור שוה מאתיים, בין שהנבלה שוה הרבה, בין שהיא שוה מעט, כשנוטל זה חצי החי וחצי המת, וזה חצי החי וחצי המת, נמצא כל אחד מפסיד חצי נזק [שהזיקה המיתה, למדנו שהתם משלם חצי נזק, שמן השוין אתה למד לשאינן שוין] כי דין התם לשלם חצי נזק לא פחות ולא יותר. או יכול אף בשאינן שוין בדמיהן כשהן חיים, אמר הכתוב וחצו את שניהם, אם אמרת כן, פעמים שמזיק משתכר הרבה, כשהנבלה שוה לימכר לנכרים הרבה יותר מדמי שור המזיק, ואי אפשר שיאמר הכתוב, שיהא המזיק נשכר. או פעמים שהניזק נוטל הרבה יותר מדמי נזק שלם, שחצי דמי שור המזיק שוין יותר מכל דמי שור הניזק, ואם אמרת כן, הרי תם חמור ממועד, על כרחך לא דבר הכתוב אלא בשוין. ולמדך שהתם משלם חצי נזק, ומן השוין תלמד לשאינן שוין, שהמשתלם חצי נזקו שמין לו את הנבלה, ומה שפחתו דמיו בשביל המיתה, נוטל חצי הפחת והלך, ולמה אמר הכתוב בלשון הזה ולא אמר ישלם חציו, ללמד שאין התם משלם אלא מגופו, ואם נגח ומת, אין הנזוק נוטל אלא הנבלה, ואם אינה מגעת לחצי נזקו, יפסיד. או שור שוה מנה שנגח שור שוה חמש מאות זוז, אינו נוטל אלא את השור, שלא נתחייב התם לחייב את בעליו לשלם מן העליה:
36. Or if it was known that it was a [habitually] goring bull since yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner does not watch it, he shall surely pay a bull for a bull, and the dead body shall be his. לו. אוֹ נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם שׁוֹר תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ:
Or if it was known: Or if it was not tame, but it was known that it was a [habitually] goring bull today and from yesterday and the day before yesterday, totaling three gorings. -[From Mechilta, B.K. 23b] או נודע: או לא היה תם, אלא נודע כי שור נגח הוא היום, ומתמול שלשום, הרי שלש נגיחות:
he shall surely pay a bull: The complete damage. [Midrash Hagadol from Mechilta d’Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai] שלם ישלם שור: נזק שלם:
and the dead body shall be his: [I.e.,] the victim’s, and in addition to that, the damager must complete it until the victim is paid his entire damage [due to him]. -[From B.K. 10b. 53b] והמת יהיה לו: לניזק, ועליו ישלים המזיק, עד שישתלם ניזק כל נזקו:
37. If a man steals a bull or a lamb and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five cattle for the bull or four sheep for the lamb. לז. כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה:
five cattle, etc.: Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: The Omnipresent was considerate of people’s honor. [For] a bull, which walks with its [own] feet, and the thief was not disgraced by carrying it on his shoulder, he pays fivefold. [For] a lamb, which he [the thief] carries on his shoulder, he pays [only] fourfold because he was disgraced by it. Rabbi Meir said: Come and see how great the power of work is. [For the theft of] a bull, which caused [the owner] to stop working, he [the thief] pays five. [For the theft of] a lamb, which did not cause [the owner] to stop working, [the thief pays] four. -[From Mechilta, B.K. 79b, Tosefta B.K. 7:3] חמשה בקר וגו': אמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי חס המקום על כבודן של בריות, שור שהולך ברגליו ולא נתבזה בו הגנב לנושאו על כתפו, משלם חמישה, שה שנושאו על כתפו, משלם ארבעה הואיל ונתבזה בו. אמר רבי מאיר בא וראה כמה גדולה כחה של מלאכה, שור שבטלו ממלאכתו משלם חמשה שה שלא בטלו ממלאכתו ארבעה:
for the bull…for the lamb: Scripture repeated them [i.e., the mentioning of the bull and the lamb] to tell [you] that the rule of fourfold and fivefold payments applies only to a bull and a lamb. [From B.K. 67b] תחת השור תחת השה: שנאן הכתוב לומר, שאין מדת תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה נוהגת אלא בשור ושה בלבד:
Chapter 22
1. If, while breaking in, the thief is discovered, and he is struck and dies, [it is as if] he has no blood. א. אִם בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְהֻכָּה וָמֵת אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים:
If, while breaking in: [I.e.,] when he was breaking into the house. אם במחתרת: כשהיה חותר את הבית:
he has no blood: [This signifies that] this is not [considered] murder. It is as though he [the thief] was [considered] dead from the start. Here the Torah teaches you [the lesson]: If someone comes to kill you, kill him first. And this one [the thief] has come to kill you, because he knows that no one [can] hold himself back and remain silent when he sees people taking his money. Therefore, he [the thief] has come with the acknowledgement that if the owner of the property were to stand up against him, he [the owner] would kill him [the thief]. -[From Sanh. 72a] אין לו דמים: אין זו רציחה, הרי הוא כמת מעיקרו. כאן למדתך תורה אם בא להרגך, השכם להרגו, וזה להרגך בא שהרי יודע הוא, שאין אדם מעמיד עצמו וראה שנוטלין ממונו בפניו ושותק, לפיכך על מנת כן בא, שאם יעמוד בעל הממון כנגדו יהרגנו:
2. If the sun shone upon him, [it is as if] he has blood; he shall surely pay. If he has no [money], he shall be sold for his theft. ב. אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו דָּמִים לוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם אִם אֵין לוֹ וְנִמְכַּר בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ:
If the sun shone upon him: This is nothing but a metaphor [meaning] if the matter is clear to you that he [the thief] is peaceably disposed toward you-similar to the sun, which represents peace in the world-so it is obvious to you that he has not come to kill [you]. Even if the owner of the money rises against him, for instance, if a father breaks in to steal his son’s property, it is known that the father has mercy on his son, and he has not come with the idea of murdering [him]. -[From Sanh. 72a, Mechilta] אם זרחה השמש עליו: אין זה אלא כמן משל אם ברור לך הדבר שיש לו שלום עמך, כשמש הזה שהוא שלום בעולם, כך פשוט לך שאינו בא להרוג, אפילו יעמוד בעל הממון כנגדו, כגון אב החותר לגנוב ממון הבן, בידוע שרחמי האב על הבן, ואינו בא על עסקי נפשות:
he has blood: He [the thief] is considered as a live person, and it is [considered] murder if the property owner kills him. דמים לו: כחי הוא חשוב ורציחה היא, אם יהרגהו בעל הבית:
he shall surely pay: The thief [shall pay] the money he stole, and he is not liable to death. [The thief is considered to have been sentenced to death in cases where the property owner is allowed kill him. In these cases the thief is exempt from any monetary obligation incurred when he dug into the house. In cases where the property owner may not kill him, however, the thief is not considered liable to death, and thus must pay for what he stole.] Onkelos, who rendered: “If the eye of witnesses fell upon him,” adopted another view, saying that if witnesses discovered him [the thief] before the property owner came, and when the property owner came against him, they warned him not to kill him, [the thief is considered as if] he has blood; i.e., he [the owner] is liable for him [the thief] if he kills him, because since [he has committed his crime when] people can see him, this thief has not come with the intention to murder, and he would not kill the property owner. שלם ישלם: הגנב ממון שגנב, ואינו חייב מיתה. ואונקלוס שתרגם אם עינא דסהדיא נפלת עלוהי, לקח לו שטה אחרת, לומר שאם מצאוהו עדים קודם שבא בעל הבית, וכשבא בעל הבית נגדו, התרו בו, שלא יהרגהו, דמים לו, חייב עליו אם הרגו, שאחר שיש רואים לו, אין הגנב הזה בא על עסקי נפשות, ולא יהרוג את בעל הממון:
3. If the stolen article is found in his possession whether a bull, a donkey, or a lamb live ones he shall pay twofold. ג. אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא בְיָדוֹ הַגְּנֵבָה מִשּׁוֹר עַד חֲמוֹר עַד שֶׂה חַיִּים שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם:
If the stolen article is found in his possession: Heb. בְיָדוֹ, lit., in his hand, [meaning] in his possession, [meaning] that he neither slaughtered nor sold [it]. -[From Mechilta] אם המצא תמצא בידו: ברשותו, שלא טבח ולא מכר:
whether a bull, a donkey: Everything is included in the [obligation to make a] twofold payment, whether it is a living thing or something that is not alive, for it says elsewhere (verse 8): “for a lamb, for a garment, for any lost article,… [he] shall pay twofold to his neighbor.” -[From B.K. 62b] ומשור עד חמור: כל דבר בכלל תשלומי כפל בין שיש בו רוח חיים בין שאין בו רוח חיים, שהרי נאמר במקום אחר (פסוק ח) על שה על שלמה על כל אבדה וגו' ישלם שנים לרעהו:
live ones he shall pay twofold: And he shall not pay him dead ones, but either live ones or the value of live ones. -[From Mechilta] חיים שנים ישלם: ולא ישלם לו מתים, אלא חיים או דמי חיים:Tehillim: Chapters 97 - 103
• Chapter 97
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the earth will exult; the multitudes of islands will rejoice.
2. Clouds and dense darkness will surround Him; justice and mercy will be the foundation of His throne.
3. Fire will go before Him and consume His foes all around.
4. His lightnings will illuminate the world; the earth will see and tremble.
5. The mountains will melt like wax before the Lord, before the Master of all the earth.
6. The heavens will declare His justice, and all the nations will behold His glory.
7. All who worship graven images, who take pride in idols, will be ashamed; all idol worshippers will prostrate themselves before Him.
8. Zion will hear and rejoice, the towns of Judah will exult, because of Your judgments, O Lord.
9. For You, Lord, transcend all the earth; You are exceedingly exalted above all the supernal beings.
10. You who love the Lord, hate evil; He watches over the souls of His pious ones, He saves them from the hand of the wicked.
11. Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart.
12. Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous, and extol His holy Name.
Chapter 98
This psalm describes how Israel will praise God for the Redemption.
1. A psalm. Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has performed wonders; His right hand and holy arm have wrought deliverance for Him.
2. The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His justice before the eyes of the nations.
3. He has remembered His kindness and faithfulness to the House of Israel; all, from the farthest corners of the earth, witnessed the deliverance by our God.
4. Raise your voices in jubilation to the Lord, all the earth; burst into joyous song and chanting.
5. Sing to the Lord with a harp, with a harp and the sound of song.
6. With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, jubilate before the King, the Lord.
7. The sea and its fullness will roar in joy, the earth and its inhabitants.
8. The rivers will clap their hands, the mountains will sing together.
9. [They will rejoice] before the Lord, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with righteousness.
Chapter 99
This psalm refers to the wars of Gog and Magog, which will precede the Redemption.
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the nations will tremble; the earth will quake before Him Who is enthroned upon the cherubim,
2. [before] the Lord Who is in Zion, Who is great and exalted above all the peoples.
3. They will extol Your Name which is great, awesome and holy.
4. And [they will praise] the might of the King Who loves justice. You have established uprightness; You have made [the laws of] justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His footstool; He is holy.
6. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who invoke His Name, would call upon the Lord and He would answer them.
7. He would speak to them from a pillar of cloud; they observed His testimonies and the decrees which He gave them.
8. Lord our God, You have answered them; You were a forgiving God for their sake, yet bringing retribution for their own misdeeds.
9. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His holy mountain, for the Lord our God is holy.
Chapter 100
This psalm inspires the hearts of those who suffer in this world. Let them, nevertheless, serve God with joy, for all is for their good, as in the verse: "He whom God loves does He chastise." The psalm also refers to the thanksgiving sacrifice-the only sacrifice to be offered in the Messianic era.
1. A psalm of thanksgiving. Let all the earth sing in jubilation to the Lord.
2. Serve the Lord with joy; come before Him with exultation.
3. Know that the Lord is God; He has made us and we are His, His people and the sheep of His pasture.
4. Enter His gates with gratitude, His courtyards with praise; give thanks to Him, bless His Name.
5. For the Lord is good; His kindness is everlasting, and His faithfulness is for all generations.
Chapter 101
This psalm speaks of David's secluding himself from others, and of his virtuous conduct even in his own home.
1. By David, a psalm. I will sing of [Your] kindness and justice; to You, O Lord, will I chant praise!
2. I will pay heed to the path of integrity-O when will it come to me? I shall walk with the innocence of my heart [even] within my house.
3. I shall not place an evil thing before my eyes; I despise the doing of wayward deeds, it does not cling to me.
4. A perverse heart shall depart from me; I shall not know evil.
5. He who slanders his fellow in secret, him will I cut down; one with haughty eyes and a lustful heart, him I cannot suffer.
6. My eyes are upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me; he who walks in the path of integrity, he shall minister to me.
7. He that practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; the speaker of lies shall have no place before my eyes.
8. Every morning I will cut down all the wicked of the land, to excise all evildoers from the city of the Lord.
Chapter 102
An awe-inspiring prayer for the exiled, and an appropriate prayer for anyone in distress.
1. A prayer of the poor man when he is faint [with affliction], and pours out his tale of woe before the Lord.
2. O Lord, hear my prayer, let my cry reach You!
3. Hide not Your face from me on the day of my distress; turn Your ear to me; on the day that I call, answer me quickly.
4. For my days have vanished with the smoke; my bones are dried up as a hearth.
5. Smitten like grass and withered is my heart, for I have forgotten to eat my bread.
6. From the voice of my sigh, my bone cleaves to my flesh.
7. I am like the bird of the wilderness; like the owl of the wasteland have I become.
8. In haste I fled; I was like a bird, alone on a roof.
9. All day my enemies disgrace me; those who ridicule me curse using my name.1
10. For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mixed my drink with tears,
11. because of Your anger and Your wrath-for You have raised me up, then cast me down.
12. My days are like the fleeting shadow; I wither away like the grass.
13. But You, Lord, will be enthroned forever, and Your remembrance is for all generations.
14. You will arise and have mercy on Zion, for it is time to be gracious to her; the appointed time has come.
15. For Your servants cherish her stones, and love her dust.
16. Then the nations will fear the Name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth Your glory,
17. when [they see that] the Lord has built Zion, He has appeared in His glory.
18. He turned to the entreaty of the prayerful, and did not despise their prayer.
19. Let this be written for the last generation, so that the newborn nation will praise the Lord.
20. For He looked down from His holy heights; from heaven, the Lord gazed upon the earth,
21. to hear the cry of the bound, to untie those who are doomed to die,
22. so that the Name of the Lord be declared in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem,
23. when nations and kingdoms will gather together to serve the Lord.
24. He weakened my strength on the way; He shortened my days.
25. I would say: "My God, do not remove me in the midst of my days! You Whose years endure through all generations.”
26. In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
27. They will perish, but You will endure; all of them will wear out like a garment; You will exchange them like a robe, and they will vanish.
28. But You remain the same; Your years will not end.
29. The children of Your servants will abide; their seed shall be established before You.
Chapter 103
David's prayer when he was ill, this psalm is an appropriate prayer on behalf of the sick, especially when offered by the sick person himself while his soul is yet in his body. He can then bless God from his depths, body and soul. Read, and find repose for your soul.
1. By David. Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all my being, His holy Name.
2. My soul, bless the Lord; forget not all His favors:
3. Who forgives all your sins, Who heals all your illnesses;
4. Who redeems your life from the grave, Who crowns you with kindness and mercy;
5. Who satisfies your mouth with goodness; like the eagle, your youth is renewed.
6. The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.
7. He made His ways known to Moses, His deeds to the Children of Israel.
8. The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. He will not contend for eternity, nor harbor ill will forever.
10. He has not dealt with us according to our transgressions, nor requited us according to our sins.
11. For as high as heaven is above the earth, so has His kindness been mighty over those who fear Him.
12. As far as the east is from the west, so has He distanced our transgressions from us.
13. As a father has compassion on his children, so has the Lord had compassion on those who fear Him.
14. For He knows our nature; He is mindful that we are but dust.
15. As for man, his days are like grass; like a flower of the field, so he sprouts.
16. When a wind passes over him, he is gone; his place recognizes him no more.
17. But the kindness of the Lord is forever and ever upon those who fear Him, and His righteousness is [secured] for children's children,
18. to those who keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commands to do them.
19. The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His kingship has dominion over all.
20. Bless the Lord, you His angels who are mighty in strength, who do His bidding to obey the voice of His speech.
21. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants who do His will.
22. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all the places of His dominion. My soul, bless the Lord!
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 26• Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 26
In the previous chapters, the Alter Rebbe explained how it is “very near to you,” i.e., how it is very easy and accessible to every Jew to serve G‑d with love and awe. He stated that this can be accomplished either by creating a love and fear of G‑d through meditation on G‑d’s greatness, or by arousing the “hidden love” (which also comprises a fear of G‑d) inherent in every Jew.
In the coming chapters, the Alter Rebbe will discuss means of overcoming possible obstacles in the path of one’s service to G‑d. In the first instance, he shows how one may overcome the sadness, and dullness of heart, whereby the heart becomes insensitive to feelings of love and fear of G‑d.
ברם כגון דא צריך לאודועי כלל גדול
But this must be made known as a cardinal principle:
כי כמו שנצחון לנצח דבר גשמי, כגון שני אנשים המתאבקים זה עם זה להפיל זה את זה
It is with the service of G‑d just as it is with a victory over a physical opponent; for instance, two people who wrestle with each other, each striving to fell the other.
הנה אם האחד הוא בעצלות וכבדות ינוצח בקל ויפול, גם אם הוא גבור יותר מחבירו
If one of them is lazy and sluggish he will easily be defeated and will fall, even if he be stronger than the other, since his laziness and sluggishness prevent him from revealing his strength.
ככה ממש בנצחון היצר
Similarly with the conquest of one’s evil nature.
Despite the fact that the good nature is stronger than the evil, for as explained in previous chapters, “Even a little of the light of holiness dispels much darkness of the kelipah,” yet here too the previous rule applies; and thus:
אי אפשר לנצלו בעצלות וכבדות, הנמשכות מעצבות וטמטום הלב כאבן
It is impossible to conquer the evil nature with laziness and sluggishness, which stem from sadness and a stone-like dullness of the heart,
כי אם בזריזות, הנמשכת משמחה ופתיחת הלב, וטהרתו מכל נדנוד דאגה ועצב בעולם
but rather with alacrity, which derives from joy and an open i.e., responsive heart that is unblemished by any trace of worry and sadness in the world.
ומה שכתוב: בכל עצב יהיה מותר, פירושו: שיהיה איזה יתרון ומעלה מזה
As for the verse,1 “In every sadness there will be profit,” which means that some profit and advantage would be derived from it,
הנה אדרבה, מלשון זה משמע שהעצב מצד עצמו אין בו מעלה, רק שיגיע ויבא ממנו איזה יתרון
the wording (“there will be profit”) implies that, on the contrary, the sadness itself has no virtue, except that some profit will ultimately be derived from it.
והיינו השמחה האמיתית בה‘ אלקיו הבאה אחר העצב האמיתי, לעתים מזומנים, על עונותיו במר נפשו ולב נשבר
This profit is the true joy in G‑d which follows the true i.e., justified sadness over one’s sins, with bitterness of soul and a broken heart, which must come at specific, suitable times.
Hence the “profit” of sadness is the joy that follows it.
שעל ידי זה נשברה רוח הטומאה וסטרא אחרא ומחיצה של ברזל המפסקת בינו לאביו שבשמים
Why should this sadness lead the worshiper to joy? For thereby (through one’s sadness) the spirit of impurity and of the sitra achra is broken, and so too the “iron wall” that separates him from his Father in heaven,
כמו שכתוב בזהר על פסוק: רוח נשברה לב נשבר וגו’
The Zohar interprets the verse as follows: “A broken spirit of the sitra achra is accomplished by means of a broken heart” Since sadness over one’s sins causes the sitra achrato be broken, and the “iron wall” to vanish, it leads one to rejoice — as the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say:
ואזי יקוים בו רישיה דקרא: תשמיעיני ששון ושמחה וגו‘, השיבה לי ששון ישעך ורוח נדיבה וגו’
Then the preceding verses will be fulfilled for him: 4 “Make me hear joy and gladness”;… 5 “Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and support me with Your generous spirit.”
This joy is the “profit” of sadness, whereas sadness itself is neither “profitable” nor advantageous.
וזהו טעם הפשוט לתיקון האר״י ז״ל לומר מזמור זה אחר תיקון חצות קודם הלימוד
This is the simple reason i.e., apart from the deeper, mystical ones for the practice instituted by the AriZal (Rabbi Isaac Luria) of reciting this Psalm containing the verses quoted above after Tikkun Chatzot (the midnight prayer) before resuming one’s Torah study —
כדי ללמוד בשמחה אמיתית בה‘ הבאה אחר העצב
in order that one should study with the true joy in G‑d, that succeeds the remorse of Tikkun Chatzot.
שיש לשמחה זו יתרון כיתרון האור הבא מן החשך דוקא
Such joy is of a greater quality than joy which is not preceded by sadness, similar to the distinctive quality of light which follows darkness.
כמו שכתוב בזהר על פסוק: ראיתי שיש יתרון לחכמה מן הסכלות כיתרון האור כו’, עיין שם, ודי למבין
As the Zohar6 comments on the verse, 7 “And I (King Solomon) saw that wisdom surpasses foolishness as light surpasses darkness.” Note there, and this will suffice for him who understands.
The Zohar asks: Does it take a Solomon to see this? And it answers that the intention of the verse is that just as darkness contributes to light, for we cannot truly appreciate light unless we have experienced darkness, so too does foolishness contribute to the appreciation of wisdom. Similarly in our case, one’s earlier sadness adds strength to the joy which follows it, and this is the “profit” of sadness. Sadness itself, however, is a hindrance in one’s service of G‑d.
ומקרא מלא דבר הכתוב: תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה‘ אלקיך בשמחה וגו’, ונודע לכל פירוש האר״י ז״ל על פסוק זה
Furthermore, the verse states explicitly: 8 “Because you did not serve G‑d your L-rd with joy...[therefore you will serve your enemies]” — and everyone is familiar with the explanation of the AriZal on this verse. 9
The verse reads: “Because you did not serve G‑d your L-rd with joy and gladness of heart, from an abundance of everything [good]” The simple meaning is: “When you had an abundance of everything you did not serve G‑d with joy” (This meaning is borne out by the context of the following verse: “You will serve your enemies in hunger, thirst, and nakedness, and in want of everything.”) But the AriZal interprets it thus: “You did not serve G‑d with a joy greater than that caused by an abundance of everything.”
