Torah Reading: Bo (Exodus 10:1
Adonai said to Moshe, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have made him and his servants hardhearted, so that I can demonstrate these signs of mine among them, 2 so that you can tell your son and grandson about what I did to Egypt and about my signs that I demonstrated among them, and so that you will all know that I am Adonai.” 3 Moshe and Aharon went in to Pharaoh and said to him, “Here is what Adonai, God of the Hebrews, says: ‘How much longer will you refuse to submit to me? Let my people go, so that they can worship me. 4 Otherwise, if you refuse to let my people go, tomorrow I will bring locusts into your territory. 5 One won’t be able to see the ground, so completely will the locusts cover it. They will eat anything you still have that escaped the hail, including every tree you have growing in the field. 6 They will fill your houses and those of your servants and of all the Egyptians. It will be like nothing your fathers or their fathers have ever seen since the day they were born until today.’” Then he turned his back and left.
7 Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How much longer must this fellow be a snare for us? Let the people go and worship Adonai their God. Don’t you understand yet that Egypt is being destroyed?” 8 So Moshe and Aharon were brought to Pharaoh again, and he said to them, “Go, worship Adonai your God. But who exactly is going?” 9 Moshe answered, “We will go with our young and our old, our sons and our daughters; and we will go with our flocks and herds; for we must celebrate a feast to Adonai.” 10 Pharaoh said to them, “Adonai certainly will be with you if I ever let you go with your children! It’s clear that you are up to no good. 11 Nothing doing! Just the men among you may go and worship Adonai. That’s what you want, isn’t it?” And they were driven out of Pharaoh’s presence.
)• Passing of R. Abraham Kalisker (1810)
Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk (1741-1810) was a controversial figure in the 3rd generation of Chassidic leaders. In his youth, he was a study partner of Rabbi Elijah "the Gaon of Vilna", who led the initial opposition against Chassidism; but later Rabbi Abraham himself joined the the forbidden kat ("sect", as the Chassidic movement was derisively called by its opponents) and became a disciple of Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezeritch, the successor to Chassidism's founder, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. After Rabbi DovBer's passing in 1772, much of the opposition to Chassidism was directed against Rabbi Abraham's disciples, who, more than any other group within the movement, mocked the intellectual elitism of the establishment's scholars and communal leaders; even Rabbi Abraham's own colleagues were dismayed by the "antics" of some of his disciples. In 1777, Rabbi Abraham joined the first Chassidic "aliyah", in which a group of more than 300 Chassidim led by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk emigrated to the Holy Land. Rabbi Abraham passed away in Tiberias on the 4th of Shevat of the year 5570 from creation (1810 CE).
• R. Israel Abuchatzera (1984)
Rabbi Israel Abuchatzera (1890-1984), known as "Baba Sali," was born in Tafillalt, Morocco to the llustrious Abuchatzera family. From a young age he was renowned as a sage, miracle maker and master kabbalist. In 1964 he moved to the Holy Land, eventually settling in the southern development town he made famous, Netivot. He passed away in 1984 on the 4th of Shevat. His graveside in Netivot has become a holy site visited by thousands annually.
Daily Quote:
As they set out from their place above, each soul is male and female as one. Only as they descend to this world do they part, each to its own side. And then it is the One Above who unites them again. This is His exclusive domain, for He alone knows which soul belongs to which and how they must reunite.[Zohar (Book I, 85b)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Bo, 5th Portion Exodus 12:21-12:28 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 12
21Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Draw forth or buy for yourselves sheep for your families and slaughter the Passover sacrifice. כאוַיִּקְרָ֥א משֶׁ֛ה לְכָל־זִקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ וּקְח֨וּ לָכֶ֥ם צֹ֛אן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹֽתֵיכֶ֖ם וְשַֽׁחֲט֥וּ הַפָּֽסַח:
Draw forth: Whoever has sheep shall draw from his own. משכו: מי שיש לו צאן ימשוך משלו:
or buy: Whoever has none shall buy from the market. — [from Mechilta] וקחו: מי שאין לו יקח מן השוק:
for your families: A lamb for a parental house. — [from Mechilta 3] למשפחתיכם: שה לבית אבות:
22And you shall take a bunch of hyssop and immerse [it] in the blood that is in the basin, and you shall extend to the lintel and to the two doorposts the blood that is in the basin, and you shall not go out, any man from the entrance of his house until morning. כבוּלְקַחְתֶּ֞ם אֲגֻדַּ֣ת אֵז֗וֹב וּטְבַלְתֶּם֘ בַּדָּ֣ם אֲשֶׁר־בַּסַּף֒ וְהִגַּעְתֶּ֤ם אֶל־הַמַּשְׁקוֹף֙ וְאֶל־שְׁתֵּ֣י הַמְּזוּזֹ֔ת מִן־הַדָּ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּסָּ֑ף וְאַתֶּ֗ם לֹ֥א תֵֽצְא֛וּ אִ֥ישׁ מִפֶּֽתַח־בֵּית֖וֹ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר:
hyssop: Heb. אֵזוֹב. A species of herb that has thin stalks. אזוב: מין ירק שיש לו גבעולין:
a bunch of hyssop: Three stalks are called a bunch. — [Sukkah 13a] אגדת אזוב: שלושה קלחין קרויין אגודה:
that is in the basin: Heb. בַּסַּף, in the vessel, like “silver pitchers (סִפּוֹת) ” (II Kings 12:14). [from Mechilta] אשר בסף: בכלי, כמו (מלכים ב' יב יד) ספות כסף:
the blood that is in the basin: Why does the text repeat this? So that you should not say that [Scripture means] one immersion for [all] the three sprinklings. Therefore, it says again: “that is in the basin,” [to indicate] that every sprinkling shall be from the blood that is in the basin-for each touching an immersion [is necessary]. — [from Mechilta] מן הדם אשר בסף: למה חזר ושנאו, שלא תאמר טבילה אחת לשלש המתנות, לכך נאמר עוד אשר בסף, ושתהא כל נתינה ונתינה מן הדם אשר בסף, על כל הגעה טבילה:
and you shall not go out, etc.: This tells [us] that once the destroyer is given permission to destroy, he does not discriminate between righteous and wicked. And night is the time that destroyers are given permission, as it is said: “in which every beast of the forest moves about” (Ps. 104:20). — [from Mechilta] ואתם לא תצאו וגו': מגיד שמאחר שנתנה רשות למשחית לחבל אינו מבחין בין צדיק לרשע, ולילה רשות למחבלים הוא, שנאמר (תהלים קד כ) בו תרמוש כל חיתו יער:
23The Lord will pass to smite the Egyptians, and He will see the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, and the Lord will pass over the entrance, and He will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses to smite [you]. כגוְעָבַ֣ר יְהֹוָה֘ לִנְגֹּ֣ף אֶת־מִצְרַ֒יִם֒ וְרָאָ֤ה אֶת־הַדָּם֙ עַל־הַמַּשְׁק֔וֹף וְעַ֖ל שְׁתֵּ֣י הַמְּזוּזֹ֑ת וּפָסַ֤ח יְהֹוָה֙ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח וְלֹ֤א יִתֵּן֙ הַמַּשְׁחִ֔ית לָבֹ֥א אֶל־בָּֽתֵּיכֶ֖ם לִנְגֹּֽף:
will pass over: Heb. וּפָסַח, and He will have pity. This may also be rendered: and He will skip over. See Rashi on verses 11 and 13. ופסח: וחמל, ויש לומר ודלג:
and He will not permit the destroyer: Heb. וְלֹא יִךְתֵּן, lit., and will not give. [I.e.,] He will not grant him the ability to enter, as in “but God did not permit him (נְתָנוֹ) to harm me” (Gen. 31:7). ולא יתן המשחית: ולא יתן לו יכולת לבא, כמו (בראשית לא ז) ולא נתנו א-להים להרע עמדי:
24And you shall keep this matter as a statute for you and for your children forever. כדוּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחָק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם:
25And it shall come to pass when you enter the land that the Lord will give you, as He spoke, that you shall observe this service. כהוְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֧ן יְהֹוָ֛ה לָכֶ֖ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבֵּ֑ר וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הָֽעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת:
And it shall come to pass when you enter: Scripture makes this commandment contingent upon their entry into the land, but in the desert, they were obligated only to bring one Passover sacrifice, the one they performed in the second year, [which they did] by divine mandate. — [from Mechilta] והיה כי תבאו אל הארץ: תלה הכתוב מצוה זו בביאתם לארץ, ולא נתחייבו במדבר אלא בפסח אחד שעשו בשנה השנית ועל פי הדבור:
as He spoke: Now where did He speak? “And I will bring you to the land, etc.” (Exod. 6:8). — [from Mechilta] כאשר דבר: והיכן דבר, והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ וגו' (שמות ו ח):
26And it will come to pass if your children say to you, What is this service to you? כווְהָיָ֕ה כִּי־יֹֽאמְר֥וּ אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם בְּנֵיכֶ֑ם מָ֛ה הָֽעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את לָכֶֽם:
27you shall say, It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, and He saved our houses. And the people kneeled and prostrated themselves. כזוַֽאֲמַרְתֶּ֡ם זֶֽבַח־פֶּ֨סַח ה֜וּא לַֽיהֹוָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר פָּ֠סַ֠ח עַל־בָּתֵּ֤י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם בְּנָגְפּ֥וֹ אֶת־מִצְרַ֖יִם וְאֶת־בָּתֵּ֣ינוּ הִצִּ֑יל וַיִּקֹּ֥ד הָעָ֖ם וַיִּשְׁתַּֽחֲוֽוּ:
And the people kneeled and prostrated themselves: [in thanksgiving] for the tidings of the redemption, the entry into the land [of Israel], and the tidings of the children that they would have. — [from Mechilta] ויקד העם: על בשורת הגאולה וביאת הארץ ובשורת הבנים שיהיו להם:
28So the children of Israel went and did; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. כחוַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ וַיַּֽעֲשׂ֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־משֶׁ֥ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ:
So the children of Israel went and did: Now did they already do [it]? Wasn’t this said to them on Rosh Chodesh? But since they accepted upon themselves [to do it], Scripture credits them for it as if they had [already] done [it]. — [from Mechilta] וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל: וכי כבר עשו, והלא מראש חודש נאמר להם, אלא מכיון שקבלו עליהם, מעלה עליהם כאלו עשו:
went and did: Scripture counts also the going, to give reward for the going and reward for the deed. — [from Mechilta] וילכו ויעשו: אף ההליכה מנה הכתוב, ליתן שכר להליכה ושכר לעשיה:
as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron: [This comes] to tell Israel’s praise, that they did not omit anything of all the commandments of Moses and Aaron. And what is the meaning of “so they did” ? Moses and Aaron also did so. — [from Mechilta] כאשר צוה ה' את משה ואהרן: להגיד שבחן של ישראל, שלא הפילו דבר מכל מצות משה ואהרן. ומהו כן עשו, אף משה ואהרן כן עשו:
---------------------
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 23 - 28
• Hebrew text
• English text
•
Chapter 23
When King David was in the forest of Cheret and nearly died of starvation, God provided nourishment for him with a taste of the World to Come. David then composed this psalm, describing the magnitude of his trust in God.
1. A psalm by David. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall lack nothing.
2. He lays me down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters.
3. He revives my soul; He directs me in paths of righteousness for the sake of His Name.
4. Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff-they will comfort me.
5. You will prepare a table for me before my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup is full.
6. Only goodness and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord for many long years.
Chapter 24
If the fulfillment of one's prayer would result in the sanctification of God's Name, he should pray that God act for the sake of the holiness of His Name. One should also invoke the merit of his ancestors, for we know that "the righteous are greater in death than in life"
1. By David, a psalm. The earth and all therein is the Lord's; the world and its inhabitants.
2. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.
3. Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not used My Name in vain or sworn falsely.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and kindness from God, his deliverer.
6. Such is the generation of those who search for Him, [the children of] Jacob who seek Your countenance forever.
7. Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
8. Who is the glorious King? The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.
9. Lift up your heads, O gates; lift them up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
10. Who is the glorious King? The Lord of Hosts, He is the glorious King for all eternity.
Chapter 25
The verses in this psalm are arranged according to the alphabet, excluding the letters Bet, Vav, and Kuf, which together equal the numerical value of Gehenom (purgatory). One who recites this psalm daily will not see the face of purgatory.
1. By David. To You, Lord, I lift my soul.
2. My God, I have put my trust in You. May I not be put to shame; may my enemies not gloat over me.
3. Indeed, may all who hope in You not be put to shame; let those who act treacherously without reason be shamed.
4. O Lord, make Your ways known to me; teach me Your paths.
5. Train me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; I yearn for You all day.
6. O Lord, remember Your mercies and Your kindnesses, for they have existed for all time.
7. Do not recall the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; remember me in accordance with Your kindness, because of Your goodness, O Lord.
8. Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He directs sinners along the way.
9. He guides the humble with justice, and teaches the humble His way.
10. All the paths of the Lord are kindness and truth for those who observe His covenant and testimonies.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
12. Whoever is a God-fearing man, him will He teach the path that he should choose.
13. His soul will abide in well-being, and his descendants will inherit the earth.
14. The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He makes His covenant known to them.
15. My eyes are always turned to the Lord, for He releases my feet from the snare.
16. Turn to me and be compassionate to me, for I am alone and afflicted.
17. The sufferings of my heart have increased; deliver me from my hardships.
18. Behold my affliction and suffering, and forgive all my sins.
19. See how numerous my enemies have become; they hate me with a violent hatred.
20. Guard my soul and deliver me; may I not be put to shame, for I place my trust in You.
21. Let integrity and uprightness guard me, for my hope is in You.
22. Redeem Israel, O God, from all its afflictions.
Chapter 26
In this psalm King David inundates God with prayers and acts of piety, because he envies those who are his spiritual superiors, saying, "If only I were on their level of piety and virtue!"
1. By David. Judge me, O Lord, for in my innocence I have walked, and in the Lord I have trusted-I shall not falter.
2. Try me, O Lord, and test me; refine my mind and heart.
3. For Your kindness is before my eyes, and I have walked constantly in Your truth.
4. I did not sit with men of falsehood, and with hypocrites I will not mingle.
5. I detested the company of evildoers, and with the wicked I will not sit.
6. I wash my hands in purity, and circle Your altar, O Lord,
7. to give voice to thanks, and to recount all Your wonders.
8. I love the shelter of Your House, O Lord, and the place where Your glory resides.
9. Gather not in my soul with sinners, nor my life with men of bloodshed,
10. In whose hands are schemes, and whose right hand is filled with bribes.
11. But I walk in my innocence; redeem me and show me favor.
12. My foot stands on level ground; in assemblies I will bless the Lord.
Chapter 27
King David acknowledges and praises God, placing his trust in Him because of his victories in war. "Nevertheless, it is not wars that I desire, for I cannot gain perfection with them. Only one thing do I ask: to abide day and night in the study hall studying Torah, to gain perfection so that my soul may merit the life of the World to Come."
1. By David. The Lord is my light and my salvation-whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life-whom shall I dread?
2. When evildoers approached me to devour my flesh, my oppressors and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
3. If an army were to beleaguer me, my heart would not fear; if war were to arise against me, in this I trust
1
4. One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I seek: that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the pleasantness of the Lord, and to visit His Sanctuary.
5. For He will hide me in His tabernacle on a day of adversity; He will conceal me in the hidden places of His tent; He will lift me upon a rock.
6. And then my head will be raised above my enemies around me, and I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices of jubilation; I will sing and chant to the Lord.
7. Lord, hear my voice as I call; be gracious to me and answer me.
8. In Your behalf my heart says, "Seek My countenance"; Your countenance, Lord, I seek.
9. Do not conceal Your countenance from me; do not cast aside Your servant in wrath. You have been my help; do not abandon me nor forsake me, God of my deliverance.
10. Though my father and mother have forsaken me, the Lord has taken me in.
11. Lord, teach me Your way and lead me in the path of righteousness, because of my watchful enemies.
12. Do not give me over to the will of my oppressors, for there have risen against me false witnesses, and they speak evil.
13. [They would have crushed me] had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14. Hope in the Lord, be strong and let your heart be valiant, and hope in the Lord.
FOOTNOTES
1. I trust that “the lord is my light and salvation” etc. (Rashi)
Chapter 28
A prayer for every individual, entreating God to assist him in walking the good path, to prevent him from walking with the wicked doers of evil, and that He repay the wicked for their wickedness and the righteous for their righteousness.
1. By David. I call to You, O Lord; my Strength, do not be deaf to me; for should You be silent to me, I will be like those who descend to the pit.
2. Hear the sound of my pleas when I cry out to You, when I raise my hands toward Your holy Sanctuary.
3. Do not draw me along with the wicked, with evildoers who speak of peace with their companions, though evil is in their heart.
4. Give them according to their deeds, and the evil of their endeavors; give them according to their handiwork, render to them their just desserts.
5. For they pay no heed to the acts of the Lord, nor to the work of His hands; may He destroy them and not rebuild them.
6. Blessed is the Lord, for He has heard the voice of my pleas.
7. The Lord is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusted and I was helped; my heart exulted, and with my song I praised Him.
8. The Lord is a strength to them; He is a stronghold of deliverance to His anointed.
9. Grant salvation to Your people and bless Your heritage; tend them and exalt them forever.
---------------------Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 17
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Thursday, Shevat 4, 5776 · January 14, 2016
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Thursday, Shevat 4, 5776 · January 14, 2016
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 17
With this explanation — that even a fear and love of G‑d which remain concealed in one’s mind and heart suffice to infuse one’s fulfillment of the commandments with vitality, thereby perfecting and elevating them, we will understand the verse:1
כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד, בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו
“For this thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.”
The verse states that it is easy for one to fulfill Torah and mitzvot with all three “garments” of the soul — thought, speech and action. The words “with your mouth” refer to speech, “with your heart” — to thought, and “that you may do it” refers to action. In a deeper sense, however, “your heart” refers not only to the power of thought, but also to the heart as the seat of the emotions — love, fear, and so on. The verse is telling us, then, that it is within easy reach of every Jew to fulfill the mitzvotwith a feeling of awe and love of G‑d. Concerning this, the Alter Rebbe poses the question:
דלכאורה הוא בלבבך נגד החוש שלנו
At first glance, [the statement that “this thing is very near to you]…in your heart” seems contrary to our experience — in our experience we find that it is no simple feat to acquire a spirit of love and fear of G‑d.
והתורה היא נצחית
(2Yet the Torah is eternal),3 hence it could not refer only to Moses‘ generation — “a generation of understanding” — but must hold true for our own age as well.
שאין קרוב מאד הדבר, להפך לבו מתאוות עולם הזה לאהבת ה׳ באמת
In our experience we see that it is not a “very near thing” to change one’s heart from worldly desires to a sincere love of G‑d, for by nature one is inclined toward the former.
And as is written in The Duties of the Heart,4 “Desires for worldly pleasures are unable to dwell in the heart together with a love of G‑d.” In order to attain a love of G‑d, therefore, it is necessary for one to change his nature from one extreme to the other — by no means an easy matter!
וכמו שכתוב בגמרא: אטו יראה מילתא זוטרתי היא
Indeed, commenting on Moses‘ statement: “What does G‑d ask of you, but to fear Him?” the Talmud queries:5 “Is fear of heaven a small matter?”
This indicates, as the Rebbe points out, that even in Moses‘ generation (and surely in subsequent generations) it was no simple matter to acquire a fear of G‑d.
וכל שכן אהבה
And if this is true of fear of G‑d, then how much more so — a love of G‑d, for fear of G‑d is generally more easily attainable than love of G‑d.
Thus, not only our experience, but also this quotation from the Talmud seems to contradict the verse which states that fear and love of G‑d are “very near to you.”
וגם אמרו רז״ל דצדיקים דוקא לבם ברשותם
Moreover, our Sages also said6 that only tzaddikim have control over their hearts — to arouse a love and fear of G‑d whenever they so desire.
This latter quotation intensifies the question, as the Rebbe points out. Not only is it not “very near” to us to achieve a love of G‑d, but on the contrary, it is possible only for tzaddikim, who are a minority. Surely the Torah does not address onlytzaddikim; how, then, can it state that a love of G‑d is very near to us, indicating that our heart is in our control, that we candivert it from mundane desires to a love of G‑d?
אלא דלעשותו רצונו לומר: האהבה המביאה לידי עשיית המצות בלבד
But the words “that you may do it” refer to a love which merely leads to the fulfillment of the commandments, although, strictly speaking, it is not an actual love.
The author thus interprets the words “that you may do it” as a qualification of the earlier phrase “for it is near to you…with your heart.” What is “near to you with your heart” (i.e., What sort of love is easily attainable)? That love which pertains to action (“that you may do it”).
Thereby we may also understand the order of the words in the verse. The words “in your mouth, in your heart, that you may do it” refer to the three “soul-garments” of thought, speech, and action, as we have observed earlier. However, the order in which they are listed in the verse is difficult to understand, for it seems to be neither an ascending order (action, speech, thought) nor a descending order (thought, speech, action). Why is the middle faculty, speech, put first, followed by thought (“in your heart”), and then action (“that you may do it”)? However, according to the interpretation of the words “that you may do it” given here, this is readily understood. These words follow immediately after the words “in your heart,” for they serve to explain and to qualify them: the love of which the verse speaks here (“in your heart”), is that which leads to action (“that you may do it”).
שהיא רעותא דלבא שבתעלומות לב, גם כי אינה בהתגלות לבו כרשפי אש
This means the hidden desire of the heart; even if it does not burn openly like a flaming fire, yet it can still lead one to fulfill the commandments.
ודבר זה קרוב מאד ונקל לכל אדם אשר יש לו מוח בקדקדו
This matter of arousing a love which remains hidden in the heart is very easy and very near to every man who has a brain in his head.
כי מוחו ברשותו, ויכול להתבונן בו בכל אשר יחפוץ
For his mind is under his control even if his heart is not, and with it he can meditate as he pleases, on any subject.
וכשיתבונן בו בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא, ממילא יוליד במוחו על כל פנים האהבה לה׳, לדבקה בו בקיום מצותיו ותורתו
If, then, he will contemplate with it on the greatness of the Almighty, he will inevitably generate — in his mind, at least — a love of G‑d, to cleave to Him through the performance of His commandments and the study of His Torah.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Devarim 30:14. |
| 2. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 3. | Maimonides, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, 9:1. |
| 4. | Chovot HaLevavot, introduction to Shaar Ahavat HaShem. |
| 5. | Berachot 33b; Megillah 25a. |
| 6. | Bereishit Rabbah 34:10; 67:8. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Thursday, Shevat 4, 5776 · January 14, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 168
Dwelling in the Sukkah
"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.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 168
Dwelling in the Sukkah
"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.
Full text of 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.
------------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Maaser Maaser - Chapter 6 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Maaser - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
One may rub the surface of figs and grapes [of tevel];1 this does not cause a [significant] loss.2 Whatever is forbidden for non-priests to partake of with regard to terumah, e.g., the seeds or the like,3 may not be eaten from tevel, from the tithes from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, or from the second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed. Whatever non-priests may partake of with regard to terumah is also permitted to be eaten from tevel, from the tithes from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, and from the second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed.
Halacha 2
We4 may not kindle impure tevel ,5 even during the week. Needless to say, this applies on Sabbath.6 [This is implied by Numbers 18:5]: "the watch of Myterumah."7 Just as pure terumah may not be used until after it has been separated, so too, we may not benefit from impure terumah until after it was separated.
Halacha 3
We may not cover tevel with earth,8 nor may we sow it. It is forbidden to sow even produce for which the work associated with their preparation has not been completed9 until it has been tithed.10
When does the above apply? With regard to grains, legumes, and the like.11If, however, one uproots saplings that contain fruit and replants them in another place in his field,12 it is permitted. It is not considered as sowing tevel, for he did not gather the fruit.13
Similarly, when one uproots turnips and radishes and replants them elsewhere, if he intends to add to their bulk, it is permitted.14 If one plants them so that they will produce stalks so that he can take their seed, it is forbidden [to plant them without tithing],15because it is like sowing wheat or barley that istevel.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when a person] sows a litra of produce16that was separated as tithes, but terumat ma'aser had not been separated from it. If it increased and it is now 10 litra, [the entire new crop] is required to be tithed.17A tenth18 should be separated for the [original] litra from other produce19according to the appropriate reckoning.20
If one separated [terumah and tithes] from a litra of onions and sowed them, one should not separate the tithes according to the reckoning of the increase, but according to the entire sum of the crop.21
Halacha 5
There is an unresolved doubt regarding the ruling when stalks of produce whose seed does not decompose that reached a third of their growth,22 were [gathered,] their stack was straightened,23 he sowed them, and they increased in size. [One might say that] there is a Rabbinic obligation to tithe them, because they increased in size.24 [But one might say] that there is no obligation25 since the seed which continues to exist and did not decompose was tithed. [The laws governing these species] do not resemble [those that apply to] onions, because it is not common practice to sow onions.26
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply when one] sows tevel, whether a crop whose seed decomposes27 or a crop whose seed does not decompose.28 If it is possible for him to gather it [before it takes root in the ground], we penalize him29 and [require him to] gather it. [If the seed decomposes], should it grow, we do not require him to uproot [the plants].30 [The growths] are considered as ordinary produce.31
If the produce is of a type whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the growths - indeed, even until the third generation - is forbidden. The fourth generation is permitted. Why are the growths foribidden? Because of the terumat ma'aser and the terumah within them.32These same laws apply when one sows produce separated as the tithes from which terumat ma'aser was not separated.
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when a person] sells produce35to a colleague, but then remembers that it is tevel and although he afterwards runs to pursue him to make the appropriate separations,36 he cannot find him. If he knows that the produce no longer exists - it was already lost or consumed - he does not have to separate tithes for it.37 If there is a doubt whether it exists or do not exists, he should separate tithes for it from other produce.38
Halacha 8
[The following rule applies when there is a dispute when] a person sells produce to a purchaser.] The seller says: "I sold them with the stipulation that they were tevel."39 The purchaser said: "I purchased tithed produce from you."40 We compel the seller to make the appropriate separations.41 [This is a] penalty imposed upon him for selling tevel.42
Halacha 9
One may not pay a debt from tevel, for this resembles a sale.43
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When a person purchases tevel from two sources,46 he may separate the tithes from one for the other.47 When a person receives a field from a Jew or from a gentile as part of a sharecropping agreement,48 he should make the division [of the produce] in the presence of the owner of the field and give him his share then, so that he knows that he received tevel.49
[Different rules apply, however, when a person] rents a field from a Jew on the condition that he pay the owner a specific amount of produce. If he pays him with produce from the field he rented, [the renter] must separateterumah.50Afterwards, he gives him the measure he stipulated he would give him and the owner of the field must separate the tithe himself.51 If, however, [the renter] pays the owner from the produce of another field or with another type of produce, [the renter] must first separate the tithes and then pay [the owner].52
Halacha 12
When a person rents a field from a gentile on the condition that he pay him a specific amount of produce, he must tithe the produce before giving it to him. This is a penalty imposed upon him so that he will not rent the field from the gentile.53 In this way, the field will lie fallow [before the gentile]54 and, of necessity, he will sell it to a Jew.55
Similarly, when a person accepts his ancestral field from a gentile as a sharecropper,56 he was penalized and required to tithe the produce before giving the gentile his share of produce after it was tithed. [This measure was instituted] so that a person should not jump at the opportunity to receive it because it was his ancestral field. In this manner, it will remain fallow before the gentile so that he will sell it to a Jew.
Halacha 13
What is meant by a chokar and what is meant by a mekabel?57 A chokarhires the field for a specific amount of produce - these-and-these many se'ah - whether the field produced a lot or a little. A mekabel hires the field for a percentage of its yield, half, a third, or whichever amount they agree on. Asochar is one who rents the land for [a sum of] money.58
Halacha 14
When two people receive a field as sharecroppers together, they inherit the field, or join as partners with regard to it, one may tell the other: "Take the wheat in this-and-this place and I will take the wheat from that-and-that place. You [take] the wine in this-and-this place and I will take the wine from that-and-that place."59 He should not say: "You take the wheat and I will take the barley. You take the wine and I will take the oil," for that constitutes sellingtevel.
Halacha 15
When a priest or a Levite purchased produce from an Israelite after the tasks [associated with their preparation] were completed,60 we expropriate theterumah and tithes from their possession and give them to other priests and Levites. This is a penalty imposed on them so that they will not hurry to the grainheaps and winepresses and purchase tevel to grab the presents of their priestly brethren.61 If, however, they purchase [the produce] before [these] tasks are completed, we do not expropriate [the presents] from their possession.62
Halacha 16
When a priest or Levite sold produce that was detached to an Israelite63before the tasks [associated with their preparation] were completed - and certainly, if they sold the produce while it was attached - the terumah or the tithes belong to [the priest or Levite].64 If they sold it after these tasks were completed, the terumah and the tithes belong to the purchaser.65 He must separate them and may give them to the priest or Levite of his choice.
Halacha 17
When a priest or Levite receive a field from an Israelite under a sharecropping agreement, they should divide the terumah and the tithes, as they divide up the ordinary produce. The Israelite should take his portion and give it to the priest or Levite of his choice. When, however, an Israelite receives a field from a priest or a Levite under a sharecropping agreement, the terumahand/or the tithes belong to the owner of the field.66 The remainder of the presents67 should be divided.
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
When a priest sells a field to an Israelite and tells him: "[I am selling it] on the condition that the tithes from it belong to me forever," they belong to him.70[The rationale is that] saying "on the condition that" is tantamount to setting aside for himself [the portion of the field] where the tithes [grow].71
If the priest [who sold the land] dies, his son is like all other priests.72 If [the priest] told [the purchaser]: "[I am selling it] on the condition that the tithes from it belong to me and my son," [when] he dies, his son73 should take [the tithes]. If he sold it "...on the condition throughout the time it is in your possession," should the purchaser sell it to another person - even if he later buys it back, the priest is no longer entitled to those tithes.
Halacha 20
When an Israelite received a field under a sharecropping agreement from a priest or Levite and stipulated that [the agreement is being made] "on the condition that the tithes are mine74 for four or five years," this is permitted.75"...On the condition that they are mine forever," this is forbidden. [The rationale is that] one priest cannot make another priest.76
Halacha 21
When an Israelite inherits tevel that was found in a grainheap whose edges had been straightened79 from his maternal grandfather who was a priest who in turn inherited it from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite, [the Israelite who was the heir] may separate the tithes and keep them as his own. [The rationale is that] presents which are fit to be separated are considered as if they have already been separated although in actual fact they were not separated.80
Halacha 22
When a person gives his field81 to a gentile or to someone upon whom we cannot rely with regard to the tithes82 in a sharecropping arrangement, he must separate the tithes in lieu of them even though [the produce] had not reached the "phase of tithing" [when the arrangement was made].83
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Produce from which terumah and tithes were not separated. It was common to rub the surface of grapes and figs to smooth them (Kessef Mishneh). The Radbaz states that oil was applied to their surface.
|
| 2. |
Although this activity causes the produce to spoil slightly faster, this is not significant over the long run. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:8).
|
| 3. |
The Rambam is speaking about aspects of produce, e.g., leaves, peels, seeds, some of which are considered waste products (and hence, permitted to be eaten by non-priests) and some of which are considered as food (and forbidden to them). See Hilchot Terumah 11:10-13 where the Rambam gives many different examples of these categories. Any substance that is considered as food with regard to terumah is also considered as food with regard to the other prohibitions mentioned by the Rambam. Conversely, any substance that is not considered as food with regard to terumah is also not considered as food in the other contexts.
|
| 4. |
Even priests who are permitted to use impure terumah (Radbaz).
|
| 5. |
Impure terumah, e.g., oil, may be used as fuel for kindling. The priest might think: "Since I want to use all of this oil as fuel, why should I separate the terumah? Let me kindle it all as tevel." This is not permitted as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
Our translation follows the interpretation of the Radbaz. Others interpret the term mechapin as "cover."
|
| 6. |
I.e., kindling the Sabbath lights with oil that is tevel. This is certainly forbidden, because terumahand the tithes may not be separated on the Sabbath.
|
| 7. |
In the verse, the noun terumah uses a plural form alluding to two types of terumah: pure terumahand impure terumah. See also Hilchot Terumah 2:14.
|
| 8. |
To cover seeds that were strewn over the field with earth (Radbaz). It was forbidden to do this until after terumah and the tithes were separated because this resembles sowing tevel.
|
| 9. |
The obligation to separate terumah and the tithes does not take effect until the work associated with the preparation of the produce has been completed (see Chapter 3, Halachot 8-13). Since the produce has not reached this stage, one might think that there is no prohibition against sowing it.
|
| 10. |
According to Scriptural Law, there is no prohibition against sowing tevel. The obligation to tithe applies only when one eats. Nevertheless, our Sages (Pe'ah 1:16) imposed this stringency.
|
| 11. |
For gathering them together to sow them completes the work associated with their preparation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:8)].
|
| 12. |
The Radbaz states that if he gives the trees to a colleague for the colleague to plant in his field, the fruit must be tithed.
|
| 13. |
Thus the fruit was never considered as an independent entity from the tree so that the obligation to tithe it could be considered.
|
| 14. |
For they were not gathered with the intent of reaping produce and thus the obligation to tithe ddid not fall upon them.
|
| 15. |
For the obligation to tithe was incurred when the produce was harvested originally.
|
| 16. |
The Ra'avad states that this applies only to crops like onions or the like where a bulb is planted and it increases as it grows. If, however, seeds which do not grow until they decompose are planted, this law does not apply. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would not necessarily accept this limitation.
|
| 17. |
I.e., not only the new crop but also the old crop which was tithed and then sown, as explained in the subsequent notes.
|
| 18. |
The percentage to be separated as terumat ma'aser.
|
| 19. |
Which was reaped in the same year as that produce was reaped, for it is forbidden to separate the terumah [or terumat ma'aser] for produce from one year from produce from a different year (Hilchot Terumot 5:11).
|
| 20. |
For although it is now considered as part of the new crop, since it still physically exists, there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser for it.
|
| 21. |
Since one sowed the onions themselves and tithes had already been separated from them, there is reason to think that there would be no need to tithe them again. Indeed, it would be undesirable to do so, for it is improper to tithe produce that has already been tithed. Nevertheless, in this instance, there is an obligation to tithe. The rationale is that the new growth of the onions outweighs their initial mass and that initial mass is considered as betal, insignificant and subsumed in the greater whole. This concept is illustrated in other contexts; see Hilchot Terumot 11:22;Hilchot Shemitah 4:21, et al.
|
| 22. |
At which point the obligation to tithe applies.
|
| 23. |
I.e., this completes the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce and causes the obligation to tithe to be incurred.
|
| 24. |
And the produce which existed previously is considered as betal to the new produce, as above.
|
| 25. |
To tithe the original produce. Even this opinion agrees that the new produce which grows must be tithed.
|
| 26. |
Hence, the laws governing onions cannot provide guidance in this instance (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 27. |
E.g., wheat or barley.
|
| 28. |
Like onions or garlic.
|
| 29. |
For violating our Sages' decree not to sow tevel.
|
| 30. |
For the prohibited entity no longer exists.
|
| 31. |
I.e., it is permitted to partake of them and the required separations must be made.
|
| 32. |
Compare to Hilchot Terumah 11:21 and notes.
|
| 33. |
We are translating the term chaver according to the Rambam's wording in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:8). More specifically, it refers to a person who adheres to the laws of tithing. Torah scholars are mentioned, because we assume that they adhere to those laws (Chapter 9, Halachah 1, Chapter 10, Halachot 1-2).
|
| 34. |
I.e., since both are known to tithe their produce, it is possible that both will think that the other one tithed, when in fact neither of them did so.
|
| 35. |
Which both the seller and the purchaser thought had been tithed.
|
| 36. |
I.e., this is the first step such a person should take.
|
| 37. |
Once the produce has ceased to exist, there is no way a person can correct his past lapses.
|
| 38. |
The Ra'avad states that the produce separated must itself be tithed, for it is possible that in fact the original produce had been lost. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would also accept this point.
|
| 39. |
He says this after the sale, so that the purchaser knows that the produce must be tithed. He must bring witnesses who testify that he is telling the truth, i.e., that the produce is tevel. Otherwise, the seller's word would not be accepted. See also Chapter 12, Halachah 18, and notes.
|
| 40. |
And thus the seller is required to reimburse him for the tithed produce.
|
| 41. |
I.e., separating the tithes for the produce that was sold from other produce.
|
| 42. |
I.e., ordinarily, the ruling would favor the seller, based on the principle: "When a person seeks to expropriate property from a coleague, the burden of proof is upon him." In this instance, however, the seller is penalized, because he violated a Rabbinic prohibition by selling tevel (Radbaz).
|
| 43. |
For one is receiving a monetary advantage for the tevel.
|
| 44. |
I.e., the king had levied a tax on all his countrymen equally. Such a tax must be paid, because "the law of the land is your law" (Hilchot Gezeilah 5:12).
|
| 45. |
Otherwise, he would be paying a debt with tevel.
|
| 46. |
I.e., both sellers inform the purchaser that they are selling him tevel (Radbaz).
|
| 47. |
We do not suspect that the two batches of produce are from different years and thus the tithes for one should not be separated from the other (ibid.).
|
| 48. |
See Halachah 13 for a definition of the Hebrew terms used in this halachah.
|
| 49. |
The sharecropper does not have to tithe the crop before he gives the owner his share. This is not considered as selling tevel, for the owner's share of the produce never belonged to the sharecropper. Nevertheless, if the division is not made in the presence of the owner, the sharecropper should separate the tithes, lest the owner think the produce he receives has been tithed and transgress by partaking of it without tithing (ibid.). Even if the owner is a gentile, this applies for another Jew may see the Jewish sharecropper bringing produce to the gentile and purchase it from him under the impression that it was tithed (ibid.).
|
| 50. |
For it is forbidden to take produce from the grainheap in which it is gathered without separatingterumah (ibid.).
|
| 51. |
The renter does not have to separate the tithes, because - as above - this portion of the crop never belonged to him. From the outset, it was designated for the owner.
|
| 52. |
For in that instance, he is paying the owner with the untithed produce and that is forbidden.
|
| 53. |
The Radbaz notes that - as indicated by the previous halachah - a penalty was not imposed on a person who enters into a sharecropping agreement with a gentile unless it was his ancestral field. The Radbaz explains the difference between the two situations: When a person rents a field for a specific amount of produce, he usually does so as a last resort and receives only a minimal amount. Therefore, if there are restrictions made against him doing so, he may sell the land. When, by contrast, a person seeks a sharecropper, he is reserving the option to sow it himself. Hence, he is less likely to sell it.
|
| 54. |
For no one will seek to hire it from him.
|
| 55. |
This and the measure mentioned in the following clause were part of the safeguards the Sages employed to uphold the Jews' possession of our Holy Land. For in the Roman era, gentiles would frequently seize Jewish property without cause. Rather than have it remain in the gentile's possession, our Sages desired that he be compelled to sell it back to a Jew.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:2), the Rambam states that this ruling applies only inEretz Yisrael, for it is only there that we are careful about land not being sold to a gentile. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:121), however, quotes this law without making that restriction. It is possible to explain that even in the Diaspora, there is a concept of maintaining the stability of the Jewish community by not giving up Jewish land to gentiles.
|
| 56. |
I.e., the gentile seized a field which a Jew had inherited from his ancestors. Because of his connection to the field, the Jew desired to till it and promised to give the gentile a share under a sharecropping agreement.
|
| 57. |
These terms refer to sharecroppers operating under different types of agreements.
|
| 58. |
See Hilchot Sechirut 8:1-2 which also discusses these distinctions.
|
| 59. |
I.e., making a division for the sake of convenience [see the standard printed text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:8); Rav Kappach's version differs)].
|
| 60. |
But before terumah and the tithes were separated. Since the priests or Levites are entitled to the tithes and/or the terumah, they wished to purchase the produce and separate them for themselves. See Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
|
| 61. |
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling, but differs with regard to its motivating rationale. He explains that since the Israelite completed the tasks associated with the preparation of the grain, he has the right to give away the terumah and the tithes and the priest or Levite is not entitled to take that from him. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the rationale given by the Rambam is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 1:6) and thus question the Ra'avad's position.
|
| 62. |
Since there is a certain amount of difficulty involved in the completion of these tasks, we do not penalize them.
|
| 63. |
But not to a fellow priest or Levite.
|
| 64. |
The rationale is that we operate under the presumption that when the priest or Levite sold the produce, he included a stipulation that the terumah and/or the tithes were his. Even though this stipulation was not explicitly made, we assume that it was understood (Rav Yosef Korcus).
Although they sold tevel - and thus it would be appropriate to penalize them - since they made it known that the produce was tevel, no penalty is imposed.
|
| 65. |
Since the tasks associated with the produce were completed, the obligation to tithe is immediate. Hence, if the priest or Levite desired to retain possession of the terumah and tithes, they would have to make an explicit stipulation.
|
| 66. |
In this instance as well, since the field belongs to the priest or Levite, it is as if he made a stipulation that the terumah and/or tithes should be given to him.
|
| 67. |
The second tithe or the tithe given to the poor.
|
| 68. |
I.e., olives that have already been harvested from the tree (Radbaz).
|
| 69. |
Hence if the priest or Levite desired that the terumah and/or tithes be left for him, he would have to make an explicit stipulation to that effect. Thus if the olives - or any other produce - have not been harvested, if the land is owned by a priest or Levite, he retains the right to the terumah and/or tithes as above.
|
| 70. |
Even if the purchaser later sells that field to another person, he cannot override the stipulation that was part of the original sale.
|
| 71. |
Were his stipulation not to be powerful enough to retain a portion of the land itself, it would not be effective, because it would be tantamount to purchasing an entity that has not come into existence. Such a purchase is not effective (Bava Batra 63a).
The commentaries note an apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Bikkurim 9:11. Although there are explicit Talmudic sources for both rulings, their logic appears contradictory. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is speaking about landed property, while in Hilchot Bikkurim, he is speaking about an animal and the principles of ownership are different in these two instances.
|
| 72. |
I.e., he no longer has any special rights to the terumah or tithes.
|
| 73. |
His grandson, however, does not have a right to them (Aruch HaShulchan).
|
| 74. |
I.e., the Israelite's.
|
| 75. |
The Israelite is stipulating that he retains the right to separate the terumah and the tithes for all of the produce and give them to any priest or Levite he desires. Although as stated above, when the owner of the field is a priest, he can retain the rights to the terumah and the tithes. Nevertheless, as part of his contractual arrangement with the renter, he may give him the right to distribute them (Radbaz).
|
| 76. |
I.e., a priest cannot give his right to collect terumah to a person who is not a priest. Similarly, a Levite may not make another Levite. Since the renter desires to make the arrangement permanent, it is forbidden, for a person who does not have a right to take the terumah and tithes is taking them.
|
| 77. |
I.e., the creditor will continue to deduct the value of the tithes from the debt until the debt is paid.
|
| 78. |
Even though the creditor is taking them for the Levite, since he does not have an inherent right to them, he may not collect them.
|
| 79. |
I.e., at this stage, the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce were completed and tithes are required to be separated from it.
|
| 80. |
To summarize the situation: The first testator, the Israelite, had completed the tasks involved with the preparation of his produce, but died before he had the opportunity to separate the terumah and the tithes. The first heir and second testator, the priest, also died before he had the opportunity to make these separations. Nevertheless, since had he in fact separated them, he would have been allowed to keep them as his own, we consider it as if he actually did so. Therefore when the final heir, the Israelite, takes possession of the produce, he must separate the terumah and the tithes to fulfill the mitzvah. He may then, however, keep them as his own property. (He may not, however, partake of the terumah, he must sell it to a priest.)
|
| 81. |
This halachah is speaking about an instance where the person worded the arrangement with the gentile in such a manner that the gentile does not receive possession of the produce until after it reaches the "phase of tithing." Otherwise, there would be no obligation to separate tithes. SeeHilchot Terumah 1:13.
|
| 82. |
In contrast to the following clause, this phrase does not refer to an ordinary common person, but one who has a reputation for being lax in the observance of this mitzvah (see Ra'avad). For with regard to a common person, we apply certain safeguards lest he not have tithed, but nevertheless, we are not certain that he has not tithed. On the contrary, our presumption is that he did tithe.
|
| 83. |
This is a penalty, imposed so that a person will not give his field to a person who does not observe the mitzvah of tithing.
|
| 84. |
Since the majority of the common people tithe (Shabbat 23a), since he has not incurred the responsibility to tithe at all, he was not penalized.
|
| 85. |
Since the produce reached the "phase of tithing," and there are some common people who do not tithe, our Sages required that this measure be taken.
|
| 86. |
Before a division of produce is made.
|
| 87. |
I.e., if they partook of some of the produce while it was forbidden for them to do so.
|
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Three, Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Four, Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Five • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Three
• 3 Chapters: Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Three, Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Four, Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Five • English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• 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 1
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 andNumbers 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 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. - 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 asyevavah (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 Hashanah33b).
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 3
The crying - mentioned in the previous halachah
refers to what we call teru'ah. - short, staccato sounds like sobs. Since a teru'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 ofteki'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'ahresembles 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, sixshevarim, and six teru'ot.
From the Rambam's expression, it appears that he considers theshevarim and teru'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 Chayim590:4) suggests adhering to the more stringent view regarding the teki'otrequired by Torah law. However, the Ramah maintains that this is unnecessary. Both the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 590:9, 10 and theMishnah 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'ah which precedes or that which follows theteru'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'ahand one must sound another teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah [until he completes] three series.
