Daf Ditty Succah 8: The Round Succah

Re·Sukkah attempts to take something temporary, the holiday Sukkah, and give it a certain
longevity within the Jewish household. Typically, a sukkah is placed in storage once Sukkot
is over, where it takes up space until it is reassembled the following year. We wanted to
reimagine the sukkah as a structure that could be useful year-round.

Re·Sukkah is a modular structure whose parts easily break down to become usable objects
during the 357 days a year that Sukkot is not occurring. This kit of useful parts can then be
handily reassembled at every Sukkot. The parts variously act as planters for an herb garden,
bookshelves, display stands, small desks, benches and so on. During Sukkot, family members
bring them to the location of the Sukkah as a gift: representative perhaps of the coming
together of family and friends.

The project is conceived as a series of parametrically derived waterproofed plywood cells.

The plywood cells create a bench for seating, shelves for the family’s heirlooms and objects,
and portals framing views and light. All of the elements of the traditional sukkah are thus
integrated into this one modular structure.

Re·Sukkah is intended to be an elaboration and extension of Jewish traditions—formed

parametrically—at once familiar and new.1

1
Jason Logan, Matthew Johnson, Josh Robbins, https://loganandjohnson.com/projects/resukkah

1
The Gemara answers: This applies only in the middle of the circle that has a circumference of
twelve cubits, as the diameter of the circle is four cubits; but in order for a square inscribed within
a circle to have a perimeter of sixteen cubits, the circle requires a circumference that is more than
twelve cubits.

2
The Gemara answers: This applies only in the middle of the circle that has a circumference of
twelve cubits, as the diameter of the circle is four cubits; but in order for a square inscribed within
a circle to have a perimeter of sixteen cubits, the circle requires a circumference that is more than
twelve cubits.

The Gemara answers: This statement with regard to the ratio of the perimeter of a square to the
circumference of a circle applies to a circle inscribed in a square, but in the case of a square
circumscribed by a circle, the circle requires a greater circumference due to the projection of
the corners of the square. In order to ensure that a square whose sides are four cubits each fits
neatly into a circle, the circumference of the circle must be greater than sixteen cubits.

The Gemara calculates precisely how much greater the circumference must be in order to
circumscribe the four-by-four-cubit square. Now, in every square whose sides each measure one
cubit its diagonal measures one and two-fifths cubits, and in a circle that circumscribes a square,
the diagonal of the square is the diameter of the circle. In this case, the circumscribed square
measures four by four cubits; therefore, the diagonal of the square, which is the diameter of the
circle, measures five and three-fifths cubits. Since the Gemara calculates the circumference of the
circle as three times its diameter, a circular sukka with a circumference of seventeen cubits minus
one-fifth of a cubit should be sufficient. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan was not precise
and rounded the dimensions of the circular sukka to a number higher than the absolute minimum.

The Gemara wonders: Say that we say that the Sage was not precise when the difference between
the number cited and the precise number is slight; however, when the difference is great, do we
say the Sage was not precise? After all, Rabbi Yoḥanan stated that the minimum measure is
twenty-four cubits, a difference of more than seven cubits.

3
Summary

Our daf includes mathematical calculations, always difficult for me to follow. Even more so
because the calculations are at best approximations and at worst simply inaccurate. The rabbis are
attempting to determine the measurements of a fit round sukka. How would we measure 4 by 4
cubits, the minimum, when we have no corners to use as reference points? To do this, the rabbis
imagine of a square surrounding a circle and they create markers (a diamond within the
square). However, the measurements that they discuss are incorrect, as we learn in a note.2

The rabbis speak about a number of booths and whether or not they might be appropriate
sukkot. They consider related implications: is this a permanent structure or not? should a mezuza
be affixed on this structure? Is the roof constructed specifically to allow more shade than
sunlight? As long as these booths are in accordance with halacha, they are considered fit.

One example of these booths is that of the Kutim, the Samaritans. This community learned the
mitzvot according to Torah law alone, though they were influenced by the larger Jewish
community at one point in time. A significant rift exists between Kutim and mainstream Jews
because Kutim have not accepted rabbinical law. Interestingly, when looking at rabbinical
instruction on the construction of sukkot, we are taught that sukkot of Kutim are fit as long as their
roofs allow more shade than sunlight.

At the end of our daf, the rabbis outline specifically which booths are permitted and which are
considered unfit. Booths for Gentiles, women, animals, Kutim (for those not obligated);
shepherds, fig driers, guards of fields, guards of produce (impermanent booths), and booths "of
any sort" are fit. However, they must be built with shade in mind, have fit roofing, and have at
least one handbreadth of roofing added.

Today's daf reminds me that our Sages are always looking for a balance between stringency and
realistic practice. If a pre-existing booth is sitting in someone's field, why would s/he build a
sukka? As long as the booth adheres to most of the halachot of sukkot, our Sages deem it fit. The
meaning of the sukka is of the greatest importance.

Daf Shevui writes:3

Earlier in the Talmud we saw three opinions as to how big a sukkah must be: 4 cubits square, large
enough for head, most of body and table, or just large enough for head and most of body.
The Talmud assumes that this opinion must match that of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, who says that the

2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/02/sukka-8-b.html
3
https://www.sefaria.org/Daf_Shevui_to_Sukkah.7b.22-8b.2?lang=bi

4
sukkah must be four cubits square. This is the largest of the three measures. Obviously, a sukkah
that only needs to be large enough to fit his head, most of his body and his table (which would
have been small) is far smaller than is necessary to sit 24 people around.
However, as we shall see, the math doesn’t work out that all that well for this.

For the rabbis π was 3 and not 3 1/7…. as we now know it is. To remind ourselves—the
circumference of a circle is diameter multiplied by π (or 2πr). In this case we know the diameter
is 4 cubits for it is within a square where each side is 4 cubits. Since the diameter is 4 the
circumference is 12, enough space for 12 people to sit around. So why does the sukkah need to be
so big that 24 people can sit around the side?

Temporarily, the Talmud answers that the previous formula was true only for a circle. However,
the perimeter of a square is more than three times its width. The round sukkah must have a
circumference that would equal a square that is four cubits wide. So, the circumference would
indeed have to be more than 12 cubits.

Our daf continues the math is still problematic.

Today’s section continues to deal with the size of the round sukkah. Yesterday we concluded that
the perimeter of the square needed to be greater than a circle. But today we see that it still won’t
get us from a circumference of 12 to a circumference of 24, the number required by R. Yohanan
for the round sukkah to be kosher.

A square is only 25 percent larger than an inscribed circle. Thus, if the circle has a diameter of 4,
its circumference is 12 (assuming that pi is 3). A square placed around this circle will have sides
that are 4 cubits (= to the diameter), leading to a circumference of 16 (4 x 4). So why then does
the circle need to be 24 cubits?

The above was assuming that the square was around the circle. But if R. Yohanan was talking
about a round sukkah that could fit inside a sukkah of four squared cubits in it, the sukkah must be
bigger because of the projection in the corners (the places where the circle doesn’t fill the square.

The problem is that this still doesn’t add up to 24. According to rabbinic calculation, a hypotenuse
is 1.4 times the side of a square (in reality it is the square root of 2, but 1.4 is close). So, the
diameter of the circle (which is equal to the hypotenuse of the inscribed square) is 4 x 1.4—5.6.
That would mean that the circumference of the circle is 16.8 (3 x 5.6). We still have not gotten too
close to 24.

The Talmud answers that R. Yohanan wasn’t precise in his figure. Admittedly, not a particularly
satisfying answer.

5
More math!

We continue to try to figure out how R. Yohanan came up with the number 24 for the required
circumference of the round sukkah. Yesterday’s section ended with the conclusion that the sukkah
really only needed to have a circumference of 16.8 cubits, but that R. Yohanan was simply
approximating when he said it needed to be 24 cubits.

If R. Yohanan gave a number that was close to 16.8, we could say that he was issuing an
approximation. But 24 cubits is just too far off of 16.8. It’s hard to imagine that he was simply
approximating. Thus, we are back to square one-why does the circular sukkah have to be so large.

Mar Kashisha now adjusts one of the key figures in the original calculation. We thought that each
person takes up 1 cubit, but in reality, three men can fit into 2 cubits. So, for 24 men to be able to
sit around this sukkah, they only need 16 cubits. This is still not exactly what R. Yohanan said, but
it’s close. R. Yohanan’s figure is 16 and the size of the sukkah that fits around a 4 cubits square
sukkah is 16.8.

The problem is that R. Yohanan’s approximation leads to a leniency. R. Yohanan says it only
needs to be 16 cubits around so that 24 people could sit around it. But in reality, it should be
slightly bigger.

R. Assi now changes the assumption we have been making all along that the people were sitting
outside of the sukkah. If each person takes up a cubit’s space, this leads to the diameter being 8
cubits (1/3 of the circumference). But if they sit inside the sukkah, then we can reduce a cubit in
each direction, bringing the diameter down to 6 cubits. This leads to a circumference of 18. So, if
he really needed to require 16.8, the circumference that would allow an inner circle of 16, R.
Yohanan was slightly stringent. And it is okay to be offer an approximation if it leads to a
stringency.

6
The rabbis of Caesarea provide a formula for measuring a circle within a square and a
square that is inside a circle.

The circle inside a square has a circumference that is 1/4 less than the square. This matches what
we said before. So, if the perimeter of the square is 16, than the diameter of the inscribed circle is
4. Multiply that by 3 and you get 12, which is 1/4 less than 16.

A square that is inside a circle has a circumference that is half that of the circle.

The Talmud rejects the rabbis of Caesarea’s last formulation. If the square is 4 square cubits, then
its 5.6 cubits, which is also the diameter of the inscribing circle. The circumference of the circle is
3 times this amount, meaning 16.8. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that the rabbis of Caesarea (or
R. Yohanan) made such a gross error in calculation.

The Gaon of Vilna explained that in actuality this was not an error at all. What these rabbis meant
to say was that if you put another square around this circle, that square would have a circumference
that is 50 percent larger than the inner square. This outside square would have sides that are 5.6.
Its circumference would be 24 (5.6 x 4).

This square is now 50 per cent larger than the inner square, whose circumference is 16. This,
according to the GRA is what these rabbis really intended to say.

This matches R. Yohanan’s number above. R. Yohanan meant to say that this circular sukkah must

7
be large enough so that when you put a kosher sukkah inside (16 square cubits), the square formed
outside of the sukkah would be 24 cubits.

Interestingly, we see that R. Yohanan’s math was actually correct. It was later rabbis that seemed
to have misunderstood his words. Perhaps, we might surmise that in Eretz Yisrael, where R.
Yohanan and the rabbis of Caesarea lived they understood math better than they did at a later
period in Babylonia. This makes sense considering the fact that the Greeks were well known to
have been excellent mathematicians.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:4

Rabbi Yochanan rules that a Sukkah that is round is valid as long as the Sukkah has a
circumference that can accommodate twenty-four people. The Gemara assumes that this opinion
is in accordance with Rebbe who maintains that for a Sukkah to be valid it must be four squared
amos. This presumption is questioned because a person occupies a space of one amah and Rabbi
Yochanan means that the Sukkah must have a circumference of twenty-four amos. It is known that
a circular object with a circumference of three tefachim has a diameter of one tefach, and this
implies that Rabbi Yochanan requires that the Sukkah be a diameter of eight amos. This is
substantially larger than a Sukkah according to the opinion of Rebbe who maintains that to yield
a width of four amos, it is sufficient to have a circumference of twelve amos.

The Gemara concludes that the ultimate objective is to ensure that four squared amos will fit into
a circle. A square of four amos will have a diagonal of five and three fifths amos, and this will also
be the measurement of the circle’s diameter surrounding the square. According to the calculation
that the circumference of a circle is three times its diameter, this yields a circumference of sixteen
and four fifths amos for the circular Sukkah. (5 3/5 x 3 = 16 4/5). It would not be logical to say
that Rabbi Yochanan was imprecise with his measurement when the disparity is so great, as would
be in our case, where Rabbi Yochanan would require that a round Sukkah measure twenty-four
amos in circumference, instead of less than seventeen.

The Gemara states in its final answer that Rabbi Yochanan does not reckon the space of the person
as being inside the Sukkah. Rather, Rabbi Yochanan views the person as sitting outside the Sukkah.
By subtracting the one-amah space of each person, we would now have a diameter of six amos.
The circumference of the Sukkah is thus eighteen amos, and this is where Rabbi Yochanan was
imprecise in his measurement, and his imprecision results in a slight stringency, because Rabbi
Yochanan teaches that a Sukkah must have a circumference that is six amos in diameter, instead
of the more precise five and three fifths amos.

The Chachamim of Caesarea maintain that a circle that is inscribed in a square has a circumference
that is one quarter less than the perimeter of the square surrounding it. These same Chachamim
also maintain that the perimeter of a square which is inscribed within a circle is half the
measurement of the circle in which it is inscribed. The Gemara concludes that this last statement
4
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Sukkah_8.pdf

8
is incorrect because it is evident that the circumference of the circumscribing circle is not twice as
large as the square inside it.

Rain or Shade

The Kintzker Rav in Chelkas Yoav (Siman 28) rules that a Sukkah does not have to be made with
the intention of providing shade. The Sukkah merely has to have the correct amount of s’chach
that can provide shade.

The Chelkas Yoav cites various Gemaras and Halachic authorities to prove this point. (One proof
is from a Rashi in the beginning of the Masechet, but it is unclear as to which Rashi he is referring
to).

Our Gemara states that the reason that a gentile, a woman or animal can make a Sukkah is because
a Sukkah does not have to be built for the sake of the mitzvah. The Sukkah is valid as long as the
intention was that the Sukkah will be used for shade.

This idea appears to contradict the thesis of the Chelkas Yoav. The Chelkas Yoav explains that
one only is required to make the Sukkah with the intention of providing shade if the Sukkah was
not being made for the sake of the mitzvah. If, however, the Sukkah was made for the sake of
fulfilling the mitzvah of Sukkah, then the Sukkah is not required to be made with the intention of
providing shade.

This thesis can also be used to answer another question. The Gemara on Daf 2 cited an example
of a Sukkah that was made in a valley and is deemed to be valid. One must wonder how such a
Sukkah can be valid, as there is no shade coming from the s’chach. (There is a proof from Gemara
22 that shade that theoretically exists is sufficient.) According to the Chelkas Yoav we can answer
that the Sukkah was made for the sake of the mitzvah, and this is sufficient.

Rabbi Dovid Goldberg offers an alternative answer to the aforementioned question based on the
words of the Rosh who seems to state that providing shade is not the only intention one could have
to validate a Sukkah. If one were to place s’chach on a Sukkah to protect him from the elements,
such as rain, such an intention would also validate the Sukkah.

Four Amos is Equal to Five and Three-Fifths Anywhere

The Pnei Yehoshua quotes Rabbeinu Tam in Eruvin who maintains that whenever the Gemara
states the measurement of four amos, it refers to the diagonal of four squared amos, which is five
and three fifths amos. According to the thesis of Rabbeinu Tam, the Pnei Yehoshua raises a
difficulty with the question of our Gemara on the statement of Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan
rules that a Sukkah that is round is valid as long as the Sukkah has a circumference that can
accommodate twenty-four people.

The Gemara assumes that this opinion is in accordance with Rebbe who maintains that for a
Sukkah to be valid it must be four squared amos. This presumption is questioned because a person

9
occupies a space of one amah and Rabbi Yochanan means that the Sukkah must have a
circumference of twenty-four amos. It is known that a circular object with a circumference of three
tefachim has a diameter of one tefach, and this implies that Rabbi Yochanan requires that the
Sukkah be a diameter of eight amos. This is substantially larger than a Sukkah according to the
opinion of Rebbe who maintains that to yield a width of four amos, it is sufficient to have a
circumference of twelve amos.

The Pnei Yehoshua asks that Rebbe maintains that a Sukkah must be four squared amos. Yet,
according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, the Sukkah should be five and three fifths squared
amos. Thus, it would be necessary to have a circumference of twenty-four amos within a circle to
contain a square of five and three fifths amos inside the circle and this would be the explanation
for Rabbi Yochanan.

The Aruch LaNer answers that Rabbeinu Tam was only referring to measurements regarding
Shabbos, whereas by Sukkah when the Gemara states that the requirement is four amos, it means
four amos literally and not five and three fifths amos. The Pnei Yehoshua himself offered this
resolution but he rejected it with certain proofs. One of the proofs the Pnei Yehoshua cites is from
a Taz who rules that a house that is three amos by eight amos is exempt from affixing a mezuzah.
We have learned previously that a house must be four squared amos in order to require a mezuzah.
The same halacha is true regarding Sukkah.

One must wonder what the logic is regarding this ruling. The house that is three amos by eight
amos is twenty-four squared amos, which is more than four squared amos. The Pnei Yehoshua
answers that the logic must be that we derive from the verse that states a man shall not leave his
place that a person occupies a space of four amos. It would follow then that a house does not
occupy a space less than four amos. If the place of a person is four squared amos, his house or
Sukkah must also be four squared amos.

The Pnei Yehoshua extends this analogy, and he states that Rabbeinu Tam maintains that just like
regarding Shabbos four amos means five and three fifths amos, the same would be true regarding
Sukkah.

THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE OF THE JUDGES OF CAESAREA

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:5

The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rebbi Yochanan, who says that a circular Sukah must be
large enough to seat 24 people around its circumference. The Gemara then mentions the
geometrical theorem of the Judges (or "Rabbis") of Kesari.6

The Judges of Kesari taught that the circumference of a circle inscribed within a square is 25%
smaller than the square's perimeter, and the circumference of a circle circumscribed around the
5
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-008.htm
6
See also my Daf Ditty to Eruvin 76, www.jyungar.com/daf-ditty

10
outside of a square is 50% larger than the square's perimeter. Accordingly, the circumference of
the circle drawn around the 16-Tefach perimeter of a square is 50% larger than the square's
perimeter, or 24 (50% of 16 added to 16 is 24).

The Gemara (8b) concludes that this theorem is incorrect, as empirical observation demonstrates.
According to the formula used by the Chachamim (see Insights to Eruvin 14:2), the actual
relationship of the perimeter of an inscribed square to the circle around it is 3 X (1.4 X s), where
3 = the value of pi, and s = the length of a side of the square. The ratio that the Chachamim use for
the relationship between the side of a square and its diagonal (which is also the diameter of the
circumscribed circle) is 1:1.4. Therefore, the circumference of a circle circumscribed around a
square with sides of 4 Tefachim is 3 X (1.4 X 4), or 16.8 -- and not 24!

How did the Judges of Kesari make such a mistake?

(a) TOSFOS (8b, DH Rivu'a; Eruvin 76b, DH v'Rebbi Yochanan) suggests that the Judges of
Kesari were not giving the relationship of the perimeter of the inner square to a circle around it.
Rather, they were giving the relationship of the area of the inner square to an outer square drawn
around the circle that encloses the inner square. This is what they mean when they say that "when
a circle is drawn around the outside of a square, the outer one's (i.e., the outer square's) perimeter
is 50% larger than the inner one's." (See the second diagram printed in Tosfos.) The area of the
inner square is exactly half of the area of the outer square.

(b) RASHI (here and in Eruvin 76a) seems to have no difficulty with the formula of the Judges of
Kesari, as he does not explain how to justify their calculation. Perhaps Rashi understands that the
Judges of Kesari were proposing a Halachic stringency: When we determine a value (such as the
circumference of a circle) by using the diagonal of a square for the purpose of a practical
application in Halachah, we consider the diagonal to be equal to the sum of the two sides of the
square or rectangle between the ends of the diagonal (since the lines of those two sides go from
one end of the diagonal to the other). Thus, if the sides of the inscribed square are each 4 Tefachim,
then the diagonal is viewed to be 8 Tefachim. Accordingly, the circle around that square must have
a diameter of 8 Tefachim, and thus its circumference must be 24 Tefachim and not 16.8 (which is
the measure of the circumference based on the actual diameter of the square).
The reason for this is to prevent one from mistakenly using the length of the diagonal in a case in
which he is supposed to use the sum of the length of two sides. In addition, physical reality does
not allow for the application of pure mathematics (as the actual diagonal of a square is an irrational
number; moreover, it is not possible to draw a perfectly exact line or angle). Therefore, the formula
given for determining the diagonal of a square for purposes of Halachic applications (such as the
size of a circular Sukah around that square) must take into consideration the largest possible
diagonal of the angle, which is the sum of the two sides.

(Thus, if the sides of the inscribed square are each 4 Tefachim, then the diagonal is viewed to
be 8 Tefachim. The circle around that square has a diameter of 8 Tefachim, and its circumference
is treated as 24 Tefachim (and not 16.8, which is the circumference based on the actual diagonal
of the square).)

11
When the Gemara comments on the formula of the Judges of Kesari and says, "This is not so, for
we see that it is not that much" (that is, the circle around a square is not as large as the Judges of
Kesari posit), it is stating only that their statement is not mathematically precise, but it is not stating
that their formula cannot be used in applied Halachah.

If this is the reason why Rashi is not bothered by the apparent inaccuracy of the formula of the
Judges of Kesari, then we may suggest that Rashi is consistent with his own opinion as expressed
elsewhere (Shabbos 85a, Eruvin 5a, 78a, 94b), where Rashi seems to determine the Halachic length
of the diagonal of a rectangle by adding the two sides between the ends of the
diagonal. TOSFOS in all of those places argues with Rashi. Perhaps Rashi maintains that this
definition of the diagonal for Halachic purposes may be relied upon with regard to rulings that
involve Halachos d'Rabanan.

(c) Perhaps it is possible to propose an entirely new explanation, according to which the Judges of
Kesari are entirely correct.

Perhaps Rebbi Yochanan's statement that "the circumference of the Sukah must be large enough
to seat 24 people in it" does not mean that the circumference must be 24 Amos, but that there must
be 24 Amos inside the circumference. In other words, the area of the circle must be 24 square
Amos. His statement is based on the formula of the Judges of Kesari.

The area of a circle is calculated by multiplying pi by the radius squared. The radius of the circle
drawn around a square with sides that are each 4 Tefachim long is half of the diagonal (5.6), which
is 2.8. Using the Halachic estimate of the value of pi as 3, we arrive at the following calculation:
3 X (2.8) (2.8) = 23.52, or approximately 24.

This is what Rebbi Yochanan means when he says that the circle must have within its
circumference an area of 24. (He rounds up to 24 as a stringency.)7

In my Daf Ditty to Eruvin 76 I cited David Garber and Boaz Tzaban of Bar Ilan University, who
have published numerous articles on geometrical themes in Chazal, pointed out to us that
the ME'IRI in Eruvin (76b) suggests this solution in the name of the BA'AL HA'ME'OR. It can
be traced further back to a responsum of the RIF in Temim De'im #223.

An Acharon, TESHUVOS GALYA MASECHES #3, offers this solution as well. Using the
mathematics of Chazal to project the area of the circle based on the area of another square that
is drawn around it (3:4), the solution for the area of the circle is exactly 24 Tefachim, and not
just approximately 24, as we concluded using the equation of pi X r X r (this is because the area
of the outer square (32) is exactly double the area of the square drawn inside of the circle (16),
and 3/4 of 32 is 24).

The Me'iri uses the word "Shibur" or "Tishbores" to refer to the calculation of area.

7
According to this explanation, we may accept the Ritva's suggestion that the words "v'Lo Hi..." do not belong in the Gemara and
were added by the Rabanan Savora'i.

12
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:8
Our Daf offers two lists of huts that are not built specifically for Sukkot, but can be used as
a sukkah if they have been properly covered.

The first list contains huts referred to by the acronym – “Ganbakh“:

• Goyim – non-Jews
• Nashim – women
• Behemah – animals
• Kutim – immigrants from the city of Kutah (see II Melakhim (Kings) 17:24)

The second list includes huts called – Rakbash:

• Ro’im – shepherds
• Kayatzim – field workers who dry figs
• Burganum – people who guard the fields
• Shomrei peirot – people who guard the fruit

The Gemara explains that each list has its advantages and disadvantages as far as being considered
appropriate for use as a sukkah. The huts in the first list are fairly permanent while the second list
is seasonal; the huts in the second list are used by people who are obligated in the commandment
of sukkah, while the people in the first list are not.

Rav Chisda explains that “properly covered” in this case does not mean that it needed to have been
done with the intent that it would be used as a sukkah – as the Gemara makes it clear that it is not
necessary for a sukkah to be built specifically for the mitzvah – rather it must clearly be built “for
shade.” Several definitions are offered to explain Rav Chisda’s intent that the hut needs to be built
“for shade.” Rashi suggests that it must be well-covered with branches so that it is clear that it was
built for shade, and not for some other purpose, like privacy. Rabbeinu Tam explains that if the
thatch is too thick – to the extent that it appears to be a wall or roof – it cannot be considered
a sukkah for shade. According to the Ran it is a question of intention. The hut must have been built
as a place that would be used for shade, not as a storage area or a permanent structure where people
will live.

Our Daf discusses a case where we have one sukkah located behind another sukkah. The case is
where we have a storefront, facing the street, and within it, in the back, is another sukkah, where
the proprietor lives all year long. The inner sukkah is not kosher to be used as a sukkah. The reason,
according to Rashi, is that the owner lives in this room all year long, and it is not obvious to the
observer that he is residing in it for the sake of a mitzvah. This dwelling is actually a technically

8
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_sukkah612/

13
kosher sukkah, and we hold according to Beis Hillel, that it is not necessary to build a sukkah for
the sake of the holiday. Nevertheless, this is disqualified ‫מדרב ן‬because it is lacking the
appearance of a mitzvah observance.

Ritva and Ran explain that dwelling in the inner sukkah is invalid ‫ מדאורייתא‬,and the reason is that
it is considered They understand that the verse teaches that the sukkah
is only kosher if it is made for shade (a temporary dwelling), and that one that is made as a house
or a granary is invalid. The Bach (O.C. 635) explains that the reason Rashi only disqualifies this
sukkah from a rabbinic standpoint is that Rashi understands that any type of construction of a
sukkah is acceptable, even if it was originally made to be for a house.

Magen Avraham explains that Rashi agrees that a room that is built to be a house is unacceptable
‫מדאורייתא‬, but that Rashi here holds that the inner sukkah in our Gemara was not made to be a
house or permanent dwelling. Because it was merely made for shade, it is technically kosher from
a Torah perspective.

Yet it is rabbinically ‫ פסולה‬due to ‫מראית עין‬. People see that this worker stays in this room all year
long, so they do not realize that the room was built for shade. They think that it was built as a
permanent dwelling, and when they see him live in it over Sukkos they will mistakenly think that
a sukkah built as a house is kosher, when the truth is that it is disqualified.

Although the validity of a sukkah built by a non-Jew is not qualified in the Gemara, the Poskim
note a number of important issues related to the topic. One issue is a dispute whether it is necessary
to add something to a sukkah that was built by a non-Jew. In the opinion of some Poskim (1), a
sukkah built by a non-Jew is no worse than an old sukkah, built more than thirty days before
Sukkos. Therefore, just like concerning an old sukkah Shulchan Aruch rules (2) that one must add
something to the ‫סכך‬, so too one must add something to the ‫ סכך‬to a sukkah built by a non-Jew.

Others (3), however, question this extension and write that perhaps the requirement to add to the
‫ סכך‬applies only for an old sukkah, where it is not recognizable that the sukkah was made for
Sukkos, but a sukkah constructed by a non-Jew may be more apparent that it was done for the
mitzvah. According to others (4), the issue regarding adding something to the sukkah built by a
non -Jew applies only when the sukkah was built more than thirty days before Sukkos. If, however,
it was built within thirty days of Sukkos so that it is recognizable that it was built for the mitzvah,
all opinions would agree that there is no reason to add something to the ‫ סכך‬.

14
A second issue is one discussed by the Magen Avraham (5) and the Bikurei Yaakov (6). They
write that although the Gemara rules that a sukkah built by a non-Jew is valid, nonetheless, ‫לכתחילה‬
one should not commission a non-Jew to build a sukkah. The reason is that one who is not obligated
in a mitzvah should not perform that mitzvah.

Mishnah Berurah (7) cites the opinion of the Magen Avraham and writes that although halachically
there is no requirement to be careful regarding this matter, nonetheless, one should be cautious
when possible.

Minchas Elazar, zt”l, explains how each of the four flawed sukkos mentioned on our daf symbolize
different possible flaws in a Jew’s relationship with Hashem.

There is the “sukkah of the idolater”, the avodah of a Jew who has become like an idolater in some
respect and has not yet repented.

The “sukkah of women” is built by a person whose relationship with Hashem is defined by taking,
an act associated with femininity in kabbalah.

He may repent, but only to avoid punishment or to receive reward— not to do Hashem’s will. The
“sukka of the beast,” represents the person who does not even have enough human understanding
to repent.

Finally, the deeply flawed “sukkah of the Cuthite” symbolizes the person who will only fulfill the
mitzvos that are familiar but is unconcerned with the details of the Oral Torah. Such a person does
not even feel that he has done any wrong at all.

The sukkah represents Hashem’s Presence, like a devoted mother who never abandons her children
no matter how far they have fallen. They may all be kosher, but their flaws mean that they are not
all equal.

15
Someone once asked the Chofetz Chaim, zt”l, “If every Jew has a portion in the World-to-Come,
why do we have to work so hard to keep all the details of the Torah?” The Chofetz Chaim
answered, “In Kiev lives a wealthy Jew named Brodsky who owns many businesses employing
hundreds of different types of workers with different sets of skills and levels of expertise. Each is
paid accordingly. Brodsky is a charitable man and also supports a number of poor relations, all of
whom appear on the payroll. At times, Brodsky visits one of his factories or offices and speaks
with his workers in front of the others, asking detailed questions about what they do and how much
they are paid. “Once, a worker answered his questions with a simple statement: ‘I receive a salary.’
All the others burst out laughing. How could the man not even feel enough shame to hide the fact
that he was being paid for doing nothing at all? “This is your answer: We all have a portion in the
World-to-Come, but isn’t it shameful not to have worked for it?”

Mark Kerzner writes:9

A sukkah must give some shade, otherwise it is not considered shelter (the literal meaning of the
word "sukkah"). How much? The roof, called "s'chach" should be thick enough to block out more
than half the sun. What if the makeshift walls don't go all the way to the roof and therefore let in
the sun? - That does not matter. However, Rabbi Yoshiyah says that just as in a normal house the
walls protect and shade you, so in the sukkah they must not let too much sun.

We see that Rabbi Yoshiyah requires some permanence in the construction of a sukkah. There are
other Sages who also require permanence, as evidenced by their words in other areas. For example,
Rabbi Yehudah validates a high sukkah, which would mean that its walls are sturdy and somewhat
permanent; Rabbi Shimon requires four walls, and not just three; Rabban Gamliel does not allow
a sukkah on a wagon or a car.

Can a sukkah be round? - No, because normal houses are not built like that. However, Rabbi
Yochanan allows a round sukkah if it large enough for twenty-four people to sit - since people do
throw parties in this manner. The Talmud goes through multiple calculations to explain the twenty-
four count.

Rabbi Seth Goren writes:10

According to family legend, we’re descended from Zelig Zeides, the chief mathematician of
Slutsk. My great-aunt Essie used to brag, with a lot of pride and a little less credibility, that
Grandpa Zelig invented the perpetual calendar and bequeathed to all of us a deep appreciation of
and a natural talent for all that is math. Our daf for the day is a fun one for math lovers, with a
particular focus on geometry.

Yesterday’s daf launched a conversation that spills over onto today’s page: What’s the minimum
acceptable size for a round sukkah? Rabbi Yohanan says that a circular sukkah needs to be 24

9
http://talmudilluminated.com/sukkah/sukkah8.html
10
www.myjewishlearning.com

16
cubits in circumference to be kosher. The Gemara wonders why he believes this to be so. Break
out your protractors and compasses, folks, because we’re gonna figure this out.

It is assumed that Rabbi Yohanan bases his reasoning on the largest minimum size the rabbis can
agree on for a square sukkah: four cubits by four cubits. But are we to understand that the circular
sukkah should be inscribed within the minimal square sukkah? Or is the square inscribed within
the circle? Or does the circular sukkah just have to have the same floor space (i.e. area) as the
square one? The illustrations below help us roughly visualize the three possibilities:

The problem is that it quickly becomes clear that regardless of which of these models one picks,
Rabbi Yohanan’s circular sukkah with a 24-cubit circumference is demonstrably larger than the
minimum square sukkah that is four cubits on each side. The Gemara tries to explain this, and
never quite succeeds. Here is where the conversation on this subject lands:

The sages of Caesarea, and some say that it was the judges of Caesarea, said that Rabbi
Yohanan’s statement could be explained using a different calculation: The circumference of a
circle inscribed in a square is one-quarter less than the perimeter of the square, while the
perimeter of a square circumscribed by a circle is smaller than the circumference of that circle
by half (i.e., if one adds half the perimeter of the square to the perimeter of the square, that is
equal to the circumference of its circumscribing circle). Therefore, a circle with a circumference
of 24 cubits would circumscribe a square with a perimeter of 16 cubits, as prescribed by Rabbi
Yohanan.

The sages note here that if a square circumscribes a circle, it’s perimeter is about 25% larger than
that of the circle. So if we put Rabbi Yohanan’s 24-cubit circle inside a square, that square should
have a perimeter of close to 30 cubits — obviously well above the minimum size of 16 cubits.

But if we put his 24-cubit circle around a square, the circle should have a circumference about
50% larger than the perimeter of the square — meaning the square has a perimeter of 16 cubits.
Bingo!

Actually, just kidding. We told you to keep your tools handy, right? It seems the sages of Caesarea
were not that good at math — or that something is garbled in this teaching. If a circle circumscribes

17
a square, its circumference is only about 10% larger than the perimeter of the square — not 50%.
The Gemara points out this mistake:

And that is not the case, as we see that the circumference of the circumscribing circle is not that
much. The actual circumference (of a circle placed around a 4x4 square) is closer to 17 cubits.

This is just a snippet of the conversation. If you read this discussion in full, you sense, even in
translation, that the vocabulary of the rabbis, which is fine-tuned for legal argument, is not as well-
suited for this kind of mathematical discussion. And their sense of mathematics seems rudimentary
as well. For instance, they say that pi has a value of three, and the square root of two is 1.4. These
are not terrible approximations, but both these numbers are actually irrational values with infinitely
long decimal expansions. Did the rabbis know that? The ancient Greeks certainly did. But with the
rabbis, it’s not entirely clear. Still, they understood enough geometry to make clear arguments
comparing round and square-shaped sukkot — at least, most of them. Sorry, Caesarea.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:11

If you like Mathematics you will likely enjoy the end of yesterday (Sukkah 7b) and much of our
daf (Sukkah 8a), whereas if you don’t, you may find it a little tricky. This is because the discussion
relates to the minimum dimensions of a circular sukkah which requires a journey into the history
of pi (π) – i.e. the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

Informed by Melachim I 7:23, we are told on Sukkah 7b that ‘whatever has a circumference of 3
tefachim has a diameter of one tefach’ - which approximates pi (π) to 3. However, if this is the
case, the calculations presented by Rav Yochanan in today’s daf are, as the Gemara repeatedly
notes, ‫ לא דק‬- ‘imprecise’.

Taken at face value, it seems that Rav Yochanan – certainly one of the greatest Amoraim in Israel
– simply wasn’t great at Mathematics. However, as Rabbi Shimon Ben Tsemah (1361–1444) –
otherwise known by the Tashbetz – explains,12 though approximations were used by our Sages
when teaching some of these topics (because, as we are taught in Pesachim 3b, “one should always
teach his student in the easiest way”), more precise values were used by our Sages when making
the halachic calculations.

Given this, and as the Tashbetz explains, it seems clear that Rav Yochanan actually used a very
precise (at least for that time) measure of pi of 3 1/7, and this is why his mathematical conclusions
differed from the Sages. Thus, while on face value the question in today’s daf relates to the
mathematical imprecision of Rav Yochanan, the real question in today’s daf relates to the tension
that arises when ideas are presented simply for the sake of explanation, and the more complex
reality which those ideas relate to.

In terms of contemporary Judaism this question often arises when schoolteachers and outreach
workers overly simplify complex ideas while, later on in life, those students and learners can be

11
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
12
See Boaz Tsaban and David Garber in their essay ‘On the Rabbinical Approximation of π’ – see https://bit.ly/2TfHj14

18
frustrated and confused by the more complex reality which they encounter. This, like the question
in today’s daf of squaring the circle, is not easily solved. Still, it is one that must be wrestled with
in order to avoid the justified criticism of imprecision.

Math Problem for Talmudic Rabbis: Building the Right Size

Sukkah

ADAM KIRSCH WRITES:13

For a thousand years, traditional Jewish education was focused on learning the Talmud. But as
I’ve often found in reading Daf Yomi, learning the Talmud also requires mastering secular arts and
sciences such as mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. In fact, a complex geometry problem
came up early in this week’s reading in Tractate Sukka, raising the question: How well did the
rabbis know the value of pi?

Pi, the number that defines the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, was already known
to the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. Greek and Roman mathematicians computed it to four
decimal places—3.1416. The rabbis, in Sukka 7b, have a more rough-and-ready measurement:
“For every three handbreadths circumference,” they say, “there is a diameter of one handbreadth,”
effectively defining pi as 3. The matter comes up because the rabbis are arguing about the proper

13
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/daf-yomi-71

19
dimensions of a circular sukkah. A standard square sukkah must be four cubits by four cubits; it
seems to follow that a circular sukkah ought to have a diameter of four cubits. Using the rabbis’
value of pi, this would yield a circle with a circumference of 12. Estimating that each person in the
sukkah requires one cubit of space—a tight fit, since a cubit is only about 18 inches, but people
were smaller then—this would mean that the smallest valid circular sukkah could fit 12 people
along the inside wall.

Why is it, then, that Rabbi Yochanan requires a circular sukkah to be able to fit 24 people? Why
should a circular sukkah have to be so much larger than a square sukkah in order to be legally
valid? This is the issue the Gemara takes up in Sukka 8a and in doing so wades into the problem
of “squaring the circle,” one of the insoluble enigmas of ancient geometry. Because pi is an
irrational number, extending to an infinite number of decimal places, it’s impossible to draw a
square with exactly the same area as a given circle. In Talmudic terms, this means that one can’t
take a circular sukkah and figure out exactly how big a square sukkah would have to be to include
the same area.

However, it is possible to approximate the answer, and by calculating the square root of two, the
rabbis find that a four-by-four square sukkah is about the same size as a circular sukkah with a
circumference of 16.8. Such a sukkah could fit 16 people (plus one extra-thin person if you
squeezed him in) with their backs to the walls. But this figure is still substantially lower than Rabbi
Yochanan’s requirement of 24 people. The rabbis are again stymied: What was the reason for
Yochanan’s figure?

Mar Keshisha takes another shot at the problem. So far, the discussion has proceeded on the
assumption that each person takes up one cubit of space, so that Yochanan’s requirement of 24
people was equivalent to 24 cubits. But what if, Mar Keshisha asks, this is too generous an
estimate? What if a person actually only needs two-thirds of a cubit, about a foot of space? In that
case, a sukkah that held 24 people would actually only have a circumference of 16 cubits. This is
much closer to the figure of 16.8. But as the Gemara points out, now we have the opposite problem,
since Rabbi Yochanan’s figure is actually smaller than the correct size. In other words, Yochanan
is being too lenient, allowing people to get away with building a circular sukkah that is slightly
too small.

Finally, Rav Asi comes with a solution to the problem. Instead of calculating a circle big enough
to hold 24 people, he suggests, we should be calculating the size of a circle formed by 24 people—
that is, the circle is drawn inside the ring of people, not outside them. Assuming once again that a
person takes up one cubit, this means that we can subtract two cubits from the diameter of the
circle—one for the person sitting on each side of the circle—which means that we now have a
diameter of six, instead of eight.

Taking pi as three, this yields a circumference of 18—which would be the correct figure for a
circular sukkah, according to Yochanan. Once again, Yochanan’s figure is not precise—he
requires 18 cubits, where the true figure is 16.8—but this time we find him erring on the side of
stringency. He insists that we make a sukkah that is slightly too big, rather than one that is slightly
too small. This kind of stringency is all right, according to rabbinic law, and so the Gemara finally
accepts Rav Asi’s interpretation.

20
All this geometry was hard enough for me to follow in the Koren Talmud’s expanded and leisurely
English translation. In the original Aramaic, I imagine it would be quite impossible to understand.
Take, for instance, the sentences in which the Gemara considers Rav Asi’s proposal. Here is the
word-for-word translation of the Aramaic: “How many are there? Eighteen. Seventeen minus one-
fifth sufficient. This is where he was not precise, and he is not precise stringency.” To expand this
into comprehensible English, the Koren editors add at least 150 words, explaining each step of the
mathematical reasoning. It is a reminder that reading the Talmud the way I have been doing, alone,
is not the traditional method because it is simply not feasible. A teacher, or at least a translator, is
absolutely necessary to make sense of the rabbis’ compressed reasoning.

With this mathematical knot untangled, Tractate Sukka goes on to discuss several other rules for
building a valid sukkah. Many of these come down to the question of intentionality: Was the
structure built with the intention of using it to celebrate the holiday, or was it repurposed or made
with recycled materials for convenience’s sake? Can one, for instance, use an “old sukkah,”
defined as one that was built 30 days prior to the holiday? Beit Shammai says no, while Beit Hillel,
always more lenient, allows it. However, both rabbis agree that “if he established it for the sake of
the festival”—that is, if you declared while building your booth that it was for Sukkot—then there
is no time limit; you could even use a building that was a year old.

A similar logic is involved in the question of whether you can build your sukkah under a tree.
Could you use the branches of the tree as a kind of ceiling, to provide the shade required in a
sukkah? The answer is no: The branches are already growing, so they were not prepared
specifically for the sukkah. If, however, you “lower” the branches of the tree—say, by pulling
them down and weaving them into the roofing—then they can be used, so long as the majority of
the shade is still coming from the roof and not the tree.

But this takes for granted that we know what can be used in ordinary sukkah roofing. Traditionally,
Jews use cut branches and vines to cover the sukkah; but where, exactly, is the legal basis for this
practice? In Sukka 11a, the mishna explains: “Anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity, or its
growth is not from the ground, one may not roof his sukka with it. And anything that is not
susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground, one may roof with it.” This
principle rules out all animal products, such as hides, and all manufactured vessels, which are
capable of becoming tamei, ritually impure. It also rules out all actual food products, since food
too can become tamei. What is left is plant matter that cannot be eaten—stalks, vines, branches,
leaves.

This rule is nowhere stated directly in the Torah, but Rabbi Yochanan finds a hint in Deuteronomy
16:13, which reads: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days as you gather
from your threshing floor and your winepress.” This suggests that the waste products of threshing
and winemaking are what should be used on Sukkot. And in Sukka 12a, Rav Chisda cites a verse
from much later in the Bible, from the Book of Nehemiah, which confirms that this was indeed
the practice of the ancient Israelites.

Here, as so often, the Talmud raises the actual practices of Judaism to the level of theory, finding
a legal principle behind what may well have evolved as a folk custom. In this sense, the Talmud,
which stands at the heart of traditional Judaism, is anything but a traditional text. It is never content

21
to justify a Jewish practice simply because it has always been done that way. Rather, it brings
reason to bear to find a justification for tradition—a method of cultivating the intelligence even
more powerful than learning geometry.

Yaron Yadan writes:14

The sages set minimal dimensions for a sukkah to be considered serviceable.

Thus, for example, according to Rabbi Judah the Nasi the length and width of a square sukkah
must be no less than two meters by two meters: “A sukkah which is less than four amot by
four amot is invalid.” One of the scholars, R’ Yochanan, said that if the sukkah were round, the
minimal size must be in keeping with the minimal size of a square sukkah, so its size was set as
such that 24 people could sit within its circumference. The scholars asked: Why does a round
sukkah have to be so big? The space a person needs to sit is set at a half meter, so the circumference
would have to be 12 meters, but for the circumference to match the area of the square, one would
have to multiply the length of the square by three, which is the ratio between the diameter and
circumference of a circle.

If so, the circumference would only have to be 6 meters (2×3=6). The scholars answered that this
ratio is between the circle’s diameter and circumference, but the ratio between the side of a square
and its perimeter is four and is larger than that of a circle. The scholars went on to ask: There still

14
http://daatemet.org.il/en/daily-peppers/what-is-the-halachically-required-circumference-for-a-round-sukkah/

22
is no need for a circumference of 12 meters, for even with a square all that is needed is a
circumference of eight meters.

The scholars tried to explain the above sage’s opinion and argued that the large circumference
required is so the round sukkah can contain the square sukkah. The scholars continued to ask: If
we measure the diagonal of the square, it will be only 2/5 larger than a side. If so, the diagonal is
2.8 meters, multiplied by three to obtain the required circumference, gives us only 8.4 meters. So
why did R’ Yochanan demand a circumference of 12 meters? Answer: R’ Yochanan was not
precise in setting the exact dimensions and gave only an estimate.

The scholars noted: Had R’ Yochanan set dimensions close to what should be needed, we could
say that his measurement was an approximation and not precise, but since the difference is so
great, it is not reasonable to attribute it to a lack of precision. Another scholar, Kashisha son of
Rav Chida, explained Rabbi Yochanan’s demand by saying that the space required for a person to
sit is not half a meter but only 33 centimeters.

According to this calculation, the required circumference is only eight meters (0.33×24=7.92). The
scholars asked: Does not the circumference of the circle have to be 8.4 meters? Answer: R’
Yochanan was not precise in his measurements.

The scholars continued to argue that it is inconceivable to accuse R’ Yochanan of being imprecise
and overly lenient. Another scholar, Rav Ashi, supposed that a man takes up half a meter when he
sits and the outer circumference of 24 people sitting is indeed 12 meters, but R’ Yochanan
calculated the inner circumference, which is only three meters.

If so, the circumference of the sukkah is nine meters. Though 8.4 meters would be sufficient, R’
Yochanan rounded upwards to nine meters. Other scholars tried to reconcile the matter in a
different way. They argued that the required circumference to place a square into a circle is one
and a half times the perimeter of the square, so the required circumference of the circle needed to
place a two meter by two-meter square inside it would be 12 meters (8×1.5=12).

Other scholars answered that their words were erroneous, for experience shows one can put a
square into a circle whose circumference is smaller than that.

23
 Explanation of the Sages’ Knowledge on the Topic of Pi—the Ratio Between
the Circumference of the Circle to Its Diameter

Yaron Yadan writes:15

The ratio between the circumference of the circle to its diameter, called “pi,” equals
3.14159265359 (approximated to 11 digits after the point). Pi was well-known to the Greek
philosophers: in the 3rd century BCE Archimedes calculated it as 3.14, and in the time of the early
Mishna Sages (1st century CE) Heron of Alexandria reached the precision of 3.14159.

But what did Chazal know about it?

In Tractate Eruvin 14a it says, “Anything which has, in its circumference, 3 tefachim, has
one tefach in diameter. How do we know this? Rabbi Yochanan said, the Scripture states, ‘And he
made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other. It was round all about, and its height was
five cubits. And a line of thirty cubits circled it.’ But what about its edge (which would make its
circumference larger than 30)? Rav Papa said that its edge was as thin as a rose petal. But still, we
have to subtract something [the width of the edge]? [No,] for it was calculated from the inside,”
that is, the circumference of 30 is the interior side and not the exterior.

This Gemara clearly proves that Chazal understood the relationship between diameter and
circumference to be a factor of three exactly, for if not so, the Gemara would not ask, “still we
have to subtract something,” for really the circumference should have been more than 31 cubits,

15
http://daatemet.org.il/en/torah-science-ethics/scientific-errors-in-torah/what-the-sages-knew-about-pi/

24
and the Tosfot on those words wondered: “it means that the calculation is exact…and it is a
question, for the calculation is not precise according to the scholars of measurement.”

It is also brought in Tractate Baba Batra 14b that the rule “anything which has in its circumference
three tefachim has in its diameter a tefach” is precise and exact, for they asked there about the
assumption that the circumference of a Sefer Torah is six tefachim and therefore its diameter is
two tefachim–how can it get into a Holy Ark where there was only two tefachim of free space?
And the Talmud’s answer was that the Sefer Torah could only fit in the Ark with great difficulty–
but in reality, if its circumference is six tefachim, its diameter is less than two tefachim, so what is
the question?

And we will bring a proof from a matter of halacha, from the Shulchan Aruch, Laws of Succah,
section 634, paragraph 2, “If it [the succah] is round, there must be within it enough to square
seven by seven [tefachim].” The Mishna Brura wrote, in section 4, “And a string which can encircle
twenty nonteacher and two-fifths can square within it seven by seven.” In Shaar HaTziyun it
explains that all which has in its diameter one tefach has in its circumference three tefachim.

According to the calculation of Pythagoras’s rule and the relation of circumference to diameter,
the circumference should have been about 31tefachim, so if we follow the Mishna Brura’s
ruling, we will sit in an invalid succah!

And so, the topic of the width of a round log (to allow moving things from place to place in an
alley); its width must be a tefach, as Chazal said in Eiruvin 13b, in the Mishnah, “anything which
has in its circumference three tefachimhas in its diameter a tefach.” Here they were lenient and did
not fear an addition, for if it has a circumference of three tefachim, its diameter is less than a tefach.

We will return to the Sea of Solomon, about which Rabbi Chiya said, in Eiruvin 14a, “The sea
which Solomon made held one hundred fifty mikvaot of purification” (a mikveh holds 40 seah).
Based on calculation this does not seem right; the Gemara concluded that the Sea of Solomon was
square below for three cubits and the upper two cubits were round, as is written, “it will hold
2000bat” (a bat is three seah) — so we find that it holds 150 mikvaot. The words of Chazal are
most peculiar, for why did the Scripture, which detailed the form of the Sea of Solomon so
specifically, hide from us as important a detail as the bottom being square to a height of three
cubits? But still, even this is an error, for calculating precisely we would find there more than
152 mikvaot.

From all said above it is clear that Chazal erred in a matter as basic as the relation of the
circle’s circumference to its diameter and were not aware of it at all. In the Responsa of the
Tashbetz, part one, section 165, even though he wanted to uphold the words of the sages, he had
to admit explicitly that the disciples of Rabbi Yochanan erred in the matter, “It is impossible to
say that none of them could achieve what Euclid and Archimedes achieved…so we say that what
was written about a succah made as a furnace (Succah 8a) was not strictly precise, but these are
the words of disciples who did not understand Rabbi Yochanan while Rabbi Yochanan said his
words based on engineering precision.”

25
The Rambam’s opinion in his explanation of the Mishnayot in Eiruvin chapter one is, “You should
know that the ratio between the diagonal of the circle and the line around it is unknown and one
can never really tell, and this failing is not due to us…and the closest example upon which the
learned sages rely is the ratio of one to three and a seventh…According to this one never will
achieve more than an approximation. They took this into account and said that anything which has
a circumference of three tefachim has a diameter of onetefach and relied upon this whenever they
needed a measurement from the Torah.”

And those who understand will see here the Rambam’s sly trick: since that pi is a number which
cannot be precisely calculated (an irrational number), Rambam uses this fact to approve the
abandonment of the significant digits of pi altogether. What is this like? A person who has no
second hand on his watch — so he abandons the counting of minutes also, and rounds up the time
to the last full hour…

According to Rambam, Chazal knew their math but took a rounded-off number required in the
Torah (which does not demand precision). This contradicts the words of the Gemara in Eiruvin
and Baba Batra, brought above, for there they dealt with matters of reality which, were the true
value of pi known to the Sages, would provoke no questions at all.

Contemporary believers whose faith relies on the wisdom of Chazal and their astonishing
knowledge of science find it difficult when they uncover the ignorance of Chazal on an issue
known to Archimedes, who lived c. 300 BCE, and of whom the Encyclopedia Hebraica says, “It
is an enigma to this day how Archimedes could extract the square roots required for this
amazing precision.” They have no choice but use an ornamental and charming calculation which
only with a second look can you find the fraud. This is the essence of their “discovery”: in the
verse which says, “and its line was 30 cubits” (with the written kavah read kav), they divide kavah,
111 in gematria, by kav, 106 in gematria, multiply it by three, and get 3.1415094, which is close
to the true value of pi (which is, as said above, 3.1415926).

But what about the fraud? It is clear to everybody that only after you know the true value of pi
can you find it “hinted” in this verse. One who already knows the value of pi will be able to “find”
it in the verse, but one who does not know (e.g. that he has to multiply by 3), will search forever
and find nothing in that verse.

Thus, those empty people go and turn our rabbis the Tanaaim and Amoraim, the Gaonim,
Rishonim, and Achronim, into men who did not know the Torah’s secrets; only in our generation
do we “discover” pi in the Scripture, while all the Sages did not manage to find the hint in the
verse, so they ruled the Halacha based on an invalid calculation.

And if a speck of intellectual honesty and inquiry for truth remains in your head, you will see that
this “hint” is accidental only, and those who wrote the Scripture did not intend it at all.

The meaning of the word kav is a measuring rope, and so it is written in Ezekiel 47:3, “As the man
went on eastward with a measuring rope [kav] in his hand, he measured off a thousand cubits.”
The Metzudas David explains “kav is a measuring rope,” and so, too, did Rashi explain on Joshua
2:18, “Length of crimson cord: from the language of measuring line and rope,” and Radak

26
explained the reason for the kri u’ktiv difference on Jeremiah 31:38, “It is written kavah with a hey
for this is feminine language, like the length of crimson cord, and is usually read kav.” This kri
u’ktiv is also found in Zachariah 1:16, so this kri u’ktiv is found in three places. What will they do
with the hints written in Zachariah and in Jeremiah, where there, too, is a kri u’ktiv, but there it is
not spoken of a circle–perhaps they will multiply the words instead of dividing them? (And if they
multiply the values, they will get the number 11766, which is a wonderful number, for the sum of
its terminal digits on both sides is always 7 [6+1], just as is the middle digit, and it is certainly a
marvelous hint at something — all that is left is for one of those empty people to come and invent
up the story.)

But the reason for kri u’ktiv is given by Radak on II Samuel 15:21, “And these words, which are
written and not read or which are read but not written, and those which are read one way but
written another — it seems that though the books were lost and confused in the first exile, and
the sages who knew the Scriptures died, and the men of the Great Assembly who returned the
Torah to its previous luster found disagreements in the remaining books and followed the
majority thereof, according to their opinion. And where they could not completely clarify the
matters, they wrote one thing and did not add vowels, or wrote in the margins and not inside the
text or wrote one in the margins and a different word in the text.”

The matters are explained perfectly; the sages were uncertain if the word kav were masculine
or feminine, so they wrote it one way and read it another.

And you, the reader, who seeks for the truth: choose you a straight and sure path — the clear and
honest plain meaning of the words. Follow the way of observation, inquiry and reason. And do not
depend on empty people who rely upon gematriot and hints our rabbis never thought about, for
those empty people will always fear knowledge and flee the truth, reality and reason being difficult
for them. But you — follow the way of the reason, and then you will be awarded with the truth.

The value of Pi in the Talmud

Jeremy Solomon writes:16

Also cited in Bava Basra 14, Eruvin 14, Sukkah 7

We have discussed the value of pi in the Talmud on several previous occasions. But today’s page
of Talmud contains one of the important sources on this topic. So let’s take another look at this
most magical of numbers, pi, written as the Greek letter π.

The Talmud is discussing the minimum legal size of a sukkah, the temporary booth that Jews
must live in for seven days each fall. The Talmud then makes this decalaration:

16
http://www.talmudology.com/

27
This means that the value of value of π is 3. Elsewhere the Talmud determines this value, and uses
a verse in the Book of Kings:

One of the vessels in the Temple of Solomon was ten amot in diameter and 30 amot in
circumference. Since π is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (π=c/d), π in the
Book of Kings is 30/10=3. Three - no more and no less. From this verse another page of Talmud
teaches a general rule:

BUT PI IS MORE THAN THREE

However, this value of π =3 is not accurate. It deviates from the true value of π (3.1415...) by about
5%. In another tractate, the medieval gloss on the Talmud known as Tosafot is bothered by this
too.

28
 ‫א‬

Tosafot opens the objection with these words: “But [pi] is a little more [than 3]. Which means
that the value [of pi] is rounded down” Tosafot can't find a good answer to this obvious problem,
and concludes "this is difficult, because the result [that pi=3] is not precise, as demonstrated by
those who understand geometry."

PI IN THE RAMBAM

In his commentary on the Mishnah on which today’s discussion is based, (Eruvin 1:5) Maimonides
makes the following observation:

IS THE VALUE OF PI HIDDEN IN THE BIBLE?

29
There are lots of papers on the value of pi in the the Bible. Many of them mention an observation
that seems to have been incorrectly attributed to the Vilna Gaon.

The verse we cited from ‫ מלאכים א׳‬spells the word for line as ‫קוה‬, but it is pronounced as though it
were written ‫קו‬. In ‫( דברי הימים ב׳‬II Chronicles 4:2) below, the identical verse spells the word for
line as ‫קו‬.

The ratio of the numerical value (gematria) of the written word (‫ )כתיב‬to the pronounced word (‫)קרי‬
is 111/106. Let's have the French mathematician Shlomo Belga pick up the story - in his paper
(first published in the 1991 Proceedings of the 17th Canadian Congress of History and Philosophy
of Mathematics, and recently updated), he gets rather excited about the whole gematria thing:

30
A mathematician called Andrew Simoson also addresses this large tub that is described in ‫מלאכים‬
‫ א׳‬and is often called Solomon's Sea. He doesn't buy the gematria, and wrote about it in The College
Mathematics Journal.

Still, what stuck Simoson was that "...the chroniclers somehow decided that the diameter and girth
measurements of Solomon's Sea were sufficiently striking to include in their narrative."17

17
If you'd like another paper to read on this subject, try this one, published in B'Or Ha'Torah - the journal of "Science, Art &
Modern Life in the Light of the Torah."

31
DID THE RABBIS OF THE TALMUD GET Π WRONG?

So what are we to make of all this? Did the rabbis of the Talmud get π wrong, or were they just
approximating π for ease of use? After considering evidence from elsewhere in the Mishnah
(Ohalot 12:6 - I'll spare you the details), Judah Landa, in his book Torah and Science, has this to
say:

Still, don't be too hard on the rabbis of the Talmud. The rule that the circumference of an object is
three times its diameter is pretty close to being correct and is usually a good enough approximation.
But it is not accurate, and never will be.

A Look Back in History Gives Clues to Today’s Modern Sukkah

Jackie Headapohl writes:18

18
https://thejewishnews.com/2016/10/14/look-back-history-gives-clues-todays-modern-sukkah/

32
Bernard Picart’s engraving shows a sukkah with a brass chandelier, 1724

33
You can learn how to keep kosher from law books, but still not know how to cook. So, too, you
can learn the rules for what makes a kosher sukkah from law books, but still not know how to build
a sukkah. If you want to know exactly how our ancestors built their sukkot, where can you look?

You could try looking at artwork. Starting in the late 16th century, a few Christian artists made
engravings of their Jewish neighbors celebrating the festival of Sukkot (which starts this year at
sundown Sunday, Oct. 16). An observer with the right background could even compare those
engravings with the legal writings to see what opinions Jews followed in practice.

An ideal observer with the right background means Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber, author of many
books of Jewish scholarship, distinguished professor of Talmud at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat
Gan, Israel, who majored in art history as a young student in England. Sperber, in volume six of
his eight-volume Hebrew work, “Customs of Israel: Origins and History,” devotes his attention to
this age-of-enlightenment artwork.

An engraving by Paul Christian Kirchner in 1717 — like a similar engraving by Bernard Picart in
1724 and many subsequent copies — shows a wealthy family of Portuguese Jews in Amsterdam
enjoying their festival meal in their sukkah. The gorgeous sukkah has a porous roof, as Jewish law
requires, made of plant material (in Hebrew, s’chach). Surprisingly, the roof takes the shape of a
dome.

Sperber also considers the descriptions of sukkot in a book by Dr. Hugo Mandelbaum (1901-
97), Jewish Life in the Village Communities of Southern Germany. Mandelbaum was a professor
of geology at Wayne State University, also an artist, mathematician and scholar of Judaica and,
for some years, principal of Yeshiva Beth Yehudah in Detroit, before he retired to Israel. His study
of Jewish life in the villages of southern Germany was part scholarship and part memories of his
own native village, Geroda.

An engraving of a sukkah by Paul Christian Kirchner, published in 1717

34
According to Mandelbaum, some houses in Geroda featured an upstairs room, called
the oberstube, directly under an opening in the roof. A corrugated metal sheet covered the
oberstube during the year; on Sukkot, s’chach went up in place of the metal sheet.

People who built free-standing sukkot in Geroda, though, had a different form of construction:
Young fir trees were chopped down in the woods and the branches were severed from the trunks,
which were sharpened at the lower end using a hatchet. These “stakes” were driven into the ground
at about 1 meter from each other. A few tree trunks were laid horizontally to join the stakes
together, to form a skeleton for the walls and the roof.

An engraving by Johannes Leusden, published in 1682, shows a round sukkah with walls made of
plant material, somewhat similar to those of Geroda. Sperber notices that in the Talmud, Rabbi
Oshiah requires that the walls of a sukkah, and not just the roof, consist of plant materials (Sukkah
7b).

Ultimately, the opinion may appeal to a biblical source (Nehemiah 8:15). Although later codifiers
follow the contrary opinion that all materials are valid for the walls of Sukkah (based on Mishnah
Sukkah 1:5), perhaps the Jews of Geroda intended to fulfill both opinions. Some later codes do
recommend making the walls of the Sukkah from plant material, and Sperber presents record of
Moroccan Jews who made their sukkot of palm branches, similar to the sukkot of Geroda.

With Sperber as a guide, you can learn a great deal about how to build a sukkah from old artwork.19

19
By Louis Finkelman, Special to the Jewish News

35