We see from all the above the importance of serving G‑d joyfully. Yet, many things in one’s life, both physical and spiritual, may cause him sadness. The Alter Rebbe now goes on to propose means of combating this sadness, so that one may always be joyful.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Mishlei 14:23. |
| 2. | See ch. 17. |
| 3. | Tehillim 51:19. |
| 4. | Ibid. 51:10. |
| 5. | Ibid. 51:14. |
| 6. | III, 47b. |
| 7. | Kohelet 2:13. |
| 8. | Devarim 28:47. |
| 9. | Quoted in Shelah, Asarah Maamarot, Maamar 3:4. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 168Dwelling in the Sukkah
• 1 Chapter: Teshuvah Teshuvah - Chapter Nine
"You shall dwell in booths for seven days"—Leviticus 23:42.
We are commanded to dwell in a sukkah (booth) for the seven days of the holiday of Sukkot. Women are exempt from this mitzvah.
Dwelling in the Sukkah
Positive Commandment 168
Translated by Berel Bell
The 168th mitzvah is that we are commanded to dwell in a Sukkah for all seven days of the holiday [of Sukkos].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "For seven days you must dwell in Sukkos."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the tractate devoted to this subject; i.e. tractate Sukkah.
Women are not obligated in this mitzvah.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 23:42.
We are commanded to dwell in a sukkah (booth) for the seven days of the holiday of Sukkot. Women are exempt from this mitzvah.
Dwelling in the Sukkah
Positive Commandment 168
Translated by Berel Bell
The 168th mitzvah is that we are commanded to dwell in a Sukkah for all seven days of the holiday [of Sukkos].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "For seven days you must dwell in Sukkos."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the tractate devoted to this subject; i.e. tractate Sukkah.
Women are not obligated in this mitzvah.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 23:42.
Teshuvah - Chapter Nine
Halacha 1
[A question arises:] As explained, the reward for the mitzvot and the good which we will merit if we observe the path of God as prescribed by the Torah is the world to come as [Deuteronomy 2:7] states: "So that good will be granted you and you will live long.”
[Also,] the retribution which is exacted from the wicked who abandon the paths of righteous prescribed by the Torah is karet as [Numbers 15:31] states: "This soul shall surely be cut off. His sin shall remain upon him."
[If so,] what is the meaning of the [statements] made throughout the entire Torah: "If you observe [the Torah's laws], you will acquire such and such;" "If you do not observe [the Torah's laws], such and such will happen to you?" All [of the benefits and difficulties that are promised] are matters of this [material] world, for example, plenty and famine, war and peace, sovereignty [over other nations] or a humble [national standing], the settlement of the land or exile, success in one's deeds or loss and all the other points mentioned in the covenant.
[In resolution, it must be stated that] all those statements are true. They have been realized in the past and will be realized in the future. When we fulfill all the mitzvot in the Torah, we will acquire all the benefits of this world. [Conversely,] when we transgress them, the evils written [in the Torah] will occur.
Nevertheless, those benefits are not the ultimate reward for the mitzvot, nor are those evils the ultimate retribution to be exacted from someone who transgresses all the mitzvot.
Rather, the resolution of the matter is as follows: God gave us this Torah which is a tree of life. Whoever fulfills what is written within it and comprehends it with complete and proper knowledge will merit the life of the world to come. A person merits [a portion of the world to come] according to the magnitude of his deeds and the extent of his knowledge.
[In addition,] we are promised by the Torah that if we fulfill it with joy and good spirit and meditate on its wisdom at all times, [God] will remove all the' obstacles which prevent us from fulfilling it, for example, sickness, war, famine, and the like.
Similarly, He will grant us all the good which will reinforce our performance of the Torah, such as plenty, peace, an abundance of silver and gold in order that we not be involved throughout all our days in matters required by the body, but rather, will sit unburdened and [thus, have the opportunity to] study wisdom and perform mitzvot in order that we will merit the life of the world to come.
This [principle is expressed] by the Torah. After [Deuteronomy 6:11-12] promises us all the benefits of this world, it concludes [ibid.:25]: "And charity will remain for us if we take care to perform [all these commandments]."
Similarly, the Torah has informed us that if we consciously abandon the Torah and involve ourselves in the vanities of the time in a manner similar to that stated [by Deuteronomy 32:15]: "Jeshurun became fat and rebelled," then, the True Judge will remove from all the benefits of this world which reinforce their rebellion those who abandoned [the Torah].
He will bring upon them all the evils which prevent them from acquiring [a portion in] the world to come so that they will be destroyed in their wickedness. This was implied by the Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 28:47-48]: "Because you did not serve God, [your Lord, with happiness,]... you will serve your enemies whom God sends against you."
Thus, these blessings and curses can be interpreted as follows: If you serve God with happiness and observe His way, He will grant you these blessings and remove these curses from you in order that you may be free to gain wisdom from the Torah and involve yourselves in it so that you will merit the life of the world to come. "Good will be granted you" - in the world that is entirely good; "and you will live long" - in the world which is endlessly long, [the world to come].
Thus, you will merit two worlds, a good life in this world, which, in turn, will bring you to the life of the world to come. For if a person will not acquire wisdom in this world and he does not possess good deeds, with what will he merit [a portion in the world to come]? [Thus, Ecclesiastes 9:10] states: "There is no work, no accounting, no knowledge, and no wisdom in the grave."
[Conversely,] if you have abandoned God and become obsessed with food, drink, lewdness, and the like, He will bring all these curses upon you and remove all blessing until you will conclude all your days in confusion and fear. You will not have a free heart or a complete body to fulfill the mitzvot in order that you forfeit the life of the world to come.
Thus, you will forfeit two worlds for when a person is occupied in this world with sickness, war, and hunger, he cannot involve himself with either wisdom or mitzvot which allow him to merit the life of the world to come.
Halacha 2
For these reasons, all Israel, [in particular,] their prophets and their Sages, have yearned for the Messianic age so they can rest from the [oppression of] the gentile kingdoms who do not allow them to occupy themselves with Torah and mitzvot properly. They will find rest and increase their knowledge in order to merit the world to come.
In that era, knowledge, wisdom, and truth will become abundant. [Isaiah 11:9] states, "The earth will be full of the knowledge of God." [Jeremiah 31:33] states: "One man will no longer teach his brother, nor a man his colleague... [for all will know Me]." And [Ezekiel 36:26] states: "I will take away the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."
[These changes will come about] because the king who will arise from David's descendants will be a greater master of knowledge than Solomon and a great prophet, close to the level of Moses, our teacher. Therefore, he will teach the entire nation and instruct them in the path of God.
All the gentile nations will come to hear him as [Isaiah 2:2] states: "And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of God's house shall be established at the peak of the mountains... [and all the nations shall flow to it]."
[Nevertheless,] the ultimate of all reward and the final good which will have no end or decrease is the life of the world to come. In contrast, the Messianic age will be [life within the context of] this world, with the world following its natural pattern except that sovereignty will return to Israel.
The Sages of the previous generations have already declared: "There is no difference between the present age and the Messianic era except [the emancipation] from our subjugation to the [gentile] kingdoms."
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
How many shofar blasts is a person required to hear on Rosh Hashanah? Nine.
[This figure is derived as follows]: The Torah mentions the word תרועה [sounding the shofar] three times in association with Rosh Hashanah and theYovel. Every תרועה must be preceded and followed by a [single] long blast. According to the oral tradition, we learned that - whether on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur of the Yovel - all the soundings of the shofar of the seventh month are a single entity.
Thus, nine shofar blasts must be sounded on both of them: teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah.
Commentary Halacha
How many shofar blasts is a person required to hear on Rosh Hashanah -according to Torah law?
Nine. - However, as explained throughout the chapter, the Sages have required us to hear many more.
[This figure is derived - See Rosh Hashanah 33b.
as follows]: The Torah mentions the word תרועה [sounding the shofar] three times - Teru'ah is also mentioned in relation to sounding the trumpets (Numbers, Chapter 10), but that is not relevant in this immediate context.
in association with Rosh Hashanah - twice: Leviticus 23:24 and Numbers 29:1.
and the Yovel. - once: Leviticus 25:9.
Every תרועה must be preceded and followed by a [single] long blast. -Leviticus 25:9 states: והעברת שופר, and Numbers 29:1 states: תעבירו שופר. In both cases, the verb means "cause to pass." From that expression, Rosh Hashanah, ibid., derives that a long note should be sounded before the תרועה.
Based on the above, the text Galia Masechta (Orach Chayim 3) explains that the essential element of the mitzvah is the teru'ah, since that is the sound specifically required by the Torah. The teki'ot are required only as a supplementary factor.
According to the oral tradition, we learned that - whether on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur of the Yovel - Rosh Hashanah, ibid. notes that the verses which describe the sounding of the shofar on both occasions share a common word. Hence, an analogy (שוה גזירה) is established between them. Therefore...
all the soundings of the shofar of the seventh month, are a single entity. - Thus, on each occasion, the same three series of blasts must be sounded.
Thus, nine shofar blasts must be sounded on both of them: teki'ah - The single, long blast preceding the teru'ah
teru'ah - a blast which is interrupted into shorter sounds, as described in Halachot 2-4.
teki'ah - The single, long blast following the teru'ah
teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah. - two other identical series of blasts.
Halacha 2
Over the passage of the years and throughout the many exiles, doubt has been raised concerning the teru'ah which the Torah mentions, to the extent that we do not know what it is:
Does it resemble the wailing with which the women cry when they moan, or the sighs which a person who is distressed about a major matter will release repeatedly? Perhaps a combination of the two - sighing and the crying which will follow it - is called teru'ah, because a distressed person will sigh and then cry? Therefore, we fulfill all [these possibilities].
Commentary Halacha
Over the passage of the years and throughout the many exiles, doubt has been raised concerning the teru'ah which the Torah mentions, to the extent that we do not know what it is. - Rosh Hashanah 34a explains that our custom of blowing the shofar was instituted by Rabbi Abahu in Caesaria approximately one hundred years after the destruction of the second Temple. In this halachah, the Rambam explains the reason for Rabbi Abahu's action.
The Rambam's statements are accepted by Rabbenu Asher, Rabbenu Nissim, and most other authorities. Nevertheless, it is significant that Rav Hai Gaon, one of the major authorities who preceded the Rambam, offers a different explanation for Rabbi Abahu's actions.
Rav Hai Gaon maintains that it is impossible that a doubt existed among the Jewish people concerning such an important manner as sounding the shofar. Since the shofar was sounded each year, surely the tradition could have been maintained. Hence, he explains that all the different manners of sounding the shofar were acceptable and that Rabbi Abahu's contribution was the establishment of a uniform custom that included all the different practices common among the Jewish people. By mentioning the "many years" and "exiles," the Rambam addresses himself to the question raised by Rav Hai Gaon.
Does it resemble the wailing with which the women cry - thus, it would be short, staccato sounds like sobs
when they moan - The word teru'ah is translated into Aramaic as yevavah(moan), as in Judges 5:28: "Sisra's mother gazed out the window and moaned through the lattice."
or - does a teru'ah resemble...
the sighs - i.e., longer sounds
which a person who is distressed about a major matter will release repeatedly? - Since before a person cries, he sighs (Rosh Hashanah 33b).
Perhaps a combination of the two - sighing and the crying which will follow it - is called teru'ah, because a distressed person will sigh and then cry. Therefore, we fulfill all [these possibilities]. - as explained in detail in the following halachah.
The commentaries have emphasized the homiletic aspects of these halachot. On Rosh Hashanah, a Jew must concentrate on the coronation of God as King of the world. He may feel internal distress when he meditates on how his daily behavior does not reflect the proper relation between a subject and his king. Ultimately, this may motivate him to sigh and even to cry.
Halacha 3
The crying refers to what we call teru'ah. The repeated sighs refer to what we call three shevarim.
Thus, the order of blowing the shofar is as follows: First, one recites the blessing and sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, three shevarim; and afterwards, ateru'ah; and afterwards, a teki'ah. He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series.
[Then,] he sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, three shevarim; and afterwards, ateki'ah. He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series.
[Then,] he sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, a teru'ah; and afterwards, a teki'ah. He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series.
Thus, there are a total of thirty shofar blasts, in order to remove any doubt.
Commentary Halacha
The crying - mentioned in the previous halachah
refers to what we call teru'ah. - short, staccato sounds like sobs. Since ateru'ah is considered to be a single blast, the entire series of sounds must be completed without the person who blows pausing to catch his breath.
The repeated sighs - mentioned in the previous halachah
refer to what we call three - The Maggid Mishneh writes that one may add to the number of shevarim as long as one does not take a breath between them. However, the Magen Avraham (590:2) writes that it is Ashkenazic custom not to sound more than three shevarim.
shevarim. - Like sighs, these sounds are neither short like teru'ot, nor prolonged like teki'ot, but rather of intermediate length, as described in the following halachah.
Thus, the order of blowing the shofar - to fulfill the mitzvah as commanded by the Torah.
is as follows: First, one recites the blessing - as explained in Halachah 10.
and sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, three shevarim; and afterwards, a teru'ah; and afterwards, a teki'ah. - in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru'ah resembles both sighing and crying.
He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series. - in order to have heard the three series of blasts required by Halachah 1.
Although the pattern of shofar blowing described by the Rambam has become universally accepted among the Jewish people, it is unclear when this practice was first instituted. One of the fundamental texts of the period directly following the conclusion of the Talmud, the Sh'eltot of Rav Achai Gaon (note 171), mentions a different practice.
Three series of blasts from each pattern are not blown directly after each other. Rather, after sounding three series of teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah, three series of teki'ah, shevarim, teki'ah, and then three series of teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah is sounded.
[Then,] he sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, three shevarim; and afterwards, a teki'ah. - in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru'ah resembles sighing. It must be noted that from the passage on Rosh HaShanah 34a it seems that Rabbi Abahu instituted the series of three teru'ot before the series of three shevarim.
He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series. - to fulfill the obligation explained in Halachah 1.
[Then,] he sounds a teki'ah; afterwards, a teru'ah; and afterwards, a teki'ah. - in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru'ah resembles crying.
He repeats this pattern [until he completes] three series. - as explained above.
Thus, there are a total of thirty shofar blasts, - 18 teki'ot, six shevarim, and six teru'ot.
From the Rambam's expression, it appears that he considers the shevarim andteru'ah sounded in the first series as two separate blasts. From this, the Maggid Mishneh derives a halachic insight, maintaining that according to the Rambam, one may take a breath between the two. (The Mayim Chayim supports this conclusion, noting that, regarding this series, the Rambam states that one should blow "three shevarim, and afterwards, a teru'ah.") Nevertheless, the Ramban and other authorities do not permit this leniency.
Regarding halachah l'ma'aseh, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 590:4) suggests adhering to the more stringent view regarding the teki'ot required by Torah law. However, the Ramah maintains that this is unnecessary. Both theShulchan Aruch HaRav 590:9, 10 and the Mishnah Berurah 590:20 suggest adhering to whichever practice is customarily followed in one's local community. However, if there is no accepted custom, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav suggests accepting the more stringent practice.
in order to remove any doubt - as mentioned in the previous halachah.
Though all three sounds would be included in the series of teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah, it would be insufficient for such a series alone to be sounded. According to the opinions that maintain that a teru'ah is either sobbing or crying alone, there would be another sound interrupting between either the teki'ahwhich precedes or that which follows the teru'ah (Rosh Hashanah 34a).
Halacha 4
The required length of a teru'ah is that of two teki'ot. The required length of the three shevarim is that of a teru'ah.
When a person sounds a teki'ah and a teru'ah, and afterwards sounds a longteki'ah, extending it twice the length of the original one, we do not say that it may be considered to be two teki'ot - thus allowing one [to complete the series merely by] sounding a teru'ah and another teki'ah. Rather, even if one extended a teki'ah the entire day, it is considered to be only a single teki'ah and one must sound another teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah [until he completes] three series.
Commentary Halacha
The required length of a teru'ah is that of two teki'ot. - These statements are the source of much controversy among the Rabbis. The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 33b) states: "The required length of the teki'ah is three teru'ot; ateru'ah is three sobs."
The Talmud questions:
Behold, the baraita has taught: "the required length of a teki'ah is that of ateru'ah!"Abbaye replied: "The author of the Mishnah considered the length of all theteki'ot in comparison to the length of all the teru'ot. The author of the baraitaconsidered the length of each blast. There is no difference of opinion between them."
In his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam interprets the above to mean: "The required length of all six teki'ot is equivalent to the required length of all three teru'ot," thus establishing each teru'ah as twice the length of a teki'ah. Hence, according to the Rambam, the length of the teki'ot are dependent on the length of the teru'ot.
Rabbenu Nissim objects to the Rambam's interpretation, explaining that the word והעברת, the verb mentioned in the commandment to blow the shofar, implies a long blast, and hence the measure mentioned by the Rambam would not be appropriate.
Similarly, the Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's interpretation, and explains that the Mishnah establishes an independent measure for the length of a teki'ah - three teru'ot - with each teru'ah being equal to three short sobs. Thus, the measure of a teki'ah is equivalent to nine short sounds. The Ramban and the Rashba also subscribe to this view.
Rashi and most Ashkenazic authorities accept the simple meaning of the Mishnah and explain that a teki'ah is equal to the length of a teru'ah. However, as explained in the previous halachot, there are three different interpretations of the definition of a teru'ah. Thus, the required length for the teki'ah varies accordingly.
Regarding halachah l'ma'aseh, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 590:3) mentions the views of Rashi and the Ra'avad, but not that of the Rambam.
The required length of the three shevarim is that of a teru'ah. - i.e., the length of the three shevarim should resemble a series of teru'ot.
When a person sounds a teki'ah and a teru'ah, and afterwards sounds a long teki'ah, extending it twice the length of the original one - with the intention that it be considered to be the final blast of the first series and the initial blast of the following series
we do not say that it may be considered to be two teki'ot - although it is of sufficient length
thus allowing one [to complete the series merely by] sounding a teru'ah and another teki'ah. - This represents a rephrasing of the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 4:9 and Rosh Hashanah 28a.
Rather, even if one extended a teki'ah the entire day, it is considered to be only a single teki'ah - This decision runs contrary to the statements of the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 3:3), which does not accept a teki'ah blown with such an intention at all.
and one must sound another teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah [until he completes] three series. - This law is quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 590:6). However, the Ashkenazic authorities maintain that deference should be paid to the opinion mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud.
Halacha 5
If a person hears one shofar blast at one hour and a second one an hour later - even if he waits the entire day - the two may be considered to be a single unit and he may fulfill his obligation.
The above applies provided each series is heard in the proper order; i.e., one may not hear a teru'ah and afterwards two teki'ot, or two teki'ot, and afterwards a teru'ah, and the like.
Commentary Halacha
If a person hears one shofar blast at one hour and a second one an hour later - even if he waits the entire day - Rosh Hashanah 34a-b quotes Rabbi Yochanan: "If a person heard the nine shofar blasts even over a span of nine hours, he fulfills his obligation."
the two may be considered to be a single unit - It is undesirable to delay the shofar blasts or to interrupt between them by talking or performing any other activity. Nevertheless, if an interruption was made between blasts, as long as one concentrates one's attention on each shofar blast, they are considered to be a single halachic unit.
and he may fulfill his obligation. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim588:2) quotes this law. However, the Magen Avraham (588:2) compares this situation to the laws of Kri'at Shema (see Ramah, Orach Chayim 65:1) and explains that if one is prevented from hearing the shofar by forces beyond one's control, it is considered to be an interruption and one must begin the last series of blasts anew.
The above applies provided each series is heard in the proper order - ateki'ah, the series ofshevarim, teru'ot or the combination of the two, and then ateki'ah, as stated in Halachah 1.
i.e., one may not hear a teru'ah and afterwards two teki'ot, or two teki'ot and afterwards a teru'ah, and the like. - The Maggid Mishneh explains that with this phrase, the Rambam implies that even though a delay does not constitute an interruption, any shofar blast which is not in the proper order invalidates the entire series. Most other authorities (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav590:12) explain that this applies only if one sounds the shofar with an improper blast, intending to fulfill one's obligation. Otherwise, no significance at all is attached to the shofar blast and it is not considered an interruption.
Halacha 6
If a person heard nine shofar blasts from nine men simultaneously, he has not fulfilled his obligation for a single blast. [If he heard] a teki'ah from one, ateru'ah from another, and another teki'ah from a third, in sequence, he has fulfilled his obligation.
The above applies even if one heard [the shofar blasts] with interruptions, even if [the blowing was extended] over the entire day. A person does not fulfill his obligation until he hears all nine shofar blasts, for they are all [only] one mitzvah. Thus, they are dependent one on the other.
Commentary Halacha
If a person heard nine shofar blasts from nine men simultaneously - At the same time, six blew teki'ot and three, teru'ot, so that the person could have heard the required number of shofar blasts
he has not fulfilled his obligation for a single blast. - Rabbenu Manoach gives two reasons for this decision:
a) because of the cacophony of sounds, the listener is unable to properly distinguish any one;
b) As stated in the previous halachah, one must hear the shofar blasts in the proper order, a teki'ah preceding and following a teru'ah; that requirement is not fulfilled in this instance.
Rashi, in his commentary on Rosh Hashanah 34b, disagrees with the Rambam's decision, explaining that Rosh Hashanah 27a states that even though two people blow the shofar simultaneously, since the mitzvah is dear to the hearer, he will concentrate sufficiently to differentiate between the sounds. Furthermore, the Tosefta 2:12 states specifically that one does fulfill one's obligation in this manner.
Tosafot disagrees with Rashi, mentioning the second reason stated by Rabbenu Manoach. It appears that the Rambam goes further and discounts Rashi's opinion entirely. According to Tosafot, the listener will have heard at least the first teki'ah, while the Rambam explicitly states "he has not fulfilled his obligation for a single blast." (See Lechem Mishneh.)
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 588:3 quotes the Rambam's decision as halachah. The Ramah quotes the law from Rosh Hashanah 27a, allowing a person to fulfill his obligation even though he heard two people blowing the shofar at the same time, provided he heard the blasts in the proper order.
[If he heard] a teki'ah from one, a teru'ah from another, and another teki'ah from a third, in sequence, he has fulfilled his obligation. - The fact that different people sounded the shofar does not prevent the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
The above applies even if one heard [the shofar blasts] with interruptions, even if [the blowing was extended] over the entire day. -There is a certain redundancy with this statement, because the same principle was mentioned in the previous halachah. Nonetheless, the Rambam included it to emphasize that the passage of time is not considered an interruption even when the shofar is being blown by different people (Rabbenu Manoach).