Commentary Halacha 4
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'ahis three teru'ot; a teru'ah is three sobs."
The Talmud questions:
Behold, the baraita has taught: "the required length of ateki'ah is that of a teru'ah!"Abbaye replied: "The author of the Mishnah considered the length of all the teki'ot in comparison to the length of all theteru'ot. The author of the baraita considered 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 theteki'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 Chayim590:3) 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 theShulchan 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 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 - 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 Chayim65:1) 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 - a teki'ah, the series ofshevarim, teru'ot or the combination of the two, and then a teki'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 Mishnehexplains 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 (seeShulchan Aruch HaRav 590:12) 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 6
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 Hashanah27a, 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 theteru'ot should 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 7
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 me Malchuyot, Zichronot, andShofarot.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 theMalchuyot blessing.
[at this point,] the shofar is sounded three times - i.e., one series ofteki'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 ofteki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah required by the Torah.
Shofarot - the shofar is sounded three times - the final series ofteki'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 8
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 Avraham593:2). (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 Chayim 591:4). Indeed, the text of the blessings generally recited forMalchuyot and Shofarot 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 Hashanah32a).
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 byShulchan 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 9
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 for Zichronot 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 10
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 Hashanah 16a 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 asteki'ot meiyoshav - "the teki'ot sounded 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'eltot suggests concluding the blessing "to blow the shofar" and theSefer 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 11
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, the Magen 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 the Shulchan 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 12
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'lah suggests blowing three series of blasts - i.e., teki'ah, shevarim, teru'ah, teki'ah; teki'ah, shevarim, teki'ah; andteki'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 theAmidah 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 13
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 ofmillim.
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 1
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 kaporetcovering 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 toSukkah 27b: "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 2
A sukkah which does not possess three walls is invalid. - ThoughSukkah 6b 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 3
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 consideredl'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, theShulchan 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 4
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 the s'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 Eruvin79a.)]
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. (See Shulchan 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 ofl'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 5
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'chach should 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 (Sukkah23a)
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 6
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 (Shabbat154b), 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 byShulchan 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 as s'chach, they should not be used as its supports.
because climbing on a tree or animal is forbidden on a festival. -Beitzah 5:2 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 7
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 8
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 theexedrah 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 9
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 10
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 - The Tzafenat 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 thes'chach.
Commentary Halacha 11
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 12
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 of l'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'vud cannot 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 Mishnehexplain 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 13
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 Berurah633:11 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 Chayim633:4) 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 thes'chach to 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'chach is 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 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 - 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 Chayim633:6) 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 ass'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 15
[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 thes'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 16
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 Chayim 630:1) 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 Shabbat 16:23 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 1
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 ass'chach on 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'chachwith 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'chachlest 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 as s'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 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. - 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, the Pri 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 as s'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 as s'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 Keilim22:21).
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 3
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 (Taz629:12).
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 Chayim629:10) 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 the Shulchan 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'sinterpretation, 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 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. - 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 Letzionquestions 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 ass'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 as s'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 as s'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 Avraham 629:3 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 5
[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 Keilim1:10.)
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 as s'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 Keilim2:3 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 ofSukkah 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 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. - 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. TheShulchan 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 Ketubot50b, 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 7
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 Chayim632:1 follow this interpretation.
However, one should not sleep under the board. - According to theMaggid 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 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 - 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'chachwas placed for the purpose of shade.
Commentary 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 - 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 the s'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 4:6states: "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 make tzitzit, and not use what is already made.
for the produce was not piled there for this purpose. - The Ba'al Hamaor writes 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 10
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 (Sukkah1:6). 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 the Shulchan 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 11
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 as s'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 tos'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 ass'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 12
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-kosher s'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 the Shulchan 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 fors'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 ass'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 ass'chach does 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 13
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 koshers'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-koshers'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 (Sukkah17b).
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 14
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 kosher s'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 koshers'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-kosher s'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 Eduyot8:7.
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 15
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 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 - 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 kosher s'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 Shabbat 16:16. 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 koshers'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-koshers'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 Sukkah 15b): "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 17
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'chachwithout the cloth, the cloth will not necessarily nullify the presence of the kosher s'chach. However, the majority of the halachic authorities and theShulchan 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 Chayim626:3.) 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'chachshould 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 18
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 Chayim 639) 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 ass'chach.
If the s'chach exceeds the open space, it is kosher.
Commentary 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 - 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 20
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 ofl'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 the s'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 koshers'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 Avraham 631:1). 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 21
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 thes'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 bySukkah 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 Shabbat 15:25 and Hilchot Tum'at Meit16:5.
[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 the s'chach of the upper one.
Commentary Halacha 22
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 the s'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-koshers'chach nullifies 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 23
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,Sukkah 1:3. However, Tosafot, Sukkah 10b and the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 627:3) 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 24
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 theShulchan 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 25
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 23:42 states: "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 Chayim 637:3), 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.
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Shevat 4, 5776 · 14 January 2016
"Today's Day"
Sunday Sh'vat 4 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Bo, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 23-28.
Tanya: Ch. 17. with the above (p. 71)...commandments and Torah. (p. 73).
Mitzrayim (Egypt) expresses constriction, limitation. The spiritual Egyptian exile is the animal soul's restricting and concealing the G-dly soul so severely that the G-dly soul is compressed to the degree that it is diminished and obscured. "Exodus from Egypt" is the removal of the constriction and bounds; i.e. the intellect in the brain illuminates the heart, bringing about fine character traits translated into actual practice.---------------------• Daily Thought:
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Shevat 4, 5776 · 14 January 2016
"Today's Day"
Sunday Sh'vat 4 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Bo, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 23-28.
Tanya: Ch. 17. with the above (p. 71)...commandments and Torah. (p. 73).
Mitzrayim (Egypt) expresses constriction, limitation. The spiritual Egyptian exile is the animal soul's restricting and concealing the G-dly soul so severely that the G-dly soul is compressed to the degree that it is diminished and obscured. "Exodus from Egypt" is the removal of the constriction and bounds; i.e. the intellect in the brain illuminates the heart, bringing about fine character traits translated into actual practice.---------------------• Daily Thought:
Unfailing Love
No matter how strongly you pull someone onto the right track with ropes of love, you can’t take away free will. They may always turn their back and run away.
Love can fail, and we must know that it can fail. For if love was always reciprocated, there would never be unconditional love.
But you have done your part, you have shown love. And what is the reward of the mitzvah of love? That both of you rise higher, and the Infinite Light gains another window to shine into this world.
In other words, everything that really matters.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment