Daf Ditty Succah 43:Betrayal, then and now

There is a halachic ruling that you can put a Sukkah on a camel. So if you can
put a Sukkah on a camel then why not put a Succah in a boat? The Chasidim
in Venice like to celebrate various Jewish festivals in boats. Here I painted, the
Venice Chassidim on a boat in a Sukkah blessing the Lulav. You can see in the
picture the Canale Ormesini with the iron bridge which is right behind the new
Ghetto.

Michal Meron

1
Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from the mishna, which states: The lulav is taken and
the altar is encircled with the willow branch either six or seven days. What, is it not learned
from the juxtaposition of these mitzvot in the mishna that the mitzva of the willow branch is like
the mitzva of lulav in that just as the mitzva of lulav is performed by taking it, so too, the mitzva
of the willow branch is performed by taking it and not by standing it upright? He answered him:
Are the cases necessarily comparable? Perhaps this mitzva of lulav is as it is, by means of taking,
and this mitzva of the willow branch is as it is, by means of standing it upright.

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from a mishna: On every day the people circle the altar
one time, and on that day, the seventh day of the willow branch, they circle it seven times. What,

2
is the mishna not referring to circling the altar with the willow branch in hand? He answered
him: No, it is referring to circling the altar with a lulav.

Abaye objects: But didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: They would circle the
altar with the willow branch? Rav Yosef said to him: He said to you with the willow branch;
however, my authority is no less than his, as we are both amora’im, and I say that they circle the
altar with a lulav. It was stated that this was the subject of dispute between other amora’im as
well. Rabbi Elazar says: They circle the altar with a lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said that
Rabbi Ḥanina said: They circle the altar with the willow branch. And likewise, Rav Naḥman
said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They would circle the altar with the willow branch.

Rava said to Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana: Son of Torah [bar urya], come and I
will tell you an outstanding statement that your father would say. With regard to that which
we learned in a mishna: On every day the people circle the altar one time, and on that day, the
seventh day of the willow branch, they circle the altar seven times; this is what your father said
in the name of Rabbi Elazar: They circle the altar with a lulav.

3
Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from the Tosefta (Sukka 3:1): The mitzva of lulav
overrides Shabbat at the start of the Festival, and the willow branch overrides it at the end of
the Festival. One time, the seventh day of the willow branch occurred on Shabbat, and they
brought branches of the willow tree on Shabbat eve, before Shabbat, and placed them in the
Temple courtyard for use on Shabbat. The Boethusians in the Temple, who disagreed with the
Sages and held that there is no mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of the Festival,
noticed them and took them and concealed them under the stones. This was an attempt to

4
prevent fulfillment of the mitzva, as they knew that the Sages would prohibit moving the stones,
which are set-aside on Shabbat.

The next day, some of the ignoramuses noticed the branches concealed under the stones. And
since the ignoramuses identified with the opinion of the Sages, and at the same time were ignorant
of the details of the mitzvot, they extracted them from under the stones. And the priests
brought them and stood them upright at the sides of the altar. This happened because the
Boethusians do not concede that waving the willow branch overrides Shabbat.

RASHI

Summary

While the Temple stands, Jews should take the lulav to the Temple even when the first day of
Sukkot falls on Shabbat. We also learn that in modern times, we do not take lulav to the synagogue

5
on Shabbat.1 Why would the rabbis allow this carrying on Shabbat in Temple times? Usually we
are not permitted to carry from the private to the public domain on Shabbat, which could easily
happen (ie. exiting an eiruv) while walking to the Temple. In addition, usually we are not
permitted to carry beyond four cubits within the public realm on Shabbat. The rabbis are willing
to find reasons to make an exception. One of these is that our determination of dates might not be
correct. As we know, none of our dates were known for certain, as they relied upon sightings of
stars.

What is amazing to me is that the rabbis are willing to consider this particular argument for this
particular reason. What was so important about the act of taking the lulav to the Temple on the
first day of Sukkot? Why were the rabbis willing to break the halachot of Shabbat? What were
they afraid might happen if they insisted that people take lulav at home when the first day of Sukkot
falls on Shabbat?

The rabbis elaborate on the Mishna further: the first day as different; those in outlying areas as
different, whether or not we need a verse to allow moving the lulav, how different rabbis
understand the requirement of taking lulav during the day versus during the night. One of the
concepts used is the principle of verbal analogy, which is explained in a note. when the same
word/phrase appears in two different places in the Torah AND a halacha is stated explicitly
regarding one of these instances, the same halacha must apply to the other word/phrase. Thus
verbal analogies apply to linguistic similarities rather than similar concepts. They must be based
on ancient tradition - we cannot create new verbal analogies today.

Does this apply to the halacha of residing in the sukka during the day versus during the night, as
well? The rabbis attempt to apply the same verbal analogy and discuss where it works and where
it does not work.

So many rules and principles and guidelines to help us understand the intentions of the Torah. And
yet so many of those structures are created by people. We like to believe that G-d gave us hints
toward understanding the Torah. Why would it take this much work to find G-d's intended
patterns? How do we know that we found the 'true' intentions? As I have mentioned numerous
times, it seems more than likely that the creative human spirit has found a treasure trove in Torah;
a puzzle to be solved.

Most of amud (b) is devoted to understanding why we are to break the laws of Shabbat to carry
the willow branch around the altar for seven days. The basic reasons:

• Torah law overrides rabbinical halachot regarding Shabbat

1 http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/03/

6
 • we should publicize this Torah law

The rabbis wonder what is different about the willow branch and the lulav. They question whether
carrying the willow branch simply coincides with Shabbat or whether it in fact overrides
Shabbat. They wonder whether we did not march with the willow branch at all; perhaps we placed
it standing against the altar. This would break no halachot of Shabbat. Then the rabbis argue
about whether we circle the altar with the willow branch or with the lulav.

Attempting to solve this dilemma, Abaye tells of the Boethusians (said to be a sect that disagreed
with rabbinical authority, like the Sadducees), who would hide the Jews' willow branches under
stones near the altar, causing ignorant Jews to break the halachot of Shabbat by lifting the stones
on Shabbat to retrieve their branches. Interestingly, Steinsaltz shares a note: scholars have
discounted this possibility, as Boethusians would not know the halachot of lifting on
Shabbat. How telling that Jews would suggest such malintent.

This reminds me of today's Jewish community that is continually looking for those who are trying
to do us in. Of course there is true anti-Semitism in the world and we are at risk as a small
people. However, we are speaking about different sects of Jews - those who follow rabbinical law
and those who interpret Judaism differently. Just like the Orthodox and the Reform of today. To
tell a story about a group of people as if it were truth; to discredit another group of Jewish people
-- this is something special that we Jews have done to each other for thousands of years.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

The taking of the aravah in the Bais HaMikdash when the seventh day of Sukkos occurs on
Shabbos was permitted so that everyone would be aware that there is a biblical obligation to take
the aravah in the Bais HaMikdash.

There was no concern that one would carry the aravah on Shabbos four amos in a public domain
because the agents of the Bais Din, the court, would bring the aravos to the Bais HaMikdash. There
was also no concern that one would bring the aravos to an expert to learn how to recite the blessing,
because only the Kohanim took the aravos, and the Kohanim were knowledgeable regarding the
laws of reciting the blessings.

There is a dispute whether they circled the mizbeiach with the aravah or with the lulav. Abaye
maintains that they circled the mizbeiach with the aravah, whereas Rav Yosef maintains that they
circled the mizbeiach with the lulav and they performed the biblical obligation of aravah by
standing the aravos around the mizbeiach.

Aravos on Shabbos
The Gemara states that the Chachamim would always ensure that the seventh day of Sukkos,
known as Hoshanah Rabbah, would not occur Shabbos. Tosfos wonders why it was more
important to ensure that the seventh day of Sukkos not occur on Shabbos as opposed to ensuring

2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-043.htm

7
that Rosh HaShanah or the first day of Sukkos do not occur on Shabbos. On both Rosh HaShanah
and the first day of Sukkos there are biblical mitzvos to perform.

The Chachamim should have been more concerned with ensuring the observance of these mitzvos
than ensuring the continuity of the aravah mitzvah which is only a rabbinical institution to
commemorate the mitzvah that was performed in the Bais HaMikdash. Tosfos answers that there
was no concern that people would assume that the mitzvah of blowing shofar on Rosh HaShanah
and taking the lulav on the first day of Sukkos were rabbinical in nature. Regarding the mitzvah
of aravah, however, if the seventh day of Sukkos would occur on Shabbos and the aravah would
not be taken, people would view the custom as irrelevant and they would not take the aravah in
the future.

Furthermore, if the seventh day of Sukkos occurs on Shabbos, there would not be another
opportunity to take the aravah, because one would not be able to take the aravah on Shemini
Atzeres because it may be an independent festival and taking the aravah would contradict the
theme of the day. Regarding the mitzvah of shofar and lulav, however, one would be able to
perform the mitzvah on the second day of the festival.

Sukkah and the Mishkan The Gemara states that the obligation to dwell in a Sukkah is by day and
by night. This is derived by employing a gezeirah shavah from the Miluim, the inauguration of
Aharon and his sons into the service of the Mishkan. It is noteworthy that the sefarim write that
the Sukkah reflects the Bais HaMikdash, so it is appropriate that we derive the mitzvah to dwell
in the Sukkah from the Mishkan.

A further association between Sukkos and the Mishkan is that the Vilna Gaon is of the opinion
that we celebrate Sukkos on the fifteenth of Tishrei because that is when the Clouds of Glory
returned to shield the Jewish People. The Clouds of Glory were a sign that HaShem was pleased
with the Jewish People, and the building of the Mishkan was also a sign that HaShem had forgiven
the Jewish People for worshipping the Golden Calf.

CARRYING FOUR AMOS IN "RESHUS HA'RABIM"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3
Rabah says that the Rabanan decreed that one may not hold the Lulav on a day of Sukos which occurs
on Shabbos, lest one carry it four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim in order to bring it to an expert to
learn how to perform the Mitzvah.

RASHI asks why Rabah says that the Rabanan were concerned only that one might carry the Lulav
four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim ("Ha'avarah"), and he does not say that they were concerned that one
might carry it from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim ("Hotza'ah"). Rashi answers that the
transgression of carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim is more common than the transgression of

3 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-043.htm

8
Hotza'ah from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, because it applies to a Lulav that is resting
anywhere, even in a Karmelis.4

Rashi explains further that even if the Lulav is in one's home (a Reshus ha'Yachid), there is more cause
for concern that he will transgress Ha'avarah than Hotza'ah. This is because he might pick up the Lulav
with no intent to carry it outside and then change his mind and walk out with it. In that case, he will
not be liable for Hotza'ah because he performed no Akirah with intent to take the Lulav into Reshus
ha'Rabin. He will be liable, however, for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim.

There are a number of difficulties with Rashi's explanation.

(a) When one picks up the Lulav in a Karmelis and carries it into Reshus ha'Rabim, why is he liable
for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim? One transgresses Ha'avarah only when he performs both an Akirah
and a Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim. In this case, he performs the Akirah in a Karmelis and not in
Reshus ha'Rabim, and thus he should not be liable for Ha'avarah.

(b) It is even more difficult to understand why one is liable for Ha'avarah in the second case that Rashi
mentions, where one picks up the Lulav in his home in order to shake it and then decides to walk out
with it into Reshus ha'Rabim. Just as one is not liable for Hotza'ah (bringing the Lulav from Reshus
ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim) since he did no Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid with intent to bring it into
Reshus ha'Rabim, he should also not be liable for Ha'avarah in such a case, since he did no Akirah for
the sake of Ha'avarah (see Shabbos 153a). (TOSFOS DH v'Ya'avirenu)

(c) If Rashi maintains, as his words imply, that one does not need to do an Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim
in order to be liable for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, then he should explain the Gemara
as the RA'AVAD does (as cited by the ME'IRI). The Ra'avad explains that since a person normally
picks up a Lulav in his house, the Rabanan were concerned that he might take his Lulav from his house
to the house of the expert. In that case, he will carry the Lulav from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another
Reshus ha'Yachid and thus he will not be liable for Hotza'ah, but he will be liable for carrying the Lulav
four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. This is why Rabah's only concern is that the Lulav will be carried four
Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, and he is not concerned that the Lulav will be carried from Reshus
ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim.

(a) The RE'EM (in his notes to the SEMAG, cited by the KAPOS TEMARIM here) and REBBI
AKIVA EIGER explain the words of Rashi as follows:

Rashi understands that the expert to whom the person might bring his Lulav is in Reshus ha'Rabim and
not in Reshus ha'Yachid. Rashi maintains that one is liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim only
when he does both an Akirah and Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim. Accordingly, when the expert is in
Reshus ha'Rabim and one brings his Lulav from its place in Reshus ha'Rabim and sets it down next to
the expert, he is liable for Ha'avarah because he has performed Akirah and Hanachah in Reshus
ha'Rabim. The reason he is liable in a case in which he picks up the Lulav from a Karmelis, even
though he did no Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim, is because it is natural for a person who walks a moderate
distance to stop for a moment to rest. At the moment that he stops, the item he carries is considered to
have come to rest in Reshus ha'Rabim, and when he starts to walk again he does an Akirah in Reshus

4 If one picks up a Lulav in a Karmelis and carries it four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim, he transgresses only Ha'avarah and
not Hotza'ah, since the Lulav was not brought from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim.

9
ha'Rabim. When he reaches the expert and sets the Lulav down, he does a Hanachah in Reshus
ha'Rabim and becomes liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim. This answers the first question.

(b) The second question can be answered the same way. Rashi does not mean to say that when one
does an Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid without intent to bring the Lulav out of his home, he will still be
liable for Ha'avarah if he walks four Amos with it in Reshus ha'Rabim. Rather, Rashi means that one
will be liable for walking four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim because, at some point after his arrival in
Reshus ha'Rabim, he will probably stop to rest. When he starts to walk again, he does an Akirah in
Reshus ha'Rabim. However, he is not liable for Hotza'ah from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim,
because he did not do the Akirah with intent to bring the Lulav outside to Reshus ha'Rabim. There is
no concern that he will stop to rest in his house and then start to walk again with intent to go outside
(which would constitute a proper Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid), because one normally walks only a
short distance in his house until he reaches the threshold and has no need to stop and rest before he
exits.

(c) With regard to why Rashi does not explain as the Ra'avad does (that the concern is that one might
carry his Lulav from his house to the house of the expert and walk four Amos with it in Reshus
ha'Rabim), apparently Rashi maintains that in such a case one does not transgress the Isur of Ha'avarah.
According to Rashi, in order to be liable for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, one must do an
Akirah (and Hanachah) in Reshus ha'Rabim. Accordingly, if he stops to rest in Reshus ha'Rabim on
his way to the expert he will be liable for both Hotza'ah and Ha'avarah. If he does not stop to rest in
Reshus ha'Rabim, he will be liable for neither Hotza'ah nor Ha'avarah.

TOSFOS, who questions Rashi's explanation (see question (b) above), does not understand Rashi in
this manner. Tosfos understands that Rashi maintains that if one does an Akirah in a Karmelis or
Reshus ha'Yachid, one can be liable for carrying the item four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim (even if he
does not stop to rest and subsequently perform a new Akirah), regardless of whether or not he intended
to carry the object in Reshus ha'Rabim at the moment he picked it up.

According to this understanding, Rashi makes two important points. First, he asserts that one can be
liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim even if his act of Akirah was not in Reshus ha'Rabim but in
Reshus ha'Yachid. Second, he teaches that one can be liable for Ha'avarah even if his Akirah was not
done with intent to carry the object through Reshus ha'Rabim.

Tosfos, who questions Rashi's explanation, seems to take issue only with Rashi's second point, as he
does not question the first point. According to Tosfos, as long as the person intends to carry the object
in Reshus ha'Rabim at the moment he picks it up, he will be liable for Ha'avarah, even if he picks it up
in a Karmelis or Reshus ha'Yachid. (This is also evident from TOSFOS to Eruvin 33a, DH v'Ha, and
34a, DH v'Amai; see TOTZA'OS CHAYIM at the beginning of Maseches Shabbos.)
The RA'AVAD (mentioned in question (c) above) clearly follows this opinion as well.
The ME'IRI also mentions this opinion in Shabbos (97b).

In conclusion, there are three opinions with regard to the prohibition of carrying four Amos in Reshus
ha'Rabim:

1. RASHI, according to the RE'EM, maintains that one is not liable for Ha'avarah unless he performs
both the Akirah and the Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim.

10
2. TOSFOS maintains that one is liable for Ha'avarah even if his Akirah was not done in Reshus
ha'Rabim.
3. The RA'AVAD, who offers a novel but simple interpretation of the Gemara, rules that one is liable
even if neither the Akirah nor the Hanachah were done in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Other Mitzvot of the Holiday

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The fourth perek of Masechet Sukkah focuses on other mitzvot of the holiday aside from taking
the lulav and etrog or sleeping in the sukkah. Some of these commandments are connected
specifically with the Temple, and today, with the Temple destroyed, we no longer perform
these mitzvot or we only commemorate them without being able to actually fulfill them.
These mitzvot include:

• Circling the altar in the Temple with the aravah (the willow branch)
• Reciting full Hallel
• Engaging in the Simchat haChag – the joy of the festival – by eating the korban shelamim
• The water libation on the altar
• The chalil – playing the flute – which accompanied the water libation as part of the holiday
celebration.

Our daf discusses the mitzvah of aravah, which involved circling the altar in the Temple every
day, and circling it seven times on the seventh day of Sukkot. Most commentaries explain that
this mitzvah was only done by Kohanim, since no one else was permitted to enter the sanctuary
where the mizbe’ach was. Some of the Geonim argue that the people did not actually walk around
the mizbe’ach, rather they surrounded the altar on all sides, and the people who were
not kohanim stayed in the area that was permitted to them. Rabbi Yitzhak ibn Gi’ot argues that for
this mitzvah an exception was made and everyone was allowed to circle the mizbe’ach.

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

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

5 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_sukkah4147/

11
On our daf, we find a discussion about the ‫ חיבוט‬,the beating, of the aravos.6

Rav Yehudah d’Modena, zt”l, explains that since the arava represents a Jew who is devoid of
Torah and mitzvos, the beating it gets signifies that suffering in this world purifies even such a
person and makes him worthy of eternal reward.

A young boy from London afflicted with cancer was taken to the States for treatment where the
doctors said that if they go through with their plan, the boy could live a few more weeks. But
would he be willing to go through terrible pain just to buy a few more weeks of life? The treatment
alone would incapacitate him. At most, he would be able to daven for a few moments a day.

After hearing how difficult the course of treatment would be, the boy decided to refuse further
medical intervention. Rabbi Ezriel Tauber, shlit”a, was called in to speak with him, and after their
conversation the boy’s attitude changed completely. He told his doctors, “I’ve decided that I do
want the treatment along with all of the suffering that it will bring.” What had Rabbi Tauber told
this young boy? “If you live another second believing in Hashem even without pain, it’s worth
absolutely everything. But with your pain, the reward that is yours cannot be measured at all.”

The boy lived a few more weeks, and his family testified later that until the very end he exhibited
such willing acceptance of his suffering, even joy in it, because he could feel that every instant of
pain sanctified by belief in Hashem made such a difference.

When the idiots stole the willows.

RACHEL SCHEINERMAN WRITES:7

Sukkot practice looked pretty different in Temple times. The fourth chapter of this tractate, which
began with a mishnah at the bottom of yesterday’s page, fleshes out some of the unique Temple
rituals.

Back when the Temple stood, the four species, the and were paraded around the altar as part of
the elaborate Sukkot celebrations. In addition, part of the celebration involved surrounding the

6
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Sukkah%20043.pdf
7
Myjewishlearning.com

12
altar specifically with the , or willow branches — either by positioning them around the altar or by
carrying them around by hand. There was also a special water libation and musical performances.

Our Daf teases out some issues around circling the altar with the lulav and circling it with the
willow branches. In particular, both were supposed to happen on all seven days of the festival
except, according to the mishnah, on Shabbat. The reason, the Gemara explains, is a concern that
one will carry the lulav or willow branch on Shabbat. (This is also the reason one may not blow a
shofar on Shabbat.)

There are two notable exceptions to the exception. If Shabbat coincides with the first day of
Sukkot, then the ritual of carrying the lulav around the altar overrides it. And if Shabbat coincides
with the seventh day of Sukkot, then the ritual of the willow branch overrides.

In the midst of this discussion, Abaye brings us a story:

One time, the seventh day coincided with Shabbat, and the people brought the willow branches
(to the Temple) on Shabbat eve, and placed them in the courtyard.

Carrying willow branches through Jerusalem is forbidden on Shabbat — it violates the prohibition
on carrying in public spaces. But since, according to the rabbis, circling the altar with willow
branches overrides Shabbat, the people make a special arrangement: They bring their willow
branches the day before and stash them in the Temple courtyard. This seems like a great solution
— until something goes wrong:

The Boethusians noticed them and took them and concealed them under stones.

Who are these troublemakers with the difficult-to-pronounce name? In the late days of the Second
Temple, there were many Jewish sects that interpreted Jewish law in radically different ways. The
Boethusians, who are mentioned in other sources, clearly did not agree that the willow branches
should be carried around the altar on Shabbat. It’s not a crazy position. After all, the evidence that
this ritual even derives from the Torah is very thin.

Back on Sukkah 34, Abba Shaul told us that the ritual is derived from a very close reading
of Leviticus 23:40 , which lists the four species bundled in the lulav. In that list, all the species are
mentioned in the singular except the willow branches, which are stated in the plural. This, he
explains, means that in addition to being part of the lulav, the willow branches are a ritual all their
own. But the sages reject this clever way of reading the ritual into the Torah and simply say that
the ritual of the willow branches is a from Moses at Sinai.

Either way, it’s not difficult to see why a non-rabbinic sectarian group like the Boethusians rejects
the idea that this odd willow ritual is a mitzvah at all and so tries to prevent the Jews from
performing it because, in their thinking, doing so would be a violation of Shabbat.

But it’s not just the Boethusians causing trouble for the rabbis. Reading on:

The next day, the idiots noticed (the hidden willow branches). And they extracted them from
under the stones.

13
The implication in this passage is that the “idiots” knew that willow branches were meant to be
carried around the altar that day, but they did not know they were not supposed to carry them in
public. So they extracted the willows and carried them into the Temple, violating Shabbat. And
the Temple priesthood went along with it!

And the priests brought them and stood them upright at the sides of the altar — because the
Boethusians do not concede that waving the willow branch overrides Shabbat.

Instead of carrying the willow branches around the altar, the priests arranged them in a stationary
display to appease the Boethusians, with whom they were likely more ideologically aligned.

In our journey through the Talmud, we’ve encountered many cases when the rabbis depict
themselves as the religious authorities in the Temple. Here, they relate a story where they have
completely lost control — to a rogue sect, to Jews who are not knowledgeable about Jewish law
and to the priesthood. Then again, we wouldn’t even know about the incident today if it weren’t
for the rabbis, so in the end perhaps they got the last laugh.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

For those unfamiliar with the way in which Sukkot was celebrated in the Beit HaMikdash, our daf
(Sukkah 43b) - which expands upon and debates the teachings in Mishna Sukkah 4:1-3 (see Sukkah
42b) - may be hard to comprehend. This is because, as we were previously taught in Mishna
Sukkah 3:12 (see Sukkah 41a), until its destruction the only place where the Arba Minim were
taken throughout the seven days of Sukkot (including Shabbat) was the Beit HaMikdash, and they
were only taken on the first day of Sukkot everywhere else. However, upon the destruction of the
Temple, Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai instituted that the Arba Minim be taken throughout Sukkot
(with the exception of Shabbat) ‘in remembrance of the Mikdash’.

Yet paralleling this mitzva of the Arba Minim (i.e. the Lulav, Etrog, Hadassim & Aravot) whose
practice outside the Beit HaMikdash after its destruction was expanded, is a further mitzvah of the
Aravot whose practice in the Beit HaMikdash was also different from its practice today.
Specifically, tall Aravot were taken in the Beit HaMikdash throughout the seven days of Sukkot
which were stood up around the Mizbeach (see Mishna Sukkah 4:5, 45a). Today, however, we
only practice the taking of Aravot as a separate mitzvah on Hoshana Rabba in remembrance of
this earlier practice.

In terms of our daf, much of its focus relates to these two mitzvot of the Arba Minim and the
Aravot and both their areas of similarity and difference. Yet, overall, what is clear when contrasting
these two mitzvot is that while one mitzvah has expanded (i.e. we take the Arba Minim throughout
Sukkot), one has contracted (i.e. we only take the Aravot on Hoshana Rabba). The question we
must consider is why was there a need for both expansion and a contraction? Why don’t we do
less with both, or more with both? Why the inconsistency?

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

14
To my mind, this was the genius of the leaders in the post Churban era such as Rabbi Yochanan
Ben Zakkai who ideologically wanted us to feel the loss of the Beit HaMikdash (as reflected by
contracting the application of certain mitzvot), but who were also pragmatic and who therefore
emphasised the importance of us feeling connected to the Mikdash and its mitzvot (as reflected by
expanding the application of certain mitzvot).

All too often we only think of what we no longer have after a loss, or how opportunities also
develop after a loss. But what we see in these Mishnayot and the accompanying discussion in the
Gemara is that both occur; that there is both less and more. And that if you want to see a powerful
example of how these developments of both contraction and expansion occurred, it can be seen in
how Sukkot was celebrated then, and now.

15
Rav Yoel Bin Nun writes:9

Dual Significance – Nes and Nature

The Torah associates the three pilgrim festivals with two distinct concepts. First, the Torah relates
them to the idea of nes, signs and indications that God, Who created the world, continues to
function in it and control history. Thus, these festivals commemorate the Exodus from Egypt,
the nes that molded Jewish history for all generations.

The Torah also associates the pilgrim festivals with the natural aspect of Eretz Yisrael, its
agricultural cycles. Thus, they are connected to the ingathering, the spring harvest, and the first-
fruit offering sanctified to God from the produce of the land. The entry into Eretz Yisrael is the
return of the Israelite nation to the naturalness of its land: soil, agriculture, roots, and – arising
from these – the manifestation of sanctity and the Temple.[1]

A natural nation is born and is formed in the land of its birth and celebrates natural and national
festivals, marking agricultural and religious ritual dates and seasons. If it is exiled from its land or
becomes assimilated in its own land among those its conquerors or those who conquer it, such a
nation ceases to exist. Am Yisrael, however, is unique among the nations, as it was born and formed
through the nes of the Exodus from the Egyptian exile. For Am Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael represents
not a “natural homeland,” but rather an aspiration, a goal, a prayer, and a destiny; it represents the
vision and longing to connect heaven and earth, the miraculous and the natural, history and
agriculture. Thus, if Am Yisrael, Heaven forefend, is exiled from its land, or remains under the rule
of its conquerors in its land for a long period, it nevertheless lives on, surviving and praying for a
new Exodus from Egypt and for the nes of the ingathering of the exiles.

Had Am Yisrael been a natural (territorial) nation, the natural festivals would have preceded the
festivals pertaining to the historical nes; agriculture and religious worship would have come before
the historical sign and event, both chronologically and in terms of the natural order. But, as noted,
if Am Yisrael were a natural nation, it would not have survived its history. The Torah therefore

9 https://etzion.org.il/en/holidays/sukkot/%E2%80%9Cfestival-sukkot%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cfestival-ingatheringNote:

This is an abridgement of an article that can be found here:

http://www.ybn.co.il/mamrim/PDF/The%20Festival%20of%20Sukkot.pdf.

16
introduces the festivals as associated with the Exodus from Egypt – the historical nes – rather than
the natural, agricultural season of spring, which is in the background.

In exile, Am Yisrael observes festivals commemorating the nes aspect, the defining events of the
Israelite history for all generations: Pesach of the Exodus, Shavuot of the Giving of the Torah,
and Sukkot of the wandering in the wilderness of Sinai and in the wilderness of the nations. In
exile, Am Yisrael cannot celebrate the festivals of the spring, the harvest, and the ingathering – the
festivals of nature and of the Mikdash. These latter festivals belong to a natural, agricultural cycle,
and they are especially related to the Temple, where their respective offerings are brought “before
the Lord God.”[2] Throughout the period of the Destruction and the exile, there was no possibility
of celebrating the natural, agricultural festivals – not even in Eretz Yisrael – since in the absence
of the Mikdash, God’s servants have nowhere to bring the omer, the bikkurim, or the produce of
the ingathering. In exile, the nation was left with only token memorials of these agricultural, natural
festivals – the counting of the omer (a period which came to be characterized by customs of
mourning), Megillat Ruth on Shavuot, and the four species on Sukkot.

A Dual Calendar

The dual significance of the festivals is connected to the dual yearly calendar of the Torah – a
calendar of lunar months adjusted to the seasonal calendar of the solar, agricultural year.[3]

It is no coincidence that the Torah introduces the calendar of lunar months as the first
commandment given to Israel:[4] “This month shall be for you the first month (rosh
chodashim)” (Shemot 12:2). Only the moon renews itself from one month to the next; only the
lunar cycle has a new beginning (molad), such that one may point to it and say, “this month.”
Thus, Rashi explains, “[God] showed [Moshe] the new moon and said to him: ‘When the moon
is renewed, it will be Rosh Chodesh for you.”[5] Only the moon offers a real monthly cycle, such
that there can be a “Rosh Chodesh” and so that one of these beginnings can be designated as the
“first month” (rosh chodashim).

The Egyptians, in contrast, lived according to a fixed and orderly solar calendar, adapted to the
pace of life in Egypt and to the regular overflowing of the Nile – they had 12 months of 30 days
and a 5-day celebration of the new year. The sun has no renewal; it has no 30-day cycle, neither
precisely nor approximately, and its cycle measures only years. Similarly, nothing was renewed
in Egypt; everything was fixed and cyclical.

Hence, the Exodus from Egypt had to begin with the lunar month as the basis for the calendar;
only then could the revolution of renewal begin.

17
The two calendars are not entirely independent, however. The expression “chodshei ha-shana,”
“months (i.e., ‘moons’) of the year,” already hints at the dual calendar. In nature, there is no “lunar
year” and there is no “solar month” – a month is lunar and a year is solar. The end of the verse –
“It is for you the first of the months of the year” – similarly connects the lunar month with the
solar year.

It is, in fact, no coincidence that the Egyptian calendar was entirely solar, as the sun was awarded
the most important place in the Egyptian pagan pantheon.[6] In contrast, a solely lunar calendar
was maintained by desert tribes, who were not concerned with sowing, reaping, and gathering.
Many of them also worshipped the moon (until the appearance of Islam). At the same time, most
Arabian tribes, who were also engaged in agriculture, added leap months to the year. This
continued until Muhammad prohibited the practice,[7] thereby creating a barrier between Judaism
and Islam in the realm of the calendar.

Only the Babylonians and the Greeks (until the Roman conquest) on the one hand, and the Jewish
nation on the other, maintained a dual lunar/solar calendar, but they did so for opposite reasons.
The Babylonians and Greeks, who were able to carry out astronomical calculations with great
accuracy, worshipped both the sun and the moon (especially the Babylonians). Bnei Yisrael, in
contrast, learned from the Torah not to attribute any reign or power of will to either the sun or
moon, rather viewing both as “luminaries” and as “signs for appointed times,” “for days and for
years” (Bereishit 1:15).[8] They were commanded to follow a calendar that reflects all these
phenomena insofar as the One Creator uttered His word by which both sun and moon were formed
and commanded that no natural force should be worshipped.

The Exodus from Egypt would not have been possible without Bnei Yisrael turning their backs on
the Egyptian solar calendar and accepting the lunar calendar. On the other hand, they could not
have entered Eretz Yisrael and engaged in agriculture in the land, without adapting the lunar
months to the seasons of the solar year.

This explains the fundamental difference between the mitzva concerning the calendar as it was
first given preceding the Exodus (Shemot 12:1) and the second iteration of the commandment,
which addresses the future generations living in the Promised Land: “Remember this day that you
left Egypt, from the house of slavery… This day you are leaving, in the month of
spring” (Shemot 13:4-5). The first focuses exclusively on the lunar renewal, the revolutionary
concept that is to separate Bnei Yisrael from the Egyptian solar calendar. The second identifies the
month of the Exodus with the agricultural season of spring, the time that the produce of Eretz
Yisrael ripens, thereby preparing the nation for entry into the land of the forefathers.[9] This
confluence must be maintained through the concentrated effort of establishing the dual calendar
and maintaining it: “And you shall observe this statute at its appointed time, from year to
year” (Shemot 13:10).

18
Two Holidays on the Same Date

The first place in the Torah where the three pilgrim festivals are mentioned (Shemot 23:14-19)
already notes the dual significance of Pesach and the festival of Matzot: “You shall observe the
Festival of Matzot: seven days shall you eat matzot, as I have commanded you, at the time of
the month of spring, for then you came out of Egypt…” The other two festivals appear there
only in their agricultural, “Eretz Yisrael” form, with no connection to the Exodus: “And the
Festival of the Harvest, the first fruits of your labor which you have sown in the field, and the
Festival of the Ingathering at the end of the year, when you have gathered your labor from the
field.” These are agricultural, religious festivals of the field, their essence being the bringing of
the crops from the field in Eretz Yisrael “before the Lord God.”

Similarly, not a word about any historical memory of the Exodus and the giving of the Torah is
mentioned in relation to either the “Festival of the Harvest” (Shavuot) or the “Festival of the
Ingathering” (Sukkot) in Parashat Ki Tisa, with the giving of the second Tablets: “And the
Festival of Shavuot shall you observe, with the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival
of the Ingathering at the end of the year” (Shemot 34:22). Indeed, had the Torah concluded
with Sefer Shemot, we would have had little way of knowing how to observe the “Festival of the
Ingathering” – or even when to observe it.

However, the section on the festivals in Sefer Vayikra (chapter 23) clarifies that Sukkot is
celebrated in the seventh month, joining it to the Festival of the Ingathering. In fact, the principal
innovation of this section is that the “Festival of the Ingathering” is also the “Festival of Sukkot.”
First, the Torah details that the Festival of Sukkot is observed on the 15th day of the seventh month
as one of the “convocations of holiness” (mikra’ei kodesh), which are a “commemoration of the
Exodus from Egypt” (Vayikra 23:35-36). The text then presents a summary of the “convocations
of holiness:” “These are God’s appointed times…” (23:37-38). Only then does the Festival of
Ingathering, known to us from Sefer Shemot, make its appearance: “Indeed, on the fifteenth day
of the seventh month, when you harvest the crops of the land, you shall celebrate a festival to
God for seven days…” This “parenthetical unit” explains the significance of the sukkot mentioned
earlier.

It is apparent that the “Festival of Sukkot” and the “Festival of the Ingathering” are in fact two
festivals on the same date. Lest we think that the historical “Festival of Sukkot” supersedes or
pushes aside the agricultural “Festival of the Ingathering,” the Torah begins its description of the
Festival of the Ingathering with the word “akh,” “indeed.” The agricultural Festival of the
Ingathering of Eretz Yisrael is not uprooted, nor in any way diminished, by the historical Festival
of Sukkot of the Exodus that has been joined to it. It remains valid and relevant, and both aspects
together mold the “festival” that concludes the year.[10] The mitzva of the Festival of Sukkot is
the sukka, while the four species are the focus and the mitzva of the Festival of the Ingathering;
these two mitzvot express the double festival on the 15th day of the 7th month.[11]

19
It is important to note that we are not speaking of a dual significance of a single festival, as in “the
Festival of Matzot… at the time of the month of spring” (Shemot 23:14; 34:18), but rather two
distinct festivals that occur simultaneously. Each festival – the Festival of Sukkot and the Festival
of the Ingathering – is established at its proper time (for 7 days, starting on the 15th day of the
seventh month), sanctified (“God’s appointed times, mikraei kodesh”), requires rest (“On the first
day, a shabbaton, and on the eighth day, a shabbaton”), and has its own particular commandment
(sukka/the four species).

The Mussaf Offering

The fact that these are in fact two separate festivals and not one single festival is attested to by the
list of Mussaf sacrifices in Bamidbar 28-29. On all the festivals, a single ram and seven lambs are
offered; only the number of bullocks varies (one or two). On the festival that occurs on the 15th day
of the 7th month, however, two rams and fourteen lambs are offered on each day of the
festival. This doubling shows that the sacrifices are for two festivals, not one.[12]

A further consideration arising from this analysis concerns the “riddle of the bullocks” – on this
seven day holiday, unlike any other, the number of bullocks offered each day in
the Mussaf sacrifice descends in order from 13 to 7, totaling 70 (Bamidbar 29:13-32). In light of
the above, we must take into consideration that the bullocks are meant for two festivals, and any
explanation that fails to take this into account cannot represent a complete solution.

I would like to suggest a possible explanation. The offering for the first day of the Festival of
Sukkot is seven bullocks, along with one ram and seven lambs (as customary on the other
festivals). These seven bullocks are brought to mark the judgment of the seventh month of Tishrei;
as the mishna explains it, “On the festival [of Sukkot] we are judged regarding water.” On the first
day, we offer one bullock for each of the days of Sukkot; on each subsequent day, one less bullock
is offered, corresponding to the remaining days, just as Beit Shammai argues regarding the
descending number of lights to be lit on Chanuka (Shabbat 21b). At the same time, however, we
must offer the sacrifices of the Festival of Ingathering: six bullocks each day, together with one
ram and seven lambs. These six bullocks are derived from the two bullocks offered on each of the
three pilgrimage festivals, which conclude with the Festival of Ingathering.

Thus, the thirteen bullocks on the first day of the festival are actually 6+7; the twelve offered on
the second day are 6+6; the eleven offered on the third day are 6+5, and so on, until the 7 offered
on the last day of the festival are 6+1, as this is the last day of judgment of the Festival of Sukkot,
in the seventh month.

Seven Days

20
An important point of distinction between the two festivals is the meaning of the concept of “seven
days.” The gemara teaches that the mitzva of taking the four species applies for seven days based
on the verse, “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days,” concluding that
this refers only to days, not nights. The mitzva of sukka also applies for seven days based on the
verse, “You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days,” but this mitzva applies at night as well.[13]

The reason for this is clear. The Festival of Ingathering, associated with the mitzva of taking the
four species, is characterized by “rejoicing before God” in the Temple, as it is there that
the omer, bikkurim, and ingathered produce are offered. Since the sacrificial service in
the Temple is performed almost exclusively by day, the verse “You shall rejoice before the Lord
your God for seven days” must mean “by day and not by night.” On the other hand, the
commandment concerning the sukka lasts for “seven days” – day and night – because the Festival
of Sukkot is a “civilian,” general festival that applies in all places and times, independent of the
Temple: “Every member of Israel shall dwell in sukkot… in order that your generations will
know that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot when I brought them out of the
land of Egypt” (Vayikra 23:43). We must dwell in our sukkot day and night just as Bnei
Yisrael dwelled in sukkot when they left Egypt, and in the same way that a person dwells in his
house during the year.

According to the Torah, the commandment to take the four species applies for all seven days only
in the Temple. Chazal deduce the obligation to take the four species elsewhere from the verse,
“And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of the beautiful tree, palm branches,
and boughs of the thick-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the
Lord your God for seven days” (Vayikra 23:40) – but this applies only on the first
day (Sukka 43a). Today, by rabbinic decree, we take the four species all seven days in memory of
the Temple, but we do so specifically in the synagogue during the recitation of Hallel and we
“wave” them. Thus, this “taking” resembles the omer, which is brought to the Temple and waved,
and the bikkurim, which are taken from throughout the land, are brought to the Temple, and are
rejoiced with for seven days.

Unity and Disparity

Despite our conclusion from Vayikra 23 that there are two different holidays that fall out on the
same date, the impression from other sources is that we are, in fact, dealing with one festival with
a dual nature. Thus, in Devarim we are told, “The Festival of Sukkot shall you make for yourself,
for seven days, when you have gathered in your corn and your wine” (Devarim 16:13). In this
sense, Sukkot is little different from Pesach, about which we read, “Observe the month of spring,
and you shall make a Pesach unto the Lord your God, for in the month of spring the Lord your
God brought you out of Egypt, at night” (Devarim 16:1).

21
This trend in understanding the festival is similarly expressed in halakhic formulations and
historical events. For example, the midrash halakha interprets the verse in Devarim as a directive
to create the sukka itself from the leftovers from the winnowing floor and the winery (Sukka 12a).
Thus, the Ingathering and Sukkot join together to form a single unity, expressed in the agricultural
produce of Eretz Yisrael; that which remains from the ingathering is used to cover the sukka, in
commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt.[14]

It appears from the literal reading of the text that up until the time of Ezra and Nechemia, Bnei
Yisrael did not, in fact, dwell in sukkot: “And all the congregation, those who returned from the
captivity, made sukkot, and they dwelled in sukkot, for since the days of Yeshua bin Nun Bnei
Yisrael had not made them, until that day” (Nechemia 8:17). However, the sukkot of the returnees
from Babylon were not the regular sukkot of Am Yisrael “in all of their dwelling places,” “in
memory of the Exodus from Egypt.” Rather, they were the sukkot of the people of Jerusalem and
of the pilgrims: “They made themselves sukkot – each man upon his roof, and in their
courtyards, and in the courtyards of God’s House, and in the broad place of the water gate, and
in the broad place of the gate of Efrayim” (Nechemia 8:16).

I believe that until then, a certain separation had existed between the Festival of Sukkot celebrated
“in the provinces” and the Festival of the Ingathering, which was celebrated in the Temple and its
environs. Whoever observed the pilgrim festival celebrated the Festival of Ingathering
in Jerusalem, with praise and thanksgiving, with “palm branches, and boughs of the thick-leaved
tree, and willows of the brook” and “fruit of the beautiful tree.” The Festival of Sukkot of the
Exodus from Egypt fell, in effect, to those who remained at home – “every native-born” – just as
the sekhakh of the sukka fell to whatever was left from the produce of the ingathering. The Festival
of Sukkot therefore went almost unnoticed in the Temple; the pilgrims (who were not very
numerous, as long as most of the nation offered sacrifices at the bamot near to their dwelling
places, as testified to in Sefer Melakhim), even if they did erect temporary sukkot around the
Temple, were theoretically exempt from this festival based on the principle of the exemption
extended to emissaries for a matter of mitzva or those who are on a journey.[15] Thus, even though
the Torah juxtaposes the two festivals in terms of time and thematic parallels, they were celebrated
distinctly and separately to a considerable extent; the tension between the physical act of
pilgrimage to Jerusalem and dwelling in sukkot “in memory of the Exodus from Egypt” was simply
too great to be bridged.

The de facto separation between the pilgrims to Jerusalem and the householders who dwelled
in sukkot led, according to the testimony of the text, to a significant weakening of both festivals.
There was no situation of a common national celebration of the festival – neither the Festival of
Sukkot, nor the Festival of the Ingathering. A minority took part in the pilgrimage, and not many
dwelled in sukkot.

22
At this point, Ezra the Scribe aimed at realizing the words of the Torah to turn the Festival of
Sukkot into a festival of the pilgrims, and this solved the problem.[16] The returnees from exile
built sukkot for the Festival of the Ingathering together with the residents of Jerusalem.
Thus, Jerusalem was full of sukkot on the rooftops, in the courtyards and the open spaces, and
“olive branches and branches of the oil tree (wild olive), and myrtle branches and palm branches
and branches of the thick tree” (Nechemia 8:15) – the four species and the sekhakh of the sukkot –
were joined together. This binding together by Ezra saved and reestablished the Festival of Sukkot,
which now also included the Festival of the Ingathering – and so it is celebrated to this day.

The Simchat Beit ha-Shoeva celebrated in Jerusalem during the nights of Sukkot[17] further
cemented the unification of the two festivals, turning the rejoicing “before the Lord your God for
seven days” (Vayikra 23:40) into a rejoicing day and night, as in the sacrifice of miluim and
the sukka. This ongoing rejoicing of seven full days was so great that in many sources, the joy of
the Festival of Ingathering is transformed from a day-service and praise-giving in the Temple to a
celebration with dancing and performances at night. Since the destruction of the Second Temple,
we no longer experience the tension between the sukka as a temporary, festive home, and the
pilgrimage to the Temple. The joy of the ingathering has fused with the memory of the Beit ha-
Shoeva, and the sukka and the four species have become the two mitzvot that characterize the
festival, instead of each characterizing one of two concurrent festivals.

The Development of Sukkot

According to what we have argued, the seventh month originally included only the agricultural
celebration of ingathering; thereafter, two conjoined festivals were established, and only at the end
was the agricultural celebration merged into the historical one. Why does the Torah choose to
present this “developmental” composition of the Festival of Sukkot instead of setting down at the
outset, in Sefer Shemot, the formulation in Devarim: “The Festival of Sukkot… when you have
gathered in your grain and your wine” (Devarim 16:1), just as it describes the “Festival of
Matzot… at the time of the month of spring” (Shemot 23:14, 34:18)? Indeed, “Sukkot” in Sefer
Shemot (and in Parashat Masei) is the name of a place – the first station where Bnei
Yisrael encamped after the Exodus and the place where they ate their matzot. Accordingly, we
should celebrate “Sukkot” along with Pesach. Why was the holiday moved to coincide with the
Festival of the ingathering?

The apparent reason for this unique phenomenon is the significance of the “sukkot” of the Exodus.
According to the literal reading of the text, these sukkot, in which Bnei Yisrael dwelled in the
desert, represent and recall the entire journey in the desert, “all the way which the Lord your God
has led you for these forty years in the wilderness” (Devarim 8:2). As the Rashbam correctly
explains (in his unusually long commentary on Vayikra 23:43):

23
“In order that your generations will know [that I caused Bnei Yisrael to dwell
in sukkot when I brought them out of Egypt]” – This should be interpreted simply, in
accordance with those who maintain in Massekhet Sukka (11b) – a literal sukka. And this
is the explanation of the matter: “The Festival of Sukkot shall you make for yourself [for
seven days], when you have gathered in your grain and your wine” (Devarim 16:13)
– when you have gathered in the produce of the land and your houses are full of every
sort of goodness – grain and oil and wine – in order that you will remember that I
caused Bnei Yisrael to dwell in sukkot in the desert for forty years, with no place of
habitation and with no portion of inheritance – and for this you shall give thanks to Him
Who gave you an inheritance, and houses full of goodness, and do not say to yourselves,
“My power and the strength of my hand have achieved this valor for me.”…

And therefore we come out of homes full of all sorts of goodness at the time of the
ingathering and dwell in sukkot, to remember that Bnei Yisrael had no inheritance in the
wilderness and no houses to inhabit. And it was for this reason that the Holy One, blessed
be He, established the Festival of Sukkot at the time of the ingathering of grain and wine,
“Lest your heart grow haughty over your houses full of all sorts of goodness;” “Lest you
say, ‘Our hand has performed this valor for us.’”

Rashbam, as usual, addresses the literal text and notes that the ingathering is the first, agricultural
date of the festival in the seventh month, while the historical Festival of Sukkot was joined to it,
with a new significance, at the end of the section on the festivals in Sefer Vayikra. This joining
contains a moral, educational message of supreme importance, which is made explicit
in Sefer Devarim.[18] This joining represents the Torah’s strategy for preparing for the abundant
blessing expected in Eretz Yisrael by recalling the tribulations of the way after the Exodus
from Egypt and throughout the forty year journey in the desert.

Observing the Festival of Sukkot alongside Pesach would aptly commemorate the Exodus, but this
would not be sufficient to counter the dangers of the abundance and the pride expected in Eretz
Yisrael. The moment the Torah moved the “sukkot” to the seventh month, transforming the concept
of the “Sukkot” of the Exodus to the dwelling in “sukkot” for forty years with no houses and no
inheritance, the concept of “sukkot” assumed a new significance that is truly connected,
educationally and morally, to the Festival of the Ingathering. However, this move took place only
after the stay in the wilderness was lengthened, such that Bnei Yisrael would not proceed directly
to Eretz Yisrael. In Sefer Shemot (23:20-33), there is still the possibility of a speedy entry into the
land – until the sin of the golden calf and the sins of the wilderness, leading to the decree of forty
years of wandering. Therefore, the new aspect of the Sukkot appears for the first time in the section
on the festivals in Vayikra (which was given at the Tent of Meeting, after the sin of the golden
calf), and it assumes its full significance only in Sefer Devarim, in the encounter with the
abundance of the land flowing with milk and honey.10

10 Translated by Kaeren Fish, Adapted by Meira Mintz

24
NOTES

[1]
The Sanctuary and the service therein are similarly connected to the land, to nature and agriculture. The sacrifices and the incense

– brought from plant and animal life – express the living connection between the Creator of nature and His creations. The purpose

of the Sanctuary is to maintain the natural creation and to reveal in it the glory of God, Who watches and oversees all.
[2]
Shemot 23:17; 34:23; similarly, Vayikra 23:11, 15-16, 39-41 and Devarim 16:16.
[3]
See Rambam, Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, end of positive commandment 153.
[4]
See Rashi’s comment at the beginning of his commentary on the Torah, based on the Midrash Tanchuma. See also

Rambam, Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, positive commandment 153, concerning the connection between this commandment and the existence

of the Israelite nation, a point that fits well with Rashi’s comment.
[5]
Rashi on Shemot 12:1, following the Mekhilta on Parashat Bo, parasha 1; see also Rosh ha-

Shana 5a; Pesachim 6b; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shana, end of chapter 2.

[6]
Most agricultural peoples, in ancient times as well as today, operate mainly in accordance with a solar calendar; the Roman,

Christian calendar is, of course, a solar cycle.

[7]
See Quran 9:36-37.
[8]
The Torah’s definitions of the purpose of the sun and the moon in the account of the Creation are far-reaching in the battle

against paganism. The sun and the moon, as well as the stars, are nothing more than “luminaries” – sources of physical light placed

in the heavens by the Creator in order to “illuminate the earth” and to be signs by which to establish special appointed times, days,

and years – that is, to serve as the basis for the calendar. They are certainly nothing more than that. This declaration of monotheism

at the very beginning of the Torah is echoed in Devarim 4:19-20: “Lest you lift your eyes heavenward and when you see the sun

and the moon and the stars – the entire heavenly host – you are misled to prostrate yourself to them and serve them, which the Lord

your God allotted to all the nations under the entire heaven. But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace,

out of Egypt, to be His people of inheritance, as this day.” There is, in fact, an explicit connection between the verses

in Bereishit and their interpretation by Moshe in Devarim, in terms of both language (“heavenly host,” “stars”) and the idea that

the nations of the world attribute will and sovereignty to the “heavenly host” and therefore worship them. God does not intervene

in the lives of the other nations to stop this practice, but He does intervene in the life of His chosen “nation of inheritance,” so that

the historical Exodus from Egypt will complement and reinforce the Creation of the world to present the single teaching of

monotheism. Here, too, we encounter in the Torah the dual significance of God’s act of creation and His control of history.

25
[9]
The second iteration elaborates: “And it shall be that the Lord will bring you to the land of the Kena’ani… which He promised

to your forefathers to give to you, a land flowing with milk and honey, and you shall perform this service in this month… seven

days shall you eat matzot… and no leaven shall be seen by you, nor shall any leavening be seen by you throughout your

borders” (Shemot 13:5-7). The many detailed commandments regarding the Pesach sacrifice and the observance of the seven-day

festival may be perceived as a burden by the generations to come, who at that very time are busy preparing the harvest in Eretz

Yisrael. Indeed, they may not even ask anything about it – like the son who “does not know how to ask” – not because they do not

know how to speak, but because they will be so busy with the agricultural season and economic problems that their attention will

not be directed towards the historical Exodus. Therefore, the parents’ generation, who still remembered the Exodus, would have to

recount and narrate for the children’s generation the story of Israel’s revival as a people and the source of the Israelite identity

arising from the Exodus: “And you shall tell your son” – who will not ask of his own initiative – “on that day, saying: for the sake

of this God acted for me when I came out of Egypt” (Shemot 13:8) – for had we not come out of Egypt, dear son, you would not

have fields to reap!

[10]
See my article on the apparent contradiction between the verses which place the Festival of the Ingathering “at the lapse of the
year” and the Mishnaic definition of “Rosh ha-Shana for years”: http://www.ybn.co.il/mamrim/PDF/ybn-Rosh_HaShana.pdf.
[11]
This is in contrast to the conventional way of looking at the festival, according to which sukka and the four species are

two mitzvot of the singular Festival of Sukkot.

[12]
Indeed, in detailing the Mussaf sacrifice, the text makes no mention of any name for the festival – neither “Sukkot” nor

“Ingathering:” “And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month there shall be a mikra kodesh for you, you shall perform no labor

of work, and you shall celebrate a festival unto God for seven days” (Bamidbar 29:12). This description, however, includes the

definitions given to both of the festivals in Vayikra: “On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the Festival of Sukkot, for seven

days, unto God. On the first day [there shall be] a mikra kodesh, you shall perform no labor of work… on the eight day [there shall

be] a mikra kodesh…” / “Indeed, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you

shall celebrate God’s festival for seven days…” (Vayikra 23:34-36, 39). Thus, the Mussaf section incorporates both festivals –

both the historical Festival of Sukkot, related to the Exodus from Egypt, and the agricultural Festival of the Ingathering, related to

the Temple.
[13]
Sukka 43a-b. The gemara there compares the seven days/nights of the mitzva of sukka to the seven days/nights of the miluim,

the consecration sacrifices. Compare Rambam’s Hilkhot Shofar, Sukka, ve-Lulav 6:5 and 7:10, 13.
[14]
Similarly, in the view of R. Yehuda (Sukka 36b-37a), the sekhakh of the sukka may only be of one of the four species

exclusively, creating a complete correspondence. This opinion is rejected by Chazal, but was adopted by the Samaritans (and I

have seen such a sukka with my own eyes on Mount Gerizim).

[15]
Sukka 26a; Rambam, Hilkhot Yom Tov 6; Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chaim 640.

26
[16]
On that Sukkot-Ingathering festival, the returnees from Babylon were for the most part gathered in Jerusalem, whether as

residents or pilgrims visiting for the festival, as well as because of the great gathering that Ezra had called for at the beginning of

the seventh month (Rosh ha-Shana) for the purpose of reading the Torah (Nechemia 8:1). This gathering was made possible because

most of the returnees lived around Jerusalem, as deduced from Ezra 2 and Nechemia 3 and 11, such that an assembly was much

easier to arrange than it had been throughout the First Temple Period. The division of the kingdom and the institutionalization of

the local bamot, together with the great distances from Jerusalem (as foretold in the Torah; Devarim 12:20; 14:24), generally

prevented the assembly of pilgrims to the First Temple.

[17]
See Sukka 51 and 53a.
[18]
The same lesson can be found in the Song of Haazinu and the Grace After Meals, the only blessing which is explicitly

commanded in the Torah; see Rambam, Hilkhot Berakhot 1:1-3.

Thinking about the Boethusians and the trouble they caused reminded me of the tragic history

of the troubled community of Venice and the pain and suffering caused by the converts….

27
 The Boat-Sukkah in Venice, Italy

In Venice there’s the sukkah boat. The water may not always smell great, but at least guests can
enjoy the canals under a canopy of branches.

Sukkot has a strong connection to the messianic era, of which it is written, “The world will be
filled with knowledge of G-d like water covers the sea.” How apropos that Venice has its very
own sukkah boat. Jewish law permits building a sukkah on a boat, a wagon, or even a camel,
which brings us to the next entry . . .11

Sukkah of the Scuola Canton in the Jewish Ghetto of Venice

Save Venice Inc writes:12

Restoration of the Sukkah room

11
Rabbi Mordechai Lightstone https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2335069/jewish/7-of-the-Worlds-Most-
Interesting-Sukkahs.htm
12
https://www.savevenice.org/project/sukkah-in-the-scuola-canton
Save Venice Inc. is the leading American nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the artistic heritage of Venice, Italy.
Since 1971, Save Venice has worked tirelessly to preserve, protect, and promote the art and culture of Venice and has funded
the conservation of more than 550 projects comprising over 1,000 individual artworks. In 2015, Save Venice established the
Rosand Library & Study Center in Venice, creating a nexus for the research of Venetian art, history, and conservation. Save
Venice also provides grants for fellowships, exhibitions, and publications to advance Venetian scholarship and conservation.

28
On the top floor of a nineteenth-century building adjacent to the Canton Synagogue is an unusual
room — originally used as a sukkah — that offers a striking example of how the Venetian Jews
adapted to the limited space of the Ghetto.

Sukkot, known as the Feast of the Tabernacles, is a weeklong Jewish holiday celebrated by taking
shelter and eating meals in a temporary structure, or sukkah, that has been set up outside, perhaps
in a courtyard or garden; the purpose of the celebration is to commemorate the forty years that
the children of Israel spent wandering in the desert after their exodus from Egypt.

The Canton sukkah originally had a section of wooden roofing that could be manually lifted off,
thus technically keeping to the Sukkot tradition of dwelling in a structure under the open sky. A
metal grill was placed where the roof had been and it could be decorated with palms, fruits, and
foliage in order to further evoke the traditional sukkah. This ritual space had been in use as a
storage room, and its former illustrious role in observing the seven days of the Sukkot holiday
was close to being forgotten. Archival research uncovered essential documents confirming that
the room had indeed served as the Canton congregation’s sukkah from 1858 to 1896.

The Scuola Canton was built in 1532 and is the second oldest synagogue in Venice’s Ghetto. The
details surrounding its foundation are uncertain; it is thought to either have been built by French
Ashkenazi Jews or founded as a private Ashkenazi synagogue as an alternative to the neighboring
Scuola Grande Tedesca, built only a few years earlier in 1528. The synagogue was used for
worship until the Second World War. Today, the Jewish Community of Venice worships
primarily in the Levantine and Spanish Synagogues, following the Sephardic rite, and celebrates
Sukkot in the garden of the Spanish Synagogue.

29
 The Scuola Canton in Venice was built between 1531 and 1532, with parts
dating from 1672 (ark), and 1736.

ADOLFO OTTOLENGHI writes: 13

In 1528 or 29, whichever it was, twelve or thirteen years had passed since our fathers found
themselves sealed off in this enclosed space. In fact, as is well known, the decree which sent the
Jews to the Ghetto dates from 29 March 1516; here already just a few years after this decree, and
notwithstanding prohibitions, we find these two houses of God fully functioning. By this I don’t
mean the artistic function which we admire today, but rather a real religious and juridical function

13
https://www.academia.edu/38319658/English_Translation_of_For_the_400th_anniversary_of_the_Scuola_Canton_by_Adolfo_
Ottolenghi_Delivered_at_the_Commemoration_held_on_Dec_6_1931_

30
that was played by the two official synagogues of the oldest of our Venetian Jewish groups, called
“the Tedesco nation”. This group occupied the Ghetto Nuovo and was fairly numerous, counting
around 700 individuals, including a mixture of families of Italian origin.

Certainly when we speak about temples and synagogues, we shouldn’t think of splendid buildings
erected as works of art, but of simple rooms dedicated to prayer and study. In fact it is well known
that since its institution (in the time of the Babylonian exile) the synagogue was meant to be the
house of the people, a place of gathering for the elevation of the mind and the spirit. It is a school
as well, taking that word in its broadest possible meaning, where the soul of Israel perpetually
educates itself through the sources of the Book of God and its history of the chosen people, the
past shaping the creations of new generations.

For the Scuola Canton we cannot know how the interior appeared in its first form, as no visible
vestiges remain of the decorative scheme at the time of its original construction as a temple. For
this era we can give, with some certainty, the general parameters of its construction4 and more
particularly the position of the balcony for the women (Matroneo). The oldest item which to this
day adorns this small and sumptuous temple in such a delicate and refined manner is the Aron
Hakodesh (the container of the sacred books), with its carved and gold inlaid wood. The character
of the architectural composition and the decorative carving clearly reflect the tastes and pomp of
the end of the 17th century.

The vault of the ceiling (perhaps one day all in gold) embraces this small, precious, and marvelous
space; the octagonal lantern crowns the dignity of the place. There are pilasters carved with vases
full of roses, in the blind side of the drum, where, higher, carved, and sculpted decorations descend,
enclosing the original multicolor stained glass windows in a golden frame.

At the Scuola Grande, for example, until about fifty years ago there were two interesting books,
handwritten in Hebrew, one dating from 1611, the other from 1649. In the first was recorded the

31
set of rules that was called the “Regulations” for the operations of the temple. The book also
contained notes about the offerings and the gifts of members along with the dates of their birth and
of death; also noted are the names of the youth celebrating their religious majority, as well as those
of the [“Guardians of the Law”, the Hadanim, or Judges], who were nominated each year; in sum
there was a great deal of information regarding the religious life that took place at the temple. The
second handwritten book contained a regular inventory where all the sacred objects in the temple
were listed, along with their provenance and the date of the donation. To recover the Scuola
Grande’s books, or those of the Scuola Canton, or books from other synagogues, those still existing
or those which are now destroyed, would be to recover an extremely important source for the
history of the families and of some of the oldest institutions of our Community. When the history
of the Luzzatto family of Venice is reconstructed, it is from these aforementioned books of the
Scuola Grande that the oldest names of this family could be obtained. The information which
comes to us from the 1882 Autobiography of the immortal Samuel David Luzzatto played a role
last year in the memorial for Luigi Luzzatto.

32
Simon Luzzatto was certainly one of the Yahidim and the Rabbis of the Scuola Grande. How much
there is to say about this learned philosopher! He was born in 1589 and died in 1663. He is the
author of the treatise “State of the Jews”, published in 1638, which at the time enjoyed much
success. It is a type of apologia regarding the Jews, whose purpose was to demonstrate to
Governments and especially to the Venetian Republic how a sense of justice as well as the interests
of the State called for favoring tolerance and protection of the Jews. Another of his works,
“Socrates” (1651), dedicated to the Doge and to the Senate, is a work of great philosophical
erudition, intended to show the inadequacy of human intention and the uncertainty of philosophical
opinions. The learned son of the Venetian Ghetto was described, perhaps due to some of his
opinions in matters of ritual, as “religious as a writer of philosophy, but philosophical and free of
all fanaticism as a Rabbi”10. He signed, and is perhaps the author of, a prayer drafted in 1605 for
the prosperity of the Republic and the Doge, who at that time was Marino Grimani.

One curiosity at the Scuola Grande is its lack of inclusion of the mystical hymn Lecha-dodi in the
manual of Prayer. Often it is said that the hymn isn’t sung because the foundation of the Scuola
predates the composition of the hymn. The author of Lecha-dodi, in fact – Salamone Alkavez –
flourished between 1529 and 1575, and his hymn was not accepted outside Andrianopoli until after
his death. However, as Soave has correctly observed, given that Lechah-dodi is included here at
the Scuola Canton (which is only three years younger than the Scuola Grande), the reason for is
lack of acceptance must be something quite different. And this reason can be found in the objection
to Cabbalah among the Rabbis of the Scuola Grande.

Surrounding the modification of this word is a sort of legend that has been passed from generation
to generation, and which was studied and set on paper by Rabbi Marco Sabbadini. The legend is
connected to a very sad episode in 1480 which concerned the small Community of Portobuffolè.
The leaders of this Community, Servadio and Mosè son of David, were accused of the ritual
homicide of the child of a servant of Servadio’s, a certain Donato, who was a convert to
Christianity. The terrible accusation involved other Jews and the accused were tried: three of them,
the aforementioned Servadio and Mosè, and one Giacobbe da Cologna were all condemned to die
by atrocious torture.

The other leaders of the little Community appealed to the Avogaria and succeeded in having the
execution suspended. The accused were ordered relocated to Venice. Here the trial was started
again, but despite the defense of legal counsel Giovanni Minio and other academics from Padova,
the sentence was reconfirmed, and these innocents had to die by fire after being hung from a pole
in Piazza San Marco. Up to this point is all historical fact: the legend adds that the Hazan of the
Portobuffolè Temple, a certain R. Josef, came to Venice to stay with his poor friends for a long
time, crying and singing psalms.

33
One of these recognized and pointed out the traitor Donato, who was present at the execution,
saying: “Remember my martyrs on the head of this wicked one” and R. Josef answered back: “Even
though you are consumed by the flame, the Divine mercy will not abandon you”. The Hazan, once
returned to his Community, commemorated this last conversation in that rough stone, which, it is
not known how, ended up here in Venice, in the wall close by our Scuola.

Rabbi Sabbadini was able to decipher this legend from an old manuscript in crude Greek, with
interpolations of Hebrew, Caldean and Arabic words, given to him as a gift by a friend from
Mantova14 . I wanted to recall the incident to explain in some way the presence of this stone in
our Ghetto, and above all to recall for us, we greatgrandchildren, a painful episode from the lives
of our Veneti forefathers, a life which at times was made even more painful by the perversity of
converts.

And, of course, the worst betrayal of Jewish History…

Things came to a head also in Venice after September the 8th 1943. The German occupation in
Mestre and in Venice (9th and 10th September) marked the starting of the “final solution”. The
president of the Community, Professor Jona, committed suicide on the 17th of September not to
give the list of the members of Venetian qehillà.

The “manifesto” and their decrees in November 1943, declared Jews as foreigners of a hostile
nationality, planning their arrest and the forfeit of their estates. Some Jews could take a shelter in
Switzerland as illegal immigrants, or to reach some places in the South of Italy or even to find a
way out in the houses in the country; some others were combed by the soldiers of the Italian Social
Republic, kept in gathering places (St. Maria the Major’s prison, Giudecca, “M. Foscarini” high
school) and then went to Fossoli, until June 1944 and the in Bozen and in the Risiera di San Sabba
(St Sabba’s rice mill) in Trieste.

34
Arrests and deportations happened mainly in the first days of December 1943 ( the 5th of
December’s raid) and in the summer of 1944, but they continued until the first months of 1945.
Particularly painful was the arrest of the 21 guests of the Jewish Old Age home, happened on the
17th of August 1944: among them also the old rabbi Adolfo Ottolenghi, who wanted to follow the
fate of his own coreligionists. All of them were sent by armored trains, mostly in Auschwitz-
Birkenau.

The Nazi/Fascist persecution lasted eighteen months during which Jewish life in the ghetto
continued, while sometimes the helping of the non-Jews and of the Church didn’t miss. The
Venetian Jews taken and deported between 1943 and 1944 were 246. A memorial reminds their
names forever in the Ghetto Nuovo square, together with the monument (above) made by the
sculptor Blatas and devoted to Shoah.

Survivor’s story: Venetian Ghetto’s last witness to Auschwitz

Hannah Roberts writes:14

14
https://www.ft.com/content/6513b012-1d0b-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122

35
Virginia Gattegno, 93, on how she survived the Nazi death camp and why it is vital to preserve
Venice’s historic Jewish quarter.
Sitting outside her retirement home in the Venetian Ghetto, wrapped in scarves and a coat, Virginia
Gattegno shivers in the spring sunlight. More than 70 years after enduring the Polish winter of
1944, the Auschwitz survivor still feels the cold. She explains: “For us Mediterranean people,
who hadn’t experienced cold, that was the cruellest thing, worse than the hunger.” The ghetto
must be here to remind people, because after the last witness to the Shoah, who will tell what
happened to the Jews? Virginia Gattegno The birdlike 93-year-old is the last witness of the Nazi
death camp living in the ghetto today.

When in 1516, the Doge, Leonardo Loredan, enforced segregation of Venetian Jews, on a small
island formerly used as a metal foundry (geto in the Venetian dialect), he instituted the world’s
first ghetto. Jews were in the main limited to working as pawnbrokers or moneylenders, wearing
yellow circles as identification, and were locked inside the island’s gates at night. While
appallingly discriminatory, it was, for some, a shelter from even worse persecution elsewhere. To
mark the 500th anniversary, the remaining Jewish community of about 450 have organized a series
of commemorations, including the first performance of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice in
the ghetto’s principal square, the Campo del Ghetto Nuovo, where Gattegno has lived since 2007.

She has lived in Venice for the past 60 years. Hatred for Jews has never really disappeared, she
says. She lost her mother, grandmother and two younger brothers in the concentration camp, and
almost starved to death herself, but she did not speak of Auschwitz until the 1990s. Before the
Holocaust, such evil seemed unthinkable, she says. “The Germans had been among the most
civilized, sophisticated people in Europe, who treated Jews the best.” But the fear that anti-
Semitism is in resurgence in Europe drives her to retell her story. She believes that conserving the
physical site of the ghetto, a reminder of the persecution of Jews for centuries, is vital. “The ghetto
must be here to remind people, because after the last witness to the Shoah [Holocaust], who will
tell what happened to the Jews?”

Living on an island, they knew nothing of the death camps. “Had we known we would have thrown
ourselves overboard.” Many died during the three-week passage by sea and cattle car to Auschwitz.
Gattegno turned 21 on the way and 22 on the way back, “At least for some of us there was a return
journey,” she says. On arrival, Gattegno and her sister Lea remained together. They never saw
their family again. Among the books on Gattegno’s shelves is Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz.
“Everything he wrote, we lived it.” Forced labour, hunger and depersonalization followed. They
ate once a day. Their heads were shaved and Gattegno was tattooed with the number A-24324 on
her left wrist. She attributes her survival to “will and instinct. It wasn’t religion. Probably because
I was young and strong and with my sister.”

The two refused to believe talk of the gas chambers, maintaining an optimism that saved them
from despair. It’s not something you talk about willingly. But I felt a duty. Because if the survivors
did not speak now, there was a risk of forgetting, of saying that it never happened Virginia
Gattegno The hardest part to hear is when Gattegno recalls losing Lea for a week. “Auschwitz was
vast, a city. I had no way of knowing where she was. I went from building to building calling ‘Lea.
Lea’”. The pitiful hopelessness is still there in the inflection of her voice. The pair were in the sick

36
bay in January 1945 when the Germans evacuated, filing 56,000 prisoners out of the camp on death
marches, leaving the infirm behind to starve. Gattegno, weighing just 35kg, combed the camp for
scraps. “The Germans left nothing. I found a turnip, frozen. I had to throw it against a wall to
break it. This allowed us to survive for one more day.” A rare instance of compassion came when
a Polish woman signaled that if Gattegno chopped some firewood she would give her some
biscuits. “When I picked up the axe I was so weak I collapsed. She looked at me and understood
and fed me anyway.”

When the Russians arrived later that month, Gattegno was assigned kitchen work and regained
weight rapidly. The sisters remained at Auschwitz until July 1945, when, having no one left in
Rhodes, they joined relatives in Rome. When they arrived, wearing Russian fatigues, they looked
well fed. “The family looked at us as if to say, ‘What concentration camp?’” Gradually Gattegno
discovered that her grandmother, mother, and four-year-old brother had probably been gassed on
arrival. Her other brother had been killed by a mine on the eve of their liberation. Ugo wrote to
her, desperate to be reunited. They were married in Venice and she was welcomed into his Catholic
family, former fascists. Gattegno raised her daughters as Catholics hoping to ensure their safety.
She never spoke of the camp, even with Lea, who now lives in Belgium. “Because she lived it as
well. What was there to say?”

In the 1990s Gattegno started to give talks at schools. “It’s not something you talk about willingly.
Many of the generation afterwards preferred not to know. But I felt a duty. Because if the survivors
did not speak now, there was a risk of forgetting, of saying that it never happened.” In 2007 she
moved into the ghetto’s retirement home, where there are four other inhabitants. The oldest is 105.
“She wanted to be among her own people again”, says Gattegno’s younger daughter Donatella
Cipolato, 56. “These days she talks about Auschwitz more than ever before.” 15

15
Photographs: Alberto Sinigaglia

37