A person does not fulfill his obligation until he hears all nine shofar blasts, for they are all [only] one mitzvah. - as explained in Halachah 1.
Thus, they are dependent one on the other. - Based on this principle, a person who does not know how to blow either the shevarim or the teru'otshould not sound the teki'ot, for he will accomplish nothing by doing so (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 33b). Nevertheless, if a person knows how to sound both teki'ot and shevarim, he should sound three series of such blasts even if he does not know how to sound a teru'ah. Since it is possible that the mitzvah may be fulfilled by these series (as explained in Halachot 2 and 3), at the very least they should be sounded (Rabbenu Nissim, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 593:2).
Halacha 7
The congregation is obligated to hear the shofar blasts together with the order of blessings.
How is this expressed? The chazan recites Avot, Gevurot, the sanctification of God's name, Malchuyot [ - at this point,] the shofar is sounded three times;Zichronot - the shofar is sounded three times; Shofarot - the shofar is sounded three times - [and concludes the Amidah with] the Avodah, an acknowledgement [of God's wonders], and the priestly blessing.
Commentary Halacha
The congregation - but not an individual (Rosh Hashanah 34b)
is obligated to hear the shofar blasts - i.e., the nine blasts mentioned in Halachah 1
together with the order of blessings. - Rosh Hashanah 16b explains that the Sages instituted the blowing of the shofar in the midst of the prayer service in order to confuse Satan, lest he lodge accusations against the Jews in the midst of their prayers. The Sages explain (ibid., 32b) that it would have been appropriate to institute the shofar blowing in the morning service. However, the Romans desired to stamp out the performance of the mitzvot and sent guards to make sure that the mitzvah was not fulfilled. After midday, the guards left, and then, in the musaf service, the shofar would be sounded.
Originally, the Sages' decree involved determining the place of the service when the mitzvah required by the Torah would be fulfilled and this halachah must be interpreted in that context. However, as explained in Halachot 11 and 12, it became universally accepted Jewish custom to blow the shofar before the musaf prayers to fulfill the Torah's commandment, and thus "confuse the Satan" even before the beginning of our prayers, and then to sound the shofar again in the midst of those prayers to fulfill the Rabbinic decree. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 592:7.
How is this expressed? The chazan recites Avot - literally, "patriarchs"; the first blessing of the Amidah, which praises God as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."
Gevurot - literally, "mighty acts"; the second blessing of the Amidah, which begins: "You are mighty," and recounts different expressions of God's power.
the sanctification of God's name - The third blessing of the Amidah, which includes the Kedushah prayer.
Malchuyot - Three additional blessings are recited in the musaf service of Rosh Hashanah: Malchuyot (acceptance of God's sovereignty), Zichronot(acknowledgement of God's remembrance of the Jewish people), and Shofarot(describing the significance of the sounding of the shofar).
Rosh Hashanah 16a states:
The Holy One, blessed be He, declares: "On Rosh Hashanah, recite before meMalchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot.Malchuyot - so that you will crown Me as King over you.Zichronot - so that I will remember you for good.By what means? Through the shofar."
These blessings are described in the following halachot.
The prayers mentioning the sacred nature of the holiday and the sacrifices which were offered in the Temple are also included in the Malchuyot blessing.
[at this point,] the shofar is sounded three times - i.e., one series of teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah required by the Torah. Though this point is disputed in the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 32a relates that this opinion (quoted in the name of Rabbi Akiva) was the accepted practice in Yavneh.
Zichronot - the shofar is sounded three times - the second series of teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah required by the Torah.
Shofarot - the shofar is sounded three times - the final series of teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah required by the Torah.
[and concludes the the Amidah with] the Avodah - literally, "the service," i.e., the blessing R'tzey, which asks God to accept our prayers and restore the Temple service.
an acknowledgement [of God's wonders,] - the blessing Modim.
Halacha 8
These three intermediate blessings recited on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur of the Yovel - Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot - are each dependent on each other.
In each of these blessings, one is required to recite ten verses reflecting the content of the blessing - three verses from the Torah, three from the Book of Psalms, and three from [the words of] the prophets. One concludes with a verse from the Torah. Should a person conclude with a verse from the prophets, he fulfills his obligation.
Should a person recite only one verse from the Torah, one from the sacred writings, and one from the prophets, he fulfills his obligation. Even if he states: "In Your Torah, God, our Lord, it is written..." and recites one verse from the Torah and concludes, nothing further is necessary.
Commentary Halacha
These three intermediate blessings recited on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur of the Yovel - The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 26b) states: "Rosh Hashanah and the Yovel are identical regarding the sounding of the shofar and the blessings."
Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot - The blessings must also be recited in this order (Magen Avraham 593:4).
are each dependent on each other. - i.e., a person who cannot recite all three blessings should not recite any. Generally, a person who does not know all the blessings of the Amidah should recite those that he knows. However, on the musaf service of Rosh Hashanah, a person should begin the Amidah only if he knows the entire service (Magen Avraham 593:2). (See also the Bi'ur Halachah.)
In each of these blessings, one is required to recite ten verses - Rosh Hashanah 32a explains that the number ten alludes to the ten expressions of praise used by King David in Psalm 150; or, alternatively, to the ten statements of creation; or, alternatively, to the ten commandments. The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:7) explains that the ten verses of Malchuyot refer to David's ten expressions of praise; the ten Zichronot, to the ten calls to repentance proclaimed by Isaiah; and the ten Shofarot to the ten sacrificial animals offered in the Temple on Rosh Hashanah.
One may recite additional verses if one desires (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim591:4). Indeed, the text of the blessings generally recited for Malchuyot andShofarot includes eleven quotes.
reflecting the content of the blessing - as explained in the commentary on the previous halachah
three blessings from the Torah - Since the Torah is on a higher level of holiness, its verses are mentioned first.
three from the Book of Psalms, and three from [the words of] the prophets. - The commentaries question why the Book of Psalms is given prominence over the words of the prophets, when generally the prophets' statements are considered on a higher level of holiness. Among the resolutions offered to this difficulty is that chronologically, the Psalms were written before the prophecies quoted (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 32a).
Examples of the verses recited are mentioned in the following halachah and commentary.
One concludes with a verse from the Torah. - because of the dearness of the Torah. Rosh Hashanah 32b explains that this was the custom of the experienced Sages of Jerusalem.
Should a person conclude with a verse from the prophets, he fulfills his obligation. - However, one should preferably conclude with a verse from the Torah. This is our present practice.
From the statements of the Rambam and the relevant passages from the Mishnah and Talmud, it would appear that originally there was no standard text containing universally accepted verses for these blessings. Rather, certain verses were commonly accepted and would be recited by almost all those who prayed. Others were left to the preference of each individual.
(One must remember that machzorim were uncommon in this period, and most of the prayers were recited by heart. Thus, the verses chosen by an individual might often have been those which he had been able to commit to memory.)
Should a person recite only one verse from the Torah, one from the sacred writings, and one from the prophets - Thus mentioning three verses in each blessing, one from each division of the T'nach
he fulfills his obligation. - after the fact. However, at the outset it is desirable to recite all ten verses.
Even if he states: "In Your Torah, God, our Lord, it is written..." and recites one verse from the Torah and concludes, nothing further is necessary. - The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements, which appear self-contradictory. In the previous clause, he stated that one must recite three verses - one from the Torah, one from the prophets, and one from the writings - to fulfill one's obligation, while this clause implies that the recitation of one is sufficient.
The source for the difficulty is the following quotes: The Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 32a, states:
One should not recite fewer than ten verses for Malchuyot, ten for Zichronot, and ten for Shofarot. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says: "If one recites three - three of each - one fulfills his obligation."
Rosh Hashanah 35a quotes Rav Chanan'el as saying in the name of Rav:
Even if he states: "In Your Torah, it is written..." [and recites one verse], nothing further is necessary.
From the Talmud, it appears that both these statements are accepted as halachah. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam interprets Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri's requirement of three verses as the total for all three blessings. Thus, for each blessing, one must state "In Your Torah, it is written..." and recite a single appropriate verse. [This surely differs from the Rambam's statements in his commentary on the Mishnah.]
The Ramban, Rabbenu Nissim, and others explain that Rav Chanan'el agrees with Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and thus, in addition to "In Your Torah, it is written...," he also requires one to say: "In Your holy writings, it is recorded...," and: "by your prophets, it was proclaimed...," mentioning an appropriate verse in each instance. (This opinion is quoted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 586:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 591:11.)
Alternatively, one may explain the Rambam's position as follows: Ideally, one should recite ten verses for each blessing; after the fact, three are sufficient, as stated by Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri. When does this apply? Once one has recited at least one verse from the Torah. However, if one has not recited any verses, it is sufficient to say "In Your Torah, it is written..." and recite a single verse from the Torah, as Rav Chanan'el said in the name of Rav.
The flexibility regarding the number of quotes in each blessing was only granted in the previous generations. Since at present we have adopted a standard set of blessings, a person should not delete verses at will (Magen Avraham 591:6;Shulchan Aruch HaRav 591:8).
Halacha 9
One should not recite [verses for] Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot which describe [Divine] retribution; for example, for Zichronot, [Psalms 78:39]: "And He remembered that they were mere flesh..."; for Malchuyot, [Ezekiel 20:33]: "With outpoured anger, I will reign over you..."; for Shofarot, [Hoshea 5:8]: "Blow the shofar in Givah..."
Similarly, Zichronot which are merely associated with an individual [should not be mentioned] even if they are of a positive nature - for example, [Psalms 106:4]: "Remember me, O God, amidst the favor of Your people," [Nehemiah 5:19]: "Remember me, my God, for good."
Verses using the verb פקד - for example, [Exodus 3:16]: "I have surely taken note..." - may not be included as Zichronot. One may mention verses that refer to retribution to be visited upon the gentile nations - for example, [Psalms 99:1]: "God is King, the nations will tremble..."; [Psalms 137:7]: "Remember, O God, against the Edomites, the day of Jerusalem"; or [Zechariah 9:14]: "God, the Lord, will sound the shofar and proceed in a southerly storm-wind."
All the following verses: [Deuteronomy 6:4]: "Hear Israel, God is our Lord, God is one"; [Deuteronomy 4:35]: "To you, it has been revealed that you may know..."; and [Deuteronomy 4:39]: "And you shall know today and draw it close to your heart..." express the concept of God's sovereignty. Even though [these verses] do not explicitly mention His kingship, they are equivalent to [Exodus 16:18]: "God will rule forever and ever"; and [Deuteronomy 33:5]: "When He became King in Jeshurun."
Commentary Halacha
One should not recite [verses for] Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot which describe [Divine] retribution - Since Rosh Hashanah is a day of judgement, we are careful not to mention any factors that might lead to negative repercussions. For this reason, no confessional prayers are recited on Rosh Hashanah, and extreme care is taken regarding all aspects of our prayers and speech. (See Maharsha, Rosh Hashanah 32b.)
for example, for Zichronot, [Psalms 78:39]: "And He remembered that they were mere flesh..." - It is uncertain why the Rambam mentions a verse forZichronot before one of Malchuyot.
for Malchuyot, [Ezekiel 20:33]: "With outpoured anger, I will reign over you..." - Rosh Hashanah 32a mentions that this prophecy concludes with the redemption of our people; since it is associated with anger and wrath, it is not fit to be mentioned on Rosh Hashanah.
for Shofarot, [Hoshea 5:8]: "Blow the shofar in Givah..."
Similarly, Zichronot which are merely associated with an individual [should not be mentioned] even if they are of a positive nature - for example, [Psalms 106:4]: "Remember me, O God, amidst the favor of Your people"; [Nehemiah 5:19]: "Remember me, my God, for good." - Even though on Rosh Hashanah each man is judged individually, and his own personal future is determined (see Rosh Hashanah 16b; Hilchot Teshuvah 3:3), it is desirable to look beyond these individual matters and concentrate our prayers on the welfare of the Jewish people as a whole.
Verses using the verb פקד - for example, [Exodus 3:16]: "I have surely taken note... - Rosh Hashanah 32a also mentions another verse - Genesis 21:1: "and God granted providence to Sarah" - as an example of this principle. The Talmud objects to this verse because it is of an individual nature. Though it continues to resolve that difficulty, explaining that God's granting providence to Sarah effected the future of the entire Jewish people, the Rambam nevertheless avoided the problem by choosing the verse which is clearly of general import.
may not be included as Zichronot. - The meaning of פקד is often "remember." Indeed, the Targum of the cited verse in Genesis is דכיר, the Aramaic for "remembered." Furthermore, the Talmud mentions that Rabbi Yosse allowed verses using the verb פקד, and although Rabbi Yehudah objected, in differences of opinion between the two, Rabbi Yosse's position is generally favored. Nevertheless, since there are many verses that use the verb זכר, there is no difficulty in establishing a practice that will be accepted by all opinions (Beit Yosef 591).
One may mention verses that refer to retribution to be visited upon the gentile nations - for example, [Psalms 99:1]: "God is King, the nations will tremble..."; [Psalms 137:7]: "Remember, O God, against the Edomites, the day of Jerusalem"; [Zechariah 9:14]: "God, the Lord, will sound the shofar and proceed in a southerly storm-wind." - Despite this decision, only the latter verse is included in the text of the blessings we recite on Rosh Hashanah.
All the following verses: [Deuteronomy 6:4]: "Hear Israel, God is our God, God is one"; [Deuteronomy 4:35]: "To you, it has been revealed that you may know..."; and [Deuteronomy 4:39]: "And you shall know today and draw it close to your heart..." express the concept of God's sovereignty. -These verses all express the oneness of God and creation; thus they emphasize how "He is unique and one, with none that compare to Him. His Kingship permeating all dominion." (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 591:11).
Even though [these verses] do not explicitly mention His kingship, they are equivalent to [Exodus 16:18]: "God will rule forever and ever"; and [Deuteronomy 33:5]: "When He became King in Jeshurun." - Shemot Rabbah 48:4 states that this verse refers to Moses. Though the Rambam accepts the principle that Moses served the people as a king (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:11), he does not necessarily view this verse as the source for that concept.
The verses which have been accepted in the standard text for these blessings are as follows:
MALCHUYOT
Torah
And you shall know today and draw it close to your heart that God is the Lord in the heavens above and the earth below. There is nothing else (Deuteronomy 4:39).God will rule forever and ever (Exodus 15:18).He does not look at iniquity in Jacob or see wrongdoing in Israel; God, his Lord, is with him and the desire of the King is in him (Numbers 23:21).And there was a King in Jeshurun and the heads of the people assembled, together with all the tribes of Israel (Deuteronomy 33:5).
Psalms
For sovereignty is God's and He rules over the nations (22:29).God is King. He has clothed Himself with grandeur; the Lord has girded Himself with strength. He has established the world firmly so that it will not falter (93:1).Lift up your heads, O gates; be upraised, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter. Who is the glorious King? God, strong and mighty, God, mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O gates; be upraised, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter. Who is the glorious King? The God of hosts. He is the glorious King for eternity (24:7-10).
Prophets
Thus said God, King and Redeemer of Israel, the God of hosts, "I am the first and I am the last. Aside from Me, there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).Deliverers will ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau and the kingship will be God's (Ovadiah 1:21).God will be King over the entire earth. On that day, God will be One, and His name, One (Zechariah 14:9).
Concluding Verse
Hear Israel, God is our Lord, God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4).
ZICHRONOT
Torah
And God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters were calmed (Genesis 8:1).God heard their outcry. And God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob (Exodus 2:24).I will remember My covenant with Jacob, also my covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land (Leviticus 26:42).
Psalms
He has made a remembrance of His wonders, gracious and merciful is God (111:4).He provides sustenance to those who fear Him. He will remember His covenant forever (111:5).For them, He remembered His covenant and He relented in accordance with His abundant kindness (106:45).
Prophets
Go and call out in the ears of Jerusalem, saying: "Thus said God, 'For you, I remember the devotion of your youth, the love of your bridal days, as you went after Me in the desert, in an uncultivated land' (Jeremiah 2:2).I will remember My covenant with you [made] in the days of your youth, and I will fulfill it for you as an everlasting covenant (Ezekiel 16:60)."Is Ephraim not My beloved son? Is he not a precious child? For whenever I speak of him, I recall him even more. The inner parts of my being stir for him. I will surely have compassion on him," says God (Jeremiah 31:19).
Concluding Verse
For them, I will remember the covenant with their ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations to be their Lord. I am God (Leviticus 26:45).
SHOFAROT
Torah
And it was on the third day, at dawn. There was thunder and lightning and a heavy cloud on the mountain. The sound of the shofar was very strong and all the people in the camp trembled (Exodus 19:16).And the sound of the shofar proceeded, becoming stronger. Moses spoke and God answered Him out loud (Exodus 19:19).And all the people saw the voices and the flames, the sound of the shofar and the mountain smoking. The people saw and recoiled and stood off from afar (Exodus 20:15).
Psalms
The Lord ascends through teru'ah, God through the sound of the shofar (47:6).Sound off with trumpets and the call of the shofar before the King, God (98:6).Blow the shofar on the new moon, on the appointed time of our sacred day. For it is a statute for Israel; an ordinance of the Lord od Israel (81:4-5)Praise God. Praise the Almighty in His holiness. Praise Him in the firmament of His strength. Praise Him for His mighty acts. Praise Him according to His abundant greatness. Praise Him with the call of the shofar. Praise Him with harp and lyre. Praise Him with timbrel and dance. Praise Him with stringed instruments and flute. Praise Him with loud cymbals. Praise Him with resounding cymbals. Let every being with a soul praise God. Halleluyah (150).
Prophets
All those who inhabit the world, who dwell on earth: When the banner is raised on the mountain, you will see. When the shofar is sounded, you will hear (Isaiah 18:3).And it shall be on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded, and those who were lost in the land of Asshur and those who were banished in the land of Egypt shall come and bow down to God on the holy mountain in Jerusalem (Isaiah 27:13).And God will appear over them and His arrow shall go forth like lightning. God, the Lord, will sound the shofar and proceed in a southerly storm-wind (Zechariah 9:14-15).
Concluding Verse
And on the days of your rejoicing; on your holidays, and on your Rosh Chodesh days, you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings, and they shall be a remembrance for you before your Lord. I am God, your Lord (Numbers 10:10).
Halacha 10
The following is the commonly accepted custom for blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah in the communal services:
After the Torah is read and returned to its place, the congregation is seated. One person stands and recites the blessing:
Blessed are You, God, Lord of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to hear the sounding of the shofar.
The entire congregation responds "Amen." He then recites the blessingshehecheyanu, and the entire congregation responds "Amen" to him. Thirty shofar blasts are sounded in the proper order.
Kaddish is recited. The congregation stands and recites the musaf service. After the chazan completes the fourth blessing - i.e., Malchuyot - a teki'ah, three shevarim, a [series of] teru'ot, and a teki'ah are sounded once.
He then recites the fifth blessing - i.e., Zichronot. After he completes the blessing, a teki'ah, three shevarim, and a teki'ah are sounded. He then recites the sixth blessing - i.e., Shofarot. After he completes the blessing, a teki'ah, a [series of] teru'ot, and a teki'ah are sounded once, and he concludes the prayers.
Commentary Halacha
The following is the commonly accepted custom for blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah - As mentioned in Halachah 7 and the commentary, the Sages had originally ordained that a person hear the shofar blasts required by the Torah in the midst of the musaf service. However, as evident from Rosh Hashanah 16a-b, even in Talmudic times the custom mentioned by the Rambam was already the general practice.
in the communal services: - The laws pertaining to an individual are mentioned at the conclusion of Halachah 12.
After the Torah is read - Hilchot Tefillah 13:10 states:
The common custom is to read on the first day: "And God showed providence to Sarah..., and on the second day: "And God presented a trial to Abraham..."
As stated in that halachah, the haftarah is recited after the Torah reading is concluded.
and returned to its place - Though at present, Ashkenazic custom is to blow the shofar in the presence of the Torah scrolls, the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, supports his father's decision in the Ma'aseh Rokeach, explaining that it is not proper to make any interruptions between the shofar blowings which precede musaf and those within the prayer service.
the congregation is seated. - This practice is mentioned in Rosh Hashanah16a and the Sh'eltot of Rav Achai Gaon. However, today it is Ashkenazic custom to stand when hearing these shofar blasts. Nevertheless, based on this original practice, these are still referred to as teki'ot meiyoshav - "the teki'otsounded while seated."
One person stands - Rabbenu Manoach questions the need for the person blowing the shofar to stand. He offers two possible explanations:
a) as a mark of deference to the community;
b) in respect for the blessing recited, as implied by Nehemiah 8:4.
The Hagahot Maimoniot quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (the location of the source in the Jerusalem Talmud is a matter of question) as drawing an analogy (גזרה שוה) between the blowing of the shofar and the counting of the Omer. Hence, just as the Omer must be counted while standing, the shofar should be sounded in a similar position.
and recites the blessing - as required before the fulfillment of any positive commandment (Hilchot Berachot 11:1,2,8).
Blessed are You, God, Lord of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to hear the sounding of the shofar. - As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah is hearing, not blowing, the shofar. Nevertheless, the Sh'eltotsuggests concluding the blessing "to blow the shofar" and the Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol advises the text "concerning the blowing of the shofar."
The entire congregation responds "Amen." He then recites the blessing shehecheyanu - as is necessary before the fulfillment of any mitzvah performed infrequently (Hilchot Berachot 11:9).
and the entire congregation responds "Amen" to him. Thirty shofar blasts are sounded in the proper order. - as explained in Halachah 3.
Kaddish is recited. - "The chazan always recites Kaddish before and after every prayer service (Rambam, Seder Tefillot kol Shanah)."
The congregation stands - and remain standing during the repetition of the the Amidah as well. Therefore, the shofar blasts sounded during these prayers are referred to as teki'ot m'umad (the shofar blasts sounded while standing).
and recites the musaf service. - in a hushed tone.
The Tur relates that there were varying customs regarding the recitation of the musaf service in a hushed tone. In certain communities, it had been customary for the congregation to recite the musaf prayers as on other festivals without reciting Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot. Only the chazan would recite the latter. However, even in the Tur's time, the prevailing custom was that even the congregation recited these three blessings.
The Sh'lah records the custom of sounding the shofar for Malchuyot, Zichronot,and Shofarot while the congregation recites the Amidah. However, this custom is not accepted in all communities.
After the chazan completes the fourth blessing - i.e., Malchuyot - a teki'ah, three shevarim, a [series of] teru'ot, and a teki'ah are sounded once. - The rationale for this practice and the different customs associated with these shofar blasts are discussed in Halachah 12 and its commentary.
In the text of prayers with which the Rambam concludes Sefer Ha'ahavah, he also mentions the recitation of the prayer Hayom Harat Olam.
He then recites the fifth blessing - i.e., Zichronot. After he completes the blessing, a teki'ah, three shevarim, and a teki'ah are sounded. He then recites the sixth blessing - i.e., Shofarot. After he completes the blessing, a teki'ah, a [series of] teru'ot, and a teki'ah are sounded once, and he concludes the prayers.
Halacha 11
The person who sounds the shofar while they are sitting also sounds the shofar according to the order of blessings while they stand. He should not speak between the shofar blasts while the congregation is seated and those sounded while they stand. If he did talk between them, even though it is a transgression, he does not repeat the blessing.
Commentary Halacha
The person who sounds the shofar while they are sitting - the thirty shofar blasts mentioned in Halachah 3.
also sounds the shofar according to the order of blessings - i.e.,Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot
while they stand. - Rav Hai Gaon also mentions this practice. The Kolboexplains that it is appropriate, since "when a person begins a mitzvah, we tell him to complete it" (Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1:8). Nevertheless, theMagen Avraham 592:7 writes that in many communities, it has become customary to divide the honor of shofar blowing between two individuals.
He - i.e., the person blowing the shofar. Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher write that not only he, but the entire congregation should refrain from speaking. The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this view, yet it is quoted by theShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 592:3.
should not speak - Permission is granted to speak about matters required for the prayers or for blowing the shofar (Ramah).
between the shofar blasts while the congregation is seated and those sounded while they stand - for since they are both part of one mitzvah, it is improper to interrupt between them.
If he did talk between them, even though it is a transgression, he does not repeat the blessing. - Since, essentially, the mitzvah is fulfilled by hearing the teki'ot before musaf, and the others are sounded only "to confuse Satan" (Rabbenu Manoach).
Halacha 12
It is logical that each series of shofar blasts should be sounded three times for every blessing, as [the shofar] was sounded while [the congregation] was seated. However, since they satisfied every possible doubt [by hearing] the shofar while seated, there is no need for the congregation to repeat them in their entirety during the order of blessings. Rather, it is sufficient for them to hear one series for each blessing, and they will thus have heard the shofar during the order of blessings.
All of the above applies only to a congregation. However, there is no [set] custom regarding an individual. He fulfills his obligation whether or not he hears [the shofar blasts] during the order of blessings, whether seated or standing.
Commentary Halacha
It is logical that each series of shofar blasts should be sounded three times for every blessing - Because of the doubt mentioned in Halachah 3, it would be proper for us to blow three series of blasts - i.e., teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, shevarim, teki'ah; and teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah - at the conclusion of each blessing.
as [the shofar] was sounded while [the congregation] was seated. - the shofar blasts sounded before musaf.
However, since they - the congregation
satisfied every possible doubt - regarding the proper manner of blowing the shofar, as explained in Halachah 3.
[by hearing] the shofar while seated, there is no need for the congregation to repeat them - these shofar blasts
in their entirety during the order of blessings. Rather, it is sufficient for them to hear one series for each blessing - as explained in Halachah 10
and thus, they will have heard the shofar during the order of blessings -and fulfilled the requirement of the Sages mentioned in Halachah 7.
In practice, a number of different customs are followed regarding this matter. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 592:1) suggests following the pattern described by the Rambam, but sounding each series three times, rather than once. The Ramah writes that Ashkenazic custom is to sound one series -teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah - after each blessing. However, the Sh'lahsuggests blowing three series of blasts - i.e., teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, shevarim, teki'ah; and teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah - at the conclusion of each blessing.
All of the above applies only to a congregation - as specifically stated in Halachot 7 and 10.
However, there is no [set] custom regarding an individual. He fulfills his obligation whether or not he hears [the shofar blasts] during the order of blessings - Some authorities object to the permission granted by the Rambam for an individual to interrupt his recitation of the the Amidah in order to hear the sounding of the shofar. However, the Rambam's opinion is based on his interpretation of Rosh Hashanah 34b. (See Ma'aseh Rokeach.)
whether seated or standing.
Halacha 13
The blessings are not dependent on the teki'ot, nor are the teki'ot dependent on the blessings.
When there are two cities - in one it is known that there will definitely be someone to recite the nine blessings, but there is no one to blow the shofar - in the other, a doubt exists whether or not there will be someone to blow the shofar, one should go the latter, since the sounding of the shofar is a requirement of the Torah, while the blessings are of Rabbinic origin.
Commentary Halacha
The blessings - Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot.
are not dependent on the teki'ot - Therefore, if it is impossible for a person to hear the shofar blown, he should still attempt to recite or hear the blessings.
nor are the teki'ot dependent on the blessings. - Thus, if it is impossible for a person to hear the blessings, he should still attempt to hear the shofar being blown.
When there are two cities - in one it is known that there will definitely be someone to recite the nine blessings - recited in the musaf service on Rosh Hashanah
but there is no one to blow the shofar - in the other, a doubt exists whether or not there will be someone to blow the shofar, one should go the latter, since the sounding of the shofar is a requirement of the Torah -as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1
while the blessings - as is the prayer service in its entirety
are of Rabbinic origin. - i.e., surely if one could be sure of fulfilling the Torah commandment, one should do so at the expense of the fulfillment of the Rabbinic commandment. However, even if, as in the case described, there is a doubt whether one can fulfill the Torah commandment, one should take that risk, rather than forego the opportunity entirely, even if doing so will cause one to negate the fulfillment of the Rabbinic commandment.
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
These are the required measurements of a sukkah: Its height should not be less than ten handbreadths nor more than twenty cubits. Its area should not be less than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths. [There is no maximum limit to] its area, and one may increase it [to include] a number of millim.
A sukkah which is less than ten handbreadths high, smaller than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths [in area], or taller than twenty cubits - even [if the increase or decrease] is of the slightest amount - is invalid.
Commentary Halacha
These are the required measurements of a sukkah: Its height - I.e., the height of its inner space, without including the height of the s'chach (Eruvin 3b)
should not be less than ten handbreadths - anything less is not considered to be a dwelling fit for human habitation (See Sukkah 4a.) Sukkah 4b-5a derives the concept as follows: The ark and the kaporet covering it were ten handbreadths high. This constituted a line of demarcation between the place where the Shechinah was manifest and the area below it. Thus, we see that a height of ten handbreadths is sufficient for an independent area.
Rabbenu Manoach establishes a closer relationship between the above concept and a sukkah, noting that Exodus 25:20 describes how the wings of the cherubs "shall shield the kaporet," using the verb סככים, which has the same root as the word s'chach. The beginning of the height of the cherub's "shield," ten cubits, is the minimum of the height for our s'chach.
nor more than twenty cubits. - Any structure more than twenty cubits high can only be built as a permanent dwelling. Hence, it is unfit to serve as a sukkah, which must be of a temporary nature. (See Sukkah 2a and the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah.)[ It must be noted that any structure less than 20 cubits high can serve as a sukkah even if its walls are of a permanent nature.]
A cubit is 48 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 57.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.
Its area should not be less than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths. - the minimum size necessary to contain a person's head, the majority of his body [6 handbreadths by six handbreadths], and a small table [a handbreadth by a handbreadth] (Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 2:8). A handbreadth is 8 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 9.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.
The Rambam explains the requirement of seven handbreadths by seven hand breadths as follows: The first three hand breadths are not of consequence because of the principle of l'vud and four additional handbreadths are required since the smallest area of halachic consequence is four cubits by four cubits (Commentary, to the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:1).
If the sukkah is not seven handbreadths in either length or width, it is invalid, even if its area equals 49 square handbreadths. If it is round in shape, it must be sufficiently large to encompass a square seven by seven (See Halachah 7). This size is required because if either of the dimensions were less, it would not be considered a dwelling fit for human habitation (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 634:1-2; Magen Avraham; Taz).
[There is no maximum limit to] its area - The commentaries point to Sukkah27b: "All Israel is fit to sit in one sukkah," as the source for this statement. A sukkah large enough to contain "all Israel" must possess a sizable area.
and one may increase it [to include] a number of millim. - A mil is approximately a kilometer in contemporary measure.
A sukkah which - does not meet the above requirements and
is less than ten handbreadths high, smaller than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths in area, or taller than twenty cubits - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 633:2-5) mentions a number of techniques by which a sukkah of this size can be made kosher, by decreasing the height of its inner space.
even [if the increase or decrease] is of the slightest amount - is invalid.
Halacha 2
A sukkah which does not possess three walls is invalid. However, if it has two complete walls perpendicular to each other in the shape of [the Greek letter]gamma, it is sufficient to construct a third wall that is [only] slightly more than a handbreadth wide and place it within three handbreadths of one of the two walls. Also, one must construct the likeness of an entrance, since it does not possess three complete walls.
We have already explained in Hilchot Shabbat that wherever the term "a likeness of an entrance" is used, it may be a rod on one side, another rod on the opposite side, and a third above, even though it does not touch them.
Commentary Halacha
A sukkah which does not possess three walls is invalid. - Though Sukkah6b mentions Rabbi Shimeon's opinion, which requires four walls, all authorities accept the more lenient view. The Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 1:1) explains that their difference of opinion is based on the exegesis of Isaiah 4:6:
There will be a sukkah that will serve as a shadow from the heat during the day, a place of refuge, and a cover from storm and from rain.
The Sages maintain that the verse refers to three different activities, and hence require three walls. Rabbi Shimeon counts "a cover from storm and from rain" as two different activities, and hence requires four walls.
However, if it has two complete walls - i.e., walls of at least seven handbreadths long, so that the minimum requirements for the sukkah's area mentioned in the previous halachah can be met
perpendicular to each other in the shape of [the Greek letter], gamma -Rabbenu Manoach notes that a gamma has the same shape as the Hebrew letter dalet (see accompanying drawing) and asks why the Sages did not use that letter to refer to the intended shape. He explains that the very letters of the Hebrew alphabet are endowed with holiness. Hence, the Sages did not want to use them as an example to refer to a mundane matter.
it is sufficient to construct a third wall that is [only] slightly more than a handbreadth wide and place it within three handbreadths - Sukkah 16b teaches that whenever there is a gap of three handbreadths or less between two entities, the principle of l'vud applies. The gap is considered to be closed and the two parts connected. Thus, the third wall is considered to be more than four handbreadths long, hence spanning more than half of the length required for the third wall. Therefore, it is acceptable (Rabbenu Nissim).
of one of the two walls. - See the accompanying diagram.
The Rabbis have posed an abstract question: Is the minimum requirement for a sukkah three walls (including one which is incomplete), or must a sukkah have four walls, however, the Torah was lenient enough to consider a sukkah of this nature as comparable to one of four walls.
The Marcheshet brings support for the latter view, quoting Sukkah 7b, which states that since the third wall only a handbreadth in size is considered to be a wall with regard to the laws of sukkah, it is also considered to be a wall with regard to the laws regarding a private domain on the Sabbath. In the latter instance, four walls are necessary.
Also, one must construct the likeness of an entrance - to complete this third wall. This is necessary...
since it - the sukkah
does not possess three complete walls. - However, if the three walls are complete - i.e., at least seven handbreadths in length - as in the accompanying diagram, no "likeness of an entrance" is required.
The Bayit Chadash (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 430) explains that the requirement of a "likeness of an entrance" is a Rabbinic ordinance, and, according to Torah law, a sukkah is acceptable as long as the third wall is a handbreadth as required.
We have already explained in Hilchot Shabbat - 16:19
that wherever the term "a likeness of an entrance" is used, it may be a rod on one side, another rod on the opposite side, and a third above -The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 630:2) states that if the two rods reach the s'chach, a third rod is unnecessary. (See Mishnah Berurah 630:12.)
even though it does not touch them. - as depicted on page 67.
Halacha 3
If the two walls were parallel to each other and there was an open space between them, one should construct a wall slightly more than four handbreadths wide and place it within three handbreadths of one of the two walls; then, [the sukkah] is kosher. However, it is necessary to construct "the likeness of an entrance."
If the rods of the s'chach of the sukkah extend beyond the sukkah and one wall extends with them, they are considered to be [part of] the sukkah.
Commentary Halacha
If the two walls - each being seven handbreadths or more long
were parallel to each other and there was an open space between them, one should construct a wall slightly more than four handbreadths wide -as depicted in the accompanying diagram.
Since the two walls are not connected, the third wall which "connects" them must be longer (Sukkah 7a).
and place it within three handbreadths - so that it will be considered l'vud.
of one of the two walls; then, [the sukkah] is kosher. - The third wall is considered to be seven cubits long itself - the four cubits of actual length and the three cubits between it and the wall that are added to it, because of the principle of l'vud (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:1).
However, it is necessary to construct "the likeness of an entrance" -between the wall of four handbreadths and the wall further removed from it.
This opinion is not universally accepted; and some authorities do not require a "likeness of an entrance" for such a sukkah. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 630:3) quotes the Rambam's opinion as halachah.
The Ramah mentions that the "likeness of an entrance" is required only when the third wall needs the principle of l'vud for it to be considered seven handbreadths long. However, if the wall is actually seven handbreadths or more long, nothing more is necessary.
If the rods of the s'chach of the sukkah extend beyond the sukkah and one wall extends with them, - As portrayed in the accompanying diagram, the sukkah has two walls, each at least seven handbreadths long, joined to each other at a right angle. The third wall is also joined to the other at a right angle; however, its length exceeds that of the wall opposite it, and thus, the fourth side of the sukkah, which remains open, slants at an angle.
they are considered to be [part of] the sukkah. - sitting under the extension is considered to be the same as sitting under the portion enclosed by three walls. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:7.)
Halacha 4
Walls which are connected to the roof of the sukkah, but do not reach the earth: If they are more than three handbreadths above the earth, they are invalid; if the distance is less than that, they are kosher.
[The following rules apply] should the walls be connected to the earth, without reaching the s'chach: If they are ten handbreadths high, they are kosher even though are removed several cubits from the roof, provided they are positioned below the end of the roof. If the roof was separated from the wall by more than three handbreadths, it is invalid; less than this amount is kosher.
If one suspended a partition which is slightly more than four handbreadths high at a distance of less than three handbreadths from the earth and a distance of less than three handbreadths from the roof, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha
Walls - at least seven handbreadths high
which are connected to the roof of the sukkah, but do not reach the earth - See accompanying diagram.
If they are more than three handbreadths above the earth, they are invalid - Sukkah 16a records a difference of opinion between the Sages whether a "hanging partition" - i.e., a partition that is not connected to the earth - is kosher. The halachah does not accept such a partition, because animals can crawl under it. (See Shabbat 97a.) Nevertheless...
if the distance is less than that - three handbreadths
they are kosher - Because of the principle of l'vud, it is considered as if they actually reach the ground.
[The following rules apply] should the walls be connected to the earth, without reaching the s'chach: - See the accompanying diagram.
If they are ten handbreadths high - they are considered to be a viable partition. Therefore...
they are kosher even though they are removed several cubits from the roof - We say גוד אסיק מחיצתא - "Pull up and raise the partition;" i.e., it is considered as if the partition has been extended upward and reaches thes'chach. See Sukkah 4b for an additional discussion of this concept.
Though this concept is accepted, we do not say מחיצתא גוד אחית - "Pull down and extend the partition." Hence, in the first clause of this halachah, the partition is not acceptable until it reaches three cubits of the ground.
[It is possible to distinguish between the two cases as follows. A partition on the ground that must be extended upward serves as a functional divider. In contrast, a partition hanging downward cannot adequately fulfill its purpose unless it reaches within three handbreadths of the ground. (See also the Or Sameach's resolution of a difficulty arising from Eruvin 79a.)]
provided they - the walls
are positioned below the end of the roof - i.e., the s'chach, so that thes'chach covers them.
Furthermore, the walls may even be slightly removed from the s'chach. (SeeShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 630:9.)
If the roof - the s'chach
was separated from the wall by more than three handbreadths, it is invalid - for then the distance is too great for the s'chach to be considered the roof of these walls. In such an instance, not only is sitting under the open portion of no halachic import, the entire sukkah is invalid. Nevertheless, a sukkah in which the distance is...
less than this amount is kosher - because of the principle of l'vud. This concept also applies when the walls are as high as the s'chach. Even though the walls extend beyond the s'chach the sukkah is kosher. Nevertheless, one should not sit under the open portion.
If one suspended a partition which is slightly more than four handbreadths high at a distance of less than three handbreadths from the earth - and thus, it is viewed as connected to the earth because of the principle of l'vud.
and a distance of less than three handbreadths from the roof, - and thus, it is viewed as connected to the s'chach because of the principle of l'vud.
it is kosher. - Sukkah 16b explains that even though we must rely on the principle of l'vud twice, the sukkah is still kosher.
Halacha 5
When a person constructs his sukkah among the trees, using the trees as walls, it is kosher if:
a) they are strong enough - or he tied them and reinforced them so that they would be strong enough - that they would not be shaken by the wind at all times; andb) he filled [the space] between the branches with hay and straw, tying them so that they will not be shaken by the wind.
[This is necessary,] for any partition that cannot stand before a normal land wind is not considered to be a partition.
Commentary Halacha
When a person constructs his sukkah among the trees - This halachah does not deal with the problem of the branches and leaves of the trees interfering with the s'chach. That issue is dealt with in Chapter 5, Halachah 12. Rabbenu Manoach and others have also raised questions whether the s'chachshould be supported by the trees. (See the commentary on the following halachah.)
using the trees as walls, it is kosher if - the following two conditions are met
a) they are strong enough - by nature
or he tied them and reinforced them so that they would be strong enough - that they would not be shaken by the wind at all times; - even if the wind is not strong enough to uproot them, it should not cause them to sway back and forth
and b) he filled [the space] between the branches - this translation of the word אמיר is taken from Isaiah 17:6.
with hay and straw - weaving them together so that the wall would be a solid continuum (Sukkah 24b)
tying them - the hay and straw fillers
so that they will not be shaken by the wind.
[This is necessary,] for any partition that cannot stand before a normal -However, a sukkah's inability to stand before a hurricane wind does not invalidate it.
land wind - in contrast to sea winds, which are more powerful (Sukkah 23a)
is not considered to be a partition. - This law also has implications with regard to the Sabbath laws. (See Hilchot Shabbat 16:15, 24.)
Halacha 6
If a person constructs his sukkah on top of a wagon or on the deck of a ship, it is kosher, and one may ascend to it on the festival. If one constructs it on the treetops or on a camel's back, it is kosher, but one may not ascend to it on the festival, because climbing on a tree or animal is forbidden on a festival.
If some of the walls were the result of human activity and some were trees, we consider [its structure]. We may ascend to any [sukkah] where, if the trees were taken away, it would be able to stand with the walls that were built by man alone.
Commentary Halacha
If a person constructs his sukkah on top of a wagon - although the wagon moves and is not fixed in one place (Rashi, Sukkah 22b)
or on the deck of a ship - Sukkah 23a relates:
A person who constructs his sukkah on the deck of a ship: Rabban Gamliel deems it invalid; Rabbi Akiva deems it kosher.Once Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva were traveling on a ship. Rabbi Akiva arose and constructed a sukkah on the ship's deck. The next morning, the wind came and blew it over. Rabban Gamliel asked Rabbi Akiva: "Akiva, where is your Sukkah?"
As apparent from the narrative, such a sukkah need not be strong enough to withstand sea winds. However, even according to Rabbi Akiva, it must be strong enough to withstand normal land winds, as explained in the previous halachah.
it is kosher, and one may ascend to it on the festival. - i.e., on the first day of Sukkot in Eretz Yisrael and on the first and second days in the diaspora.
If one constructs it on the treetops or on a camel's back, it is kosher -Sukkah 23a explains that Rabbi Yehudah objected to the use of such a sukkah, explaining that since it was not fit to be used on all seven days of the holiday (because of the prohibition against using it on the first day), it should not be used at all.
Our halachah follows Rabbi Meir's opinion. He accepts Rabbi Yehudah's motivating principle, but explains that in the case at hand, there is no inherent difficulty with using such a sukkah throughout the holiday. The only reason it is not used on the first day is an external factor - a Rabbinic decree - which should not affect the halachic status of the sukkah itself.
but one may not ascend to it on the festival - Surely, this prohibition also applies on the Sabbath.
From the Rambam's words, it appears that the restriction applies when the floor of the sukkah is actually in the tree. In contrast, Rashi (Shabbat 154b), Tosafot, Sukkah 22b and the Maggid Mishneh explain that even if the sukkah is on the ground and only the s'chach is supported by the tree, it is forbidden to use such a sukkah on the festival, lest one place utensils on the s'chach, and thus make use of the tree.
The Magen Avraham (628:6) quotes this opinion, but states that at present it is no longer customary to place articles on the s'chach. Therefore, it is permitted to use such a sukkah. His opinion is quoted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 628:7, and the Mishnah Berurah 628:17, with one qualification. At the outset, it is desirable not to use an article as support for s'chach unless it is, itself, fit to be used as s'chach. Hence, since the trees themselves are not fit to be used ass'chach, they should not be used as its supports.
because climbing on a tree or animal is forbidden on a festival. - Beitzah5:2 relates:
All the [prohibitions] which we are obligated [to observe as] sh'vut...on the Sabbath, we are obligated [to observe] on a festival. These are [the activities prohibited] as sh'vut: We do not climb a tree; we do not ride an animal...
In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam writes:
"We do not climb a tree" - a decree lest we uproot [it];"we do not ride an animal" - a decree lest we break off a branch to lead it.
If some of the walls were the result of human activity and some were trees, we consider [its structure]. We may ascend to any [sukkah] where, if the trees were taken away, it would be able to stand with the walls that were built by man alone. - The Rambam quotes this general principle from the Mishnah, Sukkah 23a. The Mishnah adds examples to express the concept more clearly:
Two [walls] that were the result of human activity and one [wall] from the tree, or two [walls] from the tree and one [wall] that is a result of human activity.
Halacha 7
A sukkah that does not possess a roof is invalid. To what does this refer? A sukkah whose walls are joined to each other like a hut; alternatively, when the side of the sukkah is placed against the wall. However, if it has a roof, even only a handbreadth in width, or if one lifted the side of the sukkah close to the wall a handbreadth above the ground, it is kosher.
A round sukkah - if its circumference is large enough to contain a square seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, it is kosher even though it has no corners.
Commentary Halacha
A sukkah that does not possess a roof is invalid - because a dwelling even of a temporary nature must have a roof.
To what does this refer? A sukkah whose walls are joined to each other like a hut - Rashi (Sukkah 19b) explains that this is a reference to a hunter's hut. See Diagram A;
alternatively, when the side of the sukkah is placed against the wall. -See Diagram B.
However, if it - the sukkah
has a roof, even only a handbreadth in width - between the two walls, as depicted in Diagram C. As long as it has a roof at least a handbreadth wide, the remainder of the roof may be slanted.
or if one lifted the side of the sukkah close to the wall a handbreadth above the ground - so that handbreadth is considered to be a wall, as depicted in the diagram below.
it is kosher. - for the fact that the roof is slanted does not disqualify the sukkah.
The Kessef Mishneh, Rabbenu Manoach, and others explain that though leniency is taken and such a sukkah is allowed, it must still possess all the dimensions required of a kosher sukkah mentioned in Halachah 1 of this chapter. Accordingly, at least six handbreadths of the slanted roof must itself be kosher for use as s'chach, and it must be more than 16 handbreadths long, so that it will be of the required height. When the Sukkah meets these qualifications, one is permitted to eat and sleep within it. (See also Ramah,Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:10.)
A round sukkah - if its circumference is large enough to contain a square seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, it is kosher even though it has no corners. - Sukkah 7b records an opinion which disqualifies such a sukkah because it is not fit for use as a permanent dwelling. Nevertheless, the halachah does not follow this view.
On this basis, we can understand the placement of this law. On the surface, it would be more appropriate to state this law as part of Halachah 1, which describes the dimensions of a sukkah. However, the Rambam structured the order of his halachot according to their motivating principles. Thus, the first clause of the halachah describes the construction of a sukkah whose shape causes it to be deemed unacceptable even as a temporary dwelling. In contrast, this clause describes a sukkah whose shape is abnormal, but acceptable for temporary purposes.
Halacha 8
Should one place s'chach over an exedrah which has projections [extending from its pillars], it is kosher, regardless of whether the projections can be seen from the inside - although they cannot be seen from the outside - or whether they can be seen from the outside - although they cannot be seen from the inside.
Commentary Halacha
Should one place s'chach over an exedrah - A structure frequently employed in Roman architecture, and which was quite common in Jewish homes as well. There were a number of possible forms of this structure. Our halachah (in contrast to Hilchot Shabbat 17:35) deals with the following structure: A roof is placed between two walls, and within this roof a hollow place is left to allow sunlight to enter. Pillars are placed at each of the corners of the hole. The question is whether such a structure can serve as a sukkah if one placed s'chach over the hole. See diagram A.
which has projections [extending from its pillars] - At times these pillars were ornamented with artistic projections. See the diagrams below.
it is kosher, - Because of the projections, the opening of the ceiling is considered to be a third wall extending over the entire width of the exedrah and reaching the ground (Sukkah 18b) Thus, greater leniency is granted in this instance than in Halachah 3 of this chapter, where a partition four handbreadths in width is required.
Needless to say, as evident from Halachah 5:14, the walls of the exedrahcannot be more than four cubits removed from the s'chach.
regardless of whether the projections can be seen from the inside - of the Sukkah - although they cannot be seen from the outside - See diagram B.
or whether they can be seen from the outside - of the
Sukkah - although they cannot be seen from the inside. - See diagram C.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 630:8) quotes the Rambam's statements as halachah. However, the Ramah advises against constructing a sukkah in this manner.
Halacha 9
If it does not have projections [extending from its pillars] it is not valid, because it resembles a sukkah constructed in an alley, because it has [walls on] only the two sides of the exedrah. The middle of the exedrah does not have a wall and there are no projections opposite it.
Commentary Halacha
If it - the sukkah constructed in the exedrah
does not have projections [extending from its pillars] - as explained in the previous halachah
it is not valid, because it resembles a sukkah constructed in an alley -which is described in Halachah 3.
because it has [walls on] only the two sides of the exedrah. The middle of the exedrah does not have a wall and there are no projections opposite it. - Hence, the principle that the opening of the roof is considered to be a third wall, reaching to the ground, is not applied in this instance. Rabbenu Manoach notes that different principles apply in this context from those in the laws of eruvin, but explains that there is a basic difference between the two contexts. Here, the two walls were not constructed for the sake of the sukkah. In contrast, in the laws of eruvin, the walls were constructed for the sake of creating an enclosure.
Halacha 10
Should a person place s'chach over an alleyway which possesses a lechi or a well which possesses pasim, it is considered a kosher sukkah only on the Sabbath of the festival. Since this lechi and these pasim are considered to be partitions with regard to the Sabbath laws, they are also considered to be partitions with regard to the laws of sukkah.
Commentary Halacha
Should a person place s'chach over an alleyway which possesses a lechi - Hilchot Shabbat 17:2 states:
How is one permitted [to carry articles] in a closed alleyway?One constructs a lechi (vertical pole) [at the entrance] to the fourth side or one lays a beam (korah) across [the span of the fourth side].
Rabbenu Manoach explains that although the alleyway is closed on three sides, were it not for the special provisions mentioned in this halachah, it would not be acceptable, because in this instance the s'chach is placed more than four cubits away from the end of the alleyway. Hence, generally, as explained in Chapter 5, Halachah 14, such a sukkah would not be acceptable.
or a well which possesses pasim, - Hilchot Shabbat 17:27 states:
When a total of eight pasim [partitions] are constructed around a well, two connected to each other at each of its corners, they are considered to be walls. Thus, even though on each side the open portion exceeds the closed, since the four corners are closed, it is permitted to fill up water from the well and to water an animal.What is the height of each of these pasim? Ten handbreadths; their length must be at least six handbreadths and between each pas, there should be...no more than thirteen and one third cubits.
Thus, there are no complete walls to this structure, and without the special provision granted by this halachah, it would not be acceptable.
Sukkah 7b explains that each of these situations possesses an advantage over the other: The alley possesses an advantage in that it has two complete walls. In contrast, the well possesses an advantage in that it has partitions of some sort on each of its four sides. Hence, it is necessary to state both these laws, and neither could be derived from the other.
it is considered a kosher sukkah only on the Sabbath of the festival - TheTzafenat Paneach explains this as applying only to the days which precede the Sabbath. However, once the sukkah is acceptable on the Sabbath, it is also deemed kosher for the remaining days of the festival. (This view is not accepted by other authorities.)
Since this lechi and these pasim are considered to be partitions with regard to the Sabbath laws - On the Sabbath, one is allowed to carry only within an enclosed domain. Since the situations mentioned in this halachah are not actual enclosures and achieve that status only because of a Rabbinic ordinance, the application of these principles is confined to the Sabbath itself. Thus, on the Sabbath...
they are also considered to be partitions with regard to the laws of sukkah - and the sukkah is considered to be enclosed by three walls as required. However, throughout the remainder of the holiday, when the Rabbinic ordinances are not in effect, they are not considered to be enclosed structures. Hence, they are not acceptable as a sukkah.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 630:7) quotes these laws as halachah. (Also see the Ramah's notes.)
Halacha 11
Should a person implant four poles in the four corners of the roof and places'chach upon them, it is kosher. Since he placed the s'chach [above] the edge of the roof, we consider that the lower walls ascend to the edge of the s'chach.
Commentary Halacha
Should a person implant four poles in the four corners of the roof and place s'chach upon them - See the accompanying diagram.
it is kosher. Since he placed the s'chach [above] the edge of the roof, we consider that the lower walls ascend to the edge of the s'chach - because of the principle of גוד אסיק מחיצתא, it is considered as if the walls of the house have been extended upward, as explained in Halachah 5.
This halachah is based on the statements of Sukkah 4b. There are differences in the versions of the relevant passage possessed by the Rambam and Rav Sherirah Gaon, on the one hand, and those possessed by other Sages, on the other hand. Because of those textual differences, the Ra'avad, Rabbenu Manoach, and others have questioned the Rambam's decision. (See Maggid Mishneh.)
These differences caused the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 630:6) to reject the Rambam's decision. The Mishnah Berurah 630:31 states that even according to the Rambam, the poles must be placed exactly at the edge of the roof. If they are placed further in, even when they are within three handbreadths of the edge, the sukkah is not acceptable.
Halacha 12
A sukkah which has many entrances and many windows in its walls is kosher even though the open portion exceeds the closed portion, provided there is no opening larger than ten cubits.
If there is an opening larger than ten cubits, it is necessary that the closed portion exceed the open portion, even though [the opening] is constructed in the form of an entrance.
Commentary Halacha
A sukkah which has many entrances and many windows in its walls is kosher even though the open portion - Any open portion less than three handbreadths in length is considered to be closed, based on the principle ofl'vud (Hilchot Shabbat 16:17). The Magen Avraham 630:1 explains that regarding the laws of sukkah, this principle applies only when one constructs four walls. However, if the sukkah has only three walls, the principle of l'vudcannot be applied, to consider spaces less than three handbreadths in length to be closed.
exceeds the closed portion, provided there is no opening larger than ten cubits. - Sukkah 7a states:
[The laws governing] a wall of a sukkah resemble [those governing] the wall [of an enclosure] on the Sabbath...There is an additional [stringency to the laws] of the Sabbath that does not apply to a sukkah. On the Sabbath, [a wall] is permitted only when the enclosed portion is greater than the open portion. This does not apply to a sukkah.
The Rambam describes the laws governing a wall on the Sabbath as follows (Hilchot Shabbat 16:16):
Every wall whose open portion exceeds its enclosed portion is not considered to be a wall. However, if the open portion is equal to the closed portion, it is permitted, provided that none of the open portions exceeds ten cubits.
Based on the above, the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh explain that just as concerning the laws of the Sabbath, the closed portion of a wall must exceed its open portion, so, too, concerning two of the walls of the sukkah. The leniency allowing a wall of the sukkah to be counted as a wall even though the open portion exceeds the closed portion applies only concerning the third wall. Just as other leniencies (see Halachot 2 and 3) are granted concerning the third wall, this leniency is also allowed.
Others explain that the intent is that even when the open portion of all four walls exceeds the closed portion, the sukkah is kosher, while on the Sabbath such an enclosure is not acceptable. This interpretation of the Talmud's statements is advanced by Rabbenu Asher and is quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 630:5.
If there is an opening larger than ten cubits, it is necessary that the closed portion exceed the open portion even though [the opening] is constructed in the form of an entrance. - Hilchot Shabbat (ibid.) states:
If the open portion is constructed in the form of an entrance, even if it is more than ten cubits long it does not negate the wall, provided the open portion does not exceed the closed portion.
However, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:10, 630:5) follows the opinion of Tosafot and other authorities, who are willing to accept a wall as kosher even though it has a wide opening, provided it is constructed in the form of an entrance.
The Sefer Hashlamah presents a third view, accepting an open portion more than ten cubits long in the form of an entrance as part of the wall of a sukkah, but not concerning the laws of the Sabbath.
The Ramah concludes his discussion of this halachah by stating that since these laws are somewhat complicated, it has become customary to build whole walls without any open portions. If one has only a minimum amount of wood, it is preferable to build three complete walls, rather than to construct four walls leaving open spaces.
Halacha 13
A sukkah whose inner space exceeds twenty cubits [is not acceptable]. Should one reduce it [by placing] pillows and coverings [on the floor], it is not considered to be reduced. [This applies even if] one considered them a permanent part of the sukkah. If one reduced the space using straw and considered it as a permanent part of the sukkah, [the space] is considered to be reduced.
Needless to say, the above applies if one used earth and considered it to be a permanent part of the sukkah. However, if one [merely brought in] earth with no specific intention, [its space] is not considered to be reduced.
If it was twenty cubits high, but branches [from the s'chach descend within the twenty cubits, [the following principle applies:] If its shade would be greater than its open portion because of these branches alone, it is considered as having thick s'chach and is kosher.
Commentary Halacha
A sukkah whose inner space - the space between the ground and thes'chach.
exceeds twenty cubits [is not acceptable]. - as stated in Halachah 1. Indeed, the question may be raised: Why did the Rambam state these two halachot so far removed from each other?
Should one reduce it - the sukkah's inner space
[by placing] pillows and coverings on the floor], it is not considered to be reduced - for these are merely temporary additions that will later be removed.
[This applies even if] one considered them a permanent - The Maggid Mishneh interprets "permanent" literally. However, the Mishnah Berurah 633:11 explains that according to one opinion, the definition of "permanence" is for the duration of the Sukkot holiday. (See also Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 358:2.)
part of the sukkah. - Most people would not consider leaving these articles in the sukkah permanently. Accordingly, a particular individual's desire to do so is not taken into consideration, and the space is not considered to be reduced (Sukkah 4a).
If one reduced the space using straw and considered it to be a permanent part of the sukkah, [the space] is considered to be reduced. -However, if one laid straw on the floor of the sukkah without having such an intention, the space is not considered to be reduced (ibid.). In his commentary on Ohalot 15:6, the Rambam writes: "In general, one will have in mind to remove straw."
The Mishnah Berurah 633:13 emphasizes that one should not reduce the space of the sukkah on the first day of the festival because of the holiday prohibitions. (See also Rabbenu Manoach.)
Needless to say, the above applies if one used earth and considered it to be a permanent part of the sukkah. However, if one [merely brought in] earth with no specific intention, [its space] is not considered to be reduced. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 633:4) quotes these decisions as halachah and adds that one must verbally express the desire to make the earth or straw part of the sukkah. The Mishnah Berurah (ibid.) states that many later authorities considered an unspoken intention as sufficient.
If it - the inner space of a sukkah
was twenty cubits high - and, therefore, unacceptable
but branches [from the s'chach descend within the twenty cubits, [the following principle applies:] If its shade would be greater than its open portion - this is the minimum measure required by the Mishnah (Sukkah 1:1) for s'chach to be kosher.
because of these branches alone - i.e., were the upper portion of the s'chachto be removed, the branches which hang down would create sufficient shade
it is considered as having thick s'chach - i.e., the s'chach is considered to begin at the low branches and to have been piled high.
and is kosher. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 663:2) quotes this law as halachah.
Halacha 14
When [a sukkah is more than twenty cubits high, but] one builds a bench next to the middle wall extending across its entire span - if the width of the bench is equal to the minimum width of a sukkah, it is kosher.
Should one build the bench next to the middle wall along [one] side, if there are four cubits between the bench and the [opposite] wall, it is unacceptable. If there are fewer than four cubits, it is kosher.
Should one build the bench in the middle [of the sukkah], if there are more than four cubits from the edge of the bench to any of the sides [of the sukkah], it is not acceptable. If there are fewer than four cubits, it is kosher. It is considered as if the walls touch the bench, and the distance from the bench to the s'chachis less than twenty cubits.
If one constructs a pillar [within a sukkah whose s'chach is more than twenty cubits high, the following rule applies]: Even though it is of the minimum size required of a sukkah, it is unacceptable, because its walls are not discernible. Thus, it is as if there is kosher s'chach above the pillar without any walls.
Commentary Halacha
When [a sukkah is more than twenty cubits high, but] one builds a bench next to the middle wall extending across its entire span - and there are fewer than twenty cubits between the bench and the s'chach
if the width of the bench is equal to the minimum width of a sukkah -seven handbreadths, as in Halachah 1 above. See Diagram A.
it is kosher. - Rashi (Sukkah 4a) maintains that not only the area above the bench, but the entire sukkah is kosher, as evident from the last clause of Halachah 3. Though Rabbenu Nissim and other authorities maintain that only the area above the bench may be used as a sukkah, the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 633:5) accepts Rashi's view.
Should one build the bench next to the middle wall along [one] side, if there are four cubits between the bench and the [opposite] wall, it is unacceptable - because the area around the bench is surrounded by only two walls.
If there are fewer than four cubits, it is kosher. - because of the principle explained in the latter clause. In this instance as well, there is a disagreement between the Rabbis whether the entire sukkah is kosher or only the area above the bench. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 633:6) follows the view that only the area above the bench is acceptable for use as a sukkah. See Diagram B.
Should one build the bench in the middle [of the sukkah], if there are more than four cubits from the edge of the bench to any of the sides [of the sukkah] - that wall is too far removed from the bench to be considered to be a wall around it. Hence,
it - the sukkah in its totality, even the area above the bench...
is not acceptable - for in this instance, the sukkah must have four walls.
If there are fewer than four cubits, - between the bench and the walls of the sukkah...
it is kosher. It is considered as if the walls touch the bench i.e., the area from the bench to the wall is considered to be an extension of the wall. Thus, this halachah is the converse of the principle of דופן עקומה (Dofen Akumah - literally, a crooked wall) mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 14.
There and in his commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 1:10), the Rambam explains that the principle of Dofen Akumah allows us to consider materials on the roof of the sukkah which are unacceptable as s'chach to be extensions of the wall, thus creating an L-shaped - i.e., "crooked" - wall.
Here, the Rambam explains that the opposite is also true. As long as there are no more than four cubits between the bench and the wall, the ground of the sukkah can also be considered to be an extension of its wall. (See Kessef Mishneh.)
and - Since...
the distance from the bench to the s'chach is less than twenty cubits. -as required in Halachah 1, the area above the bench is considered as having four walls and kosher s'chach.
If one constructs a pillar - ten handbreadths or more high, because otherwise, the pillar could never be considered to be a significant domain (Maggid Mishneh).
[within a sukkah - removed four cubits or more from the walls. (Otherwise, it would be considered to be kosher because of the principles mentioned above.)
whose s'chach is more than twenty cubits high, the following rule applies]: Even though it is of the minimum size required of a sukkah -seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths
it is unacceptable - Sukkah 4b explains that Abbaye desires to consider such a sukkah to be kosher, based on the principle of גוד אסיק מחיצתא mentioned in Halachah 11 - i.e., the walls of the pillar would be considered as extending upward until the s'chach. Ravva answered him that, in this instance, that principle cannot be applied...
for - in contrast to those of a house
its - the pillar's
walls are not discernible. - See the Chiddushim of Rav Chayim Soloveichik, Halachah 11.
Thus, it is as if there is kosher s'chach above the pillar without any walls.
Halacha 15
[The following rule applies] when [the inner space of the sukkah] was less than ten [handbreadths high] and one dug [into the ground of the sukkah] to create an [inner space] of ten [handbreadths]: If there are three handbreadths from the edge of the pit until the wall [of the sukkah], it is not acceptable. If there is less than that [amount], it is kosher, because any [distance] less than three [handbreadths] is considered to be [insignificant, and the two entities are considered to be] adjacent [to each other], as explained in Hilchot Shabbat.
Commentary Halacha
[The following rule applies] when [the inner space of the sukkah] was less than ten [handbreadths high] - the minimum height required by Halachah 1.
and one dug [into the ground of the sukkah] to create - a pit at least seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths (Rabbenu Manoach, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 633:10) with...
an [inner space] of ten [handbreadths] - between it and the s'chach.
If there are three handbreadths from the edge of the pit until the wall [of the sukkah], it is not acceptable. - One might assume that as long as there are less than four cubits between the edge of the pit and the sukkah, the sukkah would be kosher, because of the principle mentioned in the previous halachah; i.e., the ground of the sukkah would be considered to be an extension of the wall. Nevertheless, Sukkah 4a differentiates between the two cases. In the situation described in the previous halachah, the wall was of the proper size; the only question was its proximity to the sukkah. In this instance, there is no halachically acceptable wall to begin with.
If there is less than that [amount], it is kosher - The Mishnah Berurah633:29 quotes authorities who maintain that only the area within the pit is kosher, and one does not fulfill the mitzvah of eating or sleeping in the sukkah by performing these activities in the portion covered by the s'chach outside the pit.
because any [distance] less than three [handbreadths] is considered to be [insignificant and the two entities are considered to be] adjacent [to each other], as explained in Hilchot Shabbat - 14:7, which explains the principle of l'vud mentioned above.
Halacha 16
The walls of the sukkah are kosher [although made] from all [substances]. All that is necessary is a barrier of any kind. Even living beings [may serve that purpose. Thus,] a person can create a wall [of the sukkah] by using a colleague so that he can eat, drink, and sleep in the sukkah, for which his colleague is serving as a wall [even] on the holiday.
The above applies when one employs the person as a wall without his conscious knowledge. However, it is forbidden to create [a wall by using a person] when the latter is conscious of the fact on the holiday. Nevertheless, it is permitted during the other days of the festival.
Similarly, a person may create a fourth wall from utensils on the holiday. However, he should not create a third wall using utensils on the holiday, because, [by doing so], he is making the sukkah fit for use, and it is forbidden to create [even] a temporary tent on the holiday.
Commentary Halacha
The walls of the sukkah are kosher [although made] from all [substances]. - The Mishnah (Sukkah 12b) mentions many substances which are not acceptable as s'chach (as mentioned in the following chapter), and concludes "all are fit to be used as walls."
All that is necessary is a barrier of any kind. - The Ramah (Orach Chayim630:1) explains that one should take care not to use substances that have an unpleasant odor or substances that will shrivel during the holiday, and thus cause the walls to be less than the required measure.
Even living beings [may serve that purpose. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 630:11) states that an animal used for this purpose must be tied so that it will not run away.
Thus,] a person can create a wall [of the sukkah] by using a colleague so that he can eat, drink, and sleep in the sukkah, for which his colleague is serving as a wall - The Tzafnat Paneach raises the question whether the person serving as the wall can also fulfill the mitzvah of eating in such a sukkah. He quotes a number of passages from which one might infer that he may.
[even] on the holiday. - The latter term refers to the first day of Sukkot - and in the Diaspora, the second day - and the day of Shemini Atzeret, when the laws prohibiting work and the Rabbinic ordinances extending those restrictions must be observed.
The above applies when one employs the person as a wall without his conscious knowledge. However, it is forbidden to create [a wall by using a person] - The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh explain that this refers only to the third wall of the sukkah. If a sukkah has three kosher walls, a person may employ a colleague to serve as the fourth wall on the holiday, even though the latter is conscious of what he is doing. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 630:12) states this as halachah.
when the latter is conscious of the fact on the holiday. - Hilchot Shabbat16:23 states:
It is permitted to create a barrier of men, one standing next to the other, on the Sabbath, as long as the people who are standing are not conscious of the fact that they are serving as a barrier.
Although it is forbidden to create an enclosure on the Sabbath, since the person serving as the barrier is unaware of what he is doing, no transgression is involved. It is his intention, and not that of the person using the sukkah, which is significant (Ra'avad). In contrast, when the person serving as the wall is conscious of his acts, it is considered as if he has created a structure of substance (Magen Avraham 630:19).
The Magen Avraham (ibid.) also states that leniency is granted only when humans serve as the walls. It is absolutely forbidden to create a wall using an animal on the holiday.
Nevertheless, it is permitted during the other days of the festival - with the exception of the Sabbath; i.e., there is no essential difficulty with the use of such a sukkah, the only problem is the Rabbinic prohibition mentioned above.
Similarly, a person may create a fourth wall - Since a sukkah is kosher when it possesses only three walls, the addition of the fourth wall is not halachically significant. We are allowed to add to a temporary structure on the Sabbath.
from utensils on the festival. However, he should not create a third wall using utensils - It is permitted to create a utensil from human beings, because one does not normally create an enclosure in such a manner. In contrast, an enclosure is frequently made from utensils (Rabbenu Manoach).
on the holiday, because, [by doing so], he is making the sukkah fit for use, and it is forbidden to create [even] a temporary tent on the holiday.
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
[There are requirements regarding] the s'chach of a sukkah, and not all substances are acceptable [to be used for this purpose]. For s'chach, we may use only a substance which grows from the ground, has been detached from the ground, is not subject to contracting ritual impurity, does not have an unpleasant odor, and does not have elements which fall off and wither constantly.
Commentary Halacha
In contrast to the walls mentioned in the last halachah of the previous chapter...
[There are requirements regarding] the s'chach of a sukkah, and not all substances are acceptable [to be used for this purpose]. - Some of the requirements mentioned by the Rambam were established by Torah law, while others are Rabbinic ordinances, as explained below.
For s'chach, we may use only a substance which:
a) grows from the ground - i.e., is an agricultural product and is neither found naturally - e.g., metals - nor produced from animals nor manufactured synthetically;
b) has been detached from the ground - and is not still connected to its source of nurture;
c) is not subject to contracting ritual impurity - This excludes articles used as food and those that have been fashioned into utensils. These three requirements are alluded to by Deuteronomy 16:13: "Make the Sukkot holiday for yourselves for seven days, when you gather in from your grain and grapes..."
Sukkah 12a explains that the verse implies that the s'chach, the essential element of the sukkah, must resemble "the leftovers from the grain and grape harvest."
(The expression "alluded to" was used rather than "derived from" on the basis of the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:4. That expression implies that the concept cannot be derived from the verse per se. Rather, it was transmitted as a halachah l'Moshe miSinai, and the Biblical verse is merely an allusion.)
The Rambam gives examples of entities which are not acceptable as s'chachon the basis of these principles in the following halachah.
d) does not have an unpleasant odor - As implied by the following halachah, this and the following clause are Rabbinic decrees. S'chach with an unpleasant odor will not create an inviting holiday environment. Indeed, substances with an unpleasant odor should not be used for the sukkah's walls either.
e) and does not have elements which fall off and wither constantly - for a person will not be pleased to have portions of the s'chach falling into his food. The Mishnah Berurah 629:39 states that the prohibition applies to elements that fall off naturally. However, if they fall off only when subjected to wind, there is no difficulty in using them.
Halacha 2
When a person uses as s'chach a substance which does not grow from the ground, is still connected to the ground, or is subject to contracting ritual impurity, [the sukkah] is not acceptable.
However, if he transgressed and used as s'chach a substance which has elements which fall off and wither, or which possesses an unpleasant odor, it is kosher. [Our Sages] said only that one should not use these as s'chach lest one leave one's sukkah and depart. One must take care that the branches and leaves should not descend within ten handbreadths of the ground, so that one will not be uncomfortable when using the sukkah.
If one used metals, bones, or hides as s'chach, it is unacceptable because these do not grow from the ground. If one suspended vines and the like over it until they made a sukkah, it is unacceptable, because they were not uprooted [from the ground].
Should one use wooden utensils, mats that were made to lie on, and the like ass'chach, it is unacceptable, because they are subject to contracting ritual impurity. Similarly, using broken and worn out utensils as s'chach is unacceptable. Since these substances were subject to ritual impurity, [the latter law was instituted] lest one use broken pieces which have not yet attained a state of [unquestionable] purity.
Commentary Halacha
When a person uses as s'chach a substance which does not grow from the ground, is still connected to the ground, or is subject to contracting ritual impurity, [the sukkah] is not acceptable. - for these requirements stem from the Torah itself. The particular aspects of these requirements are described in this and the following halachot.
However, if he transgressed and used as s'chach a substance which has elements which fall off and wither - Sukkah 13a gives the shrub known as hollow as an example of such a substance.
or possesses an unpleasant odor - Sukkah 12b gives the plant known as wormwood as an example of such a substance.
it is kosher - after the fact, for these are only Rabbinic requirements. TheMishnah Berurah 629:38 emphasizes that even if other s'chach is available, there is no need to remove the s'chach with the unpleasant odor. However, thePri Megadim stresses that if the odor is so unpleasant that no one would bear it in his home, it is forbidden to use such a sukkah.
[Our Sages] - Sukkah 13a
said only that one should not use these as s'chach lest one leave one's sukkah and depart.
One must take care that the branches and leaves should not descend within ten handbreadths of the ground - the minimum height for a sukkah prescribed in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
so that one will not be uncomfortable - Sukkah 4a describes this as "a disgusting dwelling, unfit for human habitation."
when using the sukkah. - The Rambam's phraseology leaves room for the interpretation that this is a suggestion, but not an absolute requirement. (See Rabbenu Manoach.) Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 633:9) states that such a sukkah is unacceptable for use.
If one used metals - even if they have not been made into utensils, but are still in a raw state in which they are unfit to contract ritual impurity;
bones, or hides - even if they have not been made into garments, but are still in a raw state in which they are unfit to contract ritual impurity;
as s'chach, it is unacceptable, because these do not grow from the ground.
If one suspended vines and the like over it until they made a sukkah, it is unacceptable, because they were not uprooted [from the ground]. - The laws governing the use of such plants as s'chach after they have been hung over the sukkah and then detached from the ground are discussed in Halachah 12.
Should one use wooden utensils - In particular, this refers to wooden utensils that have a receptacle or are wide and other articles are frequently placed upon them - e.g., a table. However, wooden utensils that do not fall into these categories are not subject to contracting ritual impurity, and, hence, may be used for s'chach. An example of such utensil is a ladder. The Rambam (Hilchot Keilim 4:1) declares that a ladder is not subject to contracting ritual impurity. Hence, according to his opinion, there is no difficulty with using it ass'chach.
(It must be emphasized that other authorities question the Rambam's decision on a ladder and maintain that a ladder may be subject to contracting ritual impurity. Hence, it is preferable not to use it as s'chach. See the Shulchan Aruch and Ramah, Orach Chayim 629:7.)
mats that were made to lie on - However, mats that were made for use ass'chach or for shade may be used as s'chach. Halachah 6 discusses the laws which apply when a mat was made without any specific intention.
and the like as s'chach, it is unacceptable, because they are subject to contracting ritual impurity. Similarly, using broken - e.g., utensils with holes of sufficient size to render them no longer subject to contracting ritual impurity. (See Hilchot Keilim, Chapter 6.)
and worn out - e.g., garments that have worn out and are less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths in size and, hence, are no longer subject to contracting ritual impurity (Sukkah 16a; Hilchot Keilim 22:21).
utensils as s'chach is unacceptable. - This is a Rabbinic decree on the basis of the following rationale...
Since these substances were subject to ritual impurity - previously,
[the latter law was instituted] lest one use broken pieces - from utensils
which have not yet attained a state of [unquestionable] purity - i.e., are still subject to contracting ritual impurity.
as s'chach.
Halacha 3
If one used foods as s'chach, it is unacceptable, because they are subject to contracting ritual impurity. [When one uses] branches from a fig tree which contain figs, runners from a grape vine which contain grapes, branches of a date palm which contain dates and the like, [the following rules apply:] We see - if the waste is more than the food; then we may use them as s'chach. If not, we may not use them as s'chach.
If one uses as s'chach vegetables which, when they dry up, will wither, and none of their substance will remain, even though they are now fresh, their place is considered to be vacant, as though they did not exist.
Commentary Halacha
If one used foods - This refers only to foods for humans. Food which is eaten primarily by animals is not subject to contracting ritual impurity (Hilchot Tum'at Ochlin 1:1) and hence may be used as s'chach (Taz 629:12).
as s'chach, it is unacceptable, because they are subject to contracting ritual impurity. - There is a slight imprecision in the Rambam's statements. Produce is not subject to contracting ritual impurity until it comes into contact with liquid. (See Leviticus 11:38; Hilchot Tum'at Ochlin 1:1-2.) Nevertheless, foods are not fit to be used as s'chach even though they have never come into contact with water (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:1; Mishnah Berurah 629:28).
[When one uses] branches from a fig tree which contain figs, runners from a grape vine which contain grapes, branches of a date palm which contain dates and the like - i.e., the difficulty being that although the branches are proper s'chach, the fruit is unfit to be used for that purpose...
[the following rules apply:] We see if the waste - the branches and leaves
is more than the food - the fruit
then we may use them as s'chach. If not, we may not use them as s'chach. - Rabbenu Manoach explains that these decisions are based on the principle that according to Torah law, mixtures are categorized according to the majority (בטל ברב).
On the basis of Sukkah 13b-14a, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:10) explains that sometimes the stems of the fruit are considered part of the fruit, and on other occasions part of the branches. The Magen Avraham 629:12 explains that generally, a stem is not considered to be longer than three handbreadths. However, there are certain instances (e.g., grains) when a longer measure is considered. Hence, it is proper to be stringent in this regard. (See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:15-16.)
The apparent contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 13 is discussed in the commentary on that halachah.
If one uses as s'chach vegetables - The Maggid Mishneh explains that this refers to vegetables that are used as animal food, and hence were not excluded by the previous clause of this halachah. Rabbenu Manoach and theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:12) explain that this refers to vegetables that are eaten by humans. Sukkah 13b appears to support the latter interpretation, stating:
The vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation on Pesach... [can] invalidate a sukkah, [because they are considered] to be vacant space.
which, when they dry up, will wither, and none of their substance will remain - i.e., the vegetables will dry up and wither during the Sukkot festival, leaving the sukkah with more vacant space than shade (Kessef Mishneh).
even though they are now fresh, their place is considered to be vacant, as if they did not exist. - According to the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation, the explanation of the law is straightforward. It teaches us that rather than consider the vegetables to be non-kosher s'chach, we consider their space to be vacant. The latter interpretation requires a slightly more intricate explanation. The vegetables are not considered to be non-kosher s'chach, which would invalidate the sukkah if they take up four handbreadths, as explained in Halachah 14. Rather, their space is considered to be empty. Hence, a space of three handbreadths is sufficient to invalidate the sukkah, as explained in Halachah 20.
Halacha 4
If one used as s'chach branches of flax which were not crushed and combed, they are kosher, because they are still considered to be wood. After the flax has been crushed and combed, it may not be used as s'chach, since its form has changed and it is as though it is no longer a product of the earth.
One may use ropes made from palm bast or hemp and the like as s'chach, since their original form is unchanged and ropes are not considered to be utensils.
Commentary Halacha
If one used as s'chach branches of flax which were not crushed and combed, they are kosher, because they are still considered to be wood. -The use of the word עץ, rendered as branches or wood, with regard to flax, has its source in Joshua 2:6, which describes how Rachav "hid them in branches of flax."
After the flax has been crushed and combed - The Rishon Letzion questions the law when the flax has been crushed but not combed, and concludes that as long as it has not been combed, it is acceptable. Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:5 does not accept this conclusion.
it may not be used as s'chach - Though it is not considered to be a garment and, hence, is not subject to contracting ritual impurity (Maggid Mishneh; see also Shabbat 27b), it may nevertheless not be used as s'chach...
since its form has changed and it is as though it is no longer a product of the earth. - The Ra'avad disagrees with this principle and states that even before it is woven into a garment, flax is useful to stuff pillows and covers. Hence, it is subject to contracting ritual impurity and is thus unfit to be used ass'chach.
The Maggid Mishneh points out a contradiction to the Ra'avad's logic. The "male arrows" mentioned in the following halachah are - like flax - prepared to be used for a purpose. Nevertheless, they are considered acceptable for use ass'chach.
Rav Kapach mentions two possible extensions of the difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Ra'avad:
a) paper or carton - According to the Rambam, it may not be used because it no longer resembles a plant produced from the earth. According to the Ra'avad, it might be acceptable, since it is not subject to contracting ritual impurity.
b) cotton wool - It may be used for the purposes mentioned by the Ra'avad and thus, according to his opinion, would be subject to contracting ritual impurity. Nevertheless, its natural form is preserved. Hence, according to the Rambam's opinion, it would be acceptable. (It must be noted that the Magen Avraham629:3 and Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:5 maintain that after cotton has been combed, it is considered as though its form has been altered.)
One may use ropes made from palm bast or hemp and the like as s'chach, since their original form is unchanged and ropes are not considered to be utensils. - nor are they subject to contracting ritual impurity. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:5 quotes this law as halachah, but adds that ropes of flax and canvas may not be used for this purpose.
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply] when one uses arrows as s'chach. Those which are "male" are kosher; those which are "female" are not acceptable. Even though [ultimately,] they will be filled with iron, they have a receptacle. Hence, they are susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, as are all utensils with receptacles.
Commentary Halacha
[The following rules apply] when one uses arrows as s'chach. - The question whether the arrows are acceptable as s'chach or not revolves around another issue - their susceptibility to contracting ritual impurity.
Those which are "male" - i.e., the end of their body is sharpened and comes to a point, which is intended to be put inside a metal arrowhead.
are kosher - for the arrow itself is considered a simple wooden utensil which is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. (See Hilchot Keilim 1:10.)
The Magen Avraham 629:2 states that this decision applies only before these arrows were placed in the arrowhead. If they have been placed in the arrowhead, even if subsequently removed they are no longer acceptable ass'chach.
those which are "female" - i.e., the end of their body is hollowed out for the arrowhead to be inserted within
are not acceptable. - for they are subject to contracting ritual impurity.
Even though [ultimately,] they will be filled with iron - Hilchot Keilim 2:3 states: "A receptacle which is made to be filled is not considered a receptacle." Thus, one might assume that these arrows would also not be considered as having a receptacle. The Pri Ha'aretz explains that since the iron arrowheads are often removed from these bodies, it is considered as though...
they have a receptacle. Hence, they are susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, as are all utensils with receptacles. - It must be noted that Rashi and other commentators follow the simple interpretation of Sukkah 12b (the source for this law) and disagree with the Rambam's decision in Hilchot Keilim. They maintain that if a utensil has a receptacle, even if it will be permanently filled, it is subject to contracting ritual impurity.
Halacha 6
A mat of reeds, of raw rubber, or of hemp - if it is small, we may assume that it was made to lie on. Therefore, it may not be used for s'chach unless it was [explicitly] made for this purpose.
If it is large, we may assume that it was made for shade; therefore, it may be used for s'chach unless it was [explicitly] made to lie on.
If it has a border, even a large mat may not be used as s'chach, because it is considered to be a receptacle. Even if the border were removed, it may not be used as s'chach, because it would be considered to be a broken utensil.
Commentary Halacha
A mat of reeds, of raw rubber, or of hemp - if it is small, we may assume that it was made to lie on. - The commentaries note an apparent contradiction in the Rambam's words. Hilchot Keilim 25:13 states that even a small mat of reeds or hemp is not subject to contracting ritual impurity, because it is uncomfortable to lie on.
Therefore, it may not be used for s'chach unless it was [explicitly] made for this purpose. - Since the mat was made with that specific intention, we do not follow the general principles, but rather judge it individually.
If it is large - The Rambam's statements are based on Sukkah 20a. It must be noted that his decisions are dependent on the version of the text of the Talmud he accepted. The Ra'avad and others interpret the word גדולה as related to the word גדיל (tassel). Thus, they explain that the Talmud is referring to a small mat. However, because it is made of thick tassels, rather than woven, it is not comfortable to lie on, and hence would most likely be used for shade. According to this opinion, any woven mat, even if it is large, is unfit to be used as s'chach. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:6) quotes the Rambam's interpretation.
we may assume that it was made for shade; therefore, it may be used for s'chach unless it was [explicitly] made to lie on. - The Ramah (Orach Chayim, ibid.) mentions that in places where it is customary to affix mats permanently as the roofs for homes, they may not be used for s'chach. The Rabbis instituted this decree lest people remain in their homes on Sukkot without differentiating between them and a sukkah.
If it has a border - a small lip (Sukkah 20b)
even a large mat may not be used as s'chach, because it is considered to be a receptacle. - Tosafot, Sukkah 20b quotes Ketubot 50b, which explains that such mats were used to collect dates.
Even if the border was removed, it may not be used as s'chach, because it would be considered to be a broken utensil. - which, as explained in Halachah 2, may not be used as s'chach even though they are not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity.
Halacha 7
Boards which are less than four handbreadths wide may be used for s'chacheven though they have been planed. If they are more than four handbreadths wide, they should not be used as s'chach, even though they have not been planed. This is a decree [instituted] lest one sit under a roof and regard it as a sukkah.
If one placed a board which was more than four handbreadths wide over [a sukkah, the sukkah] is kosher. However, one should not sleep under the board. A person who did sleep under the board has not fulfilled his obligation.
There were boards that were four handbreadths wide, but less than four handbreadths thick. A person turned them on their side so that they would not be four handbreadths wide to use them as s'chach. This is not acceptable, because a board is unacceptable for use as s'chach whether one uses its width or thickness.
Commentary Halacha
Boards which are less than four handbreadths wide - In many places throughout the Talmud, four handbreadths is established as the minimum size of an area. Hence, a board of that size is considered significant and may not be used as s'chach (Sukkah 14a).
may be used for s'chach even though they have been planed - smooth, and thus are fit to be used in their present state (Sukkah 15a; Rabbenu Manoach).
If they are more than four handbreadths wide, they should not be used as s'chach, even though they have not been planed. This is a decree [instituted] lest one sit under a roof and regard it as a sukkah. - A person might think: "What is the difference between the sukkah and my house - they are both covered with boards?" This is surely a false assumption. As explained in the following halachah, since the boards of a roof were not placed there for the purpose of shade, but rather to be part of the permanent structure of the house, they cannot be considered to be s'chach (Sukkah 14a; Rabbenu Manoach).
If one placed a board which was more than four handbreadths wide over [a sukkah, the sukkah] is kosher. - The Maggid Mishneh explains that this applies only when the board is placed at the side of the sukkah. Thus, it could be considered to be an extension of the wall (דופן עקומה), as explained in Halachah 14. However, if it is in the midst of the sukkah, it is not acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this law can apply even in the midst of a sukkah, provided the sukkah already possesses its minimum size. His decisions in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:1 follow this interpretation.
However, one should not sleep under the board. - According to the Maggid Mishneh, because it is part of the wall; according to the Kessef Mishneh, because it appears to be a separate domain.
A person who did sleep - or fulfilled any other of the activities which must be performed in the sukkah
under the board has not fulfilled his obligation.
There were boards that were four handbreadths wide, but less than four handbreadths thick. A person turned them on their side so that they would not be four handbreadths wide to use them as s'chach. This is not acceptable, because a board is unacceptable for use as s'chach whether one uses its width or thickness. - Sukkah 14b explains that after the Sages forbade the use of such boards, they are considered to be equivalent to iron poles.
The Magen Avraham 629:22 writes that at present it is customary not to use boards as s'chach, even if they are less than four handbreadths wide. However, if there is no other s'chach available, one may use boards for that purpose even if they are more than four handbreadths wide.
Halacha 8
A roof which is not covered by a ceiling - i.e., the plaster and the stones - but rather has only boards fixed in place, is not acceptable, since they were not placed there for the purpose of a sukkah, but to be part of the house.
Therefore, if one lifted up the boards and removed the nails with the intent [that they serve] as a sukkah, it is kosher. [This applies provided] that each board is not four handbreadths wide.
Similarly, it is kosher if one removed a board from between two others and replaced it with kosher s'chach, with the intention [that it serve] as a sukkah.
Commentary Halacha
A roof which is not covered by a ceiling - i.e., the plaster and the stones - but rather has only boards fixed in place, is not acceptable, since they were not placed there for the purpose of a sukkah - as required by the following halachah
but to be part of the house. Therefore, if one - performed two activities:
a) lifted up the boards - from their place. (Though the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:9 does not mention this requirement, the Mishnah Berurah 631:4 does.)
and b) removed the nails - holding the boards in position. (See the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:7.) Through these actions, one is considered to have nullified the previous placement of the boards, and it is considered as though they have been placed there...
with the intent [that they serve] as a sukkah - Therefore
it is kosher - for the boards are essentially fit to be used as s'chach. The only difficulty was the intention with which they were originally placed. A change of mind without an act is not sufficient, since, as explained in the commentary on the following halachah, we are required to "make" a sukkah and not use one which has already been made.
[This applies provided] that each board is not four handbreadths wide. -as explained in the previous halachah. Rabbenu Asher states that in such a situation, the sukkah is acceptable even though the boards are more than four handbreadths wide.
He explains that in the previous instance, the reason the Sages forbade using such boards was to differentiate between them and the boards of a house. In the present instance, the fact that the person took apart the roof of his house obviously implies that he realizes that it may not be used as a sukkah. Hence, there is no need for such a decree. This opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, ibid.
Halacha 9
A sukkah that was made for any purpose whatsoever - even if it was not made for the purpose of [fulfilling] the mitzvah - if it was made according to law, it is kosher. However, it must be made for the purpose of shade. Examples of this are sukkot made for gentiles, sukkot made for animals, and the like.
In contrast, a sukkah that came about on its own accord is unacceptable, because it was not made for the purpose of shade. Similarly, when a person hollows out a place in a heap of produce and thus makes a sukkah, it is not considered to be a sukkah, because the produce was not piled there for this purpose. Accordingly, were one to create a space one handbreadth [high] and seven [handbreadths] in area for the purpose of a sukkah, and afterwards hollow it out till it reached ten [handbreadths], it is kosher, since its s'chach was placed for the purpose of shade.
Commentary Halacha
A sukkah that was made for any purpose whatsoever - even if it was not made for the purpose of [fulfilling] the mitzvah - if it was made according to law - Sukkah 8b quotes a baraita which contains the latter statement and questions: "What does 'according to law' mean?...That it was made for the purpose of shade."
It appears that the Rambam uses the same expression, but with different implications. Since he explicitly states that the sukkah must be constructed for the purpose of shade, one might infer that the expression "according to law" is intended to include other concepts. Thus, it can be a reference to the requirements for a sukkah's size and the nature of the materials used for thes'chach, as mentioned in this and the previous chapter.
it is kosher. - The Mishnah, Sukkah 1:1, states:
An old sukkah: The School of Shammai deems it unacceptable, while the School of Hillel rules it kosher.
