Daf Ditty Succah 4: rishon le-cheshbon avonot

Amsterdam 1717 ed. Talmud Succah 4

1
If one placed straw on the floor of his sukka in order to diminish its height, and verbally nullified
it by saying that he will not use it for another purpose, it is a decrease of halakhic significance, as
the halakhic status of adding straw is like that of adding dirt to the sukka floor and diminishing its
height. The same is true, all the more so, if he placed dirt on the sukka floor and nullified it.

A case where one placed straw on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it from
there, although he did not nullify it, and a case where one placed undesignated dirt that was not
nullified, are the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis with regard to
whether the actions alone are effective as nullification. As we learned in a mishna: In a house in
which there is a corpse or an olive-bulk of a corpse, the halakha is that if there is a handbreadth of
space between the corpse and the roof, the roof serves as a barrier that prevents the ritual impurity

2
from spreading beyond the roof. However, if there is less than a handbreadth of space between the
corpse and the roof, the roof does not serve as a barrier, and the ritual impurity spreads upward. In
a house of that sort where one filled the space between the corpse and the roof with straw or
pebbles mixed with clods of dirt, and then nullified the straw or dirt, it is effectively nullified,
and the ritual impurity spreads upward.

By inference, if he explicitly nullified it, yes, it is nullified; if he did not nullify it, no, it is not
nullified. And it is taught concerning this mishna in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yosei says: If one
placed straw on the sukka floor and he does not intend to evacuate it, its halakhic status is like
that of undesignated dirt and it is nullified. If he placed dirt on the sukka floor and he does
intend to evacuate it, its halakhic status is like that of undesignated straw, and it is not nullified.
Apparently, the tanna’im already discussed this matter.

3
(1) Pebbles are considered like dirt, as Rashi writes (DH Teven).
(2) Bitul must be done verbally, as Rashi writes a number of times in our Sugya.
(3) According to RASHI, it is enough to be Mevatel the items for the seven days of Sukos in order for them to be considered
Batel and to the ground. With regard to Tum'ah, one must be Mevatel the items for the entire time that the Tum'ah is in the house
(RAN, DH Teven). The RAN cites another opinion which holds that one must be Mevatel the items forever in order for them to
be Batel to the ground, both with regard to Sukah and with regard to Tum'ah.
(4) This is because "Batlah Da'ato Etzel Kol Adam," and since no one leaves pillows and sheets to become Batel to the ground,
neither can he.

4
If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high, but the ends of the palm leaves [hutzin] fall within
twenty cubits, then the following distinction applies: If the shade provided solely by the leaves
within twenty cubits of the ground is greater than the sunlight in the sukka, it is fit. If not, it is
unfit.

The Gemara applies the same principle to the opposite case. In a case where the sukka was only
ten handbreadths high, the minimum height for a fit sukka, but the ends of the palm leaves fall
within ten handbreadths, Abaye thought to say that the same calculation applies here: If the
sunlight in the sukka is greater than the shade provided by the leaves within ten handbreadths of
the ground, meaning that those leaves do not constitute a fit sukka on their own, the sukka is fit.

If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high and one built a raised platform in it opposite the
entire middle wall, as typically a sukka has three walls and the fourth side is open as an entrance,
and the platform has an area of at least a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the minimum
area required for fitness of a sukka, the sukka is fit.

Since the seven-by-seven-handbreadth section from the platform to the roof has three walls and it
is less than twenty cubits high, that section is a fit sukka in and of itself, and the rest of the sukka
beyond the platform is fit as far as the roofing continues.

5
And if one built the platform along the side wall of the sukka, then the following distinction
applies: If there are four or more cubits from the edge of the platform to the opposite wall, the
sukka is unfit, as the area of the platform has only two walls. However, if the distance to the
opposite wall is less than four cubits, the sukka is fit, as the halakhic status of the roofing that
covers the distance to the wall is that of a curved extension of the opposite wall.

The Gemara asks: What is this halakha teaching us? Is it that we say that the halakha of a curved
wall applies to the halakhot of sukka? We already learned this halakha in a mishna (17a): In the
case of a house that was breached by a hole in the middle of the roof, and one roofed over the
breach, if from the wall to the roofing there are four or more cubits of the remaining original
roof it is an unfit sukka. By inference, if the distance is less than that, it is a fit sukka. That is due
to the halakha of a curved wall. The intact portion of the roof is considered an extension of the

6
wall. As this halakha was already taught with regard to sukka, what is novel in the halakha of the
platform?

Summary

We witness the creation and finalization of halachot in our daf. First we learn about raising the
floor of a sukka to decrease its height. Next we learn about shade and sagging roofs. Then
platforms within the sukka are considered. We look at "curved walls" and at dug out portions of

7
a sukka floor. In most of these cases, the rabbis turn to related case law to determine these
halachot. After deciding how/whether that case law should apply to their current question, the
rabbis state when a sukka is fit and when it is unfit.1

Some of the halachot discussed are familiar to me; when learning about Sukkot, we are taught
some basic rules about the construction of a sukka. However, many of these halachot are new to
me. Why would I think of putting a platform in a sukka? When would its roof be 20 cubits
high? Our ancestors' detailed design questions teach us about their use of sukkot.

Amud (b) focuses on a number of related questions. They wonder about partitions: how far can
they be from the sukkah wall? What about pillars; what about posts? If they are placed at the
centre of the sukka; if they support the roof; if they do not touch the ceiling - how to they affect
the fitness of the sukka? The rabbis speak about the sukka built on top of a home's roof. How
should the sukka's walls be placed to ensure that the sukka is fit - when it is at the centre of the
roof? when it is at the edge of the roof? And a post that can support one handbreadth in each
direction of a right angle might be called "double posts". But there are limitations here, too.

At the very end of the daf, the rabbis look to the construction of the ark and its cover to find proof
for the specific construction of a sukka.

Clearly the rabbis are always concerned that a sukka has at least two full walls and a partial third
wall, that its roof is built according to distinct specifications, and that the area of the sukka is
between greater than the minimum area measurement. Perhaps, as I have thought in the past, the
construction of the sukka is detailed for those community members who are skilled with their
hands rather than with their logical reasoning. Of course some rabbis were good at both, but most
people are not highly skilled in such disparate areas. However, the skill of building might also be
independent of the skill of design. Both are required in the construction of sukkot.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

1. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and one attempts to reduce its height by placing pillows
on the ground, it is not a valid reduction, and the Sukkah is still viewed to be higher than twenty
amos. The reason for this ruling is because one will not leave the pillows on the floor of the Sukkah
for all seven days of the festival, as they will become ruined. If, however, he spreads straw on the
floor of the Sukkah and verbally abandoned it there for seven days, or if he spread dirt on the

1
https://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/02/
2
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Sukkah%20004.pdf

8
Sukkah and verbally abandoned it there, this is considered a valid reduction in the height of the
Sukkah.

2. If one spread straw on the floor of the Sukkah and he does not intend to remove it in the future,
or if he spread dirt on the Sukkah floor without any specific intention, there is a Tanaaic debate.
When the straw and dirt are verbally abandoned, the Tanna of the Mishnah and Rabbi Yose agree
that they are nullified vis-à-vis their location. When there is no verbal indication, yet, the owner
has no need for them, and regarding dirt where we are not aware of the owner’s needs, according
to Rabbi Yose the straw and dirt are nullified, whereas the Tanna of the Mishnah maintains that
they are not nullified. Regarding straw where there is no verbal indication and we are unaware of
the owner’s needs and regarding dirt or straw where we know that the owner has an immediate
need for them, everyone agrees that the straw and the dirt are not nullified.

3. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and some of the leaves from the s’chach hang down into
the airspace of the Sukkah within twenty amos of the floor, if the shade from the leaves’ tips is
greater than their sunlight, the Sukkah is valid, but if their shade is not greater than their sunlight,
the Sukkah remains invalid.

4. If the sukkah is exactly ten tefachim and some of the leaves from the s’chach were dangling
within the ten-tefachim airspace and their sunlight is greater than their shade, there is a dispute if
the Sukkah is valid or not.

5. If a sukkah is higher than twenty amos and a platform is built in the Sukkah that abuts all three
walls of the sukkah, since the airspace between the platform and the s’chach does not exceed
twenty amos, the Sukkah will be valid. If the platform is built on the side of the Sukkah, if from
the edge of the platform until the opposite wall is a distance of less than four amos, the Sukkah is
valid. The reason for this ruling is because we apply the principle of dofen akumah, i.e. we say
that an invalid covering can be viewed as part of a bent wall. The novelty of this ruling is that even
though the third wall cannot be used as a wall of the Sukkah because it is higher than twenty amos
and does not abut the platform, we still apply the principle of dofen akumah and even the third
wall qualifies as a valid Sukkah wall. The principle of dofen akumah applies even when the
platform does not abut any walls but the distance from the edge of the platform until the wall is
less than four amos.

6. If a Sukkah is less than ten tefachim high and one dug a pit in the middle of the floor so that the
Sukkah is completed to a depth of ten tefachim, the Sukkah will be valid if there is less than three
tefachim between the edge of the pit and the Sukkah wall.

7. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and one builds in the middle of the Sukkah a pillar that
is ten tefachim tall and wider than seven squared tefachim, Abaye maintains that the Sukkah is
valid because we apply the principle of gud asik, i.e. we extend and raise the partition on each of
the pillar’s sides to the s’chach above, creating a valid Sukkah on the top of the pillar. Rava
disagrees because he maintains that we need the walls of the Sukkah to be recognizable, and here
there are no recognizable walls.

9
8. If one built a Sukkah by driving four poles into the roof of a house and he placed s’chach across
the poles, there is a debate if the Sukkah is valid or not.

9. There are various sources cited for the Halacha that a Sukkah which is not ten tefachim high is
invalid. One of the sources is learned from the Aron, the Holy Ark. The Aron was nine tefachim
high and the kapores, the Ark-cover, was one tefach thick. Hashem spoke to Moshe from on top
of the kapores and we have learned that the Divine Presence never descended below into the human
domain. It is thus evident that ten tefachim from the ground is considered a separate domain. It
follows, then, that the Sukkah must be at least ten tefachim high.

Less than Ten

The Sfas Emes cites the sefer Beis Yisroel that wonders why the Gemara requires a source in the
Torah that is unrelated to sukkah to teach us that a Sukkah is invalid if it is less than ten tefachim.
Should it not be invalid because one cannot dwell comfortably in such a Sukkah?

The Sfas Emes answers that the verse is needed for a case where the s’chach is higher than ten
tefachim but the walls are not higher than ten tefachim. If not for the verse teaching us otherwise,
the Sukkah would be valid when the s’chach is higher than ten tefachim. The Brisker Rav writes
in a similar vein that there are two aspects to this halacha. One requirement is that the walls of the
Sukkah must be at least ten tefachim high, and second, that the Sukkah must accommodate that
one can dwell in it comfortably. A practical difference between these two reasons would be in a
case where one rests his Sukkah on bedposts. The walls of the Sukkah are ten tefachim but it would
still be invalid because the bed inside the Sukkah does not allow one to dwell comfortably in the
Sukkah.

Sitting or Standing

If the Sukkah is exactly ten tefachim and some of the leaves from the s’chach were dangling within
the ten-tefachim airspace and their sunlight is greater than their shade, there is a dispute if the
Sukkah is valid or not. Rava maintains that the Sukkah is not valid as it is considered a dirah
seruchah, an repulsive dwelling, and one does not dwell in an repulsive dwelling. The Reshash
wonders how a Sukkah that is precisely ten tefachim high can be valid if the height of a regular
person is eighteen tefachim. One would not be able to stand straight in such a Sukkah and he will
be very uncomfortable. Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha answers that this is not a difficulty
because the obligation is for one to sit in a sukkah and not to stand in the Sukkah. Shearim
Mitzuyanim B’Halacha cites a proof to this from the Rambam who rules that one should recite the
Bracha of leisheiv basukkah while standing and then he should sit down so that the Bracha will be
considered recited prior to the performance of the mitzvah.

There are Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam and they maintain that one can fulfill the
mitzvah by standing as well. Nonetheless, those Rishonim will agree that the primary obligation
is to sit as the Torah states explicitly basukkos teishvu, and the word teishvu means to sit. Bent
Walls If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and a platform is built that abuts three walls of the
Sukkah, since the airspace between the platform and the s’chach does not exceed twenty amos, the
Sukkah will be valid. If the platform is built less than four amos away from the walls, the Sukkah

10
will still be kosher because we apply the principle of dofen akumah, i.e. we say that an invalid
covering can be viewed as part of a bent wall.

The Rishonim offer two explanations regarding the mechanics of dofen akumah. Rashi understands
that the s’chach that is higher than twenty amos and not on top of the platform is deemed to be an
extension of the wall. According to Rashi, one cannot sit under this portion of the Sukkah and
fulfill the mitzvah because he is sitting under a wall and not under the s’chach. Other Rishonim,
however, explain that since the wall is less than four amos away from the kosher s’chach and it is
normal for a wall to be slanted less than four amos, the principle of dofen akumah teaches us that
we view the wall to be touching the platform.

According to these Rishonim, one is permitted to sit under the s’chach that is higher than twenty
amos, because given the fact that there is a kosher Sukkah, there is another principle that any
s’chach protruding out from a valid Sukkah is deemed to be part of the Sukkah. A practical
difference between the two explanations would be if the walls of the Sukkah did not touch the
s’chach. According to the explanation offered by Rashi, we would not be able to apply the principle
of dofen akumah, because given the fact that there is a break in the wall, we cannot say that the
s’chach is an extension of the wall. According to the other Rishonim, however, we can apply the
principle of dofen akumah, as we are connecting the wall to the platform and it does not concern
us that the wall does not reach the s’chach.

Sukkos and the Holy Ark

The Gemara derives the law that the height of a Sukkah must be higher than ten tefachim from the
Holy Ark, which was nine tefachim tall, and the thickness of the kapores, the Ark-cover, was one
tefach. The Divine Presence never descended into the domain of man and Hashem spoke to Moshe
from atop the kapores, so it follows that ten tefachim from the ground is a separate domain. It is
noteworthy that the Vilna Gaon writes that when the Jewish People sinned with the Golden Calf,
the Clouds of Glory that had been protecting them departed and they only returned after Hashem
forgave the Jewish People on Yom Kippur.

The clouds actually returned on Sukkos, and it is for this reason that we celebrate Sukkos in the
fall season. Following Yom Kippur, the Jewish People were instructed to build the Mishkan, a sign
of HaShem’s forgiving the Jewish People.

It is thus appropriate that we derive a law regarding a Sukkah from the Holy Ark, as the Ramban
writes that the ultimate goal of the Mishkan was to contain the Divine Presence that had rested
publicly at Sinai. The Divine Presence rested on the Holy Ark, atop the kapores, and Sukkos
reflects the Divine Presence that rests in our midst.

11
 A SUKKAH LESS THAN TEN TEFACHIM TALL

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Mishnah (2a) states that a Sukah that is less than ten Tefachim tall is invalid. The Gemara
asks what the source is for this Halachah. Perhaps a Sukah lower than ten Tefachim is also valid,
as the Gemara itself suggests later (5b) in the case of a Sukah that is nine Tefachim tall. The
Gemara commences a lengthy discussion about the source for the height of ten Tefachim as derived
from the height of the Aron ha'Kodesh.

Why does the Gemara ask for the source that a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall is invalid? The
Gemara (4a) already taught the reason why it is invalid -- it is a "Dirah Seruchah" (an uninhabitable
dwelling). The Gemara there said in the name of Rava that if the branches ("Hutzin") of the palm
leaves of the Sechach dangle below ten Tefachim, the Sukah is invalid because it is a "Dirah
Seruchah." The same principle ("Dirah Seruchah") should invalidate any Sukah less than ten
Tefachim tall! (Indeed, the BARTENURA on the Mishnah writes that the reason why such a
Sukah is invalid is because it is a "Dirah Seruchah.") Why does the Gemara here not give this logic
as the source for the Pesul of a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall?

(a) The ME'IRI infers from the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Sukah 5:5) that when branches
dangle below ten Tefachim, the Sukah is invalid only l'Chatchilah; b'Di'eved it is a valid Sukah.
Apparently, the Pesul of "Dirah Seruchah" invalidates a Sukah only l'Chatchilah. Accordingly,
perhaps the Gemara here seeks a source to invalidate a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall even
b'Di'eved (i.e. mid'Oraisa). (ARUCH LA'NER 4a; BEIS YISRAEL, cited by SEFAS EMES)

(b) The other Rishonim, however, seem to learn that the Pesul of "Dirah Seruchah" is mid'Oraisa
and invalidates a Sukah even b'Di'eved. The Halachah is that if the decorations of a Sukah dangle
below ten Tefachim, the Sukah remains valid. TOSFOS (10b, DH Noyei) explains that the fact
that the decorations hang down so low does not make the Sukah into a "Dirah Seruchah," because
"they are made for decorating" the Sukah. Tosfos apparently means that only objects that interfere
with the use of the Sukah make it a "Dirah Seruchah." The branches that hang down are sharp and
pointed and make it difficult to use the Sukah (as the Me'iri and Rabeinu Yehonasan mi'Lunil
explain). In contrast, the decorations of a Sukah do not interfere with the use of the Sukah.

According to this explanation, when the entire ceiling of the Sukah reaches only nine Tefachim,
one might have thought that the Sukah is valid because the low ceiling does not interfere with the
normal use of the Sukah. Therefore, the Gemara seeks another reason (other than "Dirah
Seruchah") for why such a Sukah is invalid.

(c) The PNEI YEHOSHUA points out that TOSFOS here (DH Asarah) explains that the source
which the Gemara finds to invalidate a Sukah that is less than ten Tefachim tall is not only a source
for Sukah, but it also teaches that any wall or partition that is ten Tefachim tall suffices to separate

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-004.htm

12
the area enclosed within it from the area outside of it and give it the status of a separate domain.
This Halachah is particularly relevant to the laws of the different domains on Shabbos.

The Pnei Yehoshua explains, therefore, that it is true that the Gemara does not need another source
to teach that a Sukah less than ten Tefachim tall is invalid, because the reasoning of "Dirah
Seruchah" teaches that. However, the Gemara wants to find a source that teaches that any wall ten
Tefachim tall effectively separates one domain from another. Since that question happens to apply
to Sukah as well, the Gemara phrases its question as a search for a source that a Sukah less than
ten Tefachim tall is invalid.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

The first Mishnah in the perek, or chapter, (see 2a) taught that a sukkah whose walls are more than
20 amot (cubits) high is not a valid sukkah. The Gemara on our daf teaches that if the walls are too
high, it can be rectified by building a platform, extending from one wall to the next, that is, by
itself, large enough to be a valid sukkah. By doing this, we effectively lower the walls of
the sukkah to less than 20 amot (see diagram 1).

The Gemara follows this ruling with three other examples of cases where a sukkah whose walls
are not the right height can be fixed by manipulating the height of the floor:

1. When a platform is built on one side of a sukkah that has three walls taller than
20 amot (see diagram 2). In this case, the platform must reach to within four amot of the
opposite wall so that that wall will be considered part of the sukkah.
2. When a platform is built in the middle of such a sukkah (see diagram 3). In this case there
must be less than four amot between the platform and the walls on both sides so that those
walls will be considered part of the sukkah.
3. When the sukkah is too short (i.e. less than 10 tefachim, or handbreadths, high) and an area
is dug out so that there is enough room for the appropriate height to be reached (see diagram
4). In this case the hole in the floor must be within three tefachim of the walls.

The operating principle behind these rulings is dofen akumah – a crooked wall. The exact
definition of this term is unclear. Some of the rishonim, including Rashi, the Me’iri, the Ritva and
others, explain that when the valid sukkah reaches close enough to the wall, we consider it as
though the wall continues horizontally at the top, perceiving the schach as part of the wall. Another
explanation is that we consider the wall to have moved from its place, as though it reached
the skhakh at the point where the sukkah was valid (according to this understanding, some of
the schach will be viewed as being on the “other side” of the wall).

In any case, dofen akumah is one of many legal fictions that are permitted by the Sages in creating
valid walls for a sukkah.

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_sukkah25/

13
Mark Kerzner writes:5
We mentioned that the sukkah cannot be higher than twenty amot (about 30 feet) . What if one's
sukkah is higher than that, and he decides to pile pillows and blankets on the floor? Unfortunately,
we tell him that it does not help, because he plans to remove them later, and so they are regarded
as non-existent even now. What if he says, "I abandon these pillows here, for the seven days of the
holiday?" - No use either, because most people would not do such a thing, and his decision is
nullified by the rest of the world's opinions. However, if he puts straw and abandons it, or better
yet, he spreads dirt - this helps, and his sukkah becomes valid.

If he puts up a platform inside his sukkah, it also helps to reduce the height. He does not even have
to put it right next to the walls; he can distance the platform up to 4 amot (6 feet) from each wall,
and it will still be valid, because we will regard each wall as a "bent wall," ("dofen akumah"), one
that first goes up, then bends vertically, transforms itself into a roof, and remains a valid legal
partition.

A sukkah that is too low can be fixed by digging the floor. Here, however, he needs to dig all the
way, almost next to the walls, and not four amot from them as he did above, because the concept
of "bent wall" only applies to bending the roof, not bending the floor.

5
https://talmudilluminated.com/sukkah/sukkah4.html

14
Our Daf discusses a sukkah that is only ten tefachim tall, the minimum height allowed. There are
a few branches of ‫ סכך‬hanging down, but on their own they are ‫ מרובה חמתן‬. Abaye thought that
this should be kosher, because we can disregard these few branches, being that they do not
contribute a significant amount of shade.6

Nevertheless, Rava asserted that such a sukkah would be invalid, for it is an unpleasant dwelling
(‫)סרוחה דירה‬. What is the nature of this disqualification?

points out that a person cannot reside in such a small compartment, not even while
sitting. The minimum height of ten tefachim is diminished by the sticks and branches which hang
down, and these irritate the person who would enter by bumping into his head and scratching into
his eyes. This is why such a sukkah is invalid. Rashash notes that if a sukkah with branches hanging
down below the ten tefachim level is not valid because its size cannot contain a person, we would
have to say that even a full ten tefachim is also too crowded to reside in any normal manner. A
person’s average height is three amos, which is eighteen tefachim, beside his head. How can he
enter a sukkah which is only ten tefachim? The comment of Rashash can be answered, however,
based upon the explanation of above, where we see that the size of a sukkah is adequate
once a person is able to at least sit in it, even if he cannot stand in it.

Ritva understands that under these circumstances, when a sukkah of ten tefachim height is
diminished by hanging sticks, it is ‫ פסול‬even ‫ בדיעבד‬,whereas Rambam (Hilchos Sukkah 5:2) rules
that it is only identified as uninhabitable ‫ לכתחילה‬,but if a person enters such a sukkah, ‫ בדיעבד‬he
has fulfilled his mitzvah.

The Likutei Halachos, zt”l, writes that the dimensions of the sukkah represent the different ways
in which different people grasp spirituality. A sukkah is kosher if it is at least ten tefachim high.
This minimal dimension represents the grasp of a simple person.

Every complete spiritual unit comprises ten increments, representing the ten sefiros. The simple
person manifests this basic ten dimensional building unit of every tzelem Elokim in a “smaller”
manner.

The Torah scholar, on the other hand, has a greater grasp—represented by the height of ten amos.
A person whose knowledge is constantly growing is always bringing his mental potential into
actuality. It is as though he has the ten amos of his sukkah of understanding plus another ten amos
of potential that he is about to inhabit.

6
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Sukkah%20004.pdf

15
Twenty amos is the absolute maximum height of the sukkah because anyone who tries to grasp
beyond his mental capacity invariably falls. This is because most falls are caused by trying to do
more than we realistically can or should. As the Zohar says “too much oil extinguishes the lamp.”
If we build a platform, however, the sukkah is kosher even above this height. The platform
represents rising to a higher spiritual level, which opens up new horizons of potential. As long as
we are standing on the platform of genuine spiritual growth, we are in a kosher sukkah.

On the first night of Sukkos, Rav Moshe of Kovrin, zt”l, was standing in his sukkah, profoundly
moved by the holiness of the day and this special mitzvah. He said,

“The walls of the sukkah appear to be of wood, and the s’chach looks like a bunch of branches.
But the truth is that every part of the sukkah embodies holy names of Hashem. Every element
of the sukkah has deep kabbalistic meaning! My own Rebbe said: with this mitzvah we enter
into holiness with our shoes on! He meant that even the mundane human needs of the simplest
Jew are transformed into lofty mitzvos through the sukkah. We eat and drink and sleep, and it
is all a mitzvah!”

Sara Ronis writes:7

Today’s daf continues our discussion of sukkahs that are too tall. The rabbis offer a number of
ways that someone might try to “shorten” a tall sukkah — raising the floor with dirt, building a
platform in the middle of the sukkah — and assess each one for its halakhic permissibility.

As part of this discussion, the Gemara offers the following scenario:

If a sukkah was more than 20 cubits (30 ft.) high, but the ends of the palm leaves (on the roof)
fall within 20 cubits (of the ground): If the shade provided solely by the leaves within 20 cubits
of the ground is greater than the sunlight in the sukkah, it is fit. If not, it is unfit.

Can you “shorten” a tall sukkah by letting the leaves that make up its roof dangle? That depends:
If the dangling leaves function as the roof, by which we mean producing substantial shade, then
the sukkah is fit. If they don’t actually function as a roof, then it is not.

This scenario leads the Gemara to ask about the inverse scenario as well: The shortest allowable
sukkah is 10 handbreadths tall (about a yard). If this sukkah has dangling leaves, do they bring the
height down so that the sukkah is not actually tall enough to count as a kosher sukkah at all? Abaye
offers one possible answer which follows the logic we saw above:

Abaye said: If the sunlight in the sukkah is greater than the shade, it is fit.

7
Myjewishlearning.com

16
Once again, if the dangling leaves produce substantial shade themselves, then they function as a
roof that is too low to the ground, and the sukkah is unfit. But if they are not really functioning as
the roof, then the sukkah is fit.

But then Abaye’s colleague Rava offers a completely different approach to understanding this
scenario of a short sukkah with a sagging roof:

Rava said to him: That residence is serucha, and a person does not reside in a residence that
is serucha.

The Hebrew word serucha has a range of meanings: hanging loosely or sagging, but also foul-
smelling, rotten, offensive.

Rava’s response takes this discussion in a completely different direction. If a sukkah is meant to
be a home (even if a temporary one!) shouldn’t it be a place someone would actually want to live?
Rava seems to think that a person would only live in a home with a roof that doesn’t hang down,
a home which isn’t rotting or smelly, a home which is comfortable. Anything else wouldn’t count
as a home and so couldn’t be a fit sukkah.

After Rava’s statement, the Gemara moves on to a new discussion without further comment. Even
the standard medieval commentaries, Rashi and Tosafot, don’t feel the need to weigh in on Rava’s
claim.
But it’s worth examining the implications of Rava’s belief that a person does not reside in a
residence that is serucha. After all, across the globe we sadly have no shortage of people living in
housing that is absolutely serucha, no matter which translation of the word we adopt: whether we
are talking about cities affected by urban decay, people experiencing homelessness, or people
living in diverse regions where housing policies and corruption have led to the construction of
structurally unsound housing.

Rava is simply wrong that people don’t live in housing that is serucha. But perhaps we can read
Rava’s statement not as a description of a social reality but as a prescription for the reality we
should strive to create. After all, if Rava thinks that even a fragile temporary hut that is designed
to expose us to the elements should not be serucha, how much more so should we create
structurally sound and dignified housing for the other days of the year?

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

Our daf (Sukkah 4a) continues its discussion about the permitted height of the Sukkah which, as
Mishna Sukkah 1:1 previously taught, cannot be taller than 20 amot (approx. 10 metres), and must
be at least 10 tefachim (approx. 1 metre). Beyond this, our daf also rules that in a situation where
the sukkah is exactly 10 tefachim high, the s’chach should not be protruding downwards into the
10 tefachim, i.e. there needs to be at least 10 tefachim of space to allow those present to ‘dwell’
therein.

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

17
Of course, in most situations, most people would not seek to build a 10-tefachim-tall sukkah. Yet
it is in this spirit that I would like to share an inspirational story about a family who did so under
incredibly dangerous conditions. Here is the story, titled ‘The Maximum from the Minimum’ as
recorded by Rabbi Paysach Krohn:9

‘In the 1930’s, the Jakobovitses lived in the Neuklon section of Berlin. Their father, Rav Yoel, was
a noted talmid chacham and a respected dayan (rabbinical judge). Whenever the family had to
relocate to a new apartment, Rav Yoel would inspect the balcony to see if there were any
impediments to a kosher succah such as a balcony directly overhead, or tree branches covering
his own balcony. This would invalidate the succah, for the s’chach must lie directly beneath
unobstructed sky.

Furthermore, Rabbi Jakobovits always had a clause inserted in the lease specifying that he could
build a succah on the balcony. Although he knew that German landlords would not be keen on
having a visible Jewish object such as a succah built on their property, he also knew their
mentality: Germans would not renege on a signed agreement. A contract was a contract.

In October 1938, virulent storm winds of anti-Semitism were rampant. Every day Jews would hear
about their brothers and sisters being carted off to the concentration camps in Dachau and
Buchenwald. At that time the general consensus among Jews was that their brethren were merely
being imprisoned; no one could have imagined the horrifying atrocities that were in store.

Nazi storm troopers roamed the streets of Berlin and Jews could be dragged off at any time to be
sent away. However, Succot was approaching and it was unthinkable for Rabbi Jakobovits to eat
his Yom Tov meals outside a succah. His balcony on the third floor faced the street below and was
glaringly visible to all passersby. If Heaven forbid Nazi soldiers saw the succah, they could charge
upstairs, ransack the premises, and cart the family off to police headquarters – or worse.

Rav Yoel considered his options. He closed his eyes in thought and then had an idea. He measured
the height of the surrounding wall of the balcony. It was a little more than 44 inches –
approximately 11 tefachim. The minimum permissible height of a succah is 10 tefachim,
approximately 40 inches. Rav Yoel could build a succah ten tefachim high, cover it with s’chach
and still be below the 44 inch height of the wall. No one would be able to see his succah from the
street.

The Jakobovitses were concerned that their neighbours on higher floors might inform Nazi
authorities about the succah, but Rav Yoel was willing to take that perilous chance. Aside from his
determination to fulfil the mitzvah, he had always been on good terms with the upstairs neighbours.
He prayed they would not betray him.

His prayers were answered. Rav Yoel indeed built a succah that was all of 10 tefachim high, and
today, more than sixty years later, Rabbi Shlomo Jakobovits recalls with pride how his family
crawled on their knees into that tiny succah on the balcony on Elizabeth Ulfer Street and ate all
their meals sitting on pillows, observing Hashem’s commandment in an unforgettable manner.’

9
Reflections of the Maggid:Inspirational stories from around the globe and around the corner (ArtScroll series) 2002 140-142

18
 Reach for the Top
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:10

The Gemara derives the minimum height of a sukkah from two separate and very distinct sources.
In fact, the first “source” is no source at all. Rather it is based on simple logic. A sukkah less than
ten tefachim, handbreadths (approximately three feet) tall is not fit for habitation as “it is a dira
serucha, a smelly dwelling, and a person does not live in a smelly dwelling” (Sukkah 4a). No
textual support is cited, as none is needed.
Less than a page later, the Gemara (ibid 4b) asks how we know that a sukkah must be at least
ten tefachim tall. Here, the answer is much different, with the Gemara quoting a Biblical verse to
demonstrate the minimum height needed for a sukkah. The Gemara explains that the dimensions
of the aron kodesh, the Holy Ark in the Mishkan, measured 2.5 cubits long by 1.5 cubits wide by
1.5 cubits high. With six handbreadths to a cubit, the ark was nine handbreadths tall. The Gemara
continues with a relatively long discussion demonstrating that the thickness of the kaporet, the
covering that adorned the ark, was one handbreadth thick for a total of ten tefachim.
What is left unexplained is why we should derive the height of the sukkah from the height of
the aron. It is hard to think of two abodes more different from each other than the sukkah and
the aron. The sukkah is made of the flimsiest material, and its roof must be made of leftover straw
and the like. One can even construct a sukkah with four poles and no walls[1]. The sukkah is
designed so that “all inhabitants of Israel will dwell in the sukkah”. We are meant to invite guests
to our sukkah, a notion symbolized by our inviting the Ushpizin to join our more temporal guests
in the sukkah. We are encouraged and obligated to use the sukkah for the most mundane of
activities; eating, sleeping, strolling and schmoozing. The more time we spend there, the better.
On the other hand, the aron is made of solid wood, encased inside and out with pure gold. Atop
its solid structure is a most beautiful cover, made of the finest of linen. The aron was housed in
the Kodesh HaKodashim, the Holy of Holies, where only the Kohen Gadol could enter; and even
he was only permitted to enter once a year, on Yom Kippur. Only the most holy of activities could
be done there: sprinkling the blood of the special Yom Kippur sacrifices, offering incense, and
reciting a short prayer. He spent as little time there as possible, “and he would not lengthen his
prayer so as not to make the people nervous” (Yoma 52b).
Is the sukkah meant to mimic the most basic of habitats or the most sublime? This seems to be at
the center of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva regarding the nature of the sukkah.
Is it reminiscent of the simple huts the Jews lived in during their desert wandering, or is our sukkah
a reminder of the Divine clouds of glory that led us on our way?
Just as our ancestors both lived in huts and were guided by the clouds of glory, our sukkah is
simultaneously the most basic and the most holy of structures. We need not build a sanctuary to
get close to God. Judaism sees holiness in the most mundane of activities.

10
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/sukkah-4-reach-for-the-top

19
There is a place for physical beauty, pageantry, and the like; but day to day, the way to reach God
is through the mundane. In the case of the original Torah society, we sanctified the mundane
through the many mitzvot associated with farming. For us, it might be real estate, investment
banking, or the law that we must imbue with holiness, turning our working hours into vehicles for
divine worship.
Our sukkah must be at least ten handbreadths tall not just so it won’t be a dira serucha, but so it
can be a holy ark.

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:11

The gemara in Sukka lists two instances of invalid walls and suggests strategies for
correcting these walls and repairing the sukka. These two cases may potentially demonstrate the
function and nature of the walls of a sukka, as well as the parallels and differences
between sukka walls and the walls used to define zones for Shabbat.

Without question, the primary element of a sukka is its sekhakh. Are the WALLS
merely sekhakh “holders” or do they also function as vital structural elements within a sukka? For
example, there is a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai permitting a sukka with two perpendicular walls
with a small wall extending from the “other” side. This certainly suggests a non-essential role for
walls of a sukka; as long as the walls define the “sukka-space” and serve as a platform for
overhanging sekhakh, the sukka is kosher. Rashi, in fact, in his initial comments to
the massekhet (2a s.v. ve-shechamta), asserts that the name “sukka” derives from the
term sekhakh.

There are two scenarios introduced by the gemara which might shed light upon this
question. The first scenario introduced by the gemara (4a) concerns a sukka whose walls are
shorter than the required ten tefach minimum. The suggested solution is to dig a pit within
the sukka area so that the combined height of the wall and the depth of the pit if at least
ten tefachim. The gemara conditions this solution upon the pit being dug within three tefachim of
the sukka wall. Although this condition is logical (as less than three tefachim is always considered
“connected” based upon the principle of lavud), a parallel gemara in Shabbat (7b) does not
mention this requirement. That gemara, in discussing the creation of a private domain for the
purposes of carrying on Shabbat, proposes a house whose walls are almost ten tefachim tall and
whose roof completes the necessary height. Effectively, the outer wall of the house combined with
the width of the roof amounts to ten tefachim, but the inside of the house does not contain a
ten tefach airspace. The gemara suggests the same solution of digging a hole within the house to
“complete” the requisite height. However, in this instance the gemara DOES NOT demand a
proximity of less than three tefachim between the wall and the pit. This question bothered
most Rishonim and different answers were suggested.

11
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/talmud/seder-moed/massekhet-sukka/defining-walls-sukka

20
 In his comments on the Rambam (Hilkhot Shabbat 17), R. Chaim Soloveitchik develops a
novel idea about the role of a wall in defining different Shabbat “zones.” He claims that a reshut
ha-yachid, a private domain, is not defined by the ACTUAL presence of WALLS. As long as the
area is surrounded and protected, it is deemed separate from the hustle and bustle of reshut ha-
rabim, a public domain, and it is defined as a reshut ha-yachid. Some of the general applications
suggested by R. Chaim include:

1) The ability to form walls from material that is forbidden for use and designated for burning.
Although these materials cannot usually be employed for halakhic purposes, since
ACTUAL walls are not necessary, “protection” and “barrier” may be achieved with any
material.
2) The ability to define a raised platform as a reshut ha-yachid. Although ACTUAL walls
may not exist, the platform is only accessible to the public thoroughfare by climbing a
height of ten tefachim; this area can thereby be defined as reshut ha-yachid.

R. Chaim explains the “leniency” of the aforementioned gemara in Shabbat (7b) in this
manner. In this case, digging is required, not to generate ACTUAL walls, but to create a separation
of ten tefachim from the public area; thus, the pit dug in the house may be at a distance greater
than three tefachim from the walls.

R. Chaim did not write explicitly about the parallel scenario of digging a pit to complete
a sukka, but the implications of his statements are obvious. Digging a reshut ha-yachid wall for
the purposes of Shabbat does not require proximity between wall and pit because no ACTUAL
walls are being generated. If the gemara DOES require a less than three tefach proximity between
wall and pit for a sukka, it probably indicates that, unlike a reshut ha-yachid, a sukka needs
ACTUAL walls and not merely DEFINED SPACE. Although R. Chaim did not actually write
about this in his sefer, the Rav zt”l quotes him as articulating this contrast
between Sukka and Shabbat. Effectively, this stringency of Sukka convinces R. Chaim that the
walls of a sukka are not just space-definers but VITAL ELEMENTS of a sukka.

Not all Rishonim agree with this logic, however. For example, Tosafot on Shabbat (7b)
suggest a solution to the Sukka - Shabbat contradiction that may imply that the walls are, in fact,
non-essential in the case of a sukka as well. Tosafot attribute the three tefach stringency unique
to sukka as a function of requiring walls close to the sekhakh. They cite the gemara in Sukka (6b),
which derives the number of halakhic walls necessary for a sukka from the use of the term “sukka”
in the Torah. The literal definition of “sukka” is sekhakh, and this indicates that the walls must be
close to the sekhakh. To ensure a wall-sekhakh dynamic, the pit and the walls must be within
three tefachim of each other. If the walls are more than three tefachim distant from the pit, they are
too far from the kosher sekhakh to be associated with that sekhakh. Thus, although the walls are
not merely “space definers” as in the case in Shabbat, they are still not essential sukka elements.

Similar logic may emerge from a third solution to this contradiction suggested by
the Tosafot Yeshanim in Shabbat (7b). In essence, the three tefach proximity clause between wall
and pit is ALWAYS required – both for Shabbat wall correction as well as sukka wall repair. Only
the SPECIFIC situation in Shabbat (7b) allows a combination of pit depth and wall height even at

21
distances greater than three tefachim. The particular house described by the gemara in Shabbat
possessed a ten tefach wall on the outside by including the roof. In ADDITION to this
requirement, a reshut ha-yachid requires a ten tefach “SPACE” – which this house doesn’t
contain. Since the digging was aimed at providing SPACE and not walls or separation from the
outside reshut ha-rabim, the digging can occur beyond the three tefach limit.

According to this view, the “less than three tefach” condition is universal; only the specific
case in Shabbat (7b) allows a greater distance. Consequently, the three tefach limitation DOES
NOT indicate that a sukka wall is anything other than a space definer. The qualification is
universal and nothing new can be discerned about the nature of sukka walls base on it.

A second case discussed by the gemara (4b) concerns a sukka whose walls are too
high. One solution (discussed in the previous shiur) would be to construct a platform within
four amot of the walls, allowing the walls to “move” toward the height-reducing platform through
the device of dofan akuma. If this solution is impossible, the gemara considers building a sizable
platform possessing the seven by seven tefach dimensions of a sukka. If this platform is also
ten tefachim high, Abaye validates this as a SEPARATE sukka located under kosher sekhakh. We
routinely witness the phenomenon of gud asik, whereby halakhic walls may be “extended”
vertically. The ten tefach high base of this platform can be viewed as a halakhic wall; extended
upward toward the sekhakh, it forms an inner kosher sukka within the larger invalid one.

Rava responds that this “gud asik” solution is unacceptable because we require “mechitzot
nikarot”- discernable walls. Understanding Rava’s rejection of Abaye’s suggestion may provide
additional insight into the nature of sukka walls.

Perhaps Rava disqualifies the application of gud asik for a platform. The base of the
platform is indeed ten tefachim high but, since the platform is solid, the “walls” of the base do not
enclose any space. Is gud asik a method of imaginarily stretching any ten tefach construct upward
or does it only operate with something defined as a halakhic WALL? This question can be posed
about all of the “virtual walls” offered through halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai. Can they be applied
to “create” walls out of matter or only to stretch pre-existing halakhic walls to different
coordinates? Perhaps, then, Rava objects to the application of gud asik in the scenario of a solid
platform. R. Chaim (in his comments to Hilkhot Sukka 4) suggested this understanding based
upon a Ramban on Shabbat (99b), who severely limits the reshut ha-yachid qualities of a
ten tefach platform built in a public thoroughfare. Ultimately, according to the Ramban, Rava’s
rejection of gud asik was not a statement indicating the unique nature of sukka walls; rather, he
was rejecting gud asik for the base of a platform.

In contrast, many Rishonim, including the Ran and the Ritva, interpret Rava’s rejection
based on a sukka’s unique requirements. Gud asik MAY be applied to a platform base for
SHABBAT applications. But a sukka requires actual definable and palpable walls – not virtual
walls formed through gud asik! This understanding of the sugya reaffirms the essential role of
walls within the overall structure of a sukka. Just as the less than three tefach qualification
indicated the requirement of ACTUAL and essential sukka walls, Rava’s rejection of gud
asik does as well.

22
 Intriguingly, the Ran attributes this unique requirement to a sukka’s status as a dira. In
addition to the geometric requirements of walls and sekhakh, the sukka must also be serviceable
as a dira, a residence. This association between Rava’s rejection of gud asik for a sukka and the
need for dira is reminiscent of a different position of Rava’s. An earlier gemara (4a) considered
a sukka whose walls were exactly ten tefachim high but whose sekhakh protruded into this
ten tefach airspace. Abaye develops a halakhic mechanism for “ignoring” this
infiltrating sekhakh: if the volume of LOW and PROTRUDING sekhakh is insufficient to provide
actual shade, the sekhakh may be ignored. Although the sekhakh ACTUALLY invades the
requisite ten tefach airspace and reduces it, this “low mass sekhakh” is rendered halakhically
irrelevant. Rava rejects this solution and disqualifies such a sukka. He refers to this situation
as dira serukha - a cramped residence.

It seems as if Rava and Abaye are twice debating the very same issue. Abaye views
a sukka in abstract geometrical terms. By generating proper walls and sekhakh and placing them
in appropriate space, a halakhic sukka can be produced. Even though the sekhakh invades the
ten tefach airspace, it can be nullified if insufficient in volume. Similarly, the walls forming the
base of a platform can be “halakhically/geometrically” extended to create virtual walls of
a sukka. In both instances, Rava objects to these “computer” models of a sukka. In each case,
although the sukka possesses the requisite components, it does not facilitate comfortable
residence. Although the invasive sekhakh can be ignored, it still inconveniences the person and
creates a cramped experience. Similarly, although virtual walls can be extended from the base
upward, such a sukka does not possess a sheltered or confined experience. Thus, in these two
debates, Rava and Abaye may be disputing the core definition of a sukka: an abstract model of
walls and sekhakh or an actual dira capable of supporting comfortable residence.

In his commentary on the Rambam, the Brisker Rav explains the first machloket between
Abaye and Rava in this fashion. In his view, the debate about sekhakh invading a
ten tefach airspace reflects this point. He does not connect it to the second debate about the
viability of gud asik for sukka purposes, however.

Sukkah 4a “What’s Wrong with This Picture?”

Eli Genauer writes:12

12
https://seforimblog.com/2021/07/sukkah-4a-whats-wrong-with-this-picture/

23
 ‫מסכת סוכה ד׳ עמוד א׳‬

The maximum height of a Sukkah is twenty Amot. The Gemara discusses a situation where the
Sukkah is slightly more than twenty Amot high and one builds a raised platform inside the Sukkah.

‫היתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה ובנה בה איצטבא כנגד דופן האמצעי על פני כולה ויש בה הכשר סוכה כשרה‬

If a Sukkah was more than twenty Amot high and one built a platform (‫ )איצטבא‬in it opposite the
middle wall, and the platform (‫ )איצטבא‬is the minimum area required for a Sukkah to be kosher, (7
Tefachim by 7 Tefachim) the Sukkah is kosher

.‫כשר‬, ‫ פחות מארבע אמות‬,‫ פסולה‬,‫ אם יש משפת איצטבא לכותל ד׳ אמות‬,‫ומן הצד‬

And along the side wall: If there are four (or more) Amot from the edge of the platform to the
opposite wall, it is Pasul. However, if there are less than four Amot, it is kosher

The Vilna Shas has two pictures embedded within the text of the Gemara which illustrate these
cases. The first picture illustrates the case of ‫איצטבא כנגד דופן האמצעי על פני כולה‬and the second
picture illustrates the case of ‫מן הצד איצטבא‬.

24
Updated Illustration in Vilna HaChadash (2006)

25
Were these two pictures part of the original text of the Talmud as written down by Rav Ami and
Rav Asi?

The website Hachi Garsinan which belongs to the Freidberg Manuscript Society
(https://bavli.genizah.org/?lan=heb&isPartial=False&isDoubleLogin=False) has a number of
manuscripts of Gemarah Sukkah and none of them have these diagrams included within the text.
They include:

British Library Harley 5508

Munich Codex heb. 140
Munich Codex heb. 95
JTS Rab. 218, JTS Rab. 1608
Oxford heb. 2. 51

It is extremely unlikely that any other written manuscript of this section of Talmud contained these
two images.[1]

26
Nevertheless, we do get the impression from the Vilna Shas that these diagrams are part of the
body of the Gemara.

The Vilna HaChadash edition (2006) even ties the two modified pictures 1) and 2) to specific
words in the Gemara.

Where do these two pictures belong, if not in the body of the Gemara text?

It turns out that there are three sources (a manuscript, the Dfus Rishon of Soncino Pesaro, and
Chochmat Shlomo) which point to these illustrations properly being included in Rashi’s
commentary. We will then look at how they ended up in the text of the Gemara.

In a manuscript identified as JTS, New York Rab. 832 (JTS, New York, Ms. 6648), pictures
illustrating ‫איצטבא בדופן האמצעי ואיצטבא מן הצד‬are placed alongside two other illustrations on the
next page.

27
 Dr. Aharon Arend attributes these pictures to the Rashi on 4a.[2]

Additionally, the Dfus Rishon of Soncino Pesaro (c.1515) places the diagrams in the body of
Rashi’s commentary. One diagram is situated next to the Rashi which speaks about
the ‫איצטבא‬being in the middle and the other diagram is in the Rashi which speaks about
the ‫איצטבא‬being on the side.

28
Bomberg Venice 1521 left empty spaces in the same two comments of Rashi.
Bomberg and Pesaro clearly saw them as separate drawings and situated
them in the same comments of Rashi:

29
 This Chochmat Shlomo (Cracow 1582) agreed that the two illustrations
belonged in Rashi and placed them in the Rashi immediately preceding the
first one of Soncino Pesaro (which is the beginning of the Halacha):

30
 Berman Frankfurt an der Oder 1698 used the same shapes as Chochmat
Shlomo but, despite clear instructions in Chochmat Shlomo of where to place
the pictures (‫)דבור המתחיל דופן האמצעי‬, inserted them in the text of Gemara.

31
Amsterdam 1717 finally placed the two pictures where they are today.[3]

32
The Amsterdam imprint imputed much importance to the Chochmat Shlomo
of Rav Shlomo Luria (MaHarshal) in fixing the text and format of its edition.

On the Shaar Blatt it lists the Chochmat Shlomo first in terms of what sources were used for
Hagahot:

Additionally, the publisher, Judah Aryeh Leib ben Josef Samuel in his introduction to Masechet
Shabbat, writes how corrupt the text of printed editions had become in his time, but that he was
able to correct his edition based on the editing work of MaHarshal, MaHarsha and MaHaram

33
Lublin. There is no diagram in Meier Einai Chachamim of MaHaram Lublin or Chiddushei
Halachot of MaHarsha on this Gemara so it is most puzzling as to what source he used to overrule
the instructions from MaHarshal of whom he writes ‫״ונתן ה׳ חכמה בלב שלמה הוא ניהו רבינו הגדול הגאון‬
‫מהרש״ל זצ״ל שהגיה רוב התלמוד״‬

It seems as if these diagrams were somehow destined to be embedded within the text of the Gemara
which is studied today, but I feel that a reference letter or number should be placed above these
pictures, and an explanatory note placed on the side of the Gemara which says

‫ ומהרש״ל גם כותב שהם שייכים לרש״י‬,‫בדפוס ראשון הציורים מופיעים ברש״י‬

I recommend specifically that such a notation be placed in the ‫הגהות וציונים‬section of the next Oz
Vehadar edition of Masechet Sukkah just as there are other references to ‫דפוס ראשון‬and ‫מהרש״ל‬on
the same Amud.iv

[1] According to Hillel Gershuni of the Friedberg Manuscript Society Hachi Grasinan website, none of the thousands of

manuscript pages of Talmud they have studied has contained a diagram

[2] Aaron Ahrend, Rashi’s Commentary on Tractate Sukkah-A Critical Edition, Bialik Institute, Jerusalem 2021

The reference to JTS Rab 832 as Mekor Aleph is on page 27- Reference to these two diagrams pertaining to Sukkah 4a is on

pages 505-506

[3] In 1714, R. Judah Aryeh Leib ben Joseph Samuel arranged to have the Talmud printed in Amsterdam by Samuel ben

Solomon Marquis and Raphael ben Joshua de Palacio. They began printing with Berakhot, but were forced to discontinue

printing in 1717 due to the Haskamot issued for the 1697-1699 Frankfurt on der Oder edition of the Talmud. Judah Aryeh Leib,

resumed printing in 1720 in Frankfurt-am-Main at the press of Johann Koelner.

For more information on this edition see “Printing the Talmud : from Bomberg to Schottenstein” Sharon Liberman Mintz; Gabriel

M Goldstein; Yeshiva University Museum.; Center for Jewish History ,2005. Article by Marvin J Heller, page 254.

34
[4]

Thinking still, about the Maseches Succah following Yoma….

We are told to fix the succah immediately after Yom Kippur without delay…
HALACHA

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 625:1

On Succot we shall dwell for 7 days etc. Because on Succot I protected the children of Israel.
These refer to the clouds of glory who protected them from all the intense heat and the sun of the
desert. And it is a Mitzvah to begin building the Succah immediately after Yom Kippur. For if a
Mitzvah that comes to one's hands, one should not delay performing it.

Which begs the question as to what is meant by the “first day” in the commandment to
celebrate Succot:

‫ ְפּ ִרי ֵﬠץ‬,‫מ וְּלַקְחֶתּם ָלֶכם ַבּיּוֹם ָה ִראשׁוֹן‬ 40 And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of
-‫ ְוַﬠ ְרֵבי‬,‫ָﬠֹבת‬-‫ ַוֲﬠַנף ֵﬠץ‬,‫ָהָדר ַכֹּפּת ְתָּמ ִרים‬ goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick
--‫ֵהיֶכם‬¥‫ ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה ֱא‬,‫ָנַחל; וְּשַׂמְחֶתּם‬ trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice
.‫ִשְׁבַﬠת ָיִמים‬ before the LORD your God seven days.

35
 Lev 23:40

MIDRASH TANCHUMA Emor 22

36
(Lev. 23:40:) “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day.”

Is it the first [day]? Is it not the fifteenth day? So how is it the first? It is simply the first for the
reckoning (heshbon) of sins.

MASHAL

R. Mani and R. Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of R. Levi said a parable, “To what is the matter
comparable? To a province which owed back taxes to the king.

[When] the king sent to collect [the sum], they did not hand it over, because the bill was large. So
it happened the first time, and a second time; when he sent [for it], they did not hand it over. What
did the king do? He said to his courtiers, ‘Arise and let us move against them.’ While they were
traveling about ten mil [away], the people of the province heard [what was happening]. What did

37
they do? The nobles of the province began to go to a meeting with the king. He said to them, ‘Who
are you?’ They said to him, ‘We are people of such and such a province where you sent to collect
our taxes.’ He said to them, ‘So what do you want?’ They said to him, ‘If you please, show us
kindness, because we have nothing to hand over.’ He said to them, ‘I will remit half for you.’

While he was [still] coming, the ruffians of the province went out and greeted him about
five mil [away]. He said to them, ‘Who are you?’ They said to him, ‘We are people of such and
such a province where you sent to collect our taxes, but we don’t have the ability to stand [up to
the demand]; if you please, have mercy upon us.’ He said to them, ‘I have already remitted half
[your debt], but for your sake I am remitting half of [the remaining] half.

While he was [still] coming, all the people of the province came out to him, [both] large and small.
He said to them, ‘What do you want?’ They said to him, ‘Our Lord king, we don’t have the ability
to remit what we owe you.’ He said to them, ‘I have already remitted half plus half of [the
remaining] half, but for your sake I am remitting everything.

However, from now on there [begins] a new account (heshbon).’

Nimshal

This king is [the supreme King of kings], the Holy One, blessed be He. The people of his province?
These are Israel, who acquire sins during all of the whole year.
What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He says, ‘Do penance at the beginning of the year.’
So they come in submission on the Day of Atonement, when they humble themselves and do
penance. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, forgives them.

And what do they do? The eve of Rosh Hashanah, the great ones of the generation fast, and the
Holy One, blessed be He, relinquishes [Israel] a third of its sins. And from Rosh Hashanah to the
Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), individuals fast, and the Holy One, blessed be He, relinquishes
[another] third of their sins.

And on the Day of Atonement, all of Israel fasts and requests mercy, men, women and infants. And
[so] the Holy One, blessed be He, relinquishes everything; as it is written (in Leviticus 16:30), ‘As
upon this day, there will be atonement for you….’

What does Israel do [then]? They all take their lulavim on the first day of the festival and render
praise to the Holy One, blessed be He. Thus He is reconciled to them and forgives them. He says
to them, ‘See, I have relinquished all your former sins for you.

However, from now on there is a new account (heshbon).’ Thus, it is stated (in Lev. 23:40), ‘And
you shall take for yourselves on the first day.’ [It is] first for the reckoning (heshbon) of sins.’”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, “In this world I have told you to make a sukkah in
order to pay me my remuneration for what I have done for you. It is so stated (in Lev. 23:42-43),
‘You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days […]. In order that your generations may know that I

38
had [the Children of Israel] dwell in sukkot.’ So, I reckon it to your credit, as if you are rendering
payment to Me.

But in the world to come I will appear over you like a sukkah, as stated (in Is. 4:6), ‘There shall
be a sukkah as a shade from the heat by day.’”

Rav David Silverberg writes:13

The Midrash, in a brief, startling passage above, (Tanchuma, Emor 22), comments that the first
day of the holiday of Sukkot is “rishon le-cheshbon avonot” – “the first [day] of the account of
sins.” What the Midrash appears to be saying is that after we’ve earned atonement for our
wrongdoing on Yom Kippur, we begin a new account of sins immediately following that
observance, on Sukkot. In the interim days between Yom Kippur on Sukkot, the Midrash writes,
the flurry of activity preparing for Sukkot, prevents sin, or at least makes it unlikely, such that the
new “account” begins only on Sukkot. The Midrash here appears, at least at first glance, to be
presenting a most discouraging, gloomy outlook on the otherwise joyous festival of Sukkot,
describing it as the beginning of our new “year of sin,” so-to-speak.

To understand his next explication, we will need to cite the Kedushas Levi for reference…

Kedushas levi P Ha’azinu

13
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/holidays/sukkot/salt-2017-sukkot

39
“Who is a God like You, forgiving iniquity, and remitting transgression; Who has not
maintained His wrath forever against the remnant of His people for He loves graciousness He
will take us back in love and will cover up our iniquities.”

Michah 7:18

Concerning the above statement of the prophet, there is a debate in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah
17 as to how the words ‫יכבוש עונותינו‬, “He remits transgression,” are to be understood. According
to one opinion the words are defining the words ‫נושא עון‬, at the beginning of the verse, i.e. while
“weighing” our sins on a scale, God depresses the side of the scales opposite it so that the sins
appear lighter than in reality. This would explain God’s being viewed as ‫מטה כלפי חסד‬, “tending in
the direction of loving kindness.” The other opinion cited understands it simply as God
“squashing” the sins together, as a result of which our positive deeds would take up more space
than the sins so that the side of the scales on which the positive deeds are weighed will become
correspondingly heavier.

This also enables us to answer a statement in Tanchuma on Parshat Emor, concerning Leviticus
23,40 '‫ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון פרי עץ הדר וגו‬, “acquire for yourselves on the first day (of the Sukkot
festival) the fruit of the citrus tree, etc.” The description “on the first day,” seems curious, as the
day in question is the fifteenth of the month. The Midrash explains that the word “first” refers to
the first day after the day of Atonement, which was followed by four days when any new sins
committed were not inscribed in God’s ledger. At first glance this statement seems puzzling; what
is the linkage of that statement to the Day of Atonement mentioned in the Torah 14 verses
previously? The subject has drawn the attention of earlier commentators who have tried to come
up with a plausible explanation.

Actually, the answer is relatively simple. Our chapter basically deals with festivals, though the
period between New Year’s day and the day of Atonement hardly fits the description of “festivals,”
seeing that during these days we are preoccupied almost exclusively with repentance, i.e. our mood
is somber and introspective. Until the conclusion of the day of Atonement we are full of fear rather
than filled with joy, as befits the festival days. The Torah had set aside the last of these ten days as
one on which each one of us is to practice self-denials as part of the process of repentance.
(Leviticus 23,29) so much so that anyone not following these instructions is warned that he will
lose his share in the hereafter for having failed to do so. Anyone exploiting these ten days for
repentance, however, has only fulfilled the minimum requirement, i.e. he has repented out of a fear
of punishment. When the Day of Atonement has passed and we are preoccupied with the various
commandments that enable us to celebrate Sukkot joyously, our mood undergoes a drastic change
and we are happy to have the opportunity to fulfill the many commandments connected with that
festival. The effect of all this is that our repentance, which previously could be attributed merely
to our fear of punishment, has now become repentance from a feeling of love for God and His

40
Torah. The effect of this is so powerful that iniquities we were guilty of before the ten day period
of repentance, have now become the catalyst of our mitzvah performance so that in retrospect
these iniquities also have become something constructive, as without the need to repent them and
to take steps to rehabilitate ourselves we would never have done so.

The principal name of this festival, i.e. ‫סכות‬, “huts,” in the sense of protective cover, symbolizes
that we are prepared instead of seeking the relative safety of solid structures to dwell in, to rely
on the flimsy cloud cover, reminding us that God watches over us. Seeing that this is a
demonstration of our faith in Him, and the effectiveness of our repentance, the first day of this
festival is like a new leaf in our post Yom Kippur life, and even any errors we may have committed
during the days that intervened since Yom Kippur have not been recorded in our ledger as a debit.

The word ‫ ראשון‬in the verse above therefore may be applied to the entire Sukkot festival, as it
ushers in a new period in our lives. As a result of our preparations for this festival, God renews
dispensing of His largesse for us with renewed energy. This reminds us of the statement in
Pesachim 112 that the mother cow is even more desirous of providing the calf with its milk than
the young calf is anxious to drink it.

Back to Rabbi Silverberg:

Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, in Kedushat Levi (Haazinu) above, suggests a creative
reading of the Midrash’s comment which effectively turns it around, into a source of
encouragement. He draws upon the Gemara’s famous teaching in Masekhet Yoma (86b) that when
a sinner repents “out of love,” as opposed to merely out of fear of punishment, his repentance has
the effect of retroactively transforming his sins into sources of merit. Whereas the lower level of
repentance merely allows the sinner to escape punishment, the higher level, the level of “teshuva
mei-ahava” (“repentance out of love”), has the remarkable ability to have one’s misdeeds count
as mitzvot. Rav Levi Yitzchak thus suggested – somewhat amusingly – that with the onset of the
festive, joyous holiday of Sukkot, when we transition from the fear of the High Holidays to the
higher level of joy and genuine feelings of love for the Almighty, He retrieves the sins that had
been removed from our record on Yom Kippur. Now that we rise to the higher level of “teshuva
mei-ahava,” which enables us to actually receive credit, as it were, for our sins, God graciously
goes back to count anew the sins of the previous year which had been erased. And thus the onset
of Sukkot marks the beginning of our new account of sins – as the sins of the previous year are
brought back into the ledger, so-to-speak, so we can receive credits for them now that they
transform into sources of merit.

We might question whether this was the Midrash’s actual intent in making this remark, but
nevertheless, Rav Levi Yitzchak’s explanation offers us insight into the nature of the transition
which we undergo as we proceed from the Yamim Nora’im to Sukkot. During the High Holiday
period, we reflect upon our mistakes and shortcomings with feelings of shame, guilt, humiliation
and anxiety, recognizing our failures and understanding that God holds us accountable for
them. The Yamim Nora’im experience is characterized by a degree of tension and angst, by pangs
of remorse for the past and concern about the future. After this stage, however, we proceed to the
joyous festivity of Sukkot, when, Rav Levi Yitzchak teaches, we look back at our mistakes from

41
a much more positive perspective. We reflect upon how our failures actually served to propel us
forward, and appreciate the fact that they, too, are part of the lifelong process of growth. Rather
than feel frustrated and anxious about our shortcomings, we view them as “sources of merit,” in
the sense that they serve as catalysts of change and growth. The joy of Sukkot stems, at least in
part, from this optimistic view of life, the perspective that sees the potential latent deep within
every moment of failure and shame, our ability to transform our lowest moments into sources of
profound inspiration and promoters of real change.

Rav Levi Yitzchak’s message is that whereas on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur the memory of
our misdeeds causes us great anguish and dread, on Sukkot, these memories bring us joy, as we happily
reflect upon how we are able to grow from every mistake and use them to propel us to greater heights of
achievement.

42