Daf Ditty Succah 19: Roof-less Succah

1
MISHNA: One who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut, with no roof whose walls
slope down from the center or who rested the sukka against the wall, by taking long branches
and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall to establish a structure
with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis
deem it fit; as, in their opinion, the roof and the walls may be a single entity, indistinguishable
from each other.

2
GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one lifted one of these
types of sukkot off the ground at least one handbreadth, thereby creating a vertical wall, or if

3
one distanced the sukka resting against the wall one handbreadth from the wall, the sukka is fit.
In these cases, the difference between the wall and the roof is conspicuous.

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem a sukka fit even
where it is an inclined roof rather than a flat one? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, the legal
status of the incline of a tent is like that of a tent. As long as it provides shelter, there is no need
for a distinct, conspicuous roof for it to be a fit sukka.

It is related: Abaye found Rav Yosef, his teacher, who was sleeping inside a netted bridal
canopy, whose netting inclines down, inside a sukka. Ostensibly, Rav Yosef did not fulfill his
obligation, as he slept in the tent formed by the canopy and not directly in the sukka. Abaye said
to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you hold, that you do not consider this netting a
tent? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that a structure without
a distinct roof does not have the legal status of a tent, and therefore the netting does not constitute
a barrier between the roofing of the sukka and the person sleeping below? Did you abandon the
opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the netting constitutes a barrier because the legal status
of a structure without a distinct roof is that of a tent, and act in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Eliezer? In disputes between an individual Sage and multiple Sages, the halakha is in
accordance with the multiple Sages, i.e., the Rabbis.

4
Rav Yosef said to him: In the baraita, the opposite is taught. Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit and
the Rabbis deem it unfit. Abaye asked him: Did you abandon the mishna, whose formulation
is authoritative, and act in accordance with a baraita, which may not be accurate?

5
Rav Yosef said to him: I have proof that the formulation of this particular baraita is precise, as
the formulation of the mishna is an individual version of the dispute, and most of the Sages adopt
the version of the baraita, as it is taught in another baraita: One who establishes his sukka like
a type of circular hut or rests the sukka against the wall, Rabbi Natan says that Rabbi Eliezer
deems the structure unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit.
Apparently, the mishna reflects only Rabbi Natan’s version of the argument. According to most of
the Sages, the correct formulation of the dispute is that of the baraita: Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit
and the Rabbis deem it unfit. The halakha in in accordance with the latter version of the dispute,
and therefore it is permitted to sleep inside a bridal canopy in a sukka.

6
MISHNA: In the case of a large mat of reeds, if one initially produced it for the purpose of
lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity like any other vessel, and therefore one may
not roof a sukka with it. If one initially produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it,
and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, as its legal status is not that of a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer
says that the distinction between mats is based on use, not size. Therefore, with regard to both a
small mat and a large mat, if one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible
to ritual impurity, and one may not roof a sukka with it. If one produced it for roofing, one
may roof a sukka with it, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

7
GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the mishna and raises a difficulty. This
mishna itself is difficult, as it contains an apparent contradiction. On the one hand, you said: If
one produced it for the purpose of lying upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity, and one
may not roof a sukka with it. The reason it is unfit for roofing is due to the fact that one produced
it specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. Presumably, a mat produced without designation
is for roofing, and therefore one may roof a sukka with it.

8
And then it is taught in the mishna: If one produced it for roofing, one may roof a sukka with it,
and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. The reason it is fit roofing is due to the fact that one
produced it specifically for roofing. This implies that a mat that one produced without
designation is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and therefore one may not roof a sukka
with it. The inferences drawn from these two clauses in the mishna about a mat produced without
designation contradict each other.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the first clause of the mishna, it is referring
to a large mat, which is typically not produced for the purpose of lying upon it. Therefore, it is
unfit for roofing only if it is produced specifically for the purpose of lying upon it. If it is produced
without designation, it is presumably for roofing, and one may roof a sukka with it. There, in the
second clause of the mishna, it is referring to a small mat, which is typically not produced for
roofing. Therefore, one may roof a sukka with it only if it is produced specifically for roofing. If
it is produced without designation, it is presumably for the purpose of lying upon it, and one may
not roof a sukka with it.

The Gemara notes: Granted, according to the Rabbis this is not difficult; as the above
distinction resolves the apparent contradiction in the mishna. However, according to Rabbi

9
Eliezer, the contradiction remains difficult, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says:
With regard to both a small mat and a large mat, if one produced it for the purpose of lying
upon it, it is susceptible to ritual impurity and one may not roof a sukka with it. The reason it
is unfit for roofing is due to the fact that one produced it specifically for the purpose of lying
upon it. This implies that a mat that one produced without designation is presumably for roofing,
and therefore one may roof a sukka with it.

Summary

10
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

MISHNAH: If one makes his Sukkah like a cone-shaped hut [24] or leaned it against a wall, Rabbi
Eliezer invalidates it since it has no [proper] roof, while the Sages declare it valid.

GEMARA: It has been taught: Rabbi Eliezer agrees that if he raised it one tefach from the ground,
[25] or if he separated it one tefach from the wall, [26] it is valid. What is the reason of the Rabbis?
— That the incline of a tent is like the tent itself.

Abaye found Rav Yosef sleeping on a bridal bed [27] in a Sukkah. He said to him: According to
whom [do you act]? [28] [Presumably] according to Rabbi Eliezer? [29] Do you then forsake the
Rabbis and act according to Rabbi Eliezer? — He answered him: In the Baraisa this is taught in
the reverse, order, viz., that Rabbi Eliezer declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid. [Abaye
then asked]: Do you forsake a Mishnah and act according to a Baraisa? — He answered him: The
Mishnah represents an individual opinion, as it has been taught: If he makes his Sukkah like a
cone-shaped hut, or leaned it against a wall Rabbi Nassan says that Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it
because it has no roof while the Sages declare it valid.

MISHNAH: A large reed mat [30] if made for reclining upon is susceptible to tumah [31] and is
invalid as s’chach [32]. If made for a covering, [33] it may be used for a s’chach and is not
susceptible to tumah. Rabbi Eliezer ruled: Whether small or large, if it was made for reclining
1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sukkah_19.pdf

11
upon, it is susceptible to tumah and is invalid as a s’chach; if made for a covering, it is valid
as s’chach and is not susceptible to tumah.

GEMARA: [Isn’t our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says: If it was made for reclining upon, it is
susceptible to tumah and is invalid as a s’chach. The reason then is because it was made
specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed
that it was] for a covering. And then it is taught: If made for a covering, it is valid as s’chach and
is not susceptible to tumah. The reason then is because it was made specifically for a covering, but
if it was made without specific purpose [it would be assumed that it was] made for reclining upon?
— This is no difficulty. The former case refers to a large [mat], the latter to a small one. This is
well according to the Rabbis, but according to Rabbi Eliezer it still presents a difficulty, for we
have learnt: Rabbi Eliezer ruled: Whether small or large, if it was made for reclining upon, it is
susceptible to tumah and is invalid as a s’chach. The reason then is that it was made specifically
for reclining upon, but if made with no specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was intended]
for a s’chach.
But read the latter portion [of the Mishnah]: If made for a covering, it is valid as s’chach and is
not susceptible to tumah. The reason then is that it was made specifically for s’chach, but if made
without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for reclining upon? — Rather said
Rava: In the case of a large [mat] all agree that if made without specific purpose [it is assumed to
be intended] for a covering. They only differ in the case of a small [mat]. The first Tanna is of the
opinion that ordinarily a small one is for reclining upon, and Rabbi Eliezer is of the opinion that
ordinarily a small one is for a covering as well; and it is this that was meant: If a large mat of reeds
is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to tumah and is invalid as s’chach. The
reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it
was made for a covering, and is valid as s’chach. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid
as s’chach. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as
though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a s’chach. [This is the view of the first Tanna]
and Rabbi Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose,
it is valid as s’chach. Abaye said to him: If so, [34] [instead of] Rabbi Eliezer says: Whether it is
small or large, it ought to read: Whether it is large or small? [35] Furthermore, is it not in fact with
regard to a large mat that they are in dispute, and it is Rabbi Eliezer who takes the stricter view,
for it was taught: A large mat of reeds is valid for s’chach. Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is not
susceptible to tumah, it is valid for s’chach? [36]
The Gemora cites a dispute between Rav Acha and Ravina if we apply the principle of lavud in
the middle of a sukkah. If there is an area of open space less than three tefachim running across
the entire length of the sukkah, we would need to attach the two sides together to close the gap in
order for the sukkah to be valid. They agree that lavud can apply at the side of the sukkah. If there
is an open space wider than three tefachim, it must be filled up with s'chach to ensure that the gap
is lesss than three tefachim.

The Ran rules that the s'chach must be placed adjacent to the s'chach and not on the side of the
wall. If placed by the wall, the sukkah will still be disqualified because we would need to rely on
two halacho l'moshe misinai principles, firstly - dofan akumah accomplishing that the s'chach

12
which is next to the wall is deemed to be part of the wall and secondly - lavud will subsuquently
close the open gap and attach the s'chach to the new wall. Two halachos cannot be applied at the
same time, thus the sukkah will be disqualified. This is parallel to another of the Ran's rulings
regarding more than four tefachim of ineligible s'chach adjacent to the wall and the wall of the
sukkah does not reach the s'chach. To validate the sukkah, we must apply two halacho l'moshe
misinai principles and that cannot be done. We must extend the walls to reach the s'chach with the
principle of gud asik and then apply the concept of dofan akumah for otherwise the ineligible
s'chach will disqualify the sukkah.

Reb Akiva Eiger explains that the Ran does not simply mean that two halachos cannot be applied
in one instance, rather if one halacho is dependent on another halacho l'moshe misinai, they cannot
be applied. Each of the halachos is required to stand on its own merit. In the latter case of the Ran,
we cannot apply the principle of dofan akumah until we rectify the wall to remove the air space.
(Dofan Akumah cannot be applied when open space is present.) Gud asik must be applied first to
extend the walls and then we can contemplate dofan akumah. The Ran maintains that this is not
allowed.
LAVUD
The Chacham Tzvi (59) rules that we cannot apply the principle of lavud when there is something
in between. The source for this seems to be a Tosfos on our daf that states regarding ineligible
s'chach less than three tefachim, that we cannot utilize lavud to consider the ineligible s'chach as
if it would be valid s'chach (this would be beneficial to sleep under this area) because there
presently is ineligible s'chach there.

A question is asked on this concept from a Gemora on daf 4. It is learned that if a sukkah is less
than ten tefachim high and one dug a pit seven tefachim squared in the middle of the floor so that
the sukkah is completed to a depth of ten tefachim, the sukkah will be valid if there is less than
three tefachim between the edge of the pit and the sukkah wall. The reason why this sukkah is
valid is because there is less than three tefachim from the pit to where the walls of this sukkah are
situated. According to Tosfos and the Chacham Tzvi, how can we apply lavud there, when there
is the ground (ledge) between the pit and the wall?

The Avnei Neizer O"C 309b resolves this question by explaining the concept of lavud. Lavud can
function by creating something from nothing or it can make nothing from something. When there
is open space less than three tefachim, the gap gets filled up and closed by its surroundings. This
is evident from Rashi in Eruvin 9a that translates lavud as an extender. Likewise, when there is
something separating a pit from the wall, lavud can extend the pit and transpose the ground to be
considered open space.

The explanation in our Tosfos is that when there is ineligible s'chach less than three tefachim
surrounded by valid s'chach, we cannot transpose the ineligible s'chach to nothing because there is

13
valid s'chach surrounding it. We cannot consider this space as valid s'chach either because there is
ineligible s'chach there presently.
Notes:
[24] This is a structure used by bird hunters; it is shaped like a beehive, where one cannot distinguish where the walls end and the
roof begins.

[25] The intervening air space is regarded as a wall, by applying the law of lavud, and the rest as the roof.

[26] The intervening air space is regarded as a roof, stretching horizontally to the wall.

[27] A bed which has no covering on top of the width of a tefach, but the curtains rise to a point.

[28] In using a bed that is covered with a curtain that intervenes between it and the s’chach.

[29] Who ruled that a sloping or cone-shaped tent is not a valid tent.

[30] Which is hard and inconvenient for lying or reclining upon.

[31] Since it was expressly made for the purpose it is regarded as a finished article.

[32] On account of its susceptibility to tumah.

[33] So that it is not a finished article.

[34] That Rabbi Eliezer's point is that a small mat is subject to the same law as a large one.

[35] The point of Rabbi Eliezer being that a small mat has the same law as a large one, on which the first Tanna agrees. The order
should be: Whether large, as you say, or small.

[36] From which it follows that if a large mat was made without specific purpose it is regarded as made for a covering according
to the first Tanna, while according to Rabbi Eliezer it is regarded as made for lying upon.

Mishnah Shevui writes:2

Our sugya starts with a new mishnah.

In this case a person made a sukkah in a cone-shape, somewhat like a teepee. It seems that the
upper sections of the walls must have been made of valid s’chach. Alternatively, he leaned a wall
made of s’chach against another wall not made of s’chach, somewhat like a lean-to. Rabbi Eliezer
rules that this is invalid since a sukkah needs to have a roof. The sages rule that it is valid.

R. Eliezer agrees that the sukkah is valid if he either raises the wall a handbreadth off the ground
or distances the leaning wall a handbreadth from the other wall. In both cases a “roof” is formed.
In the first case one of the walls is the roof, and in the second he would have to add a little s’chach
into the space created in between.

2
https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.19b.2?lang=bi&p2=Daf_Shevui_to_Sukkah.19b&lang2=bi

14
The rabbis of the mishnah allow such a tent-like structure is valid for a sukkah because the incline
of a tent, meaning the sides, are treated as if they were the roof of the tent. The sukkah is valid
because what looks like the wall can be considered its roof.

In this story Abaye finds R. Joseph sleeping in a bridal bed, one with two posts such that the canopy
slopes down on both sides. Evidently, R. Joseph doesn’t think that the sheets that serve as the
canopy form a barrier to the sukkah. This is because a tent can’t be a valid sukkah. But, Abaye
asks him, this is R. Eliezer’s opinion. Does R. Joseph really hold like R. Eliezer?
R. Joseph defends himself by saying he holds like a baraita in which the opinions from the Mishnah
have been reversed. R. Eliezer declares it valid, and the sages declare it invalid. So, he holds like
the sages.

Abaye continues to challenge R. Joseph. How can he rule like a baraita and forsake the Mishnah,
usually the more authoritative source?

R. Joseph answers with another baraita. This baraita says the same thing as the Mishnah with one
key difference—it is attributed to R. Natan. This allows R. Joseph to deduce that the version of the
dispute found in the Mishnah (R. Eliezer invalidates and the sages validate) is only R. Natan’s
opinion. Others disagree and R. Joseph rules like them.

We might add in here that it is not uncommon to find sages arguing that what looks like an
anonymous opinion is actually disputed, even if we have no explicit source that proves this. It
seems that it was important for them to rule like the majority opinion among the tannaim, but that
they were willing to be somewhat creative in finding such a source.

The next section of the mishnah requires a few words of introduction concerning the susceptibility
of objects to impurity. Objects are susceptible to impurity if they are considered “vessels.” This
halakhic category includes most objects that have been fashioned to be of use for people, but not
things that are used for building. For instance, a cup is susceptible to impurity, but a brick is not.
In the case under discussion here, a reed mat made to be sat upon is susceptible to impurities
whereas a reed mat made to be used as s’chach is not.

According to the sages, all small mats may have been made to be sat upon and hence they are all
susceptible to impurity. We learned above in mishnah four that anything that is receptive to
impurity cannot be used as s’chach. Hence, small reed mats cannot be used for s’chach. A large
reed mat may have been made either to sit upon or to use as s’chach. Hence, its susceptibility to
impurity and its validity as s’chach depend upon the intent in which it was made. If it was made
to be used for sitting, it cannot be used as s’chach. But if it was made to be used as s’chach then it
is valid.

Rabbi Eliezer says that the size of the s’chach does not matter. All that matters is whether the mat

15
was made for sitting or for s’chach. As long as it was made for s’chach it can be used as such, no
matter its size.

The Talmud begins by trying to draw out a contradiction within the mishnah. The mishnah says
that if he makes it intentionally to recline upon it, then it is subject to impurity and cannot be used
as s’chach. However, if he had no specific intention as to its use when he made it, then it is usable
as s’chach.

However, the second half says that it usable for s’chach only if he made it with the purpose of
using it as covering. If he made it without any express purpose, it would be assumed that he made
it for reclining and he wouldn’t be able to use it.

Thus, the mishnah contradicts itself in terms of what the law is when a mat is made without it
having an express purpose. The first half would say it is valid for s’chach whereas the second half
would say it is not.

The Talmud resolves this difficulty by saying that the first half of the mishnah refers to a large
mat. Such a mat is valid as use for s’chach even if it was made without any intention as to its use.
Since it is large, we can assume that the intent was to use it for a covering.
However, if it is a small mat and it was made without any specific intent, it is invalid, because we
can assume it was made to be used for reclining.

In other words, if something is made without any intent in mind, its size will determine its function
and susceptibility to impurity.

We should also note how the Talmud “teases” more information out of a mishnah. The mishnah
teaches only the simple situations—where he made the mat for an express purpose. It doesn’t really
state what the rule is if he had no use in mind when he made the mat. The Talmud gleans this info
out of the mishnah by trying to create a contradiction between the first half and the second half.
This is a common talmudic technique.

The next section continues the analysis of the mishnah from yesterday’s section, again addressing
the question of whether the mat can be used as s’chach if it was made without any intention as to
how to use it.

The Talmud now applies the same logic it did in yesterday’s section to R. Eliezer’s opinion. In the
first half of his words R. Eliezer says that if one made the mat to recline upon is susceptible to
impurity. But without any designated purpose, it is not susceptible to impurity.
But in the second half he says the opposite. If he made it specifically for covering, it can be used
as s’chach. But if he had no purpose in mind when he made it, then we can assume he was going
to use it for reclining and it is invalid as s’chach.

16
Rava resolves this difficulty and explains the entire mishnah. When it comes to a large mat, which
is usually used for covering, both opinions agree that if he makes it with no intent, it can be used
as s’chach. No intent implies that it will be used in its normal fashion. They disagree concerning a
small mat. The first opinion in the mishnah holds that a small mat is usually made for reclining.
Therefore, if he has no intent when he makes it, he cannot use it for s’chach. Rabbi Eliezer
disagrees and holds that a small mat is usually made for a covering as well.

Therefore, it too can be used as s’chach unless it was specifically made to be used for reclining.

A THIRD WALL FORMED BY A "LECHI"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana constructed a Sukah by placing Sechach over two
perpendicular walls, with an Akhsadra on the third side. There was no wall on the third (or fourth)
side. Rather, there was a pillar that was wider than a Tefach just outside of the wall perpendicular
to the opening of the Akhsadra. From inside the Akhsadra, one could see the pillar just outside the
wall of the Sukah. The pillar appeared to be the beginning of a third wall, but it did not extend
across the face of the Sukah and thus was not visible from within the Sukah. Rav Kahana said that
since such a pillar serves as a Lechi in the case of a Mavoy (and permits one to carry inside of the
Mavoy on Shabbos), so, too, it serves as a third wall for the Sukah, and the Sukah is valid.

Rav Kahana seems to invoke the principle of "Migu" -- "since" it serves as a partition for the laws
of a Mavoy on Shabbos, it also serves as a partition for a Sukah (7a).

However, the use of this method to consider the Sukah as though it has a third wall is problematic
for several reasons.

First, TOSFOS (7b, DH Sikech) maintains that the principle of "Migu" works only to fulfill a
requirement that is mid'Rabanan. The requirement that a Sukah have a third wall is mid'Oraisa,
and thus "Migu" should not work. (TOSFOS DH Achvi)

Second, when the Rabanan enacted the requirement that a Mavoy have a Lechi at its entrance, they
enacted that the Lechi serve as a "Heker," or reminder, but not that it serve as a partition. (Even
according to the opinion that maintains that a Lechi is a full-fledged Mechitzah (Eruvin 12b), it is
a Mechitzah only when it is in place of a fourth wall. Here, the Lechi is in place of a third wall.)
How, then, can Rav Kahana derive that a Lechi serves as a partition for a Sukah from the fact that
a Lechi serves as a reminder for a Mavoy?

Third, even if the principle of "Migu" could teach that as long as a Lechi is in some way effective
for a Mavoy it is also effective for a Sukah, the "Migu" would work in this way only if a Lechi
was effective for a Mavoy with regard to a Halachah d'Oraisa. In this case, though, the Lechi
3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-019.htm

17
merely fulfills a rabbinical requirement for the Mavoy. How, then, can it fulfill the d'Oraisa
requirement for a Sukah? (ROSH 1:34)

The ROSH answers that in addition to the two walls and the pillar (Lechi) on the outside of one
wall, Rav Kahana's Sukah also had a Tzuras ha'Pesach along the side with the Lechi. Indeed, it is
Rav Kahana himself (7a) who rules that the only situation in which a one-Tefach-wide board may
serve as the Sukah's third wall is when that side also has a Tzuras ha'Pesach. In this case, the Tzuras
ha'Pesach makes the Sukah valid mid'Oraisa (because a Tzuras ha'Pesach is considered a partition),
and the one-Tefach-wide board is necessary only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, the rule of "Migu"
applies and teaches that since the pillar is effective to fulfill the d'Rabanan requirement of Lechi
for a Mavoy, it is also effective to fulfill the d'Rabanan requirement to have a one-Tefach-wide
board on the third side of the Sukah.

Alternatively, the Rosh answers that even if there was no Tzuras ha'Pesach on Rav Kahana's Sukah,
the need for the one-Tefach-wide board still was only mid'Rabanan, because the third wall was
formed, mid'Oraisa, by the beam of the Akhsadra (through "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem").
Mid'Rabanan, though, that does not suffice, because the beam of the Akhsadra was not made to
serve the outside of the Akhsadra (where the Sukah is located) but to serve the inside, and thus
mid'Rabanan a third wall of at least one Tefach is required. The "Migu" suffices to fulfill that
requirement.

However, TOSFOS (DH Achvi) asks a fourth question. The Gemara earlier (7a) teaches that any
entity that is considered a partition for the laws of Shabbos is also considered a wall for a Sukah.
The Rishonim (see Rashi 7a, DH v'Chen l'Shabbos) explain that this rule applies only on Shabbos
itself; that is, on Shabbos the Sukah is valid, but not on any other day. Why, then, was Rav Kahana's
Sukah valid during the rest of the days of Sukos (besides Shabbos)?

The ARUCH LA'NER answers that the Rosh relies on the opinion of the RIF, who argues with
the other Rishonim and maintains that since the "Migu" works to make the Sukah valid on
Shabbos, it also works to make the Sukah valid during the rest of the week.

MUST THE WALLS OF A SUKAH BE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF

THE SUKAH

The Gemara cites the Tosefta which states that when the Sechach of a Sukah extends beyond the
Sukah ("Pesel ha'Yotzei Min ha'Sukah"), the area beneath that extension is considered part of the
Sukah. Ula explains that this refers to Sechach which extends over the middle wall of a Sukah,
when the two side walls also extend past the middle wall, so that the extension of Sechach actually
covers an area surrounded by three walls. The Gemara asks that since, in this extension, there are
three walls, valid Sechach, and more shade than sunlight, it obviously is a valid Sukah. What new
teaching does the Tosefta intend to convey?

The Gemara answers that one might have thought that since "it was constructed for the inside of
the Sukah, and it was not made to serve the outside of the Sukah," it is not a valid
Sukah. RASHI (DH l'Vra'i) explains that this refers to the middle wall. Since the middle wall was

18
made to be a wall only for the inside of the Sukah, it does not serve as a wall for a Sukah
constructed on the outer side of the wall (from the extension of the Sechach).

Rashi's words imply that he maintains that the walls of a Sukah must be constructed for the purpose
of the Sukah (according to the Havah Amina). This is difficult to understand, though, because
nowhere does the Gemara make any mention that the walls of a Sukah must be made for the sake
of a Sukah. (Only with regard to the principle of "Pi Tikrah" does Rava maintain that in order to
apply "Pi Tikrah" the walls of the Sukah must have been constructed for the sake of the Sukah.)
On the contrary, the Mishnah (17a) states that the walls of the houses around an Akhsadra may be
used as the walls of a Sukah (through "Dofen Akumah"), even though those walls were not made
to serve the Sukah.

This question prompts TOSFOS (DH l'Vra'i) to explain that the Gemara's statement that "it was
constructed for the inside of the Sukah..." refers to the Sechach that extends beyond the Sukah,
and not to the middle wall. Since the Sechach was placed on the Sukah for the purpose of the inside
of the Sukah and not to serve the outside of the Sukah, one might have thought that the extension
is not valid. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches that it is valid.

How does Rashi answer this question on his explanation?

(a) The RITVA answers that the walls of a house may be used for a Sukah because they were built
with intention that they would be permanent, and that they would be used for any purpose for
which they might be needed. In contrast, walls built for a Sukah are temporary, and thus one might
have thought that such walls are valid only for the purpose for which they were made (the inside
of the Sukah).

(b) The PNEI YEHOSHUA answers that in the case of the Mishnah (17a), the walls of the houses
are considered to have been built for the use of the surrounding porch as well, since the porch is
subordinate to the house (and therefore the Sukah built in that porch may utilize those walls). In
the case of the extension of the Sukah, however, the middle wall was constructed specifically for
the purpose of the inside of the Sukah, and thus one might have thought that the area outside of
the wall cannot be a valid Sukah.

(c) The ARUCH LA'NER says that, indeed, the Mishnah itself teaches that the walls of the
outside of a house may be used for a Sukah, and in this regard the Tosefta teaches nothing new.
However, it is the manner of the Tosefta and Beraisa to teach laws that are already expressed in
the Mishnah.

(d) The MAYIM AMUKIM suggests that perhaps Rashi understands that the Gemara's case
involves a Sukah whose middle wall is not an actual wall but only a Halachic wall. That is, in the
place of the middle wall, there is a row of vertical boards within three Tefachim of each other, and
thus the principle of "Lavud" creates a Halachic wall. Alternatively, the middle wall does not reach
the Sechach, and it serves as a wall only because of the principle of "Gud Achis." One might have
thought that "Lavud" and "Gud Achis" work only for the side for which the partition was
constructed (just as the principle of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem" works only with Mechitzos that
were made to serve the Sukah, according to Rava; see Rashi DH d'Mechitzos, and Rashi in Eruvin

19
95a, DH Lav l'Sukah). Therefore, the Tosefta teaches that such a partition is considered valid even
for the area of the extension outside of the Sukah.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

Can a sukkah be made without any roof at all?

This is the question debated in the Mishnah on our daf. According to the Mishnah,
the Chachamim allow a sukkah that is built like a tzrif – a triangular shack, or one that is
built leaning against a wall. Rabbi Eliezer rules that such sukkot are no good because they have no
roof.

The Gemara explains the position of the Chachamim as stemming from their belief that the slanted
wall of a tent is considered to be a roof – that is to say that a separate, clearly delineated roof is not
necessary.

The Gemara relates that Abayye visited Rav Yosef in his sukkah and found him sleeping under
a kilat chatanim, a tent-like structure with a blanket or sheet draped over a single pole. It appeared
to Abayye that, according to the opinion of the Chachamim in our Mishnah who recognize the
slanted wall of a tent as a roof, sleeping beneath this kilah should be considered a separation from
the sukkah (compare this to the beds described earlier on daf 10) and should be forbidden. He
asked Rav Yosef why he would choose to follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer rather than the
opinion of the Chachamim. Rav Yosef responded that, according to the baraita, the opinions as
they appear in our Mishnah should be reversed (i.e. Rabbi Eliezer permits sukkot without roofs,
the Chachamim forbid them).

To Abaye’s challenge that the Mishnah should be given more credence than a baraita, Rav Yosef
answers that our Mishnah is yechida’a – a version accepted only by one redactor.

When redacting the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi collected and edited the oral traditions that
were available to them and established a single, reliable formulation that we use as a basic text to
this day. Generally speaking, Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi included in the Mishnah his own rulings,
which he indicated by stating one opinion without attribution or as the opinion of the Sages
generally – chachamim omerim.

(For more on the compilation of the Mishnah, see Chapter 6 of the new Thirtieth Anniversary
Edition of Rabbi Steinsaltz’s The Essential Talmud.)

1. Moshe Bezalel Luria explains in his Emek Sukkot that, regarding our Mishnah, Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi received an oral tradition from Rabbi Natan and chose to insert it into his
edited mishnayot, even though he did not agree with its conclusion. Rav Yosef was aware

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_sukkah1319/

20
 of this, and chose, therefore, to follow the opinion that he knew to be Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi’s as preserved in the baraita.

In fact, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 631:10) rules this way, as well.

Mark Kerzner writes:5

If one makes his sukkah round, igloo-shaped, it is invalid, because one cannot tell where its walls
end, and the roof begins - that is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages, however, regard it as
one large sloping roof, and it is valid. Some say that the logic is correct, but the attribution is the
reverse - Rabbi Eliezer says what the Sages say, and vice versa.

If one wants to use a reed mat for the covering of his sukkah - a very convenient way, rather than
messing with the leaves and branches - will it be a kosher s'chach? - A small mat is made for lying
down on it, and it is thus a utensil; since all utensils are susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore
cannot be used for the sukkah covering, the small mat is not kosher.

However, with large mats it depends. If it was made originally for lying down, it is a utensil and
cannot be used; but if it was made for covering the sukkah - then it is not a utensil in the normal
sense of the word, does not accept ritual impurity, and therefore is a kosher sukkah covering.

Rashi explains that a large mat of reeds is hard and rough, and it is generally not to be used for a
bed. However, if it was specifically manufactured in order to be a bed, it has the status of being a
‫כלי‬, and it is therefore eligible to become ‫טמא‬. This mat cannot be used for ‫סכך‬.6

Sfas Emes detects in the words of Rashi that this large mat is not generally used to be laid upon
because it is made from reeds (‫)קנים‬. However, if it were made from straw or some other material
softer than reeds, Rashi implies that even a large mat would certainly be useful as a bed, and it
would be disqualified for ‫סכך‬. This, however, contradicts the Baraisa which is brought in the
Gemara. The Baraisa states: A mat of (from the rush family of soft plants) - a
large mat can be used for ‫סכך‬, but a small mat cannot be used for ‫סכך‬. According to the implication
of the Mishnah that soft materials are useful as a bed even when the mat is large, we would now
have a contradiction between the Mishnah and the Baraisa.

5
https://talmudilluminated.com/sukkah/sukkah19.html
6
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Sukkah%20019.pdf

21
Sfas Emes explains that the Mishnah must be understood in terms of its novelty in regard to a small
mat. In other words, a large mat is always assumed to not be for laying upon, whether it is made
from reeds which are rough, or even from straw. However, a small mat can be comfortable, and it
therefore cannot be used for ‫סכך‬, as it is assumed to be a ‫ כלי‬as a bed.

The Mishnah teaches that this is the case even if it is made from reeds, although it is a bit harder.

Shulchan Aruch (1) rules that small mats may not be used for ‫ סכך‬unless they are made specifically
for use as ‫ סכך‬since they are primarily used for sleeping.

Large mats, on the other hand, may be used for ‫סכך‬, unless they are made specifically for sleeping,
since they are primarily used for ‫סכך‬. Rema (2) writes that if most people in town manufacture
mats for sleeping one may not use a mat for ‫ סכך‬even if he made the mat specifically for ‫סכך‬. The
reason is that others may suspect that he is using for ‫ סכך‬a mat that is susceptible to tumah.

Rav Binyomin Zilber (3) rules that since nowadays mats are produced primarily for ‫ סכך‬they are
not susceptible to tumah and may be used for ‫סכך‬. Rav Zilber continues and cites the position of a
Rov who ruled that mats may not be used for ‫סכך‬. The basis for this opinion is a ruling of Rabbeinu
Shlomo ben Aderes (Rashba) (4). Rashba ruled that small boards attached by nails are considered
to be one large board and thus subject to the Rabbinic decree against using boards that resemble
one’s roof.

22
Therefore, since mats are made by attaching many thin slats together, they should also be treated
as one large piece and thus invalid. Rav Zilber writes that the ruling of the Rashba does not apply
to our mats because we do not make our roofs from mats, therefore, the Rabbinic decree does not
apply.

A second reason the ruling of the Rashba does not apply can be found in the writings of Rav
Avrohom Borenstein. Rav Borenstein (5) commented that the Rashba’s ruling applies only when
the boards prevent rain from entering the sukkah. Since our mats do not prevent rain from entering
the sukkah the Rashba’s ruling does not apply.

Mekor Chaim, zt”l, explains that a lowly ‫( מחצלת‬mat) represents the characteristic of humility,
while the reeds of which it is made, kanim, represent Torah study. The Torah itself is written with
a kana reed, and one cannot acquire wisdom without making oneself flexible and malleable as a
reed ‫כקנה רך הוי‬.

The “reed mat” symbolizes humility for the sake of learning Torah, but only one that has been
designated for use as a shade and not as a sleeping mat is permitted for use. The “sleeping mat”
represents one who has the necessary humility to learn the Torah, but whose overall motives are
impure. This causes him to “lie down” and give up when heaven sends him challenges. But a “reed
mat for shade” represents one who learns, or who at least wants to learn, for the sake of the next
world. Such a mat is indeed kosher.

To the extent that one realizes that one’s learning is a gift, to that extent alone does one travel on
the correct path to true humility, to dwell in the “shadow of wisdom.” (Koheles 7:12)

Rav Baruch Ber Lebovitz, zt”l” l” l, once went to see Rav Chaim Brisker, zt”l” l” l. Rav Chaim
asked his guest, “What do you suppose I have in mind when I say ?‫אתה חונן‬

Rav Baruch Ber answered, “I imagine that the Rav is thinking that he should merit to really
understand a difficult Rambam.” Rav Chaim corrected him. “I am asking Hashem to give me the
understanding that I know nothing.

The ultimate knowledge is to know that I do not know!”

23
Rav Dan Segal, shlit” a, explained this seemingly difficult statement: “Although Rav Chaim knew
that he knew a great deal, he wanted help to internalize the knowledge that everything he knew
was a gift from heaven.

We must realize that every second requires a different measure of siyata dishmaya. ‘‫‘ הדעת חונן‬is
in the present tense, because there are no guarantees. One second does not tell me anything about
the next!”

R. Shuli Passow writes:7

Jazz, Bill Evans once said, is not a what; it’s a how. By this, the great pianist and composer meant
that the ability of jazz to touch the soul comes less from the what of it — the melodies, harmonies,
rhythms — than from the how: the improvisation, how the music and the musician interact in the
creative process. In other words, it is primarily through the form, and only secondarily through the
content, that the mystery and beauty of jazz are revealed.

What’s true of jazz is true of the Talmud, which also communicates much through form. The
economy of language, shakla v’tarya (back and forth) style of argumentation, and rhetorical
process by which the sages arrive at their decisions — all of these teach us something beyond the
words on the page.

On today’s daf we see a clear example of this phenomenon as part of the Gemara’s discussion
of sukkahs that are built in somewhat unusual ways:

Fit roofing that consists of different kinds of agricultural waste products that extend from
the sukkah has the legal status like that of the sukkah.

What is the meaning of: “Waste products that extend from the sukkah?”

Ulla said: Branches that extend behind the sukkah and are not limited to the area within the
sukkah walls.

Visualize it: Someone has built a sukkah whose s’chach (roofing) is made of long branches that
jut out beyond the sukkah walls. According to Ulla, this s’chach extension forms a second kosher
sukkah.

It seems strange that long branches hanging off one sukkah could create a second sukkah. To
understand what’s going on, the Gemara enters into a conversation with itself that reminds me of
the classic Jewish joke, The Riddle. I’ll paraphrase here:

How could this second sukkah be kosher?

Don’t we need three walls underneath the sch’ach?
Nu, this sukkah has three walls.
But don’t we require a minimum area of 7x7 handbreadths for the sukkah to be kosher?

7
Myjewishlearning.com

24
Nu, this sukkah is of the requisite minimum area.
But don’t we require more shade than sunlight?
Nu, this s’chach provides more shade than sunlight.

At this point we have a clearer picture of the situation. Someone wants to build a sukkah but has
only three very long pieces of wood. Rather than build one enormous three-walled sukkah, they
decide to make things cozier by setting up two parallel walls and running the third piece of wood
perpendicular to the others at their midpoints, creating two three-walled spaces of half the size.
The intent of the builder was just to create one smaller sukkah but has now created two. According
to Ulla, in such a situation, if the s’chach placed over the space intended as the sukkah extends
over the other, it creates a second kosher sukkah.

You might ask: Why did we need this teaching at all? The fact that one sukkah extends from
another is irrelevant — all the requirements for being a kosher sukkah are met, so it’s obvious that
this second sukkah would be kosher! The Gemara asks this exact question and answers itself
(again, I paraphrase):

You might have thought that because the middle sukkah wall was built as a wall for the original
sukkah, it can’t be considered a wall for the second sukkah. This teaches us that the initial intention
is irrelevant, and that the middle wall qualifies as a third wall for the second sukkah and the second
sukkah is kosher.

Can't the Gemara tell us this much more succinctly? Instead of all the back and forth about the
walls, the sunlight and the size, the Gemara could have simply said: “Ulla teaches that in a case
where all aspects of the second sukkah are kosher, the initial intention for the original sukkah’s
walls is irrelevant, and its walls can be used to create a second kosher sukkah underneath the
extended s’chach.”

It’s important to note that this bit of discourse is very late. The editor of the Talmud could have
cut to the chase, but instead retains the intellectual methodology of earlier sages, showing us that
the form of the argumentation is as much the point as the bottom-line law.

As Menachem Fisch writes in Rational Rabbis: Science and Talmudic Culture, while
the Mishnah constitutes a textbook that transmits knowledge of rabbinic law, the Gemara serves
as a scientific logbook, which “documents the processes of trial and revision of the knowledge
thus received, as part of the debate that will in turn motivate the framing of the textbooks of
tomorrow.” In other words, the Talmud is not just the what of a legal text, but also the how. It’s
an instructional document that is trying to create rabbinic minds by teaching talmudic thinking.

Whenever we encounter such moments, it’s worth stopping to ask: What is the form of this passage
teaching me about rabbinic methodology? What type of thinking is it asking me to engage in?
Ultimately, this is the goal of Talmud study: Not to know every law, but to learn how to think like
the sages.

25
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

While much of our daf (Sukkah 19b) explores the halachic permissibility of sloped roof sukkah’s,
I was curious to consider the circumstances as to why Rav Yosef was sleeping inside a ‫כילת חתנים‬
– a netted bridal canopy, which then prompted a discussion between him and his student Abaye
about whether a structure without a distinct roof has the legal status of a tent.

However, perhaps we can answer this by noting how Rav Yosef was blind, and that it is possible
that by dwelling in a sukkah, he may have suffered from being in direct sunlight. Given this, Rav
Yosef chose to lie in a netted bridal canopy in a sukkah so that he could fulfil the mitzvah of
Sukkah while the nets would have helped protect his eyes.

Yet notwithstanding this, and though at some point later on in life Rav Yosef forgot his learning,
at this point this was not the case, and Abaye challenged him with the word ‫‘ – כמאן‬according to
which [authority do you rule that a bridal canopy such as this does not constitute a tent]?’. In
response, Rav Yosef quoted a Beraita, and when challenged by Abaye, he countered him once
more.

Sometimes we (foolishly) think that those who have physical limitations are also intellectually
limited as well. Yet the image of Rav Yosef in today’s daf who – as I have suggested - may have
been protecting his eyes with the netted bridal canopy but who – at the same time – robustly
explained why this was permitted serves as a powerful reminder that we should never presume to
think we know the limitations of a person just because a person has some limitations.

Michael Tortorello writes:9

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
9
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/garden/02sukkot.html?.?mc=aud_dev&ad-
keywords=auddevgate&gclid=CjwKCAjwruSHBhAtEiwA_qCppjHXjvDJrtfQyJlntFyM1n-5hV2qNTbHw
9NmkiLWu_6aOvc1bvzLBoC8ucQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

26
With the onset of Sukkot, an increasingly popular Jewish harvest holiday that has lately emerged
from the high, holy shadows of its immediate precursors, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, those
new to celebrating it will no doubt have questions.

You may be wondering, for example, if it’s permissible to build your sukkah, the structure used
during the week-long holiday for dining, entertaining and sometimes sleeping, out of the carcass
of a tethered elephant. Or you may be hoping that you can set it up on the back of a camel. In both
cases, the Talmud tells us, the answer is yes as long as the sukkah has three walls (some scholars
say two and a half) and stands taller than 10 spans and shorter than 20 ells.

If you’re spatially challenged or don’t have a healthy camel or ailing elephant on hand, you may
wonder if there’s an easier way. Again, the answer is yes, thanks to Sukkot’s new currency and to
the plethora of prefab sukkahs. (According to rabbis and sukkah mongers alike, this do-it-yourself
holiday appeals to green sensibilities and a new emphasis on child-centered observance.) It is now
possible to go online and, for a few hundred dollars, order the holiday in a box.

That’s what I did last month in the run-up to Sukkot, which commemorates the Jewish people’s
sojourn in the Sinai and which begins this year on the night of Oct. 13. Instead of ordering just one
sukkah, though, I ordered four, from four different online sellers, to try out a range of religiously
valid shacks. And to help me with the test, I recruited a group of friends most, like me, members
in so-so standing of Minneapolis’s smallish Jewish community, and new converts to sukkah
building.

According to Rabbi Irving Greenberg, a scholar and writer, Sukkot began as a farm workers’ bash,
long before the years of wandering in the desert. The sukkah was a temporary structure for laborers
to sleep in during the rush of the harvest, “before the cold and the locusts came,” Rabbi Greenberg
said. For all the arcane Talmudic dictates, then, the blueprint for a sukkah is basic: It should be
temporary, moveable and partly open to the elements beneath its roof of organic materials; a
decidedly provisional shelter.

This pastoral history may be an important reason for Sukkot’s recent American revival, said Rabbi
David Ellenson, a historian of modern Jewish practice and president of the Hebrew Union College-
Jewish Institute of Religion. “People live in an urban society where many Jews have a frenetic
experience,” he said. “Here you have an opportunity to tap into the agrarian roots of Jewish
tradition.”

27
 MOD POD The author lifts the roof of the New Panels Sukkah, one of four
prefabricated sukkahs, or harvest booths, that he tested for Sukkot

As someone who keeps two apple trees and a pear tree for hard cider, and a raspberry patch for
jam, I felt this draw myself, even as I harbored a certain anxiety about the work that the holiday
would involve. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one: Steve Henry Herman said he started his sukkah
business to help people like me in his own congregation. Mr. Herman and his wife, Judith, run the
Sukkah Project a 12-year-old Chapel Hill, N.C., company whose sales have increased by about
30 percent a year, he said; he expects to ship 1,200 sukkahs this year.

“I felt a mission to help Jewish guys in particular,” Mr. Herman explained. “People who feel
they’re good with their minds but not their hands.” He said he wanted “to show them that they can
do this.”

but I knew I couldn’t. So, the first friend I called was someone who could: Zoe Adler, 36, who
runs HouseWorks, a small architectural design firm in Minneapolis. It’s a mitzvah a commandment
to build a sukkah, and it’s a mitzvah to help a neighbor with his load. That’s how Zoe was
persuaded to sign on for a weekend of Old Testament-style labor.

The seven-page assembly guide to the Hermans’ Tubular Sukkah felt heavier in my hands than the
65-pound carton of parts, and I was glad to relinquish it. That said, presented with a mere 17 pieces
of aluminum pipe and 12 brass fittings, a monkey could probably plug this booth together. (The
Talmud is silent on this question.) The stripped-down skeleton of the sukkah, a plain rectangular
frame, was standing in my side yard 30 minutes after we opened the box.

“There’s not much organic or natural about it,” Zoe said, which turned out to be a compliment. “I
like that it’s totally bare-bones, simple, functional.” The price, $330 plus shipping (at sukkot.com),
impressed us both.

28
The windscreen that served as walls did not, at first, fare so well; it “could be a lot nicer,” Zoe
said, charitably. Grass green and plastic-y, it looked like nothing so much as an oversize lawn bag.
(For an extra $60, you can choose a heavier canvas wrap. Bamboo mat roofs, called s’chach, are
also add-ons; I abandoned cutting underbrush at a bank for a homemade s’chach after a thorn
stabbed half an inch into my thumb.)

The SukkahSoul Sukkah, in the yard of Zoe Adler

bungee loops and balls, Zoe recalled a friend’s instructions to a tailor about how to fit a pencil
skirt: “tight tight tight tight tight tight tight!”

Once the tarp had been stretched (definitely a job for four hands), the fabric became semi-opaque,
and the maple trees and telephone poles outside took on the look of a pixilated screen print. Warhol
in a green period. Or “like something César Chávez could travel with,” as another friend said.
Looked at this way, the model seemed to recall the sukkah’s agrarian past.

Not so the “Kotel,” from Designer Sukkahs by Oorah (designersukkahs.com), with its polyester
screen print of the Western Wall in Jerusalem. (The company also offers patterns called “rich
embroidery” and “classic.”)

“A lot of Jews are drawn to the wall when they visit Israel during the holidays,” said Leah
Sicherman, who does design and marketing for Oorah. “If they can’t be there, they can have a little
bit of it with them at home.”

The Kotel went to the home of my friend Michael Zis and his wife Deb Olkon, who live in a 1914
Arts and Crafts bungalow in South Minneapolis. Their small garden is a tangle of towering lilac
shrubs, ivy and concord grapevines Bilbo Baggins’s backyard and it seemed like cheeky fun to
plant a big, fake super graphic print in the middle.

29
“The frame is actually elegant,” Zoe said. “Everything snaps right together and it’s sturdy like a
jungle gym.” As proof, she lifted herself on a corner and hung for a moment in the air.

The Tubular Sukkah, in the author’s yard, where Nora Cornell, the 5-year-
old daughter of family friends, plays.

BUT where the Tubular Sukkah had an industrial austerity, the $759 (plus shipping) Kotel,
with its bone-colored paint job and stinky vinyl windows, reminded Zoe of a “shower-curtain
kit.” “It’s the difference between the corner hardware store and the Home Depot,” she said.

I had planned to build the New Panels Sukkah (at $1,206 plus shipping for a six-foot-square deluxe
version, the most expensive of the lot) at the home of Bruce Manning and Tricia Cornell. I’ve been
attending their Passover Seder for half a dozen years, and in Minneapolis, a good Passover berth
needs to be nurtured. But given the kit’s more-than-400-pound heft and its seven-foot-long
modular panels, this sukkah wasn’t going anywhere after U.P.S. dropped it off at my place. Instead,
Bruce, who said he was up for a “mitzvah-riffic time,” hauled the family over.

The New Ease is the creation of the Sukkah Depot (sukkahdepot.com), a company started in Israel
that has opened 10 New York outlets in the last decade, and also sells to a largely Orthodox
clientele through Judaica stores across the continent. “It’s the Rolls-Royce of sukkahs,” said Lazer
Cohen, manager of its New York showrooms.

The dark, medium density fiberboard certainly looked to us like it was trying to evoke the refined
dashboard on a Rolls-Royce Phantom. And the anodized aluminum frame made for a clean, sleek
grid around the panels. At the same time, it felt a bit like we were building an office cubicle next
to my weeping larch tree.

30
“The panel system has a lot of potential,” Zoe said. She and Bruce set the metal tongue of one wall
panel against the groove of another and they slid smartly into place. “But this veneer leaves me
cold,” she said. “There’s something corporate about it. It should be carpeted on the inside.”

In the midst of unpacking another carton, Zoe mentioned that in architecture school, she had
designed her own sukkah for a studio project. I wondered, then, if she would bring a judgmental
eye to the architect designed SukkahSoul Sukkah (sukkahsoul.com), a $789 model (plus shipping)
that would stand outside her 1892 Victorian house near the Lake of the Isles.

The SukkahSoul Sukkah, in the yard of Zoe Adler.

shoes. “I started putting up a sukkah with some friends,” she said, “and we had an old kit. It fit
the bill, but it just wasn’t beautiful.”

The sukkah Ms. Shender drew up in response, an open lattice of leaning wooden members and
diaphanous white fabric, was the only one of the four kits I ordered that could be described as
pretty. It was the kind of gauzy shelter where a reality-show bachelor would make his million-
dollar proposal.

. “If you can follow directions, you’ll do fine,” Ms. Shender said. For Zoe’s husband, Josh Resnik,
that proved a big “if.”

“This makes me sick,” Josh said, scanning the photo diagrams of predrilled-holes, crisscrossing
cedar posts and rotating arrows. Josh retreated to look after the couple’s two young boys, and a
walnut tree ably took his place in holding up the partly assembled walls.

31
“It appears more complex than it is,” Zoe said, “which seems odd to say when there’s, like, 44
short bolts.”

The finished frame, while attractive on its own, also seemed evocative of something: a rotated Star
of David, maybe, or a Rockettes troupe made of chopsticks. “It looks like it should be able to twist
and collapse,” Zoe said, “like toothpicks in a cup, when they fall down and cross.”

When the boys were finally asleep and the sukkah was done, Josh ordered take-out Chinese and
sat on the edge of the porch, a safe distance away. “When I was in fourth grade,” he said, “these
two Lubavitcher or Hasidic men brought a sukkah on the top of a van to my Hebrew school. There
were these strange men with huge beards and black suits looming over us. Man, I was scared. I
didn’t go in there again.”

Little could Josh have imagined that 30 years later he would invite a bearded sukkah-toting
stranger without the black suit, granted to loom over his own sons.

Yet the prefab kit has given Josh and perhaps a few other folks a chance to reconsider the sukkah.
It’s standing there now, waiting for him, in his own backyard.

The editor of Daf Ditty gives no opinion as to the halachic authenticity or authority to any of
the claims made by the articles cited

32