The commentaries explain that the term "an old sukkah" refers to any sukkah that was constructed for purposes other than the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
In its discussion of this law, the Jerusalem Talmud requires that one must make an addition or change to the s'chach. Though that decision is not quoted by the Rambam, Rabbenu Asher mentions it and it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 636:1). Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham 636:1 explains that this is a desirable and proper step, but the sukkah is acceptable even though no changes have been made.
However, it must be made for the purpose of shade. - Isaiah 4:6 states: "It shall be a sukkah for shade from the heat...," thus defining the purpose of such a structure. A sukkah constructed for the purposes of modesty is not acceptable (Rabbenu Manoach).
Examples of this are sukkot made for gentiles, sukkot made for animals, and the like - which are outside the entire framework of mitzvot. Sukkah 8b also mentions the sukkot made for shepherds and watchmen. Though the latter are obligated to keep the mitzvah of sukkah, they did not necessarily construct their sukkot with that intent in mind.
In contrast, a sukkah that came about on its own accord - e.g., branches fell over a frame, and of course, any time a roof is covered for other purposes - e.g., the construction of a home, as mentioned in the previous halachah...
is unacceptable, because it was not made for the purpose of shade.
Similarly, when a person hollows out a place in a heap of produce and thus makes a sukkah, it is not considered to be a sukkah - Sukkot 12a explains that there is an added factor involved in this example. Deuteronomy 16:13 states: "Make a [celebration of] the Sukkot holiday for seven days." This refers to the construction of the sukkah and teaches that we must "make" a sukkah and not use what was already made. Therefore, despite the fact that the person hollowed out the space for the purpose of shade, the sukkah is not acceptable, because the produce was not originally placed there for that purpose.
We find a similar principle concerning tzitzit. Deuteronomy 22:12 states: "Make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garments." On the basis of this command, Menachot 40b teaches that it is unacceptable to tie tzitzit to a three-cornered garment and then cut a fourth corner, since we are required to maketzitzit, and not use what is already made.
for the produce was not piled there for this purpose. - The Ba'al Hamaorwrites that if, originally, a person were to pile produce with the intention that later he would hollow out a sukkah, the sukkah would be acceptable. However, this opinion is not accepted by other authorities.
Accordingly, were one to create a space one handbreadth [high] - We find the measure of one handbreadth considered to define a structure with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Accordingly, it is given significance in this context as well. (See Sukkah 16a.)
and seven [handbreadths] - by seven handbreadths
in area for the purpose of a sukkah, and afterwards hollow it out till it reached ten [handbreadths] - the minimum height of a sukkah, as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
it is kosher, since its s'chach was placed for the purpose of shade - and then, the original structure was merely expanded.
Halacha 10
We may not use bundles of straw, bundles of wood or bundles of reeds ass'chach. This decree [was instituted] lest one place those bundles on one's roof to dry out, and then change one's mind and sit under them with the intent [that they serve as] a sukkah. The person did not place the s'chach there originally for the purpose of shade. Thus, it resembles a sukkah that came about on its own accord.
If one untied [the bundles], they are acceptable [for use as s'chach]. A bundle is considered to be no fewer than twenty five units.
Commentary Halacha
We may not use bundles of straw, bundles of wood or bundles of reeds as s'chach. - Although, according to the Torah's requirements, these would be considered proper s'chach...
This decree [was instituted] - by the Sages (Sukkah 12a)...
lest one place those bundles on one's roof to dry out, and then change one's mind and sit under them with the intent [that they serve as] a sukkah. The person did not place the s'chach there originally for the purpose of shade. Thus, it resembles a sukkah that came about on its own accord. - which is unacceptable, as explained in the previous halachah.
If one - placed bundles of these substances on a roof with the intent that they would be used as s'chach and...
untied [the bundles], they are acceptable [for use as s'chach]. - TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:17) explains that a different rule applies if the bundles were originally placed on the roof to dry out. For them to be acceptable as s'chach, untying them alone is insufficient, and one must also shift the position of their contents.
A bundle is considered to be no fewer than twenty five units. - Thus, any lesser amount of these substances are acceptable as s'chach even though they are tied together.
The Rambam bases his statements on the Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 1:6). Though the Ra'avad maintains that a bundle may be composed of even a smaller number of units, the Rambam's opinion is accepted as halachah by theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:15.
Halacha 11
Small bundles that were tied together [to be sold] by number may be used ass'chach.
Similarly, if one cuts off the top of a date palm and the branches are bound to it, it may be used as s'chach, because elements that are bound naturally are not considered to be bundles. Furthermore, even if one tied the tops of the branches from one side, and they thus appear to be a single bundle with one of its two ends bound naturally and the other bound as a result of human activity, it may be used as s'chach. A single tree which is bound up is not considered to be a bundle, but rather a single piece of wood, since [the branches] are bound together naturally.
Similarly, any knot which is not strong enough to hold when carried is not considered a knot [and the resulting bundle may be used as s'chach].
Commentary Halacha
Though the Sages instituted the decree mentioned in the previous halachah, they made certain exceptions. Therefore...
Small bundles - The Kessef Mishneh questions the reason for the addition of the adjective, noting that if the bundles contain fewer than twenty five units, they are permitted, as stated in the previous halachah. Others mention that this refers to bundles of small branches.
that were tied together [to be sold] by number - to be untied immediately thereafter (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:16).
may be used as s'chach. - Sukkah 13b relates that bundles of this nature were frequently used in Sura, and that the Sages permitted them to be used ass'chach.
Similarly, if one cuts off the top of a date palm and the branches are bound to it, it may be used as s'chach, because elements that are bound naturally are not considered to be bundles. - The Ba'al Hamaor questions whether this principle applies only with regard to s'chach, where it is logical to assume that a more lenient position would be taken, since the entire question revolves around a Rabbinic decree, or whether it also applies in all cases where Torah law itself requires a bundle.
Furthermore, even if one tied the tops of the branches from one side and they thus appear to be a single bundle with one of its two ends bound naturally and the other bound as a result of human activity, it may be used as s'chach. A tree which is bound up is not considered to be a bundle, but rather a single piece of wood, since [the branches] are bound together naturally. - However, if one were to add even one branch and then tie them together, it would be considered to be a bundle (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:15).
Similarly, any knot which is not strong enough to hold when carried is not considered a knot [and the resulting bundle may be used as s'chach]. - Sukkah 13b mentions this principle when explaining why bundles of willows whose upper tie was loosened could be used as s'chach.
Halacha 12
A person who constructs his sukkah under a tree is considered as though he built it within his home.
If one draped the leaves and branches of trees [over the sukkah], and then placed s'chach over them, and only afterwards detached them, [the following rules apply:]
If the amount of [kosher] s'chach exceeded [the branches], it is kosher. If the amount of s'chach which originally was kosher did not exceed [the branches], one must move them after detaching them, so that they will have been put in place for the purpose of a sukkah.
Commentary Halacha
A person who constructs his sukkah under a tree is considered as though he built it within his home - and the sukkah is unacceptable. This applies only when the shade the tree produces exceeds the open area. However, if there is more open space under the tree than shade, the sukkah may be kosher.
The determination of whether such a sukkah is kosher depends on a number of principles, based on the interpretation of Sukkah 9b and 11a. The Rambam's interpretation of that passage, and thus the ground rules he establishes, differ from those accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 626:1-2).
In the following halachah, the Rambam deals with the resolution of the question when no effort has been made to correct the problem of the non-koshers'chach. As will be explained, there his interpretation is contested by other authorities. In this halachah, the Rambam describes the rulings which govern the situation when an effort has been made to rectify the situation by detaching the branches from their source of nurture. These are based on the Mishnah,Sukkah 11a, and are also accepted by other Rabbinic authorities. (See theShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 626:2.)
If one draped the leaves and branches of trees [over the sukkah], and then placed s'chach over them, and only afterwards detached them - As mentioned in Halachot 1 and 2, branches are fit to be used for s'chach only after they have been detached from their source of nurture.
[the following rules apply:]
If the amount of [kosher] s'chach exceeded [the branches], it is kosher. -Though at present, the branches would be acceptable as s'chach, as explained in the commentary on Halachah 9, the Torah requires that when s'chach is originally put in place, it must be kosher. Otherwise, it is unacceptable even though steps were taken to correct the disqualifying factors. This is based on the principle that one must make a sukkah and not use one which is already made.
Nevertheless, since the prohibition against using these branches as s'chachdoes not relate to their essential nature, their presence may be nullified when there is a majority of kosher s'chach. This conforms to the principle of ביטול ברב.
If the amount of s'chach which originally was kosher did not exceed [the branches] - the presence of the branches remains halachically significant. Hence,...
one must move them - i.e., each of the branches individually (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.)
after detaching them, so that they will have been put in place for the purpose of a sukkah. - Moving the branches negates their previous placement, and afterwards they are considered to be kosher s'chach, which was put in place for the purpose of creating a sukkah.
Halacha 13
If one mixed a substance which may be used for s'chach with a substance that may not be used for s'chach and used the two as s'chach, even though the quantity of kosher s'chach exceeds that of the substance which was not acceptable as s'chach, [the mixture] is not acceptable.
If one covered the sukkah with the two substances and kept them separate, [the following rules apply:] If there are more than three handbreadths of the substance which is not acceptable as s'chach in one place, whether in the middle of the sukkah or at its side, it is not acceptable.
Commentary Halacha
If one mixed a substance which may be used for s'chach with a substance that may not be used for s'chach - This may refer to a substance like metal, which is unfit for use as s'chach because it does not grow in the earth, or branches of a tree which have not been detached from their source of nurture.
and used - the mixture of...
the two as s'chach, even though the quantity of kosher s'chach exceeds that of the substance which was not acceptable as s'chach - The presence of the substance which is not acceptable as s'chach is not nullified according to the principles of ברב ביטול, because it exists as a separate entity which can be distinguished from the kosher s'chach.
Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son, notes the apparent contradiction between this decision and Halachah 3, which states:
[When one uses] branches from a fig tree which contain figs,...We see if the waste is more than the food; then we may use them as s'chach.
That halachah also mentions kosher s'chach - the branches - and substances which are not acceptable as s'chach - the figs. However, if there is a greater quantity of branches, the presence of the figs is nullified. In contrast, in this halachah, that concept is not applied.
Rav Avraham distinguishes between the two. In Halachah 3, the person does not intend to use the fruit for the purpose of shade; he merely wants to save the effort of removing it from the branches. Therefore, their presence may be nullified. In contrast, in this halachah the substances which are not acceptable as s'chach are being employed for the purpose of shade itself. Hence, their presence cannot be nullified.
[the mixture] is not acceptable. - As mentioned above, this decision depends on the Rambam's interpretation of Sukkah 9b. That passage reads:
A person who constructs his sukkah under a tree is considered as though he built it within his home...Ravva said: "The above applies only to a tree whose shade is greater than its open space. However, if its open space is greater than its shade, it is kosher.What difference does it make if its open space is greater than its shade, the substance not acceptable as s'chach will be combined with the kosher s'chach[and therefore, the sukkah will not be acceptable]?Rav Pappa said: בשחבטן.
The Maggid Mishneh, the Ra'avad, and Rabbenu Manoach explain that the Rambam renders בשחבטן as "when he separated them." Thus, when the two substances were combined, the Rambam's opinion would be that the sukkah is not kosher, as explained in this clause of the halachah. When they are separate, the sukkah may be kosher according to the stipulations mentioned in the following clause of this halachah and the halachot to come.
(The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam renders בשחבטן as "when he severed them." However, that difference in interpretation does not result in a difference in halachah.)
Rashi and others interpret בשחבטן as "when he lowered them (and mixed them together with the kosher s'chach)." Thus, according to this opinion, the sukkah is acceptable when the kosher and non-kosher s'chach are mixed together. Thus, this view is diametrically opposed to the Rambam's, who maintains that such a mixture is of no avail.
As noted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 626:1), there are two ways of understanding this interpretation of the passage. However, since both of them are not acceptable to the Rambam, their explanation will not be included here.
If one covered the sukkah with the two substances and kept them separate - When there is a majority of kosher s'chach, it is judged to be an independent entity. When there is a sufficient amount of kosher s'chach, the sukkah is kosher unless the substance that is not acceptable as s'chach is placed in a manner which can disqualify the entire sukkah, as is explained in this and the following three halachot.
[the following rules apply:] If there are more than three handbreadths of the substance which is not acceptable as s'chach in one place - The principle of l'vud, by which this substance could be considered to be a continuation of the kosher s'chach, cannot apply. However, if there is less than three handbreadths of the substance that is not acceptable as s'chach in one place, even though there are a number of such patches among the s'chach, the sukkah is kosher, as stated in Halachah 16. Furthermore, one may eat and sleep under the non-kosher s'chach (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:1).
whether - the substance which is not acceptable as s'chach is placed...
in the middle of the sukkah or at its side, it is not acceptable. - As stated in the following halachot, this is relevant only with regard to a sukkah which possesses the minimum area. The reason the sukkah is not acceptable is not that it is disqualified by the non-kosher s'chach, but that it does not have the minimum amount of kosher s'chach (Sukkah 17b).
Halacha 14
Where does the above apply? In a small sukkah. However, in a large sukkah, where there is a substance that is unacceptable as s'chach in the middle, it disqualifies the sukkah if there are four handbreadths of it. [If there is] less than that, the sukkah is kosher.
Where the substance that is unacceptable as s'chach is at the side, it disqualifies the sukkah if there are four cubits of it. [If there is] less than that, the sukkah is kosher.
For example,
a) [the roof of] a house which was opened in the center and s'chach placed over the opening
b) a courtyard surrounded by an exedra which was covered with s'chach
c) a large sukkah over which was placed a substance that was not acceptable as s'chach near the sides of its walls.
[In all these cases,] if there are four cubits [or more] from the edge of the kosher s'chach until the wall, it is not acceptable. If there is less than that amount, we view it as though the wall has been made crooked - i.e., the substance that is not acceptable as s'chach is considered part of the wall and it is kosher. This concept is a halachah received by Moses on Mount Sinai.
Commentary Halacha
Where does the above apply? In a small sukkah. - See the commentary on both the previous and following halachot.
However, in a large sukkah - which possesses a minimal amount of koshers'chach, more lenient rules apply...
where there is a substance that is unacceptable as s'chach in the middle, it disqualifies the sukkah if there are four handbreadths of it - across the entire span of the sukkah, dividing the sukkah in half, it is considered to be significant (Rashi, Sukkah 17a), and hence the sukkah is disqualified.
The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:2) emphasizes that even where the non-kosher s'chach is of this size, if the sukkah possesses seven cubits by seven cubits of kosher s'chach in one place, that portion may be considered to be a kosher sukkah and used during the holiday.
[If there is] less than that - the division is not as noticeable. Hence,
the sukkah is kosher. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 632:1) states that one may eat and sleep throughout the entire sukkah. However, the Ra'avad and Rabbenu Nissim do not accept this leniency, and the Mishnah Berurah(632:3) advises following this stringency.
Where the substance that is unacceptable as s'chach is at the side, it disqualifies the sukkah if there are four cubits of it. - Four cubits or more exceeds the measure of leniency provided by the Torah.
[If there is] less than that, the sukkah is kosher. - on the basis of the principle of דופן עקומה explained below.
For example, a) [the roof of] a house which was opened in the center and s'chach placed over the opening - This and the following examples are given by the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:10.
b) a courtyard surrounded by an excedrah - note the drawing accompanying Chapter 4, Halachah 8.
which was covered with s'chach - Sukkah 17a explains that one might not necessarily have been able to deduce this example from the previous one, because in that instance the walls of the house were constructed for it. In contrast, the walls of the excedrah were not constructed for its sake, but for the houses on either side.
c) a large sukkah over which was placed a substance that was not acceptable as s'chach near the sides of its walls. - Sukkah 17a explains that one might not necessarily have been able to deduce this example from the previous ones, because in those instances only kosher s'chach was placed over the opening of those structures. In this instance, a substance that is not acceptable as s'chach was placed on the roof intentionally.
[In all these cases,] if there are four cubits [or more] from the edge of the kosher s'chach until the wall, it is not acceptable. If there is less than that amount, we view it as though the wall has been made crooked - i.e., the substance that is not acceptable as s'chach is considered part of the wall - Rabbenu Nissim states that this law applies only when the walls reach all the way to the s'chach. Otherwise, it is impossible to consider the non-koshers'chach to be an extension of the walls. The Tur and the Taz quote more lenient positions and allow such a sukkah, even though the walls do not reach the s'chach.
and it is kosher. - Though the sukkah as a whole is kosher, one may not eat or sleep under the non-kosher s'chach if it is four handbreadths or more in size (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). The rationale behind this decision is that the non-kosher s'chach is considered to be part of the wall and not part of the s'chach.
This concept is a halachah received by Moses on Mount Sinai. - The latter term refers to a law that was transferred from generation to generation reaching back to Mount Sinai. Nevertheless, there is no mention of - or even direct allusion to - it in the written Torah. See Eduyot 8:7.
Halacha 15
What is a small sukkah? Any [sukkah] whose area is no more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths.
[What is meant by] a large one? Any [sukkah] [whose area is large enough] that seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths of kosher s'chach will remain besides the s'chach which is not acceptable.
Commentary Halacha
What is a small sukkah? - referred to in the previous two halachot and in Halachah 20
Any [sukkah] whose area is no more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths. - As explained above, if there are three handbreadths or more of non-kosher s'chach in one place, the principle of l'vud cannot apply. Hence, the sukkah is not kosher, because it lacks the minimum amount of s'chach(Sukkah 17a). However, if there is less than that amount of non-kosher s'chach, the non-kosher s'chach is included as part of the sukkah and is counted as part of its minimum size (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.).
[What is meant by] a large one? Any [sukkah whose area is large enough] that seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths of kosher s'chach will remain besides the s'chach which is not acceptable. - Since it is of sufficient size, it will be disqualified only when it is divided in half by a significant portion of non-kosher s'chach, or when it is too far, i.e., more than four cubits, removed from the walls.
Halacha 16
If one used as s'chach substances that were acceptable as s'chach and substances that were not acceptable as s'chach, and placed them alongside each other, leaving no place with non-kosher s'chach more than three handbreadths in area, [the following rules apply:]
If the total of the kosher s'chach exceeds that of the non-kosher s'chach, it is kosher. If there was an exactly equal amount of both substances, it is not acceptable even though there is not a single place which has three handbreadths [of non-kosher s'chach]. [This decision is rendered] because non-kosher s'chach is considered to be open space.
Commentary Halacha
If one used as s'chach substances that were acceptable as s'chach and substances that were not acceptable as s'chach, and placed them alongside each other, leaving no place with non-kosher s'chach more than three handbreadths in area - so that even in a small sukkah, all the conditions mentioned in the above halachot are met, there is a further requirement before the sukkah is considered kosher.
[the following rules apply:] If the total of the kosher s'chach exceeds that of the non-kosher s'chach, it is kosher. - This concept can be derived from the Mishnah (Sukkah 1:8): "If someone places iron staves or the frames of a bed as the roof of his sukkah, it is kosher, provided there is an equivalent amount of empty space."
In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam emphasizes that the word "equivalent" should be interpreted loosely, since there must be more koshers'chach than the non-kosher s'chach.
If there was an exactly equal amount of both substances, it is not acceptable - This decision has raised questions from all authorities. Though the Rambam's decision is based on Sukkah 15a, Eruvin 15b states that a divider whose open portion is as great as its closed portion is considered to be a divider. Indeed, the Rambam himself quotes that decision in Hilchot Shabbat16:16. If so, why does he not follow the same principle in this instance as well?
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's decision is based on the fact that there is no way that there will not be some tiny open spaces within the kosher s'chach of a sukkah. Accordingly, even if the kosher s'chach is equal in area to the non-kosher s'chach, the tiny spaces between the kosher s'chach will tip the balance in favor of the non-kosher s'chach.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:8 quotes the Rambam's decision as halachah, but adds as a reason (a quote from Rabbenu Tam's text of Sukkah15b): "for it is impossible to be exact." This implies that were it possible to know that the kosher s'chach is exactly equal to the non-kosher s'chach, it would be acceptable. See also commentary to Halachah 19.
even though there is not a single place which has three handbreadths [of non-kosher s'chach] - in a small sukkah, or four handbreadths in a large sukkah.
Halacha 17
If one spread a cloth above [the s'chach] or spread one below it to catch [the leaves] which fall, it is unacceptable. If one spread it [under the s'chach] as a decoration, it is kosher. Similarly, if one covered the sukkah with s'chach as required by law and adorned it with various types of fruit, delicacies, and articles which hang from either the walls or the s'chach as a decoration, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha
If one spread a cloth above [the s'chach] - for added shade (Sukkah 1:3)
or spread one below it to catch [the leaves] which fall - the bracketed additions are based on the Rambam's commentary on that Mishnah.
it is unacceptable. - The cloth nullifies the presence of the kosher s'chach above or below it.
(Tosafot explains that as long as the sukkah has sufficient s'chach without the cloth, the cloth will not necessarily nullify the presence of the kosher s'chach. However, the majority of the halachic authorities and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:19 do not accept this view.)
However, once the cloth is lifted away, the kosher s'chach is acceptable without any further activity. (See Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 626:3.) Thus, a roof can be constructed to protect a sukkah from rain, provided it is removed while the sukkah is being used.
If one spread it [under the s'chach] as a decoration, it is kosher. - for a decoration is considered to be an extension of the article it adorns.
Similarly, if one covered the sukkah with s'chach as required by law and adorned it - Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes how the s'chach should be set in place before the decorations. Otherwise, they could be considered as intervening substances.
with various types of fruit, delicacies, and articles - Sukkah 10a describes the decoration of a sukkah with tapestries, nuts, pomegranates, grapes, and flasks of wine, oil, and flour.
which hang from either the walls or the s'chach as a decoration, it is kosher. - and one is permitted to eat and sleep under the decorations.
Halacha 18
Sukkah decorations do not reduce its height, but they do reduce its width.
If the sukkah decorations are four handbreadths or more removed from the roof, it is unacceptable, because it is as though a person who sits there is not sitting under the s'chach, but rather under the decorations, which are foods and utensils that are not acceptable as s'chach.
Commentary Halacha
Sukkah decorations do not reduce its height - i.e., if the inner space of the sukkah is more than twenty cubits high and the sukkah is therefore not acceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 1), the presence of the decorations is not considered significant to reduce that space to the legal requirements.
Alternatively, if the sukkah is very low and the decorations reduce its inner space to less than ten handbreadths, it is still kosher. (See Halachah 2 with regard to branches.) They are considered to be part of the s'chach, and the space they take up is not taken into account (Kessef Mishneh, Rabbenu Manoach).
but they do reduce its width. - The Bach (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim639) explains that since we are forbidden to use these adornments throughout the holiday, they are considered to be a permanent part of the sukkah. Thus, the sukkah must have a full seven by seven handbreadths of open space besides them.
If the sukkah decorations are four handbreadths or more - as mentioned frequently above, four handbreadths constitutes a significant space
removed from the roof - they are considered to be non-kosher s'chach, and if they are of the size mentioned in Halachot 13 and 14...
it is unacceptable, because it is as though a person who sits there is not sitting under the s'chach, but rather under the decorations, which are foods and utensils that are not acceptable as s'chach. - See Chapter 5, Halachot 1 and 2.
The Taz (627:5) cautions against hanging any decorations more than four handbreadths away from the s'chach regardless of how small they are.
Halacha 19
The [following rules apply when the] s'chach has open spaces through which the sky can be seen: If the area of the open spaces is equivalent to that of the space covered by s'chach, it is not acceptable, because the portion exposed to the sun will be greater than the shaded portion. Whenever the portion exposed to the sun is greater than the shaded portion, it is not considered as s'chach.
If the s'chach exceeds the open space, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha
The [following rules apply when the] s'chach has open spaces through which the sky can be seen: If the area of the open spaces is equivalent to - and of course, if it is more than
that of the space covered by s'chach, it is not acceptable, because -Although the sukkah should be acceptable as long as the covered portion is equal to the open portion, in this situation...
the portion exposed to the sun will be greater than the shaded portion. -Sukkah 22b explains that light spreads out. Accordingly, even though on the roof the portion covered by s'chach is equal to the uncovered portion, on the ground the area exposed to the sun will be greater than the shaded area. See also the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:1.
Whenever the portion exposed to the sun is greater than the shaded portion, it is not considered as s'chach. - As mentioned in Halachah 9, a sukkah must be constructed for the purpose of shade. If the portion exposed to the sun is greater than the shaded portion, it obviously does not serve that purpose.
If the s'chach exceeds the open space, it is kosher. - On the surface, the Rambam's choice of phraseology is slightly inexact, because everything depends on the amount of shade on the ground.
Halacha 20
When does the above apply? When there is no one open space of three handbreadths. However, if there is an open space of three handbreadths - whether in the center or at the side - it is unacceptable until one reduces [the space] to less than three.
If one used substances that were not acceptable as s'chach - e.g., pillows and blankets - to reduce the space, it is kosher if the sukkah is large. If it is a small sukkah, it is not acceptable unless [the space] was reduced with a substance that is acceptable as s'chach.
When the shaded portion of most of the sukkah exceeds the portion exposed to the sun, although in the lesser part of the sukkah the portion exposed to the sun exceeds the shaded portion, because as a whole the shaded portion exceeds the portion exposed to the sun, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha
When does the above apply? When there is no one open space - To disqualify the sukkah, the empty space must extend across the entire span of the sukkah or create a place large enough for a person to stand in (Tosafot, Sukkah 17a; Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:2).
Furthermore, if the sukkah area is more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths in addition to the open space, the remaining covered area of the sukkah is kosher.
of three handbreadths - Any space less than three handbreadths can be considered to be part of the s'chach on the basis of the principle of l'vud.
Though the sukkah as a whole is kosher, it is forbidden to eat or sleep under the open portion (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:2).
However, if there is an open space of three handbreadths - whether in the center - i.e., an empty space cutting the sukkah in two
or at the side - i.e., an empty space that runs from one corner of the sukkah to the other. Rashi, on Sukkah 17a, explains that the concept of דופן עקומה, by which non-kosher s'chach is considered an extension of the wall, does not apply in this instance. Since it is merely empty space, it cannot be considered to be an extension of the wall.
It must be emphasized that we are speaking about a sukkah with only three walls. If the sukkah has four walls, but there is an empty space between thes'chach and the fourth wall, the sukkah as a whole is kosher.
it is unacceptable until one reduces [the space] to less than three.
If one used substances that were not acceptable as s'chach - e.g., pillows and blankets - to reduce the space, it is kosher - Non-koshers'chach and open space are two different halachic categories. They have different measures with which they each disqualify a sukkah, and combinations of the two are not considered to be a single entity. Thus, if there is an open space three and a half handbreadths wide, one may correct the sukkah by putting one handbreadth of non-kosher s'chach in its place. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:3.)
if the sukkah is large. - The terms "large" and "small" are explained in Halachot 13-15.
If it is a small sukkah, it is not acceptable - because the sukkah has less than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths of kosher s'chach.
unless [the space] was reduced with a substance that is acceptable as s'chach.
When the shaded portion of most of the sukkah exceeds the portion exposed to the sun, although in the lesser part of the sukkah the portion exposed to the sun exceeds the shaded portion - i.e., there are two portions of the sukkah, one which is mostly shaded and one which is mostly exposed to the sun.
because - when the sukkah is taken...
as a whole the shaded portion exceeds the portion exposed to the sun, it is kosher - and one may eat and sleep in the part of the sukkah where the portion exposed to the sun exceeds the shaded portion (Magen Avraham631:1). The Ramah quotes a more stringent opinion which forbids using the portion with more sun if it is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths in area.
Halacha 21
The proper way is that s'chach should be thin, so that the large stars can be seen through it. However, even though it is thick - like [the roof of] a house - and stars cannot be seen through it, it is kosher.
If the s'chach is uneven - i.e., some of it high and some of it low - it is kosher, provided there is less than three handbreadths between the upper and lower [portions of the s'chach]. If the upper portion [of the s'chach] is a handbreadth or more wide, even though it is more than three handbreadths above [the lower portion], we consider it to be descending and touching the edge of the lower portion. [This applies] provided it is aligned opposite the edge of the lower portion.
Commentary Halacha
The proper way - Shulchan Aruch HaRav (631:5) uses the expression לכתחילה - i.e., one should set out to construct a sukkah in this manner.
is that s'chach should be thin, so that the large stars can be seen through it. - From the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 2:3, the source for this statement, it appears that the expression "large stars" means stars large enough to be seen during the day.
However, even though it is thick - like [the roof of] a house - and stars cannot be seen through it - The latter expression is quoted from the Mishnah, Sukkah 2:2.
it is kosher. - Shulchan Aruch HaRav (631:5) uses the expression בדיעבד (after the fact), implying that it is not desirable to construct a sukkah in this manner. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berurah (631:5) quotes many Ashkenazic authorities who tend toward making the s'chach thick.
The above applies only with regard to placing the s'chach. However, afterwards, even when the s'chach is thick, a person should have no compunctions about using such a sukkah.
Though thick s'chach is kosher, the Magen Avraham 631:2 notes that if it is so thick that rain will not enter the sukkah, the sukkah is unacceptable, because then it resembles a house and not a temporary dwelling made for shade.
If the s'chach was uneven - Sukkah 22a questions: "What is the meaning of the word מדובללת used by the Mishnah?" Shmuel (whom the halachah follows) replies: "One reed going upward and one reed going downward."
i.e., some of it high and some of it low - it is kosher - Even though there will gaps in the s'chach and during certain times of the day, when the sun shines at an angle, the portion of the sukkah exposed to the sun will exceed the shaded portion (Ramah, Orach Chayim 631:5).
provided there is less than three handbreadths between the upper and lower [portions of the s'chach]. - As explained previously, any distance less than three handbreadths is not significant because of the principle of l'vud.
If the upper portion [of the s'chach] is a handbreadth - by a handbreadth, the minimum size of a roof. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 7.)
or more wide, even though it is more than three handbreadths above [the lower portion], we consider it to be descending and touching the edge of the lower portion. - This principle, referred to by Sukkah 22a as חבוט רמי - literally, "cast it down" - is one of the leniencies followed as a halachah received from Moses on Mount Sinai. It allows this uneven roof to be considered to be a single straight entity. The same principle is also applied in Hilchot Shabbat15:25 and Hilchot Tum'at Meit 16:5.
[This applies] provided it is aligned opposite the edge of the lower portion. - i.e., that the upper portion could be lowered into the space left open by the lower portion. However, if it would not fit exactly in between the spaces, this principle does not apply (Kessef Mishneh). The Lechem Mishneh, noting the Rambam's decision in Hilchot Shabbat, explains that even if the lower space is wider than the upper portion, as long as they do not overlap, it is acceptable.
The Merchevat Hamishneh explains that the law differs here from Hilchot Shabbat, because there is a principle that two halachot received from Moses on Mount Sinai cannot be used simultaneously to have a sukkah considered to be kosher.
In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 631:5), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the opinion he stated in the Kessef Mishneh. However, Shulchan Aruch HaRav(631:7) and others follow the view of the Lechem Mishneh.
Halacha 22
When a person constructs one sukkah on top of another sukkah, the lower one is unacceptable. It is considered as though it had been constructed in a house. [However,] the upper one is kosher.
When do we say that the lower one is unacceptable? When the inner space of the upper sukkah is ten handbreadths or more [high] and the roof of the lower sukkah is strong enough to hold the pillows and covers of the upper sukkah, even if that is done with difficulty.
However, if the inner space of the upper sukkah is less than ten handbreadths [high], or the roof of the lower sukkah is not strong enough to hold the pillows and covers of the upper sukkah, even with difficulty, even the lower sukkah is kosher. This applies provided the height of both together does not exceed twenty cubits, since [use of] the lower sukkah is permitted because of thes'chach of the upper one.
Commentary Halacha
When a person constructs one sukkah on top of another sukkah, the lower one is unacceptable. - Sukkah 9b explains that the verse which commands us to dwell in sukkot (Leviticus 23:42) spells the word - סכת - omitting the letter ו, which is usually used. On that basis, the Sages explained that a single structure may be used for one sukkah, but not for two. Of the two, the lower sukkah is disqualified because...
It is considered as though it had been constructed in a house. - since the floor of the upper sukkah is its roof, it may not be considered to be s'chach, because it was not placed there for purposes of shade alone, nor can the lower sukkah be acceptable because of the s'chach of the upper sukkah, for the floor intervenes between them.
[However,] the upper one is kosher - There is no reason that the presence of the lower sukkah should disqualify it.
When do we say that the lower one is unacceptable? When the inner space of the upper sukkah is ten handbreadths or more [high] - the minimum height of a sukkah, as explained in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
and the roof of the lower sukkah is strong enough to hold the pillows and covers of the upper sukkah - Otherwise, the upper sukkah is not fit to dwell in. Though a sukkah is only a temporary dwelling, it must be fit to be used for all the purposes for which one uses one's home, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 5.
even if that is done with difficulty. - i.e., even if the floor of the upper sukkah shakes when pillows and covers are placed on it (Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:2).
However, if the inner space of the upper sukkah is less than ten handbreadths [high], or the roof of the lower sukkah is not strong enough to hold the pillows and covers of the upper sukkah, even with difficulty - and thus, is unfit to be used.
even - The use of this word is questionable. It implies that both sukkot, the upper and the lower one, are kosher. The Kessef Mishneh states that if the upper sukkah is not fit to dwell in, it is not kosher, and therefore recommends striking the word "even" from the text. Though the Lechem Mishneh attempts to justify the use of the term, his arguments seem forced. However, it must be noted that most manuscripts and printings of the Mishneh Torah as well as the Rambam's and most other texts of the source for this halachah - the Mishnah,Sukkah 1:2 - include this word.
the lower sukkah is kosher. - for the reason that since its roof is of no functional purpose, it is not considered an intervening substance between the sukkah and the upper s'chach.
This applies provided the height of both together does not exceed 20 cubits - the maximum height of the sukkah, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
since [use of] the lower sukkah is permitted because of the s'chach of the upper one. - In the Kessef Mishneh - and also in the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 628:1) - Rav Yosef Karo explains that this applies only when thes'chach of the lower sukkah is not substantial enough to allow the use of the sukkah. However, if the s'chach of the lower sukkah alone produces enough shade to permit the use of the sukkah, it is kosher even though the s'chach of the upper sukkah is more than 20 cubits high.
He continues to explain that even though the presence of non-kosher s'chachnullifies the kosher s'chach below it, that applies only when the substance used is by nature not acceptable for use as s'chach. In this instance, the s'chach of the upper sukkah is fit to be used; the only difficulty is its position: its placement above the maximum height of the sukkah.
(Though this concept is found in Tosafot, Sukkah 9b, no allusion to it appears in the Rambam's statements. Indeed, the simple meaning of the Rambam's words implies the very opposite. Furthermore, in his commentary on the Mishnah [Sukkah 1:1], the Rambam explains that the reason s'chach placed higher than 20 cubits is unacceptable is that it makes the sukkah into a permanent dwelling. Thus, according to the Rambam, such s'chach can be compared to the boards of a house, which though originally kosher for use as s'chach, are disqualified because they became part of a permanent structure.)
Halacha 23
A bed [with a canopy placed] inside a sukkah: If [the canopy] is more than ten handbreadths high, a person who sits under it does not fulfill his obligation, because it is considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah.
Similarly, a canopy with a roof - even as small as a handbreadth: If it is ten handbreadths high, one may not sleep under it in a sukkah. By the same token, if one sets up four pillars and spreads a sheet over them, if they are ten [handbreadths high], they are considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah.
Commentary Halacha
A bed [with a canopy placed] inside a sukkah: If [the canopy] is more than ten handbreadths high - the minimum height for a dwelling to be considered to be an independent structure (Sukkah 20b).
In this and the following instances mentioned in this halachah, the ten handbreadths are measured from the ground to the canopy (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 627:2-3; Mishnah Berurah 627:5).
a person who sits under it does not fulfill his obligation - The Mishnah,Sukkah 2:1 relates:
An incident occurred concerning Tavi, Rabban Gamliel's slave. He would sleep under a [canopied] bed [in the sukkah]. Rabban Gamliel told the Sages: "See my slave, Tavi. He is well-learned and knows that slaves are free of the obligation of [dwelling in] the sukkah. Hence, he sleeps under a bed."
for it is considered to be a sukkah - with non-kosher s'chach
within a sukkah. - even if it has no walls (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 627:1)
Similarly, a canopy - placed over a bed
with a roof - even as small as a handbreadth: - As mentioned frequently above, a handbreadth is the minimum measure of a roof.
If it is ten handbreadths high, one may not sleep - or perform any other activity required to be performed in a sukkah. (Perhaps the Rambam mentions sleeping because it is an activity that may be performed only within a sukkah. Even a short nap should not be taken outside the sukkah. In contrast, a snack may be eaten outside a sukkah.)
under it in a sukkah. - for the same reasons mentioned above.
By the same token, if one sets up four pillars and spreads a sheet over them, if they are ten [handbreadths high], they are considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah. - Hence, we are forbidden to use the space below it as a sukkah.
This halachah depends on the Rambam's interpretation of the Mishnah, Sukkah1:3. However, Tosafot, Sukkah 10b and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim627:3) interpret the passage differently and forbid spreading a canopy over bedposts which are permanently affixed to the four corners of a bed, even if the canopy is less than ten handbreadths above the ground.
Halacha 24
In contrast, should one spread a sheet over two pillars or [use] a canopy that has a roof of less than a handbreadth - no matter how high they are - it is permitted to sleep under them within a sukkah. They are not considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah, because they do not have a roof.
Commentary Halacha
In contrast, should one spread a sheet over two pillars - Tosafot (ibid.) and the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) differ with this decision as well, and explain that if these pillars are ten handbreadths high and permanently affixed to the bed, it is forbidden to spread a sheet over them.
or [use] a canopy that has a roof of less than a handbreadth - If the canopy is not permanently affixed to the bed, even Tosafot and the Shulchan Aruch will permit its use.
no matter how high they are - i.e., even if they are more than ten handbreadths high.
it is permitted to sleep under them within a sukkah. - Sukkah 19a relates that Abbaye found Rav Yosef sleeping in a canopied bed in the sukkah. The latter explained that the canopy he was using was permitted because it did not have a roof.
They are not considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah, because they do not have a roof. - As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, such structures are not acceptable for use as a sukkah. Hence, they also cannot disqualify a sukkah.
Halacha 25
A borrowed sukkah is fit [to be used on the holiday]. Similarly, a stolen sukkah is also fit [for use].
What does the latter imply? If a person attacked a colleague, forced him to leave his sukkah, stole it, and dwelled in it, the attacker has fulfilled his obligation, because landed property cannot be stolen.
[Similarly,] if he stole wood and made a sukkah from it, he has fulfilled his obligation, because the Sages ordained that the owner of the wood is entitled only to the monetary worth of the wood. Even if one stole boards and merely put them in place without attaching them or changing anything about them, he has fulfilled his obligation.
If a person constructs his sukkah in the public domain, it is acceptable.
Commentary Halacha
A borrowed sukkah is fit [to be used on the holiday]. - Although, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 10, a person cannot fulfill the mitzvah of lulav as prescribed by the Torah with a lulav belonging to a colleague, that concept does not apply with regard to a sukkah.
Sukkah 27b explains the derivation of this concept as follows: Leviticus 23:42states: "Every citizen of Israel shall dwell in sukkot." The latter word is written סכת, implying one sukkah. This prompted our Sages to declare: "All Israel are fit to dwell in a single sukkah."
In his commentary, Rashi explains that the cost of such a sukkah would not be high enough to require every individual to pay a penny's worth. Hence, we must assume that some people would be using a borrowed sukkah, and, nevertheless, our Sages said that it was kosher.
Similarly, a stolen sukkah is also fit [for use]. - There is a slight imprecision with the Rambam's statements. A stolen object which the thief is obligated to return cannot be used to perform a mitzvah, because it is considered a mitzvah that came about through a sin (מצוה הבאה בעבירה). However, in the instances cited by the Rambam, the sukkah itself is never considered stolen property. Hence, the use of such a sukkah is not forbidden. However, in a number of instances (see below), the sukkah itself is considered to be stolen property and must be returned. Hence, it cannot be used to fulfill the mitzvah.
What does the latter imply? If a person attacked a colleague, forced him to leave his sukkah, stole it, and dwelled in it, the attacker has fulfilled his obligation, because landed property cannot be stolen. - Hilchot Gezeilah 8:14 relates that "landed property is never acquired by a thief, but rather remains in the possession of its owner forever."
Since the sukkah is built on the land, it is considered part of the property and the above rule applies to it as well. Thus, the sukkah is still considered to be the property of its original owner and the thief is viewed as merely "borrowing" the sukkah from him. As mentioned above, use of a borrowed sukkah is permitted.
[Similarly,] if he stole wood and made a sukkah from it, he has fulfilled his obligation - Sukkah 31a relates that a woman once came to Rav Nachman complaining that the exilarch's servants had stolen wood from her to build his sukkah.
Rav Nachman answered that they had, nevertheless, fulfilled their obligation...
because the Sages ordained that the owner of the wood is entitled only to the monetary worth of the wood - but not the wood itself. Thus, the sukkah itself is the property of the thief. Though he is obligated to pay the owner for his wood, that obligation does not prevent the sukkah from being considered as his.
Hilchot Gezeilah 1:5 explains this principle by stating:
Anyone who steals is obligated to return the stolen property itself... If it was lost or changed, he is obligated to return its monetary value...Even if one steals a beam and builds a mansion [using it], since [the beam] has not been changed, the Torah law would require him to destroy the entire building and return the beam to its owner.Nevertheless, the Sages instituted a decree [to encourage] those who repent; they ordained that all that is necessary is for him to return [the beam's] monetary value, and thus he will not forfeit his building.
Rabbenu Manoach asks: Since the mitzvah of sukkah is commanded by the Torah, and Torah law regards these boards as stolen, how can the Sages' decree change their status in this context?
He explains that, as implied by the principle הפקר הפקר בית דין, the Torah has granted the Sages the right to determine the status of property. Their decree can alter entirely a person's rights to its title. Thus, in the present case, since Rabbinic law entitles the thief to use of the boards, he is permitted, according to Torah law, to use them as a Sukkah.
The Magen Avraham (637:5) writes that if the thief refuses to pay for the wood, it is considered to be the property of its original owner, and the thief does not fulfill his obligation.
Even if one stole boards and merely put them in place without attaching them or changing anything about them, he has fulfilled his obligation. -This is a special leniency granted out of respect for the mitzvah of sukkah (Sukkah, ibid.). Since the thief has not made any changes in the wood itself or built a permanent structure from it, the Rabbinic decree mentioned above would not apply. Thus, during the rest of the year (and even in this case, after the Sukkot festival), the wood would have to be returned. During the festival, the Sages considered it to be the property of the thief and he is allowed to use without any constraints throughout the festival (Hilchot Gezeilah, ibid.).
Nevertheless, in his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim637:3), Rav Yosef Karo gives two examples of a stolen sukkah which one is forbidden to use: a sukkah that had been constructed on a ship or one that had been constructed on a wagon. Since the thief did not build anything, the abovementioned Rabbinic decree does not apply; nor are they affixed to land, and hence the principle that landed property cannot be stolen is not relevant.
If a person constructs his sukkah in the public domain - Though the Jewish inhabitants of the city would surely not object to use of public property for this purpose, the gentile inhabitants of the city would. Since they also have a share in this property, building a sukkah there is equivalent to stealing from the public (Magen Avraham 637:3).
Nevertheless, since the theft of land is involved...
it is acceptable - for the reasons mentioned above. Note the Magen Avraham, ibid. and the Bi'ur Halachah, who discuss whether or not it is permitted to recite a blessing when using such a sukkah.
• "Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Yitro, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 97-103.
Tanya: Likewise the external (p. 95)...throughout their lives.(p.95).
My father wrote in one of his letters: According to the glosses of Ashri,1 when laving the hands for a meal, pour water over each hand three times consecutively; this was the practice of my father (R. Shmuel). He would leave a little water from the third pouring cupped in the palm of his left hand and, with this water, rub his hands together.
FOOTNOTES
1. Chulin, Chapter 8, Rosh, Section 43, quoting Riva.
Daily Thought
Diamonds and Emeralds
One man carries rocks for a livelihood. Give him emeralds and all he sees is more rocks.
Another carries diamonds with devotion and care. Give him the emeralds and he exclaims, "What beauty is here!"
Only one who values his own heritage is able to appreciate the beauty that others hold.[from a letter to Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his youth.]
___________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment