Daf Ditty Succah 7: The Third Wall

It couldn't have been me.

See, the direction the spackle protrudes.
A noisy neighbor? An angry boyfriend? I'll never know. I wasn't home.
I peer inside for a clue.
No! I can't see. I reel, blind, like a film left out in the sun.
But it's too late. My retinas.
Already scorched with a permanent copy of the meaningless image.
It's just a little hole. It wasn't too bright.
It was too deep.
Stretching forever into everything.
A hole of infinite choices.
I realize now that I wasn't looking in.
I was looking out.
And he, on the other side, was looking in.

Hole in the Wall1

1
https://doki-doki-literature-club.fandom.com/wiki/Monika_(DDLC)

1
Rabbi Yehuda also holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as we learned in the
mishna: A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit; Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. As
explained above, in constructing a sukka more than twenty cubits high, one cannot render his
residence a temporary residence; rather, he must construct a sturdy permanent residence.

Rabbi Shimon agrees, as it is taught in a baraita: The dimensions of a sukka are two walls in
the standard sense, and a third wall that measures even a handbreadth; Rabbi Shimon says:
Three of the walls must be walls in the standard sense, and a fourth wall is required that
measures even a handbreadth. Apparently, a sukka must be surrounded on four sides like a
permanent residence.

2
Rabban Gamliel holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as it is taught in a baraita:
In the case of one who establishes his sukka atop a wagon or atop a boat, Rabban Gamliel
deems it unfit; a mobile structure is not a permanent residence. Rabbi Akiva deems it fit.
Apparently, Rabban Gamliel requires that a sukka be a permanent residence.

Beit Shammai agree, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of one whose head and most of his
body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem the sukka unfit,
since a small sukka is unfit for use and one cannot fulfill the mitzva of sukka with it. And Beit
Hillel deem it fit. Apparently, Beit Shammai require that the sukka be similar to a permanent
structure.

Rabbi Eliezer holds that a sukka must be a permanent residence, as we learned in a mishna: In
the case of one who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut whose walls slope down
from the center and has no roof, or one who rested the sukka against the wall, taking long
branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall, establishing
a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the
Rabbis deem it fit. A permanent residence has a roof.

Aḥerim agree, as it is taught in a baraita that Aḥerim say: A sukka built in a circular shape like
a dovecote is unfit, because it does not have corners, and a permanent residence is one with
corners.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a sukka that is shaped like a furnace and is completely
round, if its circumference has sufficient space for twenty-four people to sit in it, it is fit, and
if not, it is unfit.

3
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yoḥanan rule that the sukka must
be so expansive? The Gemara answers: It is undoubtedly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Any sukka that does not have an area of four cubits by four cubits
is unfit. Since he requires the sukka with the largest minimum dimensions, Rabbi Yoḥanan must
hold in accordance with his opinion.

Summary

Partitions... where should they be placed? What is the appropriate shape of a sukka? Should it be
rectangular, like an alleyway? If there is the measure of an expansive handbreadth at the end of
one wall, in which direction should that partial-wall face? Does it count as a third wall? And what
about a doorway; could that count as a third wall?2

Our rabbis compare and contrast the requirements of a fit sukka with the requirements of partitions
regarding Shabbat domains. The considerations are similar, and so it seems to make sense to
understand the halachot of sukkot with the halachot of Shabbat partitions. However, many
differences force the rabbis to reexamine these considerations. Shabbat partitions help us
understand what we can carry from one domain to another - they define the domains. Sukkot
partitions help us to build a structure - and that is all. The functions and consequences of these
different halachot are significant.

What about roofs placed over alleyways and walls built around wells? The rabbis consider many
circumstances that might serve as sukkot. In this context we are reminded that we are permitted
to infer halachot from stringent to lenient situation, but we are not to assume that a stringency can
become more lenient based on a lenient halacha.

Our rabbis consider the end of this last Mishna; there should be more shade than sunlight in the
sukka. What does this teach us about the construction of a sukka's roof? We look at the placement
of the roof taking into consideration the movement of the sun and the nature of the sukka's walls. In
this discussion, the rabbis offer very different opinions. It is said that "all hold that the sukka must
be a stable structure, just like a permanent residence". However Steinsaltz teaches in a note that
whenever we read "all hold that..." regarding many diverse opinions, we should understand that
the halacha is not in accordance with that statement. The Gemara uses this tool to teach us that we
are to value multiple opinions.

2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/02/

4
This is particularly resonant today3. 9 Adar is a commemorative day for Jews killed in ancient
(and in more modern) times. Originally, it marks a conflict between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai,
resulting in many deaths. Today we are thinking of 9 Adar as a time to think about constructive
conflict rather than destructive distancing. Pardes in Jerusalem has created wonderful workshops
toward this end (pardes.org). It is particularly heartwarming today to learn about our Sages'
attempts to systematize our thinking about how to construct 'difference' so that all opinions are
preserved and valued.

Looking at the shapes and placement of sukkot, our Sages argue about what might be fit or unfit. A
round sukka? A sukka that narrows at the top like a dovecoat? What a bout a sukka that is on a
boat? How permanent does this temporary structure have to be? The rabbis disagree about many
of these details and we are left with a sense of our Sages passion regarding the details of this
metaphor. We are to sit in a sukka - we are to feel closer to G-d and to remember our ancestors'
dwellings in the desert. We are to recall the decoration of the Ark cover and the partitions of
Shabbat domains to help us create sukkot. But each minute detail of how this is done is up for
debate with our rabbis.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:4

1. The Gemara discusses a Sukkah that has two complete walls that are perpendicular to each other
and the third wall is a tefach, and the question is where the third wall should be placed. Rav
maintains that the third wall should be placed adjacent to the end of any of the walls. Rav Kahana
and Rav Assi asked Rav: Let him erect the third wall corresponding to the head of a diagonal line?
[Instead of the tefach-long wall heading straight, parallel to the opposite wall, it should head on a
diagonal, in a manner in which the Sukkah would appear closed up.] Rav was silent. It was stated:
Shmuel said in the name of Levi: One erects it at the end of any of the walls. The Rabbis in the
Academy also taught like this: Erect it at the end of any of the walls. Rabbi Simon (and according
to others, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi) maintains that the third wall should be an expanded tefach,
and it should be placed within three tefachim from the end of one of the walls. By applying the
principle of lavud, i.e. that anything within three tefachim is considered annexed to it, the third
wall will be considered a four-tefachim wall.

2. If two walls of a Sukkah are like a mavoi (parallel to each other), Rav Yehudah says that the
third wall of a tefach can be erected on any side that he wishes. Rabbi Simon (and according to
others, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi) maintains that it is necessary to have a third wall that measures
four tefachim, and the third wall should be placed within three tefachim of a complete wall. The
Gemora explains the distinction between the two cases: When there are two walls that are
perpendicular, a third wall measuring a tefach will suffice. When the walls are parallel and the
inside of the Sukkah appears opened, however, it will be necessary to enclose the Sukkah in a
better manner, and for this reason it is necessary to have a wall of four tefachim.

3. Rava maintains that when a third wall of the Sukkah measures a tefach, one is required to make
a tzuras hapesach, an outline of a doorway. The Gemara quotes three opinions that define the
3
As I write this blog, it is 9 Adar, 5774 (Feb. 9, 2014).
4
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Sukkah_7.pdf

5
statement of Rava. One explanation is that instead of having a wall measuring a tefach, one should
place two boards measuring a half a tefach each on the third side and he should place a crossbeam
on top of the two boards, thus creating a tzuras hapesach. A second explanation is that one should
create a tzuras hapesach on the third side without the two boards measuring a total of a tefach. The
third explanation is that he is required to erect a board that measures one tefach and he must make
a tzuras hapesach. The Gemora relates: Rav Ashi found Rav Kahana making (the third wall of a
Sukkah) an expanded tefach wide and constructing also the form of a doorway. He said to him:
Doesn’t the Master hold the opinion of Rava who said that it is also valid with the form of a
doorway? He answered: I accept the other reading of the statement of Rava viz., that in addition
(to a board of the size of a tefach), the form of a doorway is also required.

The Gemara cites the opinion of Tanaaim who maintain that a Sukkah must be a permanent
structure. Rebbe maintains that a Sukkah should be four squared amos. Rabbi Yehudah maintains
that a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is valid. Rabbi Shimon maintains that a Sukkah must
consist of four walls. Rabbi Gamliel maintains that a Sukkah that was built on a wagon or on a
boat is invalid. Bais Shammai maintains that a Sukkah must be large enough to accommodate a
person and the table. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a Sukkah that is made like a conical hut or if he
leaned it against a wall, it is invalid.

Fit for Seven Days

The Gemara states that if one placed s’chach on a mavoi, the Sukkah is valid. Similarly, if one
who places s’chach over well-boards, the Sukkah is valid. Rashi maintains that the Sukkah is only
valid on Shabbos as then we can apply the principle of migo. We say that “since” it is deemed a
wall regarding Shabbos, it is considered a wall regarding Sukkah as well. The Aruch LaNer
wonders why the Sukkah should be valid, as we will learn further (Daf 23) that such a Sukkah
should be considered invalid because it is not fit to dwell in for all seven days. The Aruch LaNer
answers that perhaps our Gemara is proof to the opinion of the Rif who maintains that such a
Sukkah is valid during the week as well.

The Netziv in Meromei Sadeh explains why the fact that Rashi maintains that a Sukkah that is
valid only for Shabbos is not a contradiction to the principle that a Sukkah be fit for one to dwell
in all seven days. The reason why it is not a contradiction is because the requirement that a Sukkah
must be fit to dwell in for seven days only applies to a Sukkah whose walls are not strong enough
to stand for seven days or that its s’chach will dry up in that time. If the Sukkah will be valid for
one day, however, then there is no contradiction to the principle that a Sukkah must be fit to dwell
in for seven days. The Gemara further on (Daf 23) states that if one makes a Sukkah on top of an
animal it is not valid because since such a Sukkah cannot be used on Shabbos, the Sukkah will not
be valid during the week either. The reason for this is because the Sukkah must be fit to dwell in
all seven days. The question on this explantion is that this would imply that a halachic
disqualification for one day would invalidate the Sukkah.

The Netziv answers that this is only true according to the Tanaaim who maintain that the Sukkah
must be permanent and then we do not require a verse to teach us that the walls must be strong.
Rather, the verse comes to teach us that a Sukkah must be completely fit to dwell in all seven days.
According to the Tanaaim who maintain that a Sukkah can be temporary, they understand the verse

6
to be teaching us that the Sukkah must be fit so that one can physically dwell in it. A Sukkah that
is invalid for one day, however, is still deemed to be a valid Sukkah.

Eating Fruit in a Sukkah

The Mahretz Chayus to Yoma 79 explains the words of the Tosfos Yeshanim who appears to
contradict himself. The Gemara discuses whether one must sit in a Sukkah when eating fruit and
the Tosfos Yeshanim writes that one is not required to sit in a Sukkah when eating fruit. Rabbeinu
Avigdor maintains that even though one is required to eat in a Sukkah when eating food that
measures the size of an egg, on Yom Tov one is required to sit in the Sukkah even when eating
food that measures the size of an olive. The Mahretz Chayus cites the Tosfos Yeshanim who
maintains that this is true regarding fruits as well. During the week, one would not be obligated to
eat fruit in a Sukkah. On Shabbos, however, when one can fulfill the mitzvah of eating Seudah
Shelishis by eating fruit, one would be obligated to eat fruit while sitting in the Sukkah. This would
be similar to our Gemara thatstates that what is considered to be a wall regarding Shabbos is also
deemed to be a wall regarding Sukkah.

Sukkos and Shabbos

The Gemara discusses allowing an abbreviated third wall to be effective for carrying on the
Shabbos of Sukkos. It is worth exploring the association between Shabbos and Sukkos as they
prepare to be mutually exclusive. It is noteworthy that the Torah states: you shall dwell in booths
for a seven-day period; every native in Israel shall dwell in booths. So that your generations will
know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in booths when I took them from the land of
Egypt; I am HaShem, your G-d. Regarding Sukkos the Torah uses the term yeidu, will know, and
regarding Shabbos it is said: now you speak to the Children of Israel, saying, however, you must
observe My Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you for your generations, to know that I
am HaShem.

Thus, the purpose of both Shabbos and Sukkos is to know that HaShem is our G-d and that He
always protects us. This would explain why in the Shabbos Maariv prayers we end the blessing
with the words and spread over us the shelter of Your peace. When we acknowledge Hashem’s
Presence in our midst, HaShem will protect us from all harm.

ABAYE'S OPINION WHETHER A SUKAH MAY BE A "DIRAS KEVA"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:5

Abaye gives a list of Tana'im who maintain that a Sukah may (or must) be fit to be a "Diras Keva"
(a structure built to be a permanent dwelling place). Among those Tana'im is Rebbi Yehudah in
the Mishnah (2a), who says that a Sukah that is taller than 20 Amos is valid, even though such a
tall structure is fit to be a "Diras Keva." This implies that according to Abaye, the Rabanan in the

5
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-007.htm

7
Mishnah (who argue with Rebbi Yehudah and say that a Sukah that is taller than 20 Amos is
invalid) maintain that a Sukah must be a "Diras Arai" (a structure built to be a temporary dwelling
place).

However, Abaye earlier (2a) argues with Rava who says that the reason why the Rabanan
invalidate a tall Sukah is because a Sukah must be a "Diras Arai." Abaye's words there imply that
he maintains that both Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan agree that a Sukah can be a "Diras Keva,"
and their dispute is based on some other matter. Why, then, does Abaye say that only Rebbi
Yehudah maintains that a Sukah may be a "Diras Keva," when Abaye himself implies earlier that
even the Rabanan in the Mishnah agree?

(a) The RAMBAN and BA'AL HA'ME'OR (2a) answer that Abaye changed his mind and
accepted Rava's answer to his question.
In a similar answer, the RITVA says that Abaye's list includes only the Tana'im who maintain that
a Sukah may be a "Diras Keva" according to all of the Amora'im. Abaye's list does not include the
Rabanan in the Mishnah, because the opinion of the Rabanan is subject to dispute among the
Amora'im -- Rava maintains that they require a "Diras Arai," and Abaye maintains that they permit
a "Diras Keva" as well. Out of respect for Rava, Abaye does not mention the Rabanan in his list
of Tana'im who maintain that a Sukah may be a "Diras Keva."

(b) The RA'AVAD explains that it is possible that Abaye maintains that both Rebbi Yehudah and
the Rabanan in the Mishnah permit a Sukah which is a "Diras Keva." The reason why Abaye
mentions Rebbi Yehudah in his list, and not the Rabanan, is because Rebbi Yehudah clearly
maintains that a Sukah may be a "Diras Keva." The opinion of the Rabanan, though, is not clear.
They say only that a Sukah taller than 20 Amos is invalid, but they do not clarify their reason.
(According to the opinion of Rav Chanan bar Rabah (2b), the Gemara itself does not know the
reason for the argument. He says that the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan
applies only to a Sukah which is not large enough to contain one's head, most of his body, and his
table. When the Sukah is large enough to contain his head, most of his body, and his table, even
the Rabanan permit a Sukah taller than 20 Amos.)

(c) TOSFOS and the RITVA explain that even though Abaye (on 2a) asserts that the argument in
the Mishnah is unrelated to whether or not a Sukah may be a "Diras Keva," he knows from other
sources that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah may be a "Diras Keva." The Beraisa in Yoma
(11a) and the Gemara later in Sukah (21b) clearly indicate that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a
Sukah may be a "Diras Keva." Even though the Rabanan in the Mishnah might agree and permit
a Sukah which is a "Diras Keva," it is evident from the other sources that Rebbi Yehudah not only
permits it, but he requires that a Sukah be a "Diras Keva" (or that at least he was accustomed to
making his own Sukah a "Diras Keva"). Abaye lists only Rebbi Yehudah, because the
Rabanan permit a Diras Keva but do not require it.

Why, then, does the Gemara cite the Mishnah here, and not the other sources, as proof that Rebbi
Yehudah maintains that a Sukah may be a "Diras Keva"? The answer is that when the Gemara
cites the Mishnah as proof, it is no longer Abaye who is speaking. The Gemara cites the Mishnah
as proof only according to Rava. The Gemara wants to show that even Rava maintains that Rebbi

8
Yehudah permits a Sukah that is a "Diras Keva." Abaye, though, would prove Rebbi Yehudah's
opinion from the other sources.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:6

Rava’s teaching (see Sukkah 6a), which allows for walls that are considered significant with regard
to sukkah to be perceived as sufficient for creating a reshut ha-yachid – a private domain – on
the Shabbat of Sukkot, is applied by him to a number of inverse cases, as well. He teaches that in
both the case of mavoy she-yesh lo lechi (a courtyard with a beam across the entrance) and the case
of pasei bira’ot (an area surrounding a well that is partially closed off by four right-angled walls
in each corner), partitions that are sufficient to create a reshut ha-yachid for Shabbat can be used
as walls of a sukkah, even though they do not meet the normal criteria of sukkah walls.

The case of pasei bira’ot is a method of fencing off the area of the well or water-hole with four
right-angled walls in response to the needs of olei regalim – pilgrims headed to Jerusalem for the
holidays of Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot. In this case, the walls are so poorly designated that it was
only the desire to assist people involved in this mitzvah that led the Sages to permit their use. Since
the olei regalim invariably brought with them animals for sacrifices in the Temple, there was a
desperate need to make water as readily accessible as possible. During the times of year that the
masses are commanded to travel to the Temple in Jerusalem, the only available water is in cisterns
that collected rain water or wells.

The Jerusalem Talmud brings a dispute among the Amoraim on the question of who is allowed to
make use of these pasei bera’ot and carry within them on Shabbat. According to one opinion, such
walls can only be used as an eruv by olei regalim. A second opinion argues that the ruling was
made with the olei regalim in mind, but during the times of year when people are oleh
regel, anyone – even those not coming to Jerusalem – can benefit from them. The third opinion
agrees that the special leniency was approved by the Sages with the olei regalim in mind, but
argues that once it was adopted, the ruling works for all, and anyone can use the water in these
wells.

The fact that the third wall of a sukkah may be comprised of a single tefach is due to a ‫ הלכה‬le
Moshe mi’Sinai—a Torah law from Sinai that is not scripturally based, yet traced back to Moshe
Rabeinu, passed down through the generations.7

In explaining how this can work, Rabbi Simon teaches that a board which is a bit wider than a
tefach can be placed near the edge of one of the two standing walls, and if it within three tefachim
of the edge, we can use the concept of ‫ לבוד‬to “add it” or “connect it” to the existing wall.

6
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_sukkah612/
7
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Sukkah%20007.pdf

9
This new, third wall is now a total of four tefachim wide, which is beyond the majority of the
dimension necessary of a seven-tefach wall. Aruch leNer asks: According to Rabbi Simon, why
do we need a special ‫ הלכה‬le Moshe mi’Sinai to teach us that such construction of a sukkah is
valid? It seems that the already established rule of ‫לבוד‬, in conjunction with the concept of ‫ככולו‬
‫ רובו‬would suffice to validate this sukkah, without any need for a new ruling.

He answers that whenever the Torah prescribes a specific measurement that must be fulfilled, we
do not use the concept of ‫ ככולו רובו‬most of a measure is legally considered as the full amount to
achieve this amount. Otherwise, he explains, all we would need would be a single solid wall, and
we could strategically place a single wide tefach board at each edge, at a point within three
tefachim from the corner of the board.

Using the rule of ‫ לבוד‬and ‫ ככולו רובו‬we would then have the two additional walls for a total of three
walls. Nevertheless, we do not utilize this legal mechanism in this case. Accordingly, without the
special ‫ הלכה‬le Moshe mi’Sinai we would not even allow the third wall to be extended and
considered as a full wall.

There was once a dispute that arose between the Rabbi of a community and a member of the
community regarding the validity of the sukkah built and used by the Rabbi.

The point of dispute revolved around the fact that the sukkah was erected on the street in a way
that was unprotected from thieves. The dissenter claimed, based on a position cited in Mordechai
(1)8 that when a sukkah is built in a place that is exposed for thieves the sukkah is invalid. Rema
(2) wrote that the position expressed by the dissenter has no basis whatsoever. The position cited
by Mordechai holds that if a sukkah is built in a way that one is afraid to sleep in the sukkah
because of thieves it is invalid but the fact that thieves may come and steal in and of itself does not
invalidate the sukkah.

Rema proceeds to cite a number of proofs to this assertion that the possibility for thieves does not
invalidate a sukkah. The Gemara (3) states that all of Klal Yisroel is able to share a single sukkah
and it is known that it is inevitable that there would be some thieves within that group, having
access to that sukkah (4). It is thus evident that the possibility for thieves does not invalidate the
sukkah.

A second proof is the opinion of Rabbah who rules that a sukkah built out of well boards is valid.
The Gemara Eruvin (5) writes that well boards may only be used in a place that has many people
passing by on their way to Yerushalayim for Yom Tov. Since these sukkahs are constructed by the

8
see Daf Digest #553: Sukkah Daf 3, for an elaboration of this opinion

10
side of the road at a time that many people are traveling by it is by definition a place that is exposed
to thieves and nonetheless, Rabbah rules that the sukkah is valid. This again supports Rema’s
assertion that exposure to thieves does not invalidate the sukkah.

The holy Arizal taught that the twenty amah maximum height of the space within the sukkah
represents two sets of ten sefiros. The lower ten symbolize fear of Hashem, and the higher ten
represent love of Hashem.

The holy days before Sukkos enable one to come to fear and love of Hashem, each according to
his level. Sometimes we see or hear about someone who achieves a profound love and fear of
Hashem even though he is still quite young. Love of Hashem must be built upon the foundation of
Yiras Shomayim.

Rav Eliezer Eliyahu Friedman, zt”l, was of the first students of Rav Eliezer Gordon, zt”l, when he
was the Rosh Yeshiva in Kelm. On one frigid Shabbos night he made his way to the Rosh
Yeshiva’s weekly shiur at three in the morning. It was so cold outside he could barely breathe. The
ground was covered with snow, the night was pitch black, and Rav Friedman was absorbed in his
thoughts about the shiur. Suddenly, his reverie was rudely interrupted by the fierce attack of a
small and desperately hungry fox. Without warning, it leaped at his throat and tried to tear through
his windpipe. Guarding his exposed neck, he tried unsuccessfully to throw the beast off. The
animal bit through his heavy coat, wounding his arms and legs. Rav Friedman then tried to grab a
stone off the ground to use as a weapon, but the earth was frozen solid and it wouldn’t budge. He
struggled right up until the entry of his house, providentially nearby. He knocked on the window
and shouted “Help!” As soon as his grandfather emerged, the fox fled. After getting cleaned up
and bathing his wounds, Rav Friedman dressed in fresh Shabbos clothes and ran right out again to
the Beis Midrash to hear the shiur! He would say in later years, “My longing to hear my Rebbi’s
shiur overcame my natural fear of meeting up with the fox again. To miss a shiur was absolutely
impossible!”

11
Mark Kerzner writes:9

The sukkah is a temporary dwelling, and it only needs three walls. Of that, the third wall can be as
small as one handbreadth. How do we know this? The words "sukkot" - meaning multiple sukkahs,
is mentioned three times in the Torah. However, in two cases the letter "o" (vav) is missing! This
gives us a count of sukkahs (2), plus sukkah (1), plus another sukkah (1), a total of four. The first
mention, however, is needed for the simple meaning of the word - to live in a sukkah. Thus, we
have a hint that a sukkah needs to have only three walls. In addition, we have another rule that
God taught to Moses - that the third wall can be as small as a handbreadth.

All this assumes that we take the written takes of the Torah as definitive. There is another point of
view however. In it we say that the definitive is how the words are pronounced in the synagogues
when the Torah is read. The word is always pronounced "sukkot" - that is, plural. The first of the
three mentions is needed for its simple meaning, but the remaining two extra words - each
pronounced as "sukkot" (2) give us four walls. The last, fourth wall can be only a handbreadth.

The Talmud gives three more possible explanations for the argument whether sukkah needs to
have three or four walls - in one all believe in the writing, in another - all believe in the
pronunciation, and in the third - it does not depend on this distinction at all.

Sara Ronis writes:10

A sukkah is fundamentally an impermanent structure, meant to stand for only seven days (eight in
the Diaspora). But does this mean you can throw together any flimsy structure and call it a sukkah?
Or, in order for it to truly function like a “home away from home,” does it have to be built
solidly like a permanent structure?

On our daf, Abaye reads through earlier rabbinic statements to glean answers to this question. He
compiles a list of eight early rabbinic “heavy hitters” who he claims insist the sukkah must be built
like a permanent structure:

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yoshiya, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabban
Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Aherim (Rabbi Meir) all hold that we
require the sukkah to be a permanent residence.

What’s notable here is that Abaye identifies a statement by each of these earlier rabbis which
demonstrates their insistence on the sukkah’s permanence, but none of the rabbis quoted actually
discuss the question of permanence explicitly. And except for the first quote attributed to Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi, each statement presents a machloket, a dispute between two rabbis about some
feature of the sukkah. So each rabbi that Abaye quotes is presented in the context of another rabbi
who disagrees with him!

9
http://talmudilluminated.com/sukkah/sukkah7.html
10
Myjewishlearning.com

12
Let’s look at one example to see how this works. To prove that Rabban Gamaliel believed that a
sukkah should be permanent, Abaye quotes the following beraita (early teaching):

As it is taught: One who establishes his sukkah atop a wagon or atop a boat, Rabban Gamliel
deems it unfit.
Rabbi Akiva deems it fit.

According to Abaye’s read, Rabban Gamaliel insists that a sukkah has to be stationary — and for
Abaye, stationary equals permanent. As noted above, however, Rabban Gamliel never explicitly
says the sukkah needs to be permanent, and in this context Rabbi Akiva disagrees with him.

Later on in this tractate, on Sukkah 23a, we’re going to see that the mishnah states that a
sukkah can be built on a boat or a wagon, contra Rabban Gamliel. Even more curiously, on that
daf, Abaye — who just marshaled all this evidence that lots of distinguished rabbis think a sukkah
needs to be built like a permanent structure — seems to agree with the mishnah that a sukkah does
not have to be stationary! So what’s going on here in our daf Sukkah 7?

If Abaye does not think a sukkah must be built like a permanent structure, why would he be trying
to glean evidence that so many major early rabbis thought so?

Abaye is making a classic rabbinic move — trying to fully understand an earlier opinion, even if
it’s not his own. We’ve seen rabbis in the Talmud make this move many times.

Abaye is also doing something else — subtly undercutting those earlier opinions by citing them in
the context of dispute. Returning to the discussion of a mobile sukkah: By citing the whole beraita,
Abaye also names the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that in fact a sukkah can be mobile, built on an
ancient wagon or a boat, or maybe even a modern flatbed truck or RV!

Abaye’s strategy reminds us that it’s important to do our research, to examine other opinions and
avoid cherry-picking our favorite sources. After all, this daf demonstrates that reading something
in its original context can show us just how contested or complicated an idea is.

And as for how the rabbis decide you actually can build a sukkah on your boat or RV, stay tuned
because we’ll get to Sukkah 23 in a few short weeks!

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:11

We were previously taught in the first Mishna of Massechet Sukkot that a sukkah ‫שחמתה מרובה‬
‫“ – מצלתה‬in which there is more sun than shade” ‫“ – פסולה‬is invalid”, while in today’s daf (Sukkah
7b) we are taught that this rule only applies to the shade provided by the s’chach - whereas if there
is more light than shade in a sukkah due to the sunlight coming through the [often flimsy] walls of

11
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

13
the sukkah, it is valid. What this means is that while the s’chach needs to provide shade from
above, those who enjoy the sun are able to enjoy its rays that enter the sukkah from the side.

In his essay ‘The Symbolism of the Sukkah’*, Professor Jeffrey Rubinstein considers the
symbolism of the shade of the sukkah and explains that, ‘to dwell in the sukkah is to experience
shade. The resulting religious experience derives from the meanings of shade in Jewish tradition.
Shade represents protection, the divine presence, and love… [and] the laws deeming a sukkah
valid only if there is more shade than sunlight parallel the symbolism of the sukkah as a divine
cloud.’ What this means is that by entering the sukkah, we make the choice to dwell under the
shade of God and to experience the protection of God – just as our ancestors did while journeying
through the wilderness with the clouds of glory above them.

However, there is a big difference between an individual choosing to dwell under the shade of
God, and forcing others to do so. Moreover, while one person may be happy dwelling in a very
shady sukkah, others may need a sun-filled sukkah - which can only be achieved by helping them
create a bespoke sukkah which allows more sun through its walls.
Sadly, I often speak with Jews who feel that they were pushed into choosing faith, and who – only
later on in life – come to realise that while there are certain absolutes in Judaism (eg. more shade
than sun), there are many options available within halacha to create bespoke solutions that show
sensitivity towards their physical and emotional needs (eg. by having a sukkah which allows sun
through its walls).

Ultimately, as Professor Rubinstein explains, ‘residing in the shade of the sukkah is to experience
divine protection, love and intimacy’, but just as people differ in terms of their needs within love
and intimacy, so too, people differ in terms of their needs of shade and light, and it is essential that
they know – and this is something that often arises in the halachic consultations that I have with
others - that while there are certain absolutes in Judaism, so too, there is room for flexibility as
well.

Clive Lawton writes:12

In addition to considerable discussion about the authority of the Oral Torah, today’s daf (Sukkah
6b) teaches that while a sukkah can have either four of three full walls, a sukkah must minimally
have just two full walls and a third mini-wall (which need only be as long as a tefach - approx. 10
cm).

Yet, as Rabbi Moshe Sofer – otherwise known as the Chatam Sofer – explains (see Torat Moshe,
Sukkot), while the Torah Shebe’al Peh (the Oral explanation of the Torah) is clear that two-and-
a-bit walls is halachically permitted (as derived from the spelling of the word sukkot ‫ סכת‬without
a ‘vav’), most Jews throughout history have generally built their sukkot with three of four walls,
while only those for whom it was logistically necessary adopted the two-and-a-bit wall model.
Nevertheless, there was a time in history when the Jewish people were urged to build two-and-a-

12
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/why-study-
torah/?utm_source=mjl_maropost&utm_campaign=MJL&utm_medium=email

14
bit wall sukkot, and this was in the time of Ezra HaSofer when some of the Jewish people returned
to Israel to rebuild the Temple.

Ezra was a unique Torah leader whose mission it was to promote Torah living and encourage
commitment to the people with respect to both the Written and Oral Torah – which was particularly
necessary given their 52-year exile in Babylon which led to the assimilation of many Jews. Given
this, having now returned to Jerusalem, Ezra taught the people about Sukkot and instructed them
to ‘go out to the mountain and bring back olive branches… to make sukkot (‫ )סכת‬as it is written’
(Nechemiah 8:15). We are then told that this is what they did, and that ‘they had not done it this
way since the days of ..[Yehoshua] bin Nun’ (ibid. v. 17).

Considering these verses, and noting the spelling of the word ‫( סכת‬without a ‘vav’), the Chatam
Sofer explains how there were people and groups at that time who challenged the authenticity of
the Oral Torah. In response to this, Ezra instructed the people to ‘make sukkot (‫ )סכת‬as it is written’
(i.e. make sukkot according to the way our Rabbis interpreted the way this word is written) in order
to encourage them to publicly commit themselves to both the Written and Oral Torah.

Today, there are many who discount and dismiss the authenticity of the Oral Torah. Yet, as Rabbi
Sacks explains in his book ‘Crisis and Covenant’ (p. 255), such an attitude highlights a profound
misunderstanding of Judaism. This is because, ‘since religious truth is absolute but not universal,
it cannot be arrived at through (universal) reason but only through (particular) revelation. And
since revelation is to be applied to the concrete human situation it must contain within itself the
rules of its own interpretation, namely an oral as well as a written law. These ideas made no sense
to Enlightenment thought with its implicit assumption that either (religious) truth is universal or it
is not truth but subjective decision.’

As we know, there has been a steady growth in recent years of men and women studying daf yomi,
and with this has also brought an increase in understanding and appreciation of the Written and
Oral Torah. And so, by learning daf yomi - and especially Massechet Sukkah - we are not only
engaged in the study of the Oral Torah, but also in our appreciation of what makes Judaism unique
as well.

What’s the Truth about . . . S’chach?

Ari Z. Zivotofsky writes:13

Misconception: If stars are not visible through the s’chach (roof of the sukkah), the
sukkah is invalid.14

13
https://jewishaction.com/opinion/whats-truth-schach/
14
Rabbi Dr. Zivotofsky is on the faculty of the Brain Science Program at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

15
 Fact: According to many opinions, ab initio, one should be able to see starlight through
the s’chach. However, even if one is unable to see stars, the sukkah is kosher according to most
authorities.

Background: A sukkah has two main components—the walls and the s’chach. Each of
these has its own set of requirements regarding materials used, size and durability.

Because a sukkah must be a temporary dwelling,1 there are certain guidelines governing its
construction. For example, the rabbis banned the use of certain building materials
for s’chach including boards that are four tefachim wide (about twelve inches), which were
commonly used for roofs during the Talmudic period.2

To further distinguish a sukkah from a permanent edifice, the Talmud Yerushalmi says that
the s’chach should not be so thick as to prevent one from seeing stars. The Shulchan
Aruch (OC 631:3) does not follow this ruling and states that even if the s’chach is as thick as an
ordinary roof, such that no stars are visible, it is kosher as long as it is made from appropriate
materials. Despite the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, the Mishnah Berurah (631:5) cites later
authorities that require that some stars be visible through the s’chach. Nonetheless, the Mishnah
Berurah (631:6) rules that a sukkah where stars are not visible through the s’chach is kosher.
The Mishnah Berurah also cites the Peri Megadim as saying that even according to those who
require stars to be visible, if there is at least one spot in the s’chach where the stars can be seen,
that suffices to make the entire sukkah acceptable. The Aruch HaShulchan (631:6) also
recommends this method of constructing a sukkah but states that post facto the sukkah would be
acceptable even if it were not constructed in such a manner.

A related issue concerns whether or not rain can penetrate the s’chach. The Tur (OC 631) and
the Mishnah Berurah (631:6) quote Tosafot3, who, they claim, implies that if rain cannot penetrate
the s’chach, it is a sign of permanence and hence, the s’chach is not kosher even post
facto.4 Tosafot maintains that the sukkah must be constructed in such a manner that the walls
could, potentially, be temporary or “flimsy.” Once the walls have that potential, they may even be
made of bricks and cement. However, regarding the s’chach, which is the essence of the sukkah,
it is not enough for it to be potentially temporary; it must truly be of a temporary
nature. S’chach that is impenetrable to rain is, by definition, permanent, and according to Rabbeinu
Tam, invalid. The Mishnah Berurah views such thick s’chach as invalid and maintains that even
an area of such s’chach measuring four tefachim wide and running the length of the sukkah would
invalidate the entire sukkah.

Rav Moshe Sternbuch (Moadim U’zmanim 1:96) disagrees with the above and asserts that the
sukkah is invalid only if the entire roof has such s’chach. According to him, even one small section
of s’chach that rain can penetrate would validate the sukkah. Emphasizing his point, he cites Rav
Chaim Volozhin’s tradition of having thick s’chach throughout the sukkah, with the exception of
a small section. This enabled Rav Chaim to fulfill the mitzvah of eating in a sukkah even when it
was raining (Moadim U’zmanim 8:1:06).

The discussion of how much “thick s’chach” invalidates the sukkah is predicated on Rabbeinu
Tam’s position that if rain cannot penetrate the s’chach, the sukkah is invalid. While this position
is accepted by the Levush and the Bach (OC 635), it is not cited by the Shulchan Aruch5 who rules
quite clearly (OC 631:3) that even if the s’chach is as “thick as [the roof on] a house” it is kosher.

16
 The Tur (near the beginning of OC 631) cites Rabbeinu Tam’s position, and then states (with
seeming approval) that his father, the Rosh, did not cite Rabbeinu Tam’s position in his
rulings.6 The Beit Yosef (OC 631) cites the Mordechai (Sukkah, chap. 1) as pointing out that Rashi
seems to disagree with Rabbeinu Tam as well. Furthermore, the mishnah on Sukkah 22a7 seems
to support the Rosh’s position that rain-tight s’chach is valid. Incidentally, it seems that8 Rabbeinu
Tam had a brother-in-law who did not agree with his relative’s ruling and constructed a rain-tight
sukkah.

This debate seems to have pitted many Rishonim against each other.9 However, most of the
Acharonim felt that one should try to build a sukkah that is not watertight. Both the Mishnah
Berurah and the Aruch HaShulchan rule that post facto, one may use a sukkah that is impermeable
to water and rely on the opinions that reject Rabbeinu Tam’s position.

The reason many people believe that stars must be visible through s’chach and that rain cannot
penetrate s’chach at all may be due to the immense popularity of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (Rav
Ganzfried) and the Chayei Adam (Rav Danziger). These halachic works, written about 150 years
ago, were widely studied by Eastern European Jews. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (134:5) writes
that, ab initio, one should be able to see stars through the s’chach and, post facto, the s’chach is
invalid if rain cannot penetrate it.10 Similarly, the Chayei Adam (147:18) rules that if no stars are
visible the s’chach is valid, but preferably the s’chach should be sparse enough to see stars. He
further rules that if heavy rain cannot penetrate the s’chach it is invalid because of the rabbinic
decree against building a sukkah like a house (gezeirot bayit).

There are thus two halachot regarding the thickness of the s’chach; one is related to stars, the other
to rain, and both contain philosophical nuggets as well. Seeing the stars while in the sukkah
emphasizes the ephemeral nature of existence and highlights the idea that we are sitting under
nothing save God’s watchful eye. Similarly, the sukkah provides inadequate protection from the
elements so that one realizes that just as the Jews in the desert relied on God’s protection from the
elements, we must we rely on that protection today.

Philosophy aside, the requirement to see the stars was not accepted as binding by any authorities
and is merely offered as a worthy suggestion. On the other hand, while the Talmud and many early
authorities did not rule out s’chach that is rainproof, it was deemed unfit by no less than the great
Rabbeinu Tam and was therefore strongly opposed by later codifiers.

Notes
1. This is in contradistinction to the eight opinions (offered by Rabbi Yehudah, Beit Shammai, Rebbi, etc.) in Sukkah 7b that hold
that a sukkah must be a dirat kevah, a permanent dwelling. The halachah does not agree with the opinions above, but rather with
Rabbi Akiva (in Sukkah 23a) and others, who state that it must be a dirat aray, a temporary dwelling.
2. See Shulchan Aruch OC 629:18. Whether this decree includes thinner slats of wood that are bound together, is subject to debate.
See Rabbi Yeshai Koenigsberg, “The Canvas Succah,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 15 (Sukkot 5761): 27-45,
in particular: 44-45.
3. Tosafot, Sukkah 2a, s.v. ki avid. This is based on a gemara in Ta’anit 2a that views rainfall on Sukkot as a bad omen since it
prevents one from fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah. Based on the gemara, Tosafot states that sukkot cannot be rain-tight. The Pnei
Yehoshuah, commenting on this Tosafot, has a problem with that logic. He argues that this is not a proof that sukkot may not be
rain resistant; it is merely a proof that most sukkot are in actuality not watertight.

17
4. The Taz (OC 629:21) writes that even though the verse (Deut. 16:13) expressly sanctions using straw as s’chach, it is common to
use branches and the like. This is because unlike branches or bamboo, straw that is packed tightly prevents rain from entering the
sukkah. The Taz (OC 635:2) then questions how a hollowed-out haystack may be a good sukkah since it is impermeable to rain.
He concludes that even according to Tosafot, a rainproof sukkah is only invalid rabbinically because of the concern that it will be
confused with an ordinary permanent house, which would not apply to a haystack. The Peri Megadim (Mishbetzet Zahav, 635:2)
disagrees, claiming that Tosafot believed that such a sukkah was invalid even Biblically, and this seems to be how most understand
the Tosafot.
5. See, however, Tur OC 629 (near the end) in the name of the Smak, who implies that the halachah of not using boards for s’chach is
based on the reasoning of Rabbeinu Tam. Thus, according to the Smak, the Shulchan Aruch does follow the opinion of Rabbeinu
Tam. See also Sha’arey Tziyun 633:6.
6. In actuality, the Rosh cites this Rabbeinu Tam in siman 12. However, the Beit Yosef explains that when the Tur claims that the
Rosh omits this halachah, he means that he omits it in its proper place, that is, in the mishnah in Sukkah 22a.
7. The mishnah implies that, a priori, one should be able to see the stars, but states that if one cannot, the sukkah is still kosher.
According to Beit Hillel in the Gemara, even if rays of sun do not penetrate the s’chach, it is still kosher.
8. See Hagahot Maimoniot, Hilchot Sukkah 5:9.
9. On the lenient side were Rashi, the Rosh, the Mordechai and Rabbeinu Tam’s brother-in-law, among others.
10. Rav Ovadiah Yosef rules similarly [as recorded by his son in Yalkut Yosef–Moadim, (5748, p. 130)]. See the comprehensive
discussion in Yabia Omer 4:49.

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:15

The first mishna in Masekhet sukka presents three criteria pertaining the sekhakh (roof covering)
of the sukka. It cannot be placed higher than twenty amot nor lower than ten tefachim. In addition,
it must produce more shade than the sunlight it admits (tzilatah merubah me-chamatah).
Ostensibly, these requirements apply to the sekhakh, which, as Rashi already notes (2a s.v.
veshechamta), constitutes the essence of the sukka and lends the sukka its name (sekhakh = sukka).
The gemara debates whether the final clause - the sunlight/shade quotient - might apply to the
walls as well. Though ultimately rejected, this provocative position might disclose certain basic
functions of the sukka and reveal something of its identity.

Our daf (7b) cites Rav Yoshia's dissenting opinion: he believes that the walls of the sukka must
also produce shade. If a person were to construct a sukka with glass walls, the sukka would be
invalid, even if the sekhakh were completely kosher. How are we to understand this position?

Conventionally, we define the mitzva of sukka as sitting underneath sekhakh. Admittedly, sekhakh
can be considered a halakhic roof only if it produces more shade than the sunlight it admits.
However, the mitzva doesn't demand sitting in actual shade. Rather, the existence of shade enables
the sekhakh to be halakhically valid. If the walls admit sunlight but the sekhakh performs its
function, the mitzva can still be fulfilled.

Presumably, Rav Yoshia redefines the mitzva of sukka. A person must actually sit in shade (and
not just under shade-producing sekhakh) to execute the mitzva. If the shade is eliminated, even by
sunlight streaming through the walls, the mitzva can no longer be performed. Thus, the dispute

15
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/holidays/sekhakh-shade-and-walls-sukka

18
between R. Yoshia and the Tana Kama would seem to revolve around the definition of the mitzva
act - must one sit under sekhakh or actually sit in shade?

However, when discussing the source for R. Yoshia's position, the gemara cites a verse and derasha
that indicate a very different rationale. When describing the parokhet (curtain) that separated the
Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple, the Torah employs the word, "ve-sakota" (literally,
you should cover or "roof"). Even though the parokhet actually served the function of a vertical
wall, it is referred to as a roof. From this syntax, R. Yoshia determined that a vertical wall is also
defined as a roof in Halakha, and the walls of a sukka must adhere to the same laws as a roof –
namely, tzilatah meruba me-chamata.

This perspective, that the walls of the sukka are part of the roof or possess roof-like qualities, is
reminiscent of a famous position of the Rambam. The gemara claims that one may not derive
benefit from the wood of a sukka (it is "assur be-hana'a"), and most Rishonim (see, e.g., Rosh)
assume that the prohibition only applies to the sekhakh. This is in line with Rashi's claim that the
sekhakh constitutes the essential part of the sukka. The walls – whose only function is to enclose
the area and support the sekhakh - do not possess any sanctity. By contrast, the Rambam
(Hilkhot Sukka 6:15) claims that even the walls possess sanctity and no pleasure may be derived
from them. In effect, the Rambam defines the entire structure of a sukka, walls included, as part
of the "cheftza shel mitzva" (the object of the mitzva or the essential sukka).
It should be noted that R. Yoshia takes the Rambam's concept to a much further extreme. The
Rambam merely extends the halakhic sukka to include the walls. R. Yoshia (based upon the verse)
actually imparts to them a quality normally associated with the roof of a sukka: the capacity to
produce shade). The Rambam did not necessarily view the wall as a quasi-roof. Even as a wall, it
participates in the essence of the sukka. R. Yoshia, however, deems the wall a roof and requires it
to produce shade.

Tosafot (8b s.v. mechitza) allude to another potential source for R. Yoshia's halakha. Earlier (6b),
the gemara had derived the number of walls necessary to enclose a sukka from the iteration of the
term "sukkot" in the Torah. (The term "ba-sukkot" appears only once – Vayikra 23 – but,
depending upon the spelling, it might refer to numerous sukkot). Tosafot claim that by referring to
walls as "sukkot" (a term generally associated with roof), the gemara itself conveys this function.
Ultimately, Tosafot reject this source, but the similarity between the walls and sekhakh seems to
be latent in the Torah itself.
Having established a basis for R. Yoshia's position, we might question this based upon the ensuing
gemara. The dominant opinion voiced throughout Masekhet Sukka claims that a sukka must be a
"dirat arai" - a temporary residence. For example, one reason the sekhakh cannot be situated higher
than twenty amot is because such a tall structure can no longer be considered temporary. Several
tannaim, however, make statements about the sukka which suggest that they require a sukka to be
a "dirat keva" – a permanent structure. The gemara (7b) lists these various tannaim and includes
R. Yoshia! Somehow, his requirement that the walls not admit light indicates that he regards a
sukka as a dirat keva.

Is this inference merely technical or incidental? Are we to assume that if R. Yoshia demands walls
which produce shade, the resultant sukka is likely to be constructed from solid materials that will

19
probably entail a dirat keva? Could it not be possible to construct a durable sukka with materials
that admit sunlight?

By drawing this alignment, the gemara might have been suggesting an alternative understanding
for R. Yoshia. R. Yoshia demands that a sukka serve in a manner similar to a house (the
quintessential permanent structure), and therefore the walls cannot admit light. Had a sukka been
merely a temporary residence, we would view the walls only as necessary to bear the sekhakh.
Similar to the walls of a hut or a gazebo, the walls of the sukka would be uni-dimensional – pillars
to support a roof. Once, however, we define a sukka as a permanent residence, the walls become
multi-functional, serving to enclose and protect the area and not only to facilitate the sekhakh. See
especially Rabbenu Yonatan (Sukka 7b), who draws this analogy between sukka as dirat keva and
R. Yoshia's definition of walls. Based upon this approach, we do not define the walls as part of the
sekhakh, but still can justify R. Yoshia's demand that the walls produce shade. If the walls admit
sunlight, we can no longer consider this house a dirat keva.

Conceivably, there might be an interesting difference between the two understandings of R.

Yoshia. The Ra'avya claims that, according to R. Yoshia, the walls must be constructed from
material which is not mekabel tuma (it does not become impure, i.e., non-foods as well as items
that have no designated utility), just as the sekhakh must be comprised of these materials. The
Ra'avya's extension of R. Yoshia's concept highlights his designation of walls not only as integral
to the sukka, but as a semi-roof. If we do not impart the status of sekhakh to the walls (and still
require shade-producing potential based upon dirat keva), we should not accept this extra sekhakh-
like demand, limiting the materials that can be used to construct the sukka.

Seven Reasons for Sukkah Sitting

Diverse sources on why we eat and sleep in the sukkah

R A B B I D A V I D G O L I N K I N W R I T E S : 16

The holiday of Sukkot has been blessed with many beautiful laws and customs: the recitation of
Hallel, Ushpizin (welcoming our ancestors as honored guests), reading the book of Kohelet
[Ecclesiastes], and, of course, blessing and waving the Arba’ah Minim — the four species. Yet,
needless to say, the most basic mitzvah is that of dwelling in a sukkah. But why do we sit in the
sukkah?

16
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/seven-reasons-for-sukkah-sitting/

20
The Torah itself gives two reasons, one agricultural and one historical.

Thanksgiving for the Harvest

The agricultural reasons are described in two places in the Torah.

1. Exodus 23:16 : “…and the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in
the results of your work from the field.”
2. Deut. 16: 13 , 15: “After the ingathering from your threshing floor and your vat, you shall
hold the Feast of Booths for seven days…You shall hold a festival…in the place that the
Lord will choose, for the Lord your God will bless all your crops and all your undertakings,
and you shall have nothing but joy.”

Thus, according to these verses, Sukkot is a holiday of thanksgiving for the harvest.

Historical Link to Ancestors, God

The historical reason is found in the book of Leviticus (23:42-43) :

You shall live in booths seven days; all citizens in Israel shall live in booths. In order that future
generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths when I brought them out of
the land of Egypt…
Thus, according to Leviticus, we sit in the sukkah in order to retain a historical link with our
ancestors and to remember all that God did for us when we left Egypt.

These are the simple reasons given by the Torah for observing this holiday, but Jews are never
satisfied with the simple reason for anything! A few verses in the Bible were frequently expounded
upon by later Jewish philosophers and rabbis. Sukkot is no exception.

Remembering the “Bad Old Days”

Philo was a Hellenistic-Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria in the first century C.E. In his
many works written in Greek, he gave allegorical interpretations to stories and commandments in
the Bible. In his book De Specialibus Legibus, On the Special Laws (2:204, 206-211), he adds a
number of reasons to those mentioned above. He writes:

Another reason may be, that it should remind us of the long wanderings of our forefathers in the
depths of the desert, when at every halting-place they spent many a year in tents. And indeed it is
well in wealth to remember your poverty, in distinction your insignificance, in high offices your
position as a commoner, in peace your dangers in war, on land the storms on sea, in cities the life
of loneliness. For there is no pleasure greater than in high prosperity to call to mind old
misfortunes.

But besides giving pleasure, it is a considerable help in the practice of virtue. For people who
having had both good and ill before their eyes have rejected the ill and are enjoying the good,
necessarily fall into a grateful frame of mind and are urged to piety by the fear of a change to the

21
reverse, and also therefore in thankfulness for their present blessings they honor God with songs
and words of praise and beseech Him and propitiate Him with supplications that they may never
repeat the experience of such evils.
Philo says two things: He says that it’s a pleasure for a prosperous person to remember the “bad
old days.” But he goes one step further; he says that sitting in the sukkah reminds us how far we
have come and leads us to praise and thank God for all the kindness He has bestowed upon us.

A Lesson in Humility
The Rashbam, R. Shemuel Ben Meir, lived in France in the 12th century. He was one of Rashi‘s
brilliant grandsons and is known for his Talmud and Bible commentaries. In his commentary to
the verse from Leviticus quoted above (23:43), he gives still another reason for sitting in the
sukkah:

Why do I command you to do this?… Do not say in your hearts, “My own power and the might of
my own hand have won this wealth for me. Remember that it is the Lord your God who gives you
the power to get wealth” ( Deuteronomy 8:17-18 ). Therefore, the people leave houses filled with
good at the harvest season and they dwell in sukkot as a reminder that they had no property in the
desert or homes to inhabit. This is why God designated Sukkot at the harvest season, so that a
person’s heart should not grow haughty because of houses filled with everything good, lest they
say: “Our hands made all of this wealth for us.”
In simple English, the Rashbam is saying: The sukkah is a lesson in humility; it comes to prevent
a swelled head. God commanded us to sit in the sukkah precisely at the harvest season when we
are congratulating ourselves for our successful harvest and our fancy homes. The humble sukkah
reminds us: Everything you eat and everything you own comes from God.

The Rambam [Maimonides], incidentally, combines the reasons given by Philo and the Rashbam.
In his Guide to the Perplexed (3:43), he says that sitting in the sukkah teaches Jews “to remember
his evil days in his day of prosperity. He will thereby be induced to thank God repeatedly and to
lead a modest and humble life.” Thus, according to Maimonides, the sukkah is meant to induce
both a feeling of gratitude and a feeling of humility.

Increasing Our Faith

Rabbi Yitzhak Aboab lived in Spain in the 15th century. In his classic book of Jewish
ethics, Menorat Hamaor, he gives still another explanation for sitting in the sukkah (Ner 3, Kelal
4, Part 6, Chapter 1, ed. Mossad Harav Kuk, p. 315):

When the Sages said in the Tractate of Sukkah (fol. 2a): ‘Go out from your permanent dwellings
and live in a temporary dwelling,’ they meant that the commandment to dwell in the sukkah teaches
us that a man must not put his trust in the size or strength or conveniences of his house, even
though it be filled with the best of everything; nor should he rely upon the help of any man, even
though he be the lord of the land. But let him put his trust in Him whose word called the universe
into being, for He alone is mighty and faithful, and He does not retract what He promises.
This explanation is the subtlest of all we have seen thus far. R. Yitzhak Aboab thinks that the main
point of living in the sukkah for seven days is to increase our faith in God. When we live in a
sturdy house, we are protected from the elements; rain and cold and heat do not harm us. As a
result, we begin to have faith in our homes, not in God.

22
Likewise, we tend to place all of our trust in men, especially influential rulers and leaders. By
living in a flimsy sukkah for seven days, exposed once again to the elements, we realize that
ultimately we must put our trust in God who rules over our houses, the elements, and all human
rulers.

Universal Peace
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch was the leader of neo-Orthodoxy in Germany in the 19th century.
In his book Horeb, he says that the sukkah is a symbol of universal peace and brotherhood, as we
recite in the evening service on Shabbat and festivals: “ufeross aleinu sukkat shelomekha“–“spread
over us Your sukkah of peace.”

The term sukkah is used in this prayer to symbolize peace and brotherhood, which shall be based
not on economic and political interests, but on a joint belief in one God (Horeb p. 126, quoted by
Rabbi Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, p. 159).

Remembering the Less Fortunate

The last reason for sitting in the sukkah is my own, although I’m sure someone has said it before.
By sitting in a flimsy sukkah, exposed to sun and wind (and in some places, rain and snow!), we
are reminded of those less fortunate than ourselves. Precisely at harvest time when we thank God
for the bounty he has given us, we must remember to share it with the poor and the hungry.

And if you should ask me, what is the real reason for dwelling in the sukkah for seven days, I
would immediately answer with the Talmudic phrase ( Eruvin 13b ) “Both these and those are the
words of the living God.” Every one of these explanations can speak to us, but, “lo hamidrash hu
ha’ikar ela ha’ma’se“–“more important than expounding the Torah, is observing it” ( Avot 1:17 ).
While sitting in the sukkah, every Jew will find his or her own religious, national, or personal
reason for observing this beautiful mitzvah.

RAMBAM Hil Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Four17

17
By Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon ("Maimonides"); translated by Eliyahu Touger:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/946097/jewish/Shofar-Sukkah-vLulav-Chapter-Four.htm

23
A sukkah which does not possess three walls is invalid. - Though Sukkah 6b mentions
Rabbi Shimeon's opinion, which requires four walls, all authorities accept the more lenient view.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 1:1) explains that their difference of opinion is based on the
exegesis of Isaiah 4:6:

There will be a sukkah that will serve as a shadow from the heat during the day, a place of refuge,
and a cover from storm and from rain.

The Sages maintain that the verse refers to three different activities, and hence require three walls.
Rabbi Shimeon counts "a cover from storm and from rain" as two different activities, and hence
requires four walls.

However, if it has two complete walls - i.e., walls of at least seven handbreadths long, so that the
minimum requirements for the sukkah's area mentioned in the previous halachah can be met

perpendicular to each other in the shape of [the Greek letter], gamma - Rabbenu Manoach
notes that a gamma has the same shape as the Hebrew letter dalet (see accompanying drawing)
and asks why the Sages did not use that letter to refer to the intended shape. He explains that the
very letters of the Hebrew alphabet are endowed with holiness. Hence, the Sages did not want to
use them as an example to refer to a mundane matter.

it is sufficient to construct a third wall that is [only] slightly more than a handbreadth wide
and place it within three handbreadths - Sukkah 16b teaches that whenever there is a gap of
three handbreadths or less between two entities, the principle of l'vud applies. The gap is
considered to be closed and the two parts connected. Thus, the third wall is considered to be more
than four handbreadths long, hence spanning more than half of the length required for the third
wall. Therefore, it is acceptable (Rabbenu Nissim).

of one of the two walls. - See the accompanying diagram.

The Rabbis have posed an abstract question: Is the minimum requirement for a sukkah three walls
(including one which is incomplete), or must a sukkah have four walls, however, the Torah was
lenient enough to consider a sukkah of this nature as comparable to one of four walls.

24
The Marcheshet brings support for the latter view, quoting Sukkah 7b, which states that since the
third wall only a handbreadth in size is considered to be a wall with regard to the laws of sukkah,
it is also considered to be a wall with regard to the laws regarding a private domain on the Sabbath.
In the latter instance, four walls are necessary.

Also, one must construct the likeness of an entrance - to complete this third wall. This is
necessary...

since it - the sukkah

does not possess three complete walls. - However, if the three walls are complete - i.e., at least
seven handbreadths in length - as in the accompanying diagram, no "likeness of an entrance" is
required.

The Bayit Chadash (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 430) explains that the requirement of a
"likeness of an entrance" is a Rabbinic ordinance, and, according to Torah law, a sukkah is
acceptable as long as the third wall is a handbreadth as required.

We have already explained in Hilchot Shabbat - 16:19

that wherever the term "a likeness of an entrance" is used, it may be a rod on one side,
another rod on the opposite side, and a third above - The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach
Chayim 630:2) states that if the two rods reach the s'chach, a third rod is unnecessary.
(See Mishnah Berurah 630:12.)

25
 Sukkah - Third wall is tefach

Instructions for Building a Minimal Sukkah

Nusach Hari Bnai Zion (NHBZ) writes:18

1. A sukkah must have a minimum of 3 walls.

2. Dimensions of Walls
a. Height: Each wall must be a minimum of 10 tefachim (33 inches) high.
b. Width: Each wall must be a minimum of 7 tefachim (23 inches) wide.
3. Positions of Walls
a. At least two of the walls must be connected to each other (similar in form to the letter “L”). The
walls are considered joining as long as there is not a space of more than 3 tefachim (9 inches)
separating them.

b. If the two walls face each other, the third wall must be adjoined to the end of one of the walls
(It does not have to touch the wall, but must be at least 3 tefachim (9 inches) in proximity to it).

4. The Two Walls

18
https://www.nhbz.org/instructions-for-building-a-minimal-sukkah/

26
 a. The majority of the two walls must be covered. There may be breaches in the walls of up to
10 amot (384 inches or 32 feet) as long as the majority of the wall is covered.
5. The Third Wall
a. A third wall of 7 tefachim (23 inches) must be erected adjoining one of the other walls (within
3 tefachim).
1. The third wall can be a combination of a wall and a tzurat ha-petach.
1. If the third wall is not 7 tefachim wide (23 inches) (although it must be more than
4 tefachim (13 inches) wide), a tzurat ha- petach (door frame) should be constructed to
complete the 7 tefachim requirement (it can be wider) necessary for a Sukkah wall.

2. A tzurat ha-petach requires a vertical pole placed parallel to the end of the third wall, and
a cross piece on top of that pole extending over the third wall.
2. If there are 3 walls of 7 tefachim, the s’chach that extends beyond the third wall is valid and
is included in the sukkah.
6. Height of the Walls
a. The walls must be a minimum of 10 tefachim (33 inches) high. The space above them can be
empty as long as the walls are positioned under the s’chach.
b. The walls must reach to within 3 tefachim of the ground (9 inches)
7. Material for the Walls
a. Walls made from canvas or other soft materials should be tied taut. The walls should not sway
in the wind. Some poskim invalidate a sukkah whose walls flap even slightly. Some allow slight
flapping. Others allow flapping up to 3 tefachim, if the wall, when flapping, remains at least
10 tefachim high and within 3 tefachim of the ground.
b. Walls can be made of netting and of string or slats, as long as the distance between each strand
or slat is less than 3 tefachim (9 inches). Some invalidate a sukkah built entirely in this manner.

Seth writes:19

19
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/19132/large-gap-in-sukkah-walls/19133#19133

27
I happened to see a design for a pergola, and I thought, "What an easy way to have a Sukkah frame
up all year round!"

But then, when I noticed that it only has a depth of four feet, I realized it wouldn't be large enough
to entertain.

But then I thought, what if one were to put up two of these pergolas, facing one another, with about
a two- or three-foot gap between them, and lay bamboo across the top, so that it also covered the
gap? Then you'd have a Sukkah that would be, without any gap, 8'x12', or with a two foot gap it
could be 10'x12'. Now you're talking about a pretty roomy, and attractive, Sukkah!

But ... what about that gap? Sure, the Sechach is covering the gap at the top, but would the gap in
the walls be a problem?

28
(As an aside, although I should really look into it more closely to be sure, I'm fairly certain that the walls themselves are acceptable, because a fence
of a similar structure is used for an 'Eruv that has been approved by my rabbi. Hence, I'm only asking about the gap. If you see a flaw with the walls
themselves, feel free to point it out in the comments, but also realize this is an academic question, as I do not intend to purchase two, or even one
of these products, given the cost, and I'm just curious about what valid vis is a vis a gap in a wall. So, if you do see a flaw, just assume that the same
structure can be made with an improved wall, yet the gap would still be at issue here.)

If one has two walls parallel to each other (1 and 2 in the diagram), he can place a four tefachim
wall (3) within three tefachim of (Gap A) and perpendicular to one of them to make the whole
sukkah kosher. Some say he needs to put a gateway (tzurat hapetach) across that gap (A).

If he wants he can put a larger solid wall (3) and a smaller gap (A) (even zero gap) so long as the
solid wall (3) makes it at least seven tefachim (the minimal length of a full wall) from the side wall
(1). (Shulchan Aruch OC 630:3)

This is true if the gap (Gap B) from the short wall (3) to the far side wall (2) is less than 10 amot.
If it is more than that it (B) requires a tzurat hapetach, although the Rambam says that a tzurat
hapetach only works on a gap (B) of more than 10 amot if the 'short wall' (3) is of greater length
than the total gap (A+B). (OC 630:5)

29
So you could put those two sukkot with a 10 amot gap (~15 feet) to make your sukkah 23x12 or
even longer if you use a tzurat hapetach and don't hold like the Rambam (which people who hold
of most city eruvin don't).

It goes without saying that the entire in between area must be covered in s’chach.

Jewish Holiday to Include Architectural Wonder on Campus

A sukkah representing shelters ancient Israelites used as dwellings will be set up temporarily on
Healy Lawn as part of the Jewish harvest festival of Sukkot.20

20
https://www.georgetown.edu/news/jewish-holiday-to-include-architectural-wonder-on-campus/

30
“This is about creating a space for the Jewish community on campus to observe Sukkot, one of our
most celebratory holidays,” says Georgetown’s Rabbi Rachel Gartner about the modern sukkah
that architects will start assembling on Healy Lawn Sept. 17.

Two award-winning architects will arrive on campus next week before the Jewish holiday of
Sukkot to set up a sukkah, a temporary dwelling representing the shelters ancient Israelites used
in the desert wilderness.

Architects Henry Grosman and Babak Bryan of BanG studio in Brooklyn, N.Y., who won an
international design competition to reimagine the sukkah in 2010, will begin setting up the modern,
collapsible sukkah on Healy Lawn Sept. 17.

This year Sukkot, a harvest festival called “the season of joy,” starts at sundown on Sept. 18 and
ends at sundown on Sept. 25.

The structure will be open night and day for students and other members of the Georgetown
community to explore and sit in the sukkah to enjoy a meal or reflect throughout the holiday.

Share and Teach

“This is about creating a space for the Jewish community on campus to observe Sukkot, one of our
most celebratory holidays,” says Georgetown’s Rabbi Rachel Gartner. “We thought this would be
a great way to do that, and also provide an opportunity to teach about Sukkot to people of other
traditions.”

31
During Sukkot, Jewish communities are meant to leave their homes and dwell in the sukkah,
inviting ushpizin (guests) to join them. Some people sleep in the sukkah, while others just enjoy
meals inside the structure.

“The sukkah is designed to force the inhabitant to reconsider the world in which he or she lives,”
says Grosman, who says the Georgetown sukkah will fit about 10 people at a time. “It is a
temporary place where one goes to consciously remove one’s self from daily life in order to reflect
upon it and one’s place in the world.”

Various events are scheduled in and around the sukkah during the holiday, including an opening
reception with the architects on Wed., Sept. 18 and a community-wide open house on Sept. 22
from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.

A shabbat (the Jewish Sabbath) service with music will be observed in front of the sukkah on the
lawn at 6 p.m. on Sept. 20.

Jewish Roots

“The sukkah provides an opportunity for those who are not Jewish to learn about this Abrahamic
faith tradition,” says Kevin O’Brien, vice president for mission and ministry. “For Christians in
particular, visiting the sukkah and participating in some of the programming can help them
understand more about Jesus’ Jewish roots, and how the rituals and commitments of Judaism
inform Christian worship and values.”

Setting up the sukkah, whose walls comprise a series of seven portal frames made of cedar, will
take about four to six hours, the architects say.

“The arms of the frames are connected by a series of strings woven through holes in the frame like
a cat’s cradle,” Grosman explains. “The walls have been pre-woven in Brooklyn and rolled up for
transport. At Georgetown, we will unroll the walls and bolt them into place.”

The roof, also a separate pre-woven structure, will be covered in traditional organic material, in
this case fresh eucalyptus, myrtle and blue huckleberry.

Spiritual Blueprint

Gartner notes that Sukkot comes right after Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar.

“We spend Yom Kippur inside the synagogue, thinking about things from a very spiritual plane,
making a spiritual blueprint for the coming year of how we want to live our lives,” the rabbi
explains. “The first thing we are meant to do at the end of Yom Kippur is to hammer the first nail
into the sukkah. The lesson here is that we need to set our intentions and make plans, but then we
need to act.”

32
She says Judaism is at its core about putting spiritual ideals and ethical visions into action.

Universally Human

The sukkah also will be available to people attending the third annual President’s Interfaith and
Community Service Campus Challenge conference at Georgetown on Sept. 23.

When Sukkot is over, the sukkah will be disassembled and put away until next year.

“Judaism is alive, vibrant, and evolving,” Gartner says. “It has a distinct voice of its own to
contribute to interfaith dialog and interfaith searches for meaning. Judaism contributes to the
conversation among traditions in ways that are both distinctly Jewish and universally human.”

Fractured Bubble, and other sukkahs

Shimshonit writes:21

My second cousin by marriage (it’s a long story), architect Henry Grosman, is one of a dozen
winners of the Sukkah City NYC 2010 design competition. On display in Union Square Park,
each sukkah was created by an architect (or team of architects) in consultation with a rabbi to
address issues of kashrut.

Henry’s design (created with Babak Bryan, and winner of the People’s Choice Award) is spherical
in shape with three rounded walls. It is constructed from plywood, marsh grass and twine. Here
is a photo of the finished product:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--njD4GOMe4

21
https://shimshonit.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/fractured-bubble-and-other-sukkahs/

33
Sukkah City is a fascinating competition challenging Jewish and non-Jewish architects to create
sukkahs that expand the typical rectangular back-yard sukkah with three or four walls and tree-
branch s’chach, thinking outside the box but still within the constraints of halachic sukkah
design. I think it’s cool that New York hosts this competition which is artistic, educational, highly
entertaining, and inspires people to think about this holiday which goes largely unobserved in the
greater American Jewish community.

Below are descriptions of each sukkah including issues of halachot sukkah by Dani Passow, the
rabbinical consultant to the project (and rabbinical intern at our shul in America).

Sukkah of the signs

The original design was for a tower with slanted straight walls that then began to angle forming a
slanted roof, all of which was made out of cardboards signs. The cardboard signs would not have
been kosher s’chach since although they are organic, their material has been processed so that it
doesn’t closely resemble its original form. Additionally, there was an oculus (gap) at the top which
meant that most of the sukkah would not have been covered by s’chach. If this gap were large

34
enough (7×7 handbreadths) and filled in with s’chach, then it would have become kosher. That
was my suggestion.

They ended up altering the design, basically turning it on its side. Again, they wanted to use signs
as the s’chach. The architects and I talked about replacement material that would have been kosher
but still resembled signs. We chose Oriented Strand Board (OSB) which is made of small pieces
of wood pressed together, but the wood is still quite visible as wood, thus it resembles its original
form and is kosher. The designers decided, in the end, to use conventional greenery as s’chach.

Shim Sukkah

Though the shims here can twist, this isn’t a problem since in order to twist they require a
significant force and a specific angle and won’t move in a standard wind. As long as shims for the
s’chach are oriented such that they provide more shade than sun, it’s kosher.

Blo Puff
A circular sukkah is kosher as long at it circumscribes a square of 7 x 7 handbreadths. The bubble
needs to be fully inflated to withstand a standard wind, and maybe even tied down. Additionally,
the s’chach hangs directly from non-kosher s'chach material; this a machloket
achronim of maamid – a gezaira that someone might come to think this material is kosher s’chach,
and while the Mishnah Berurah says we should be machmir and we generally are quite careful
about this, bebdiavad the MB says it’s kosher.

Gathering

It is totally fine for the walls and s’chach to be made of the same material. Here, since the kosher
s’chach, the wood, is supported by metal screws, we again have an issue of maamid.

In Tension

A sukkah with 2.5 walls is kosher. All of the walls, to be considered kosher, need to come within
3 handbreadths of the ground and be at least 7 handbreadths long unless the special, and somewhat
complex, halachic device of tzurat hapetach is utilized. Here, there are only two kosher walls
since though there is half a wall, it doesn’t come within 3 handbreadths of the ground. But, this
third wall is only peeled back so observers can get a full view of the inside of the
sukkah. Unfolding that wall would make the sukkah kosher. Additionally, the walls are not quite
taut enough, thus they blow in the wind, which is a problem, but if they are tied down more tautly,

35
they would be fine. There is also an issue of maamid here as the kosher s’chach is supported by
cotton lining.

Repetition Meets Difference

A circular sukkah is kosher. This design needs some more s’chach so that the s’chach provides
more shade than sun. Additionally, though the walls may seem porous, since there is less than 3
handbreadths between solid material, the halachic concept of lavud is employed that views the
empty space between solid material as filled as long as the gap is no greater than 3 handbreadths
(about 10.5 inches).

Single Thread

This design is composed of one steel wire greater than 5 miles long coiled around itself. It is
perfectly okay for the walls to be composed of steel, but not the s’chach. Hanging from the s’chach
is a flower bed which is kosher s’chach. The metal wire hovering above the flower bed is diffuse
enough that more sun shines through than shade. Thus, if the kosher s’chach, the flower bed, is
dense enough to provide more shade than sun, this is kosher. Some more s’chach needs to be
added to this design.

Additionally, halacha allows for the spreading of a canopy of non-kosher s’chach above kosher
s’chach as long as it is within 4 handbreadths of the kosher s’chach and is for an aesthetic purpose,
not to provide shade or protection of any kind. This metal material serves both to support the
kosher s’chach and as decoration. It might, therefore, be permitted to even have the metal provide
more shade than sun. Also, the designers worked hard to avoid maamid here. They hung the
flower bed from metal using organic leaves of some kind that are kosher for s’chach. Maamid isn’t
an issue if the kosher s’chach is supported by non-kosher s’chach indirectly, only if it is supported
directly.

Star Cacoon

This material, called rattan, is similar to bamboo and is kosher s’chach. Though the walls and
s’chach are made from the same continuous material, this is fine as long as, at some point, the
walls are vertically oriented, or the roof is horizontally oriented as this distinguishes between the

36
two. There are only 2 walls here, the back and left side as seen in the picture. The front could
easily become a wall using the concept of lavud: placing parallel strips of material within 3
handbreadths of each other. This was my suggestion, though it was never implemented by the
designer.
Time/Timeless

Some material that was ordered for this design ended up not being what the designer
anticipated. There is supposed to be material covering the roof and hanging down to the ground
creating a more cubic form. As the design is presented, none of the walls meet to form a corner. A
kosher sukkah needs to have at least two walls meet to form one corner. The original design would
have satisfied this requirement. Also, there is not enough s’chach, but the original design would
have satisfied that as the missing material is kosher s’chach material.

Fractured Bubble

A spherical shape is kosher as are rounded walls. Here, there are 3 rounded walls. The only
question is that as the walls are split (the sphere looks like it is cracked) they may be too far apart
from each other thus not forming a corner. As long as at least two walls are within 3 handbreadths
of each other at a height of 10 handbreadths (the minimum height of a sukkah), then this is
kosher. I believe it meets that requirement.

Log

S’chach cannot be made out of a wooden board that is greater than 4 handbreadths wide since it
too closely resembles roof of a permanent home. But a tree branch that is greater than 4
handbreadths wide is fine. Additionally, to reinforce the difference between the impermanence of
s’chach and the permanence of a standard home, four 1-inch diameter holes were bored through
the log so that rain could enter.

Sukkah City in Union Square Park22

22
https://www.localecologist.org/2010/09/sukkah-city-in-union-square-park.html

37
A dozen sukkahs were on display on September 19 and 20 in Union Square Park. 600 designers

entered the Sukkah City international design competition. 12 finalists were selected.

38
39
We went to the Sukkah City village on the first day. One of the sukkahs, Shim Sukkah by Tinder,

Tinker of Sagle, Idaho was still being constructed; it is our favorite. The designers used

unassuming wooden shims to create an intricate and beautiful structure.

A sukkah, quoting the Sukkah City poster, is

Biblical in origin...an ephemeral, elemental shelter, erected for one week each fall, in which it

is customary to share meals, entertain, sleep, and rejoice....the sukkah's religious function is to

40
commemorate the temporary structures that the Israelites dwelled in during their exodus form

Egypt....The Sukkah is a means of ceremonially practicing homelessness....

Ronald Rael and Virginia San Fratello's Sukkah of the Signs is a literal interpretation of "practicing

homelessness." Sukkah of the Signs is "clad with cardboard signs purchased from destitute

individuals across the U.S." (Proceeds from the Sukkah City auction will benefit Housing

Works.) Most viewers of this sukkah spent several minutes reading the signs on the sukkah's

exterior.

41
There are specific rules for constructing a sukkah. Again, quoting the exhibit's poster:

The structure must be temporary, have at least two and a half walls, be big enough to contain

a table, and have a roof made of shade-providing organic materials through which one can see

the stars.

The guidelines do not provide a maximum area, but the New York Department of Buildings does

not consider a structure larger than 19 feet x 8 feet to be temporary. More construction details can

be found here.

42
Children at the exhibit enjoyed sukkahs that provided climbing and lounging features such as Star

Cocoon by Volkna Alkanoglu of Los Angeles and In Tension by SO-IL of Brooklyn. The interior

space of the latter was quite limited but the space was large enough to hold a short-log table and

chairs.

43
Two sukkahs incorporated herbaceous flowers. Flowers hung from the ceiling of In Tension and

Single Thread by Matter Practice of Brooklyn.

44
Based on viewers’ reactions, the most impressive sukkah was Log by Kyle May and Scott

Abrahams of Manhattan. Unlike the other 11 sukkahs, access to this sukkah was limited to the

designers and to a rabbi. We overheard one woman say to another:

Nothing hits the ground. Everything is suspended from the log. It's incredible!

45
However, our second favorite, Fractured Bubble by Henry Grossman and Babak Bryan of Long

Island City, won New York magazine's People's Choice contest and will be displayed in Union

Square until October 2. We like Fractured Bubble for its creative use of a declared invasive plant.

The roof of this sukkah is composed of the perennial grass, Phragmites australis or common reed,

which the designers harvested from Corona Park in Queens. New York City Department of Parks

& Recreation lists phragmites as "one of the 20 most invasive plants" in the state!

46
47