Three times a year you shall hold a festival for Me: You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread—eating unleavened bread for seven days as I have commanded you—at the set time in the month^cin the month See note at 13.4. of Abib, for in it you went forth from Egypt; and none shall appear before Me empty-handed; and the Feast of the Harvest, of the first fruits of your work, of what you sow in the field; and the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in the results of your work from the field. Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Sovereign, GOD.

You shall observe the Feast of Weeks, of the first fruits of the wheat harvest; and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your males shall appear before the ETERNAL Sovereign, the God of Israel.

GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Say to the Israelite people:
On the fifteenth day of this seventh month there shall be the Feast of Booths^cBooths In contrast to others “Tabernacles.” to GOD, [to last] seven days. The first day shall be a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations; seven days you shall bring offerings by fire to GOD. On the eighth day you shall observe a sacred occasion and bring an offering by fire to GOD; it is a solemn gathering:^dsolemn gathering Precise meaning of Heb. ʻaṣereth uncertain. Cf. Num. 29.35; Deut. 16.8. you shall not work at your occupations. Those are the set times of GOD that you shall celebrate as sacred occasions, bringing offerings by fire to GOD—burnt offerings, grain offerings, sacrifices, and libations, on each day what is proper to it— apart from the sabbaths of GOD, and apart from your gifts and from all your votive offerings and from all your freewill offerings that you give to GOD. Mark, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the yield of your land, you shall observe the festival of GOD [to last] seven days: a complete rest on the first day, and a complete rest on the eighth day. On the first day you shall take the product of hadar^ehadar Exact meaning of Heb. hadar uncertain. Traditionally the product is understood as “citron.” trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy^fleafy Meaning of Heb. ʻaboth uncertain. trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the ETERNAL your God seven days. You shall observe it as a festival of GOD for seven days in the year; you shall observe it in the seventh month as a law for all time, throughout the ages. You shall live in booths seven days; all citizens in Israel shall live in booths, in order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt—I the ETERNAL your God. So Moses declared to the Israelites the set times of GOD.

On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, you shall observe a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations.—Seven days you shall observe a festival of GOD.— You shall present a burnt offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to GOD: Thirteen bulls of the herd, two rams, fourteen yearling lambs; they shall be without blemish. The grain offerings with them—of choice flour with oil mixed in—shall be: three-tenths of a measure for each of the thirteen bulls, two-tenths for each of the two rams, and one-tenth for each of the fourteen lambs. And there shall be one goat for a purgation offering—in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libation. Second day: Twelve bulls of the herd, two rams, fourteen yearling lambs, without blemish; the grain offerings and libations for the bulls, rams, and lambs, in the quantities prescribed; and one goat for a purgation offering—in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libations. Third day: Eleven bulls, two rams, fourteen yearling lambs, without blemish; the grain offerings and libations for the bulls, rams, and lambs, in the quantities prescribed; and one goat for a purgation offering—in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libation. Fourth day: Ten bulls, two rams, fourteen yearling lambs, without blemish; the grain offerings and libations for the bulls, rams, and lambs, in the quantities prescribed; and one goat for a purgation offering—in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libation. Fifth day: Nine bulls, two rams, fourteen yearling lambs, without blemish; the grain offerings and libations for the bulls, rams, and lambs, in the quantities prescribed; and one goat for a purgation offering—in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libation. Sixth day: Eight bulls, two rams, fourteen yearling lambs, without blemish; the grain offerings and libations for the bulls, rams, and lambs, in the quantities prescribed; and one goat for a purgation offering—in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libations. Seventh day: Seven bulls, two rams, fourteen yearling lambs, without blemish; the grain offerings and libations for the bulls, rams, and lambs, in the quantities prescribed; and one goat for a purgation offering—in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libation.

After the ingathering from your threshing floor and your vat, you shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days. You^gYou See note at 12.5. shall rejoice in your festival, with your son and daughter, your male and female slave, the Levite,^hthe Levite See the second note at 12.12. the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow in your communities. You shall hold a festival for the ETERNAL your God seven days, in the place that GOD will choose; for the ETERNAL your God will bless allⁱall Lit. “you in all.” your crops and all your undertakings, and you shall have nothing but joy. Three times a year—on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Booths—all your males shall appear before the ETERNAL your God in the place that [God] will choose. They shall not appear before GOD empty-handed, but each with his own gift, according to the blessing that the ETERNAL your God has bestowed upon you.

THE precepts of the eighth class are enumerated in “the Section on Seasons” (Sefer zemannim). With a few exceptions, the reasons for all of them are stated in the Law. The object of Sabbath is obvious, and requires no explanation. The rest it affords to man is known; one-seventh of the life of every man, whether small or great, passes thus in comfort, and in rest from trouble and exertion. This the Sabbath effects in addition to the perpetuation and confirmation of the grand doctrine of the Creation. The object of the Fast of Atonement is evident. The Fast creates the sense of repentance; it is the same day on which the chief of all prophets came down [from Mount Sinai] with the second tables, and announced to the people the divine pardon of their great sin; the day was therefore appointed for ever as a day devoted to repentance and true worship of God. For this reason all material enjoyment, all trouble and care for the body, are interdicted, no work may be done; the day must be spent in confession; ever- one shall confess his sins and abandon them. Other holy days are appointed for rejoicing and for such pleasant gathering as people generally need. They also promote the good feeling that men should have to each other in their social and political relations. The appointment of the special days for such purposes has its cause. The reason for the Passover is well known. It is kept seven days, because the period of seven days is the unit of time intermediate between a day and a month. It is also known how great is the importance of this period in Nature, and in many religious duties. For the Law always follows Nature, and in some respects brings it to perfection; for Nature is not capable of designing and thinking, whilst the Law is the result of the wisdom and guidance of God, who is the author of the intellect of all rational beings. This, however, is not the theme of the present chapter: let us return to our subject. The Feast of Weeks is the anniversary of the Revelation on Mount Sinai. In order to raise the importance of this day, we count the days that pass since the preceding festival, just as one who expects his most intimate friend on a certain day counts the days and even the hours. This is the reason why we count the days that pass since the offering of the Omer, between the anniversary of our departure from Egypt and the anniversary of the Lawgiving. The latter was the aim and object of the exodus from Egypt, and thus God said, “I brought you unto myself” (Exod. 19:4). As that great revelation took place only on one day, so we keep its anniversary only one day: but if the eating of unleavened bread on Passover were only commanded for one day, we should not have noticed it, and its object would not have been manifest. For it frequently happens that we take the same kind of food for two or three days. But by our continuing for a whole period [of seven days] to eat unleavened bread, its object becomes clear and evident. New-Year is likewise kept for one day; for it is a day of repentance, on which we are stirred up from our forgetfulness. For this reason the shofar is blown on this day, as we have shown in Mishneh-torah. The day is, as it were, a preparation for and an introduction to the day of the Fast, as is obvious from the national tradition about the days between New-Year and the Day of Atonement. The Feast of Tabernacles, which is a feast of rejoicing and gladness, is kept seven days, in order that the idea of the festival may be more noticeable. The reason why it is kept in the autumn is stated in the Law, “When thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field” (Exod. 23:16); that is to say, when you rest and are free from pressing labours. Aristotle, in the ninth book of his Ethics, mentions this as a general custom among the nations. He says: “In ancient times the sacrifices and assemblies of the people took place after the ingathering of the corn and the fruit, as if the sacrifices were offered on account of the harvest.” Another reason is this—in this season it is possible to dwell in tabernacles, as there is neither great heat nor troublesome rain. The two festivals, Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, imply also the teaching of certain truths and certain moral lessons. Passover teaches us to remember the miracles which God wrought in Egypt, and to perpetuate their memory; the Feast of Tabernacles reminds us of the miracles wrought in the wilderness. The moral lessons derived from these feasts is this: man ought to remember his evil days in his days of prosperity. He will thereby be induced to thank God repeatedly, to lead a modest and humble life. We eat, therefore, unleavened bread and bitter herbs on Passover in memory of what has happened unto us, and leave [on Succoth] our houses in order to dwell in tabernacles, as inhabitants of deserts do that are in want of comfort. We shall thereby remember that this has once been our condition; [comp.] “I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths” (Lev. 23:43); although we dwell now in elegant houses, in the best and most fertile land, by the kindness of God, and because of His promises to our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were perfect in their opinions and in their conduct. This idea is likewise an important element in our religion; that whatever good we have received and ever will receive of God, is owing to the merits of the Patriarchs, who “kept the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment” (Gen. 18:19). We join to the Feast of Tabernacles the Feast of the Eighth Day, in order to complete our rejoicings, which cannot be perfect in booths, but in comfortable and well-built houses. As regards the four species [the branches of the palm tree, the citron, the myrtle, and the willows of the brook] our Sages gave a reason for their use by way of Agadic interpretation, the method of which is well known to those who are acquainted with the style of our Sages. They use the text of the Bible only as a kind of poetical language [for their own ideas], and do not intend thereby to give an interpretation of the text. As to the value of these Midrashic interpretations, we meet with two different opinions. For some think that the Midrash contains the real explanation of the text, whilst others, finding that it cannot be reconciled with the words quoted, reject and ridicule it. The former struggle and fight to prove and to confirm such interpretations according to their opinion, and to keep them as the real meaning of the text; they consider them in the same light as traditional laws. Neither of the two classes understood it, that our Sages employ biblical texts merely as poetical expressions, the meaning of which is clear to every reasonable reader. This style was general in ancient days; all adopted it in the same way as poets [adopt a certain style]. Our Sages say, in reference to the words, “and a paddle (yated) thou shalt have upon thy weapon” [azeneka, Deut. 23:14]: Do not read azeneka, “thy weapon,” but ozneka, “thy ear.” You are thus told, that if you hear a person uttering something disgraceful, put your fingers into your ears. Now, I wonder whether those ignorant persons [who take the Midrashic interpretations literally] believe that the author of this saying gave it as the true interpretation of the text quoted, and as the meaning of this precept: that in truth yated, “the paddle,” is used for “the finger, “and azeneka denotes “thy ear.” I cannot think that any person whose intellect is sound can admit this. The author employed the text as a beautiful poetical phrase, in teaching an excellent moral lesson, namely this: It is as bad to listen to bad language as it is to use it. This lesson is poetically connected with the above text. In the same sense you must understand the phrase, “Do not read so, but so,” wherever it occurs in the Midrash. I have departed from my subject, but it was for the purpose of making a remark useful to every intellectual member of the Rabbanites. I now return to our theme. I believe that the four species are a symbolical expression of our rejoicing that the Israelites changed the wilderness, “no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates, or of water to drink” (Num. 20:5), with a country full of fruit-trees and rivers. In order to remember this we take the fruit which is the most pleasant of the fruit of the land, branches which smell best, most beautiful leaves, and also the best of herbs, i.e., the willows of the brook. These four kinds have also those three purposes: First, they were plentiful in those days in Palestine, so that every one could easily get them. Secondly, they have a good appearance, they are green; some of them, viz., the citron and the myrtle, are also excellent as regards their smell, the branches of the palm-tree and the willow having neither good nor bad smell. Thirdly, they keep fresh and green for seven days, which is not the case with peaches, pomegranates, asparagus, nuts, and the like.

And this halakha that it is not sufficient to place his head out the window applies also to a house even if it is not ten handbreadths high. Since it is a fixed structure it is considered a tent in and of itself, as it is no less permanent than a bed with four posts, which is considered a tent even though the netting is less than ten handbreadths higher than the bed. Some say another version of the previous discussion: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to sleep inside a netted bridal canopy in the sukka since it is inclined and does not have a roof, even though it is ten handbreadths high. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who sleeps in a bed with netting inside the sukka did not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? It is with a bed with netting in a case where, unlike a bridal canopy, it has a roof. Come and hear another question from what we learned: Naklitin are two posts and kinofot are four posts. If one spread a sheet over four posts, the sukka is unfit; if he spread a sheet over two posts the sukka is fit, provided the two posts are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed. It can be inferred from here: But if they are higher than ten handbreadths the sukka is unfit even though it has no roof, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Two posts are different from the bridal canopy because they are fixed in the bed, and therefore the sheet over them is considered a tent even with an inclined roof. The Gemara asks: If they are fixed then let them be considered like four posts and let them render the sukka unfit even when they are less than ten handbreadths high. The Gemara answers: Vis-à-vis four posts, two posts are not considered fixed and therefore, they render the sukka unfit only when they are ten handbreadths higher than the bed. However, vis-à-vis a bed with netting, two posts are considered fixed and consequently, they render the sukka unfit even though they lack a roof. Rabba bar Rav Huna taught: It is permitted to sleep in a bed with netting even though it has a roof and even though it is higher than ten handbreadths. In accordance with whose opinion did Rabba bar Rav Huna teach this halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said that in principle, a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: We were accustomed to sleep beneath the bed before the Elders. Since a bed is a temporary tent relative to the more permanent sukka, even one sleeping beneath a bed is considered to be sleeping in the sukka and he fulfills his obligation in that manner. The Gemara asks: And if the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let him say simply that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: If he said the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said that this applies only to a bed, which is made for use atop it and not beneath it. Perhaps the reason a bed is not considered a tent in and of itself is that its primary purpose is to lie on top of it, not in the space beneath it. However, with regard to a bed with netting, which is made for use of the space within it, say that no, it is indeed considered a tent in and of itself and one who sleeps in it does not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, Rabba bar Rav Huna teaches us that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is that a temporary tent does not come and negate a permanent tent, and there is no difference whether the temporary tent is a bed or whether it is the netting over a bed. MISHNA: If one trellised climbing plants such as a grapevine, or gourd plant, or ivy [kissos], over a sukka while they were still attached to the ground, and then added roofing atop them, the sukka is unfit. If the amount of fit roofing was greater than the plants attached to the ground, or if he cut the climbing plants so that they were no longer attached to the ground, it is fit. This is the principle with regard to the roofing of a sukka: Anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity, e.g., vessels, or its growth is not from the ground, e.g., animal hides, 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 his sukka with it. GEMARA: Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said, citing the mishna: Or if he cut them, it is fit. He added: And Rav said that it is not enough merely to cut the climbing plants; one is obligated to move the branches, thereby performing an action with the branches in order to render the roofing fit. When he placed the climbing plants atop the sukka, they were attached and therefore unfit roofing. When he ultimately cut them, it was as if the sukka were roofed by itself. In that case, the sukka is unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, derived from the verse: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13). Rav Huna said to Rav Yosef: Shmuel stated this halakha. Rav Yosef turned his face away in anger and said to him: Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it, and Shmuel said it as well. What is your point? Rav Huna said to him: This is what I am saying to you, that Shmuel said it and not Rav, as Rav deems the roofing fit merely by cutting them, without moving them, as in that incident where Rav Amram the Pious cast the sky-blue dye, i.e., ritual fringes, upon the garment [pirzuma] of the people of his household. However, he attached them, but did not cut the ends of their strands prior to tying them, i.e., he took a single string, folded it a number of times, and inserted it into the hole in the garment. Since the fringes were uncut when he tied them, he was uncertain whether they were fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva, due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. Rav Amram came before Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi and asked him about the halakhic status of the ritual fringes. He said to him that this is what Rav said: One cuts them into separate strands and they are fit. There is no need to remove them, cut them, and reattach them to the garment as separate strands. Apparently, according to Rav, their cutting is their preparation. Cutting them qualifies as active preparation of the fringes. Here too, in the case of the roofing of a sukka, Rav holds: Their cutting is their preparation, and no further action is required. The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel hold that we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation? But didn’t Shmuel teach in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: If one cast fringes upon two corners of a garment simultaneously by repeatedly inserting one strand into holes in both corners and afterward cut the ends of their strands resulting in two full-fledged fringes, the fringes are fit. What, is it not referring to a case where one ties the fringes as required and afterward cuts them? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a case where he cuts the strands and afterward ties them. The Gemara asks: If the reference is to a case where he cuts the strands and afterward ties them, what need was there to state that the ritual fringes are fit? That is the prescribed manner of preparing ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that in addition to tying the fringes separately

we require that it must be a single corner at the time of threading the strand through the hole. And there is not a single corner in this case, as although he ties the fringes separately, he threads the two corners simultaneously. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that with regard to threading it is not a concern. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one attached the ritual fringes and did not first cut the ends of their strands, they are unfit. What, is it not saying that the ritual fringes are unfit forever with no way to remedy the situation, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: What is the meaning of unfit? It means they are unfit until they will be cut; not that they are unfit forever. And Shmuel said that it means they are unfit forever. And Levi also said: They are unfit forever. And likewise, Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: They are unfit forever. Some say that Rav Mattana said: There was an incident that happened to me involving this uncertainty with regard to ritual fringes, and I came before Master Shmuel and he said to me: They are unfit forever. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a different baraita: If one attached the ritual fringes and only afterward cut the ends of their strands, they are unfit. And furthermore, it is taught in another baraita with regard to a sukka: The verse states: “Prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and from the language of this verse the Sages derived the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. From here the Sages said: If one trellised a grapevine, a gourd plant, or ivy over a sukka while still attached to the ground, and then he added roofing atop the vines, the sukka is unfit. What are the circumstances? If we say that the baraita is referring to a case where he did not subsequently cut the vines, why does the tanna particularly teach that it is unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared? Let him derive that the climbing plants are unfit for roofing due to the fact that they are attached to the ground, unrelated to the manner in which they were placed. Rather, it must be referring to a case where he cut them and nevertheless, the baraita is teaching that the vines are unfit, and learn from it that we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation; and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav. Rav could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he pulled the branches until they broke off the tree. Since, in that case, their active preparation is not conspicuous, it does not render the climbing plants fit roofing. The Gemara asks: In any case, does that which was taught with regard to ritual fringes: If one attached the ritual fringes and only afterward cut their strands, etc., pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it remains difficult according to Rav. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. If black berries grew on a myrtle branch, one of the four species taken on Sukkot, and its berries were more numerous than its leaves, the myrtle branch is unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of taking the four species on Sukkot. However, if one picked enough berries so that the leaves were more numerous, it is fit, although one may not pick the berries on the Festival itself. If he transgressed and picked them on the Festival, it is unfit; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak. And the Rabbis deem it fit in that case. The Gemara proceeds to explain the basis for the comparison between the dispute with regard to the roofing of the sukka and the dispute with regard to the myrtle branch. The Sages initially thought that everyone, Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak and the Rabbis, agrees that in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species, the three species, i.e., the lulav, the myrtle branch, and the willow branch, require a binding by Torah law. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss preparation with regard to this binding. And the Sages also initially thought that everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka, as it is written with regard to sukka: Prepare, from which is derived the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, and the same applies to the halakhot of lulav as well. What, is it not that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the following? That the one who deems the myrtle branch whose berries were picked on the Festival fit, holds that with regard to the branches on a sukka we say: Their cutting is their preparation, and therefore, with regard to berries on the myrtle branch as one of the species bound with the lulav as well, we say: Their picking is their preparation, and no further action is required. And the one who deems it unfit holds that with regard to the branches on a sukka we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation, and therefore, with regard to lulav as well, we do not say: Their picking is their preparation. Therefore, since the myrtle branch was not prepared for use prior to the Festival, and it was bound together with the other species, it is considered already prepared and picking the fruit off the branch is not active preparation sufficient to render it fit. The Gemara rejects that explanation of the dispute. No, the fact is that everyone agrees that we do not say with regard to sukka: Their cutting is their preparation, and here in the case of the myrtle branch, it is with regard to deriving the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka that they disagree. The one who deems the myrtle branch fit holds that we do not derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka, and therefore the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, does not apply to lulav. And the one who deems the myrtle branch unfit holds that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka. And if you wish, say instead: If we hold that lulav requires a binding, everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka and the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, applies to the halakhot of the four species as well. And here it is with regard to the following that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak, holds that the lulav requires a binding, and therefore the myrtle branch is unfit; and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the lulav does not require a binding, and therefore, preparation is not relevant with regard to lulav and it makes no difference whether the berries were picked before or after the myrtle branch was bound together with the lulav and the willow branch. And they disagree with regard to the same topic as in the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow and whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound it is fit; if it is not bound it is unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: “Take a bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, in the context of the four species: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. And the Rabbis hold: We do not derive the term taking from the term taking by means of the verbal analogy. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in this baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow with the lulav. And if he did not bind it, it is fit. If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when one did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why is there a mitzva to bind it at all? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the reason that there is a mitzva to bind it is due to the fact that it is stated: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [ve’anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2), which they interpreted to mean: Beautify yourself [hitna’e] before Him in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render them unfit for the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound. § We learned in the mishna: This is the principle with regard to the roofing of a sukka: One may not roof the sukka with anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity or whose growth is not from the ground. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters with regard to the roofing of a sukka derived? Reish Lakish said that the verse states: “And there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the entire face of the ground” (Genesis 2:6); just as mist, i.e., a cloud, is a substance not capable of contracting ritual impurity, and its growth is from the ground, i.e., arises from the ground, so too, the roofing of the sukka must consist of a substance that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground. Since the mitzva of sukka evokes the clouds of glory with which God enveloped the Israelites in the desert, the legal status of roofing should be like that of a cloud. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that the sukkot mentioned in the verse: “I made the children of Israel to reside in sukkot” (Leviticus 23:43), were clouds of glory, as it is reasonable that the roofing of the sukka is modeled after clouds. However, according to the one who said that the children of Israel established for themselves actual sukkot in the desert, and the sukkot of today commemorate those, what can be said? According to that opinion, there is no connection between a sukka and a cloud. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “I made the children of Israel to reside in sukkot”; these booths were clouds of glory, this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: They established for themselves actual sukkot. This works out well according to Rabbi Eliezer; however, according to Rabbi Akiva what can be said? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13). The expression “festival of Sukkot” likens sukka to the Festival peace-offering [ḥagiga]. Just as the Festival peace-offering is an item not susceptible to ritual impurity, and its growth is from the ground, as animals draw nourishment from vegetation, so too, the roofing of the sukka must be a substance that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground. The Gemara asks: If that juxtaposition is the source of the halakha, say: Just as the Festival peace-offering is brought from animals, so too the sukka roofing should consist of animals. As that is clearly not the case, that verse cannot be the source for the roofing of the sukka. The Gemara cites a different source: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot for seven days as you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and the Sages interpreted that it is with regard to the waste of the threshing floor and of the winepress that the verse is speaking. One uses grain stalks and vines for roofing the sukka, materials that are not susceptible to ritual impurity and grow from the ground. The Gemara asks: And say that the verse teaches that one uses the items placed on the threshing floor itself, i.e., stalks with the grain still attached to them, and the items placed in the winepress itself, i.e., vines with the grapes still attached, as roofing. Grain and grapes, like all foods, are susceptible to ritual impurity. If the verse is interpreted in this manner, the mishna’s criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: “Winepress” is written in the verse here, referring to the wine, and it is impossible to roof with wine. Apparently, the verse is referring to stalks and sheaves but not to produce. Rabbi Yirmeya strongly objects to this: Why can’t a sukka be roofed with wine? Say that it is referring to congealed wine that comes from Senir, from Mount Hermon, which is similar to a cake of figs. Since it is possible to interpret the verse as referring to the use of food for roofing, the mishna’s criteria for roofing fit for a sukka could not be derived from it. Rabbi Zeira said: This matter was in our hands, as we assumed that we found the source in the Torah for the materials fit for roofing, and Rabbi Yirmeya came and took an axe to it. He destroyed the proof by raising the matter of congealed wine. Rav Ashi said: One may nevertheless derive the ruling of the mishna from this verse: “From your threshing floor,” indicating an item that comes from the threshing floor, but not the items placed on the threshing floor, i.e., grain, itself; “from your winepress,” but not the items placed in the winepress, i.e., grapes, itself. The verse is referring to the waste products of the produce placed on the threshing floor and in the winepress. Rav Ḥisda said that proof can be cited from here: “Go forth to the mount and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and the boughs of a dense-leaved tree in order to make sukkot as written” (Nehemiah 8:15). From this verse, the materials for sukka roofing can be derived. Apropos this verse, the Gemara asks: These myrtle branches are the same as those boughs of a dense-leaved tree; why does the verse mention both? Rav Ḥisda said that this is how it is to be understood. The term “myrtle branches” is referring to a wild myrtle, unfit for use as one of the four species, to be used for the roofing of the sukka. And the term “boughs of a dense-leaved tree” is referring to the myrtle, whose leaves overlie each other, to be used for the lulav, the mitzva of the four species. MISHNA: One may not roof a sukka with bundles of straw tied with rope, or bundles of wood, or bundles of twigs. And with regard to all of the bundles, if one untied them, they are fit for use in roofing the sukka, as their lack of fitness is due to the fact that the bundles are tied. And even when tied, all of the bundles are fit for use in constructing the walls of the sukka. GEMARA: Rabbi Ya’akov said: I heard explanations from Rabbi Yoḥanan for two similar halakhot of sukka: One with regard to the halakha in this mishna that bundles may not be used in roofing the sukka, and the other with regard to the mishna below, pertaining to one who hollows out space in a stack of grain by removing sheaves from the bottom of the stack to establish a sukka for him. In that case, the space is surrounded by grain on the sides and above, and therefore it is not a sukka. The rationale for one of the halakhot is due to the decree of the storehouse. Although, fundamentally, the sukka is fit, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting its use, lest one come to use his storehouse as a sukka and fail to establish it properly. And the rationale for one of the halakhot is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, as no active preparation was performed. And I do not know at present which of the halakhot is due to the decree of the storehouse and which of them is due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see and determine which rationale Rabbi Yoḥanan applied to each halakha; as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For what reason did they say that one may not roof a sukka with bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of twigs? It is because sometimes a person comes from the field in the evening, and he has his bundle of wood or straw on his shoulder, and he lifts it and places it atop his storage shed to dry it. And, when the festival of Sukkot arrives, he reconsiders and decides to use the shed as a sukka and the bundle on top of it for roofing. And in that case the roofing would be unfit, as the Torah said: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. From Rabbi Yoḥanan’s formulation, apparently it is unfit due to the decree lest one come to use his storehouse as a sukka and fail to establish it properly, not due to some fundamental prohibition. From the fact that this case of the bundles is prohibited due to the decree of the storehouse, that case of the stack of grain must be prohibited due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. The Gemara asks: And why was Rabbi Ya’akov unable to arrive at Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion based on the halakha cited in his name? The Gemara explains: It is because he did not hear this statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and there was no other proof. Rav Ashi said: The distinction of Rabbi Yoḥanan between these two cases is difficult. Is that to say that bundles of straw and bundles of wood are unfit roofing due to the decree of the storehouse and not due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared? Is that ultimately the principle underlying the decree of the storehouse? And on the other hand, in the case of one who hollows a stack of grain, is the sukka unfit due only to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, but not due to the decree of the storehouse? Rather, there is no distinction between the halakhot and both reasons apply to both. The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you, in response to Rav Ashi, that it is not so because the halakhot are formulated differently in the respective mishnayot. Here, in the mishna pertaining to bundles, where it teaches: One may not roof with them, it is ab initio

"so that you should know"- [meaning: You should] make a Sukkah that [the act] of sitting is recognizable to you, As its stated, " you should know for I have sat you, I've commanded, to sit". This is how he exegesised it, And even though there is a more פשוט way to [explain the verse], that the clouds of glory surrounded [Israel}, Nonetheless, he exegesised it for an exegesis.

which shall serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain.

If the distance from the edge of the dug-out area to the wall was less than three handbreadths then it is fit, as the edge of the dug-out area is joined to the wall of the sukka based on the principle of lavud. The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the case of a sukka with a platform in its center, that you said that it is a fit sukka if the wall is at a distance of less than four cubits from the edge of the platform, and what is different here that you said the wall must be at a distance of less than three handbreadths for the sukka to be fit? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the sukka more than twenty cubits high, where there already is a wall, but it is removed from the platform, as long as the wall is at a distance of less than four cubits, it is sufficient to render the sukka fit. Here, where the sukka is less than ten handbreadths high, its wall is not a fit wall. In order to render it a wall by adding the height of the dug-out area, if the distance between them is less than three handbreadths, yes, the dug-out area is considered joined to the wall, as based on the principle of lavud two objects are considered joined if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths; and if not, no, they are not considered joined. If a sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and one built a pillar in the sukka, far from the walls, that is ten handbreadths high, and the distance from the top of the column to the roofing was less than twenty cubits, and on the horizontal surface of the column there is a bit more than seven by seven handbreadths, the minimum area required for fitness of a sukka, Abaye thought to say that this is a fit sukka because of the principle: Extend and raise the partitions of this pillar. Given that the column is at least ten handbreadths high, its four sides are therefore considered partitions, and the halakha is that the legal status of a partition is as if it extends and continues upwards indefinitely. Based on that perspective, the surface of the column is supported by four partitions at least ten handbreadths high that extend upward indefinitely, and from the top of the pillar to the roof is less than twenty cubits; therefore, this squared column forms a fit sukka. Rava said to Abaye: That is not so, since in order to have a fit sukka we require conspicuous partitions, and there are none, as the sides of the column do not actually project above the surface. § The Sages taught: If one inserted four posts [kundeisin] into the floor and placed roofing over them but no walls, Rabbi Ya’akov deems it a fit sukka and the Rabbis deem it unfit. Rav Huna said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ya’akov is in a case where the four posts are aligned on the edge of the roof, directly above the exterior walls of a house, as Rabbi Ya’akov holds that we say the principle: Extend and raise the partitions. Since the exterior walls of the house are full-fledged partitions, they are considered as extending upward indefinitely, constituting the walls of the sukka. And the Rabbis hold that we do not say the principle: Extend and raise the partitions. However, if the posts are placed in the center of the roof, then the walls of the house are irrelevant and everyone agrees that it is an unfit sukka. And Rav Naḥman said: The dispute is in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof, as according to Rabbi Ya’akov, if the posts themselves are one handbreadth wide, they serve as the partitions, while the Rabbis hold that it is not a fit sukka until it has two complete walls and a partial third wall. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rav Naḥman saying that only if the sukka is in the center of the roof there is a dispute between Rabbi Ya’akov and the Rabbis, but if it is at the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit? Or perhaps he is saying that there is a dispute both in this case and in that case? No resolution was found, so the dilemma shall stand unresolved. The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: If one drove four posts into the ground and placed roofing over them, Rabbi Ya’akov deems it fit and the Rabbis deem it unfit. But isn’t the legal status of the ground like that of the center of the roof, as it is not surrounded by partitions that extend upward, and nevertheless Rabbi Ya’akov deems it fit? This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that everyone agrees that a sukka in the center of the roof is unfit. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of Rav Huna’s opinion. And furthermore, there is an additional refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna. It is apparent from this baraita that they disagree with regard to the case of posts inserted in the center of the roof; however, in the case of the posts inserted on the edge of the roof everyone agrees that it is fit. Let us say, then, that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna on two counts. First, with regard to his statement that everyone agrees in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof that it is unfit, while the baraita cites a dispute on the matter; second, with regard to his statement that there is a dispute in the case of a sukka on the edge of the roof, while the baraita indicates that everyone agrees that it is fit. The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna could have said to you that there is no proof from the baraita with regard to the second matter, as it is possible that they disagree in the case of a sukka in the center of the roof and that the same is true in the case of a sukka on the edge of the roof. And the fact that they specifically dispute the case of a sukka in the center of the roof is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who deems the sukka fit even in the center of the roof. The Sages taught: If one inserted four posts into the ground and placed a roof over them, Rabbi Ya’akov says: One considers whether the posts are wide enough that if they were grooved and split, forming a piece of wood with two segments at a right angle, and they have a handbreadth to here, in this direction, and a handbreadth to there, in that direction, then they are considered a double post [deyumad]. With regard to certain halakhot, the status of a double post positioned at a corner is that of two full-fledged partitions. And if not, if after splitting them they are narrower than that, they are not considered a double post, as Rabbi Ya’akov would say: The minimum measure of double posts of a sukka to be considered full-fledged partitions is one handbreadth. And the Rabbis say: The sukka is fit only if it has two full-fledged partitions in the standard sense, completely closing each of those two sides, and a third wall, which, based on a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, measures even a handbreadth. § The mishna continues: A sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high is unfit. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It was stated that Rav, and Rabbi Ḥanina, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rav Ḥaviva taught the matter below. As an aside, the Gemara notes: Throughout the entire order of Mo’ed, wherever this second pair of Sages is mentioned, there are some amora’im who replace Rabbi Yoḥanan and do so by inserting Rabbi Yonatan in his place. And this is what they taught: The Ark of the Covenant was itself nine handbreadths high, as it is stated explicitly in the Torah that it was one and a half cubits high and the cubit used to measure Temple vessels consisted of six handbreadths. And the Ark cover was one handbreadth thick. There is a total height of ten handbreadths here. And it is written: “I will meet with you there and I will speak with you from above the Ark cover” (Exodus 25:22), and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The Divine Presence never actually descended below, and Moses and Elijah never actually ascended to heaven on high, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and the earth He gave to the children of man” (Psalms 115:16), indicating that these are two distinct domains. Apparently, from ten handbreadths upward is considered a separate domain. Consequently, any sukka that is not at least ten handbreadths high is not considered an independent domain and is unfit. The Gemara asks: And did the Divine Presence never descend below ten handbreadths? But isn’t it written: “And God descended onto Mount Sinai” (Exodus 19:20)?
The Gemara answers: Although God descended below, He always remained ten handbreadths above the ground. Since from ten handbreadths and above it is a separate domain, in fact, the Divine Presence never descended to the domain of this world.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And on that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives” (Zechariah 14:4)? The Gemara answers: Here, too, He will remain ten handbreadths above the ground. The Gemara asks: And did Moses and Elijah never ascend to the heavens on high? But isn’t it written: “And Moses went up to God” (Exodus 19:3)?
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, he remained below ten handbreadths adjacent to the ground.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind heavenward” (II Kings 2:11)?
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “He grasps the face of the throne, and spreads His cloud upon him” (Job 26:9)? And Rabbi Tanḥum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread of the radiance of His Divine Presence and of His cloud upon him. Apparently, Moses was in the cloud with God.
The Gemara answers: Here, too, it was below ten handbreadths. The Gemara asks: In any case: “He grasps the face of the throne,” is written, indicating that Moses took hold of the Throne of Glory. The Gemara rejects this: The throne was extended for him down to ten handbreadths and Moses grasped it; however, he remained below ten handbreadths. And since the Divine Presence speaks to Moses from above the Ark cover ten handbreadths above the ground, clearly a height of ten handbreadths is a distinct domain. The Gemara wonders about the proof offered: Granted, the height of the Ark was nine handbreadths, as it is written: “And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height” (Exodus 25:10), and one and a half cubits equal nine handbreadths. However, from where do we derive the fact that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth? The Torah never states its dimensions explicitly, as Rabbi Ḥanina taught: For all the vessels that Moses crafted for the Tabernacle, the Torah provided in their regard the dimension of their length, the dimension of their width, and the dimension of their height. However, for the Ark cover, the Torah provided the dimension of its length and the dimension of its width; but the Torah did not provide the dimension of its height. The Gemara answers: Go out and learn from the smallest dimension mentioned in connection with any of the Tabernacle vessels, as it is stated with regard to the shewbread table: “And you shall make unto it a border of a handbreadth around” (Exodus 25:25). Just as there, the frame measures one handbreadth, so too, here, the thickness of the Ark cover measures a single handbreadth. The Gemara asks: And let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the vessels themselves, the smallest of which measures a cubit. The Gemara answers: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. If there are two possible sources from which to derive the dimension of the Ark cover, then without conclusive proof one may not presume that the Torah intended to teach the larger dimension. Rather, the presumption is that the Torah is teaching the smaller dimension, which is included in the larger measure. The Gemara asks: If so, let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate, which is even smaller than a handbreadth, as it is taught in a baraita: The frontplate is a type of plate made of gold that is two fingerbreadths wide and stretches from ear to ear. And written upon it are two lines: The letters yod, heh, vav, heh, the name of God, above; and the word kodesh, spelled kuf, dalet, shin, followed by the letter lamed, below. Together it spelled kodesh laHashem, meaning: Sacred to the Lord, with yod, heh, vav, heh written on the upper line in deference to the name of God. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the frontplate in the emperor’s treasury in Rome, where it was taken together with the other Temple vessels when the Temple was destroyed, and upon it was written: Sacred to the Lord, on one line. Why not derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the frontplate and say that it was only two fingerbreadths? The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of an ornament. The frontplate is not one of the Tabernacle vessels but one of the ornaments of the High Priest. The Gemara suggests: Let us derive the thickness of the Ark cover from the crown featured atop several of the Tabernacle vessels, as the Master said: This crown, with regard to which the Torah did not specify its dimensions, could be any size. The Gemara answers: One derives the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of a vessel, and one does not derive the dimension of a vessel from the dimension of the finish of a vessel that serves decorative purposes. The Gemara asks: If it is so that one does not derive the dimensions of a vessel from the dimensions of the finish of a vessel, then how can dimensions be derived from the border of the table, which is also the finish of a vessel and not an integral part of the table? The Gemara answers: The border of the table was below, between the legs of the table, and the tabletop rested upon it. As it supports the table, it is an integral part of the table and not merely decoration. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that its border was below the tabletop; however, according to the one who said that its border was above the tabletop, what can be said? According to that opinion, this border is indeed the finish of a vessel. Rather, the thickness of the Ark cover must be derived from a different source. One derives the missing dimensions of an object for which the Torah provided part of its dimension, e.g., the Ark cover, for which the Torah provided the dimensions of length and width, from an object for which the Torah provided its dimension, e.g., the border of the table. And the frontplate and the crown, for which the Torah did not provide any dimension at all, and their dimensions were determined by the Sages, will not prove anything. It is certainly appropriate to derive the dimension of the thickness of the Ark cover from that which was stated clearly in the Torah. Rav Huna said that the thickness of the Ark cover is derived from here: “Upon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the east” (Leviticus 16:14), and there is no face [panim] of a person that measures less than one handbreadth. The Gemara asks: And why say that the face in the verse is specifically the face of a person? Say that the Ark cover is like the face of a bird called bar Yokhani, whose face is significantly larger than a handbreadth? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. The Gemara asks: If so, say that it is like the face of a bird, which is extremely small? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Rav Huna derives that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth not through an actual comparison to the real faces of different creatures but rather by means of a verbal analogy between the terms penei and penei written in different places in the Torah. It is written here: “Before [penei] the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2), and it is written there: “From the presence of [penei] Isaac his father” (Genesis 27:30). The dimension of the Ark cover is like that of the face of a person, a handbreadth. The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of God, as it is written: “For I have seen your face as one sees the face of [penei] God, and you were pleased with me” (Genesis 33:10). The term penei is used with regard to the face of God as well. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. The Gemara suggests: And let us derive a verbal analogy from the face of the cherub in the Tabernacle and the Temple, as it is written: “Toward the Ark cover shall be the faces of [penei] the cherubs” (Exodus 25:20), and their faces were presumably smaller than one handbreadth. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: We have learned through tradition that the faces of the cherubs were not smaller than a handbreadth, and indeed Rav Huna derived the thickness of the Ark cover from here as well, i.e., from the verbal analogy between the instances of the word penei in the verses: “Upon the face of [penei] the Ark cover on the east” and: “The faces [penei] of the cherubs,” indicating that both are the same size. Apropos the cherubs, the Gemara asks: And what is the form of the face of a cherub [keruv]? Rabbi Abbahu said: Like that of a child [keravya], as in Babylonia one calls a child ravya. Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so, what is the meaning of that which is written about the faces of the celestial beasts drawing the celestial chariot: “The face of the first was the face of the cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a man” (Ezekiel 10:14)? According to your explanation, this face of the cherub is the same as that face of a man. The Gemara answers: Although two of the celestial beasts drawing that chariot had the face of a man, the difference between them is that one was a large face and one was a small face. In other words, the face described as the face of a man was the face of an adult, and the face described as the face of a cherub was that of a child. This is the source that the Ark and the Ark cover were ten handbreadths high. However, with regard to the application of this measure to the halakhot of sukka, the Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the interior space of the sukka must be ten handbreadths high without the thickness of the roofing? Say that the ten handbreadths of the sukka are with the thickness of the roofing. Just as the ten handbreadths of the Ark are measured from the bottom of the Ark to the top of the Ark cover, let the sukka be measured to the top of the roofing. Rather, the dimension of the sukka is not derived from the Ark; one instead derived it from the dimensions of the eternal Temple, as it is written: “And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits” (I Kings 6:2). And it is written: “The height of the first cherub was ten cubits, and likewise was the second cherub” (I Kings 6:26). And it is taught in a baraita: Just as we find in the eternal Temple that the cherubs stand reaching one-third the height of the Temple, as each cherub was ten cubits high and the Temple was thirty cubits high, in the Tabernacle as well, the cherubs stand reaching one-third the height of the Tabernacle. And to calculate: How many cubits high was the Tabernacle? It was ten cubits, as it is written: “Ten cubits shall be the length of a beam” (Exodus 26:16). How many handbreadths do these ten cubits contain? They contain sixty handbreadths. And one third of that total is how many? It is twenty handbreadths. Subtract from this figure ten handbreadths of the Ark and the Ark cover upon which the cherubs stood, and ten handbreadths remain, which was the height of each individual cherub. And it is written: “And the cherubs shall spread out their wings upward, screening [sokhekhim] the Ark cover with their wings” (Exodus 25:20). Here the Merciful One is referring to the wings using the terminology of roofing [sekhakha] specifically when they are ten handbreadths above the Ark cover. This is a source that the roofing of the sukka is placed at least ten handbreadths high. The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that their wings were spread above their heads, from which it is derived that roofing is ten handbreadths high? Perhaps they were spread level with their heads. In that case, the ten handbreadths derived would include the roofing, leaving the interior space of the sukka less than ten handbreadths high. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that it is written: “Spread out their wings upward,” indicating that the wings were above their heads. The Gemara asks: If so, say that the wings were extremely high to an unspecified height. The Gemara answers: Does the verse say: Upward, upward? It says upward only once, meaning slightly over their heads. There is proof from the verses that the roofing was at least ten handbreadths off the ground. The Gemara asks: This calculation works out well according to Rabbi Meir, who said that all the cubits in the Tabernacle and the Temple were intermediate cubits, consisting of six handbreadths; however, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the cubit used in the dimensions of a building in the Temple was a cubit consisting of six handbreadths, but the cubit used in the dimensions of vessels was a cubit consisting of only five handbreadths, what is there to say? Based on that calculation, how many handbreadths was the height of the Ark and the Ark cover? They totaled eight and a half handbreadths. The height of the Ark was one and a half cubits, which, based on a five-handbreadth cubit, equals seven and a half handbreadths. Including the additional handbreadth of the Ark cover, the total height is eight and a half handbreadths. If the cherubs were one third of the height of the Tabernacle, which is twenty handbreadths, eleven and a half handbreadths remain for the height of the cherubs, over which their wings were spread. Therefore, say that for a sukka to be fit for use its interior space must be eleven and a half handbreadths high. However, there is no recorded opinion that requires a sukka with that dimension. Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Sages learned the minimum height of a sukka as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The measures in various areas of halakha, e.g., olive-bulk, dried fig-bulk, egg-bulk, and the various halakhot of interpositions that serve as a barrier between one’s body and the water in a ritual bath and invalidate immersions, and the dimensions and nature of halakhic partitions are all halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. They were not written in the Torah; rather, they were received in the framework of the Oral Law. The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah, as it is written: “A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav Ḥanin said: This entire verse is stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah. Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure when entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus, chapter 14), and his clothes are draped over his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure.

"For refuge and cover..." - And without four walls, it is no refuge from the storm, in that the wind drives the storm through the incomplete wall.

descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought? Although an unfinished vessel ordinarily cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided to leave it in its unfinished state, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. However, they ascend from their state of ritual impurity only by means of a change resulting from an action. Merely deciding to complete the unfinished vessel does not alter its status. It loses its status as a vessel only when he takes action to complete it. Action negates status created by action and status created by thought; however, thought negates neither status created by action nor status created by thought. Therefore, once the straw of the grain harvested for food is considered a handle and is susceptible to ritual impurity, its status cannot be negated by thought alone. And if you say: There is a distinction between the cases, as this principle applies only to vessels, which are significant, but with regard to handles that are not independently significant but are merely for the purpose of handling food, perhaps by means of thought they become handles and by means of thought they emerge from that status; but didn’t we learn in the mishna to the contrary? All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, as through one’s actions he indicated that has no use for them and does not consider them significant. And Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to the one who said that besasan means that one untied their binding, it works out well. Although no action was performed on the sheaves, nevertheless, since their only purpose is to facilitate binding the sheaves, he indicated by unbinding them that the handles no longer suit his needs. However, according to the one who said: What is the meaning of besasan? It means he actually trampled them, what can be said? According to that opinion, only an action can negate the status of the handles. What, then, is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that thought alone can negate their status? The Gemara answers: Here too, the dispute between the Rabbis and Aḥerim with regard to using grain for roofing the sukka is in a case where one actually trampled them, and that is the reason that they are no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: If so, and a change was made to the grain itself, what is the rationale for the opinion of Aḥerim, who nevertheless prohibit their use as roofing? The Gemara answers: It is because Aḥerim state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in the previously cited mishna: Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure even after trampling. The Gemara asks: What is the basis of this comparison between the cases? Granted, there, in the dispute concerning the ritual impurity of the grain on the threshing floor, the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that the handles remain susceptible to ritual impurity, is that they are suitable for use. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork, as the straw prevents the grain from falling between the prongs of the pitchfork. However, here, where one needs the straw only for roofing the sukka, for what are the handles suited after they have been trampled? They serve no purpose in terms of handling the grain. The Gemara answers: They are suited when one dismantles the roofing, in order to hold the grain by the straw, so that it will scatter. Therefore, Aḥerim hold that the straw remains capable of contracting ritual impurity. Apropos the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: All handles of food that one besasan on the threshing floor are ritually pure, and Rabbi Yosei deems them capable of becoming ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of besasan? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It means that one actually trampled them under foot. Rabbi Elazar says: It means he untied their binding. The Gemara notes: Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who said that besasan means that he untied their binding, this is the reason that Rabbi Yosei deems the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that besasan means that one actually trampled them, why does Rabbi Yosei deem the handles capable of contracting ritual impurity? Didn’t one thereby render them insignificant? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even after the grain is trampled, the straw suits his needs, since the straw is suited to facilitate turning over the grain with a pitchfork. Apropos a pitchfork, the Gemara cites a related aggadic teaching: Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork [eter]? It is written: “And Isaac entreated [vayetar] the Lord for his wife, because she was barren” (Genesis 25:21), to say to you: Just as this pitchfork overturns the grain on the threshing floor from place to place, so too, the prayers of the righteous overturn the mind of the Holy One, Blessed be He, from the attribute of cruelty to the attribute of mercy, and He accepts their prayers. MISHNA: One may roof the sukka with boards like those used in the ceiling of a house; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir prohibits their use. If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board. GEMARA: Rav said: The dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, the standard size for boards used in house ceilings, as Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. In that case, the roofing of the sukka with boards that wide could be confused with a ceiling. If it were permitted to roof the sukka with a board that size, one might come to sleep beneath the ceiling of his own home during the Festival. And Rabbi Yehuda is not of the opinion that the Sages issued the decree of the roof. However, with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. And Shmuel said: The dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width; however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit. The Gemara asks: According to Shmuel, the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, and apparently the same would hold true even if their width were less than three handbreadths. In that case, aren’t they merely reeds; why would Rabbi Meir prohibit their use? Rav Pappa said that this is what Shmuel is saying: If they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that the sukka is unfit. If their width is less than three handbreadths, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit. What is the reason? It is because they are merely reeds. When they disagree in the mishna, their disagreement pertains to a case where the boards are from three to four handbreadths wide. In that case, one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that since they are not the measure of a significant place, we do not issue a decree prohibiting their use. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that since they have departed from the halakhic status of being joined [lavud], which applies only to gaps of less than three handbreadths, we issue a decree prohibiting their use as roofing. The Gemara cites proof with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: If one placed a board that is four handbreadths wide atop the sukka, the sukka is fit. He fulfills his obligation, provided he does not sleep beneath the board. Granted, according to Shmuel, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that do not have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit roofing, it is due to that reason that one should not sleep beneath the board. However, according to Rav, who said that the dispute is with regard to boards that have four handbreadths in their width, however, if they do not have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is fit, according to Rabbi Yehuda, why may one not sleep beneath it? The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this last halakha in the mishna, about not sleeping beneath the board, is a ruling with which everyone, including Rabbi Yehuda agrees? Rather, in the latter clause of the mishna we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. He alone, not Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one may not sleep beneath the board. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the mishna. The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: Two sheets placed over the roofing of the sukka join together to constitute four handbreadths, the measure of unfit roofing that renders a sukka unfit.

Similarly, they prohibited using boards that are [at least] four tefachim wide as schach, even they are placed on their sides that are less than four tefachim wide. If their width is less than four tefachim they are valid, even if they are filed down to resemble tools. And our custom is not to use them as schach at all.

the baraita means that ritual fringes do not have a maximum measure, i.e., the strings can be as long as one wants; however, they do have a minimum measure, and if the strings are shorter than this measure they are not fit. As, if you do not say so, in a case similar to it, where it is taught that a lulav has no measure, is it possible that it also has no measure whatsoever? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sukka 29b): A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva? This indicates that if the lulav is less than the measure, it is not fit. Rather, it must be that a lulav has no maximum measure, but it does have a minimum measure. So too, ritual fringes have no maximum measure, but they have a minimum measure. § The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That they prepare for themselves strings” (Numbers 15:38). The term strings [tzitzit] means nothing other than strings that hang down [anaf], and so it states in the verse: “I was taken by a lock [betzitzit] of my head” (Ezekiel 8:3). And Abaye says: And one is required to separate the ritual fringes like a gentile’s lock of hair, part of which is braided and the rest of which is allowed to hang loose. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one affixed the ritual fringes to the tip of the corner or to the border [gadil], they are fit. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov disqualifies them in both cases. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says: Ritual fringes must be inserted into a hole above the corner and hang down onto the corner of the garment, as it is stated: “On the corners of their garments” (Numbers 15:38)? In accordance with whose opinion is this? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Rabbi Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And one must distance the hole through which the ritual fringes are inserted into the garment the length of a full thumb joint from the edge of the garment. The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to state the ruling of Rav Pappa (41b) that the ritual fringes must be inserted into a hole within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment, and it was also necessary to state the ruling of Rabbi Ya’akov. This is because if the location of the hole was taught only from the statement of Rav Pappa, I would say that his ruling that the hole must be within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the garment was to teach that one may not distance the hole from the edge of the garment by more than this amount, but the closer the hole is to the edge of the garment, the better. Consequently, it was necessary to include the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. And if the location of the hole was taught only from the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov, I would say that his ruling that it must be a full thumb joint away from the edge of the garment was to teach that one may not situate the hole closer than that to the edge of the garment, but the further he places it, the better. Therefore, both statements were necessary. The Gemara relates that Ravina and Rav Samma were sitting before Rav Ashi. Rav Samma saw that the corner of Ravina’s cloak was torn and therefore the hole through which the ritual fringes were inserted was less than the full length of a thumb joint from the edge of the garment. Rav Samma said to Ravina: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Ya’akov that the hole must be at least the length of a thumb joint from the edge of the garment? Ravina said to Rav Samma: It was stated that this distance is required at the time when the ritual fringes are made. If the corner tears later, causing the hole to be closer to the edge of the garment, the ritual fringes remain fit. Rav Samma became embarrassed because he had asked his question based on a mistaken assumption. Rav Ashi said to Rav Samma: Do not be upset that Ravina is a greater scholar than you are; one of them, i.e., the Sages of Eretz Yisrael, is like two of us, i.e., the Sages of Babylonia. § With regard to attaching ritual fringes to a garment, the Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would affix four strings to the garment, and he would first fold them in half and then insert them at the point of the folds into the hole of the garment, so that on one side there were eight strings and on the other side there were four loops. He would then take the eight strings and loop them through the four loops and pull them tight, thereby attaching them to the garment. The Gemara explains that he held that we require eight strings when they are initially placed in the garment, in order that there be twisted cord and “twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12), i.e., four doubled strings, at the place, i.e., the time, when he creates the loose hanging string. Rav Yirmeya of Difti would affix eight strings that are sixteen strings after they are placed in the hole of the garment and half of each string hangs down on each side, and he would not loop them as Rav Aha bar Ya’akov did. Mar, son of Ravina, would prepare ritual fringes like ours, placing four strings through the hole and allowing both ends of each string to hang down, thereby forming eight. § The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman found Rav Adda bar Ahava affixing strings to a garment and reciting the blessing that concludes: To prepare ritual fringes [tzitzit]. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Adda bar Ahava: What is this tzitzi sound that I hear? This is what Rav says: Ritual fringes do not require a blessing when one attaches them to the garment. With regard to this statement of Rav, the Gemara relates that when Rav Huna died, Rav Ḥisda went into the study hall to raise a contradiction from one statement of Rav to another statement of Rav, as follows: Did Rav actually say that ritual fringes do not require a blessing when one attaches them to the garment? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: From where is it derived that ritual fringes attached by a gentile are unfit? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Speak unto the children of Israel and command them that they prepare for themselves strings” (Numbers 15:38). The Sages derive from here that the children of Israel shall prepare ritual fringes, but the gentiles shall not prepare ritual fringes. The Gemara asks: But what is the contradiction between these two statements of Rav? Rav Yosef said: Rav Ḥisda held that in the case of any mitzva for which the necessary item is fit when produced by a gentile, if it is produced by a Jew, he does not need to recite a blessing. Conversely, any mitzva for which the necessary item is unfit when produced by a gentile, if it is produced by a Jew, he needs to recite a blessing when he produces the item. The Gemara asks: And is this an established principle? But what about circumcision, which is valid if performed by a gentile, as it is taught in a baraita: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is an Aramean, i.e., a gentile, physician and a Samaritan physician, it is preferable that the Aramean circumcise the Jewish boys of the city and the Samaritan not circumcise them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is preferable that the Samaritan circumcise the boys and the Aramean not circumcise them. Nevertheless, all agree that a circumcision performed by a gentile is valid. And despite the fact that circumcision performed by a gentile is valid, when it is performed by a Jew, he must recite a blessing, as the Master said: The one who circumcises a child says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning circumcision. The Gemara answers: Is there reason to resolve the contradiction according to anyone but Rav? Rav himself invalidates circumcision performed by a gentile, as it was stated: From where is it derived that circumcision performed by a gentile is not valid? Daru bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: This is derived from the verse: “And God said unto Abraham: And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). The verse indicates that only the descendants of Abraham may perform circumcision. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this halakha is derived from the doubled verb in the verse: “Must be circumcised [himmol yimmol]” (Genesis 17:13), which he interprets to mean: Only one who is circumcised [hammal] may circumcise [yamul] others. The Gemara notes that the halakha with regard to a sukka supports the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that when an item used for a mitzva can be created by a gentile, a Jew who creates it does not recite a blessing. And the halakha with regard to phylacteries is a conclusive refutation of his opinion. The Gemara explains: A sukka is fit even if it was built by a gentile, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a booth built by gentiles, a booth built by women, a booth for domesticated animals, a booth built by Samaritans, a booth of any sort, each is fit for use as a sukka, provided that it is roofed in accordance with the halakha. And if a sukka was built by a Jew, he is not required to recite a blessing upon its construction, as it is taught in a baraita: One who constructs a sukka for himself recites: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he comes to sit in the sukka, he recites: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us to reside in the sukka. The Gemara notes that the baraita indicates that he recites a blessing at the time of construction, whereas he does not recite a blessing including the words: To construct a sukka, which confirms the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. By contrast, the halakha with regard to phylacteries is a conclusive refutation of Rav Ḥisda’s opinion. Phylacteries are unfit when written by a gentile, as it is taught by Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rava,

What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in the lower sukka, its shade is greater than its sunlight, rendering the sukka fit, and in the upper sukka, its sunlight is greater than its shade and it is therefore insignificant, and the roofing of both is within twenty cubits of the ground. And there are times when the upper sukka is fit and the lower sukka is unfit. What are the circumstances? It is in a case where in both sukkot their shade is greater than their sunlight, and the roofing of the upper sukka is within twenty cubits of the roofing of the lower one. In this case the upper sukka is fit, while the lower sukka is a sukka beneath a sukka and is unfit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. There is nothing novel in any of these scenarios. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the case where the lower sukka is fit and the upper sukka is unfit, as it contains a novel element. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree and deem the lower sukka unfit, as perhaps the unfit roofing of the upper sukka joins together with the fit roofing of the lower sukka and renders it unfit as well; therefore, the tanna teaches us that the two roofings do not join together and the upper roofing does not render the lower sukka unfit. The Gemara elucidates this halakha. How much space shall there be between the roofing of the upper sukka and the roofing of the lower sukka for the lower sukka to be considered a discrete entity and therefore disqualified as a sukka beneath a sukka? Rav Huna said: There must be a handbreadth of space, as we likewise find in tents of ritual impurity the measure of a handbreadth. With regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, the legal status of the space of one handbreadth beneath a roof is that of a tent, as we learned in a mishna: A space measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth with a height of one handbreadth transmits ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse is in that space, the impurity is transmitted to all people, vessels, and food in that space. And a space that size serves as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity beyond that space. However, if the space measures less than the height of one handbreadth, it does not transmit impurity to the objects in that space, and it does not serve as a barrier before the spread of ritual impurity. The impurity breaches the confining walls and rises upward as if there were no covering over it. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: For this to be considered a sukka beneath a sukka, the space between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least four handbreadths, as we do not find a significant area that measures less than four handbreadths, e.g., with regard to the domains of Shabbat. And Shmuel said: The space between the roofing of the upper sukka and that of the lower one must measure at least ten handbreadths. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara explains: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness; just as its fitness is only in a sukka ten handbreadths high, so too, its unfitness as a sukka is engendered only by a sukka ten handbreadths high. The Gemara questions Shmuel’s statement: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are no residents in the upper sukka, the lower sukka is fit. The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: There are no residents? If we say that it means that there are no actual residents, the question arises: Is that to say that residents cause it to be unfit? If the upper sukka is a fit sukka, is there any difference whether or not people reside there? Rather, what is the meaning of: There are no residents? Is it not referring to any sukka that is not suitable to serve as a residence? And what are the circumstances of that case? It is a case where the sukka is not ten handbreadths high, as anything less than ten handbreadths high is not considered a residence. From the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda who distinguishes between whether or not the upper sukka is at least ten handbreadths high, conclude by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that the lower sukka is unfit even if the upper sukka is less than ten handbreadths high and therefore not suitable to serve as a residence. This is contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that the Sages say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in explanation of the mishna: If the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, then the lower sukka is fit, as the upper sukka is not suitable to serve as an independent residence. According to this explanation, the mishna does not discuss the height of the upper sukka; it discusses the quality of the roofing. The Gemara notes: Is that to say by inference that the first tanna holds that even though the roofing of the lower sukka is not sufficiently sturdy to be able to support the cushions and blankets of the upper sukka, the lower sukka is unfit? In that case, the upper sukka is not a suitable residence. Why should the lower sukka be unfit? The Gemara answers: The first tanna agrees that if the roofing of the lower sukka is unable to support the cushions and the blankets at all, the upper sukka is not considered a sukka and the lower sukka is fit. However, there is a practical difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda in a case where the roofing of the lower sukka is able to support the cushions and the blankets of the upper sukka with difficulty and there is a concern that the roofing might collapse. In that case, the first tanna holds that since the roofing is capable of supporting the cushions and blankets, the upper sukka is considered a separate sukka and renders the lower sukka unfit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, since the roofing is able to support the weight of the cushions and blankets only with difficulty, the upper sukka is not fit. Therefore, the lower sukka is fit. MISHNA: If one spread a sheet over the roofing as protection for those sitting in the sukka due to the sun, or if one spread a sheet beneath the roofing as protection due to the falling leaves, or if one spread a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post [kinof] bed, the area in the sukka beneath the sheets is unfit. In the first two cases, because the sheet is susceptible to ritual impurity, it renders the otherwise fit roofing unfit. In the case of the canopy, one is not sitting under the roofing of the sukka; rather, he is sitting inside a tent. However, one may spread the sheet over the frame of a two-post [naklitei] bed, which has one post in the middle of each end of the bed. When spreading the sheet over the posts it forms an inclined rather than a flat roof, and a tent with an inclined roof is not considered a significant structure. GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda said: The Sages taught the ruling that the sheet renders the sukka unfit only when it is placed underneath the roofing due to the falling leaves; however, if his intent was to spread the sheet for decorative purposes to beautify the sukka, it is not in the category of roofing and the sukka is fit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as: Due to the falling leaves, is what we learned in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the same is true, i.e., the sukka is unfit, even when the sheet was spread to beautify the sukka, and the reason that the mishna teaches specifically the case where one spread the sheet due to the falling leaves is that the mishna teaches the matter, spreading a sheet in the sukka, in the manner in which it typically occurs. Rav Ḥisda teaches us that the formulation of the mishna is precise and the halakha applies specifically to the case cited. If one spread the sheet for decorative purposes, it does not render the sukka unfit. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following Tosefta supports the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. If one roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, almonds, peaches, and pomegranates, grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to derive benefit and use them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everything is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. Apparently, sheets may indeed be spread in the sukka for decorative purposes. The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from the Tosefta, as perhaps the reference is to sheets spread on the side of the sukka. However, if they are spread beneath the roofing, it renders the sukka unfit. § Apropos decorations, it was stated: Sukka decorations do not diminish the height of the sukka. Decorations hanging from the roofing are not considered part of the structure and therefore do not diminish the height of the sukka. If the roofing is more than twenty cubits above the ground, the decorations hanging within twenty cubits of the ground do not render the sukka fit. Rav Ashi said: However, if the decorations are spread on the side of the roof, they are considered part of the structure and diminish the area. If the decorations render the interior of the sukka less than seven by seven handbreadths, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara relates with regard to Minyamin, the servant of Rav Ashi, that his shirt became wet [itamisha], and he spread it over the sukka to dry it. Rav Ashi said to him: Take it down so that people will not say that they are roofing the sukka with an item susceptible to ritual impurity. The servant said to him: But don’t they see that it is wet and understand that I placed it there to dry? Rav Ashi replied: Take it down once it is dry is what I am saying to you, as then people are apt to think that it is part of the roofing. It was stated with regard to sukka decorations, e.g., sheets spread beneath the roofing to decorate the sukka, that are removed from the roofing four handbreadths, the amora’im disagreed whether they interpose between the roofing and the sukka. Rav Naḥman said: The sukka remains fit. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is unfit. The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. Rav Naḥman, who was the official in charge of the Exilarch’s household, lodged them in a sukka whose decorations were removed from the roofing four handbreadths. They were silent and did not say anything to him, even though in their opinion the sukka was unfit. Rav Naḥman said to them: Did the Sages retract their halakhic ruling? Does your silence indicate that you concede to my ruling? They said to him: We are on the path to perform a mitzva and, therefore, we are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Therefore, it is permitted for us to sleep in this sukka. In terms of the halakha, our ruling is unchanged. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to sleep in a bed with netting inside the sukka, even though the bed has a roof, provided that the netting is not more than ten handbreadths higher than the bed. In that case, the netting is not considered a tent in and of itself. Come and hear: One who sleeps in a bed with netting inside the sukka did not fulfill his obligation, contrary to the statement that Rav Yehuda cited in the name of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the netting is more than ten handbreadths higher than the bed and is considered a tent in and of itself. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna: One who sleeps beneath the bed in the sukka did not fulfill his obligation. As the height of a typical bed is less than ten handbreadths, apparently, even if the covering beneath which one is sleeping in less than ten handbreadths high, it is a tent in and of itself and he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: Didn’t Shmuel interpret the mishna as referring to the case of a bed ten handbreadths high? Therefore, one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation. Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: Or if one spread a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post bed, the area in the sukka beneath the sheet is unfit. Apparently, a bed with certain types of netting is unfit. The Gemara answers: There, too, it is a case where the posts are ten handbreadths high. The Gemara asks: But that is not the way it is taught, as it is taught in the baraita: Naklitin are two posts and kinofot are four posts. If one spread a sheet over four posts, the area in the sukka beneath the sheet is unfit; if one did so over two posts the entire sukka is fit, provided the two posts are not ten handbreadths higher than the bed. This proves by inference that a sheet spread over four posts renders the area in the sukka beneath the sheet unfit even if it is not ten handbreadths high. The Gemara answers: Four posts are different because they are fixed in the bed and constitute a significant space even without the requisite height. The Gemara asks: But a sukka atop another sukka is fixed, and yet Shmuel said: As the criterion for its fitness, so too is the criterion for its unfitness. The upper sukka renders the lower sukka unfit only if it is ten handbreadths high. The Sages say in distinguishing between the cases: There, in the case of a sukka atop another sukka, where the measurement is in order to disqualify the lower sukka, ten handbreadths are required to render the upper sukka a separate entity. However, here, in the case of the four-post bed, in order to consider the covering a tent, less than ten handbreadths is also considered to be a tent, as it is fixed. § Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: One who sleeps naked in a bed with netting and is required to recite Shema moves his head out from beneath the netting and recites Shema. Although he is naked, the netting is considered like a garment; therefore, it is permitted to recite Shema. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who sleeps naked in a bed with netting may not move his head out from beneath the netting and recite Shema. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the netting is ten handbreadths high. In that case, it is considered a tent and not a garment. The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in that manner from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of that baraita: To what is this comparable? It is comparable to one standing naked in his house, that he may not move his head out the window and recite Shema. That is certainly ineffective. The fact that the baraita likens the bed with netting to a house indicates that it is netting at least ten handbreadths high. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct understanding.

The upper is built within 20 [cubits] - for the roof of the bottom one is the floor of the upper one. Or spread over a four-post bed - which is like saying, or even if they did not spread [the sheet] on account of the falling leaves but rather for decorating a bed. Unfit - because he does not dwell in the sukkah for the tent separates between them. However, one may spread [a sheet] across a two-post bed - which has only two [posts] and they project from the middle of the bed, one from the head of the bed and one from the foot. They put beam from this [post, at the foot of the bed] to that [post, at the head of the bed] and spread on it a sheet. [The sheet] hangs at an incline on either side, and therefore it does not have a roof of a hands-breadth wide or greater and it is not called a "tent."

A Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubits is invalid, just as a sukka whose roofing is more than twenty cubits high, and just as an alleyway whose beam, its symbolic fourth partition in order to place an eiruv, is more than twenty cubits high, are invalid. The reason is the same in all three cases: People do not usually raise their heads and see objects at a height above twenty cubits. As there is a requirement to see all of these, they are deemed invalid when placed above that height. And the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rav Tanḥum: What is the meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is stated: And the pit was empty, don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it. Rabba said: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance. The Gemara asks: And where, on which side, does he place it? There is a difference of opinion: Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said: On the right side of the entrance. Rav Shmuel from Difti said: On the left. And the halakha is to place it on the left so that the Hanukkah lamp will be on the left and the mezuza on the right. One who enters the house will be surrounded by mitzvot (ge’onim). Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said that Rav said: It is prohibited to count money opposite a Hanukkah light. Rav Yehuda relates: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: Does the Hanukkah light have sanctity that would prohibit one from using its light? Rav Yosef strongly objected to this question: What kind of question is that; does the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl have sanctity? As it was taught in a baraita that the Sages interpreted the verse: “He shall spill its blood and cover it with dust” (Leviticus 17:13): With that which he spilled, he shall cover. Just as a person spills the blood of a slaughtered animal with his hand, so too, he is obligated to cover the blood with this hand and not cover it with his foot. The reason is so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. Here too, one should treat the Hanukkah lights as if they were sacred and refrain from utilizing them for other purposes, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. The Gemara relates that they raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the halakha with regard to using decorations of a sukka all seven days of the festival of Sukkot? He said to them: They already said in a similar vein that it is prohibited to count money opposite the Hanukkah light, which proves that one may not use the object of a mitzva for another purpose. Rav Yosef replied in surprise: Master of Abraham! He makes that which was taught dependent upon that which was not taught. As, with regard to sukka, the prohibition to enjoy use of its decorations was taught in a baraita, and the prohibition to enjoy use of the Hanukkah lights was not taught in a baraita at all. As it was taught in a Tosefta in tractate Sukka: With regard to one who roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, and grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to use them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And, if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everything is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. In any case, since the prohibition to benefit from the Hanukkah light is not explicitly taught, a proof should not be cited from there to resolve the dilemma with regard to sukka decorations. Rather, Rav Yosef said: There is no need to bring a proof for the halakhot of sukka from the Hanukkah light. Rather, the paradigm of them all is blood. The verse with regard to the covering of the blood of slaughter is the original source from which the prohibition to treat mitzvot with contempt is derived. It was stated in a dispute between amora’im that Rav said: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp. And Shmuel said: One may light in that manner. The Gemara cites additional disputes between Rav and Shmuel. Rav said: One may not untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment. And Shmuel said: One may untie them from one garment and affix them to another garment. And Rav said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging, as Rabbi Shimon permitted dragging objects on Shabbat, even if, as a result, a furrow would be dug in the ground, as it was not the person’s intent to dig that hole. Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and one may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, and bench on the ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be concerned. One of the Sages sat before Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he sat and said: The reason for the opinion of Rav, who prohibited lighting from one Hanukkah lamp to another, is due to contempt for the mitzva. Using the light for a purpose other than illumination demeans the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to his students: Do not listen to him, as the reason for Rav’s opinion is due to the fact that he thereby weakens the mitzva. By lighting from lamp to lamp he slightly diminishes the oil and wick designated for the purpose of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where he lights directly from lamp to lamp, without using a wood chip or another lamp to light the second lamp. According to the one who said that Rav’s reason is due to contempt for the mitzva, directly from lamp to lamp he may even light ab initio, as, by lighting another Hanukkah lamp, he does not thereby demean the sanctity of the mitzva because the second lamp is also a mitzva. According to the one who said that Rav’s reason is because he weakens the mitzva, lighting directly from lamp to lamp is also prohibited, as ultimately, he utilizes the mitzva lamp for a task that he could have accomplished with a non-sacred lamp. Rav Avya raised an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: A sela of

Sukkah was taught: It is implied that the reason for the decorations of the sukkah is on account of contempt towards the commandment. But this is difficult to RI: In the chapter [entitled] Kirah (Shabbat 45a), it is implied that the reason is on account of, 'given that it is set aside for its commandment!' And he answered that they need both [reasons]. For [it it was only] on account of, 'it is set aside for its commandment,' we would not have forbidden it during the intermediate days of the festival. For setting aside is only relevant to Shabbat and to a holiday. And [if it was only] on account of contempt, we would not forbid them when they had fallen. But now that we say that they were set aside and [there is] contempt of the commandment, we forbid them even when they fell and even on the intermediate days of the holiday. And it is difficult to RI: Since the decorations of a sukkah are forbidden because of contempt - if so, what did it ask in Beitzah (30b) in the chapter [entitled] HaMevi, from the decorations of a sukkah to the wood of a sukkah (used for its roof)? As it said, "And does a stipulation not help with a sukkah for the holiday; and did we not learn, 'One who roofed according to its law [and hung decorations], etc.?'" But what is the question? Perhaps the condition does not help with the wood of a sukkah, because [its being put aside] is extracted from a verse [in the Torah] - as it is expounded there, "From where [do we know] about the wood of a sukkah, that it is forbidden all seven [days of Sukkot? Hence] it teaches to say (Leviticus 23:24), 'The festival of Sukkot is seven days, etc.'" And it is a full-fledged teaching, as it is shown in the first chapter of Sukkah (9a) that Beit Shammai invalidates an old sukkah from this verse, whereas Beit Hillel render it proper - since they need [the verse] for the wood of a sukkah, that it is forbidden all seven [days]. But a stipulation does work with the decorations of a sukkah, since they are only forbidden on account of contempt. Moreover, in the chapter [entitled] Kirah (Shabbat 45a), it is explicitly understood that the wood of sukkah is only forbidden on account of, 'it is set aside for its commandment!' And Rabbenu Tam responded that both the decorations of a sukkah and the wood of sukkah beyond [what is required for] the validation of a sukkah are only forbidden on account of contempt; or (alternatively) on account of, 'given that it is set aside for its commandment' - but only enough for the validation of a sukkah is forbidden from a verse. And the one who asked in Beitzah (30b) from the decorations of a sukkah, about the wood of a sukkah, did not know that there is a difference between more than enough for the validation of the sukkah and enough for the validation of the sukkah. And it answered, "Where one says, 'I am not removing myself from them throughout twilight' - as no sanctity attaches itself" to the decorations of a sukkah, as well as to the wood of a sukkah beyond the validation of a sukkah. There a condition helps. But with the wood of a sukkah of the sukkah's validation, "the sanctity attaches itself" perforce, from the word of the Torah, "all seven [days]." So his condition does not help. And that which it said over there, "And if he made a condition, it is all according to his condition"; and it asks, "Is that saying that his condition helps, etc.?" And it answers, "The second part [in which a condition is said to help is talking about] a hut in general." And after this, it asks, "And does a stipulation not help with a sukkah for the holiday; and did we not learn, 'One who roofed, etc.?'" [About this], it did not want to answer [that], "it is all according to his condition," is about that which is beyond the validation of the sukkah" - since, "it is all according to his condition," implies [that it is so] in the whole sukkah.

GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:
These are My fixed times, the fixed times of GOD, that you shall proclaim as sacred occasions. On six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there shall be a sabbath of complete rest, a sacred occasion. You shall do no work; it shall be a sabbath of GOD throughout your settlements. These are the set times of GOD, the sacred occasions, which you shall celebrate each at its appointed time: In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, there shall be a passover offering to GOD, and on the fifteenth day of that month GOD’s Feast of Unleavened Bread. You shall eat unleavened bread for seven days. On the first day you shall celebrate a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations. Seven days you shall make offerings by fire to GOD. The seventh day shall be a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations. GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:
When you enter the land that I am giving to you and you reap its harvest, you shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest. He shall elevate the sheaf before GOD for acceptance in your behalf; the priest shall elevate it on the day after the sabbath. On the day that you elevate the sheaf, you shall offer as a burnt offering to GOD a lamb of the first year without blemish. The grain offering with it shall be two-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to GOD; and the libation with it shall be of wine, a quarter of a hin. Until that very day, until you have brought the offering of your God, you shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears;^abread or parched grain or fresh ears Of the new crop. it is a law for all time throughout the ages in all your settlements. And from the day on which you bring the sheaf of elevation offering—the day after the sabbath—you shall count off seven weeks. They must be complete: you must count until the day after the seventh week—fifty days; then you shall bring an offering of new grain to GOD. You shall bring from your settlements two loaves of bread as an elevation offering; each shall be made of two-tenths of a measure of choice flour, baked after leavening, as first fruits to GOD. With the bread you shall present, as burnt offerings to GOD, seven yearling lambs without blemish, one bull of the herd, and two rams, with their grain offerings and libations, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to GOD. You shall also offer one he-goat as a purgation offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being. The priest shall elevate these—the two lambs^b—the two lambs— Force of Heb. construction uncertain.—together with the bread of first fruits as an elevation offering before GOD; they shall be holy to GOD, for the priest. On that same day you shall hold a celebration; it shall be a sacred occasion for you; you shall not work at your occupations. This is a law for all time in all your settlements, throughout the ages. And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I the ETERNAL am your God. GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people thus: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts. You shall not work at your occupations; and you shall bring an offering by fire to GOD. GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you: you shall practice self-denial, and you shall bring an offering by fire to GOD; you shall do no work throughout that day. For it is a Day of Atonement, on which expiation is made on your behalf before the ETERNAL your God. Indeed, any person who does not practice self-denial throughout that day shall be cut off from kin; and whoever does any work throughout that day, I will cause that person to perish from among the people. Do no work whatever; it is a law for all time, throughout the ages in all your settlements. It shall be a sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall practice self-denial; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall observe this your sabbath. GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Say to the Israelite people:
On the fifteenth day of this seventh month there shall be the Feast of Booths^cBooths In contrast to others “Tabernacles.” to GOD, [to last] seven days. The first day shall be a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations; seven days you shall bring offerings by fire to GOD. On the eighth day you shall observe a sacred occasion and bring an offering by fire to GOD; it is a solemn gathering:^dsolemn gathering Precise meaning of Heb. ʻaṣereth uncertain. Cf. Num. 29.35; Deut. 16.8. you shall not work at your occupations. Those are the set times of GOD that you shall celebrate as sacred occasions, bringing offerings by fire to GOD—burnt offerings, grain offerings, sacrifices, and libations, on each day what is proper to it— apart from the sabbaths of GOD, and apart from your gifts and from all your votive offerings and from all your freewill offerings that you give to GOD. Mark, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the yield of your land, you shall observe the festival of GOD [to last] seven days: a complete rest on the first day, and a complete rest on the eighth day. On the first day you shall take the product of hadar^ehadar Exact meaning of Heb. hadar uncertain. Traditionally the product is understood as “citron.” trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy^fleafy Meaning of Heb. ʻaboth uncertain. trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the ETERNAL your God seven days. You shall observe it as a festival of GOD for seven days in the year; you shall observe it in the seventh month as a law for all time, throughout the ages. You shall live in booths seven days; all citizens in Israel shall live in booths, in order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt—I the ETERNAL your God. So Moses declared to the Israelites the set times of GOD.

THE precepts of the eighth class are enumerated in “the Section on Seasons” (Sefer zemannim). With a few exceptions, the reasons for all of them are stated in the Law. The object of Sabbath is obvious, and requires no explanation. The rest it affords to man is known; one-seventh of the life of every man, whether small or great, passes thus in comfort, and in rest from trouble and exertion. This the Sabbath effects in addition to the perpetuation and confirmation of the grand doctrine of the Creation. The object of the Fast of Atonement is evident. The Fast creates the sense of repentance; it is the same day on which the chief of all prophets came down [from Mount Sinai] with the second tables, and announced to the people the divine pardon of their great sin; the day was therefore appointed for ever as a day devoted to repentance and true worship of God. For this reason all material enjoyment, all trouble and care for the body, are interdicted, no work may be done; the day must be spent in confession; ever- one shall confess his sins and abandon them. Other holy days are appointed for rejoicing and for such pleasant gathering as people generally need. They also promote the good feeling that men should have to each other in their social and political relations. The appointment of the special days for such purposes has its cause. The reason for the Passover is well known. It is kept seven days, because the period of seven days is the unit of time intermediate between a day and a month. It is also known how great is the importance of this period in Nature, and in many religious duties. For the Law always follows Nature, and in some respects brings it to perfection; for Nature is not capable of designing and thinking, whilst the Law is the result of the wisdom and guidance of God, who is the author of the intellect of all rational beings. This, however, is not the theme of the present chapter: let us return to our subject. The Feast of Weeks is the anniversary of the Revelation on Mount Sinai. In order to raise the importance of this day, we count the days that pass since the preceding festival, just as one who expects his most intimate friend on a certain day counts the days and even the hours. This is the reason why we count the days that pass since the offering of the Omer, between the anniversary of our departure from Egypt and the anniversary of the Lawgiving. The latter was the aim and object of the exodus from Egypt, and thus God said, “I brought you unto myself” (Exod. 19:4). As that great revelation took place only on one day, so we keep its anniversary only one day: but if the eating of unleavened bread on Passover were only commanded for one day, we should not have noticed it, and its object would not have been manifest. For it frequently happens that we take the same kind of food for two or three days. But by our continuing for a whole period [of seven days] to eat unleavened bread, its object becomes clear and evident. New-Year is likewise kept for one day; for it is a day of repentance, on which we are stirred up from our forgetfulness. For this reason the shofar is blown on this day, as we have shown in Mishneh-torah. The day is, as it were, a preparation for and an introduction to the day of the Fast, as is obvious from the national tradition about the days between New-Year and the Day of Atonement. The Feast of Tabernacles, which is a feast of rejoicing and gladness, is kept seven days, in order that the idea of the festival may be more noticeable. The reason why it is kept in the autumn is stated in the Law, “When thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field” (Exod. 23:16); that is to say, when you rest and are free from pressing labours. Aristotle, in the ninth book of his Ethics, mentions this as a general custom among the nations. He says: “In ancient times the sacrifices and assemblies of the people took place after the ingathering of the corn and the fruit, as if the sacrifices were offered on account of the harvest.” Another reason is this—in this season it is possible to dwell in tabernacles, as there is neither great heat nor troublesome rain. The two festivals, Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, imply also the teaching of certain truths and certain moral lessons. Passover teaches us to remember the miracles which God wrought in Egypt, and to perpetuate their memory; the Feast of Tabernacles reminds us of the miracles wrought in the wilderness. The moral lessons derived from these feasts is this: man ought to remember his evil days in his days of prosperity. He will thereby be induced to thank God repeatedly, to lead a modest and humble life. We eat, therefore, unleavened bread and bitter herbs on Passover in memory of what has happened unto us, and leave [on Succoth] our houses in order to dwell in tabernacles, as inhabitants of deserts do that are in want of comfort. We shall thereby remember that this has once been our condition; [comp.] “I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths” (Lev. 23:43); although we dwell now in elegant houses, in the best and most fertile land, by the kindness of God, and because of His promises to our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were perfect in their opinions and in their conduct. This idea is likewise an important element in our religion; that whatever good we have received and ever will receive of God, is owing to the merits of the Patriarchs, who “kept the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment” (Gen. 18:19). We join to the Feast of Tabernacles the Feast of the Eighth Day, in order to complete our rejoicings, which cannot be perfect in booths, but in comfortable and well-built houses. As regards the four species [the branches of the palm tree, the citron, the myrtle, and the willows of the brook] our Sages gave a reason for their use by way of Agadic interpretation, the method of which is well known to those who are acquainted with the style of our Sages. They use the text of the Bible only as a kind of poetical language [for their own ideas], and do not intend thereby to give an interpretation of the text. As to the value of these Midrashic interpretations, we meet with two different opinions. For some think that the Midrash contains the real explanation of the text, whilst others, finding that it cannot be reconciled with the words quoted, reject and ridicule it. The former struggle and fight to prove and to confirm such interpretations according to their opinion, and to keep them as the real meaning of the text; they consider them in the same light as traditional laws. Neither of the two classes understood it, that our Sages employ biblical texts merely as poetical expressions, the meaning of which is clear to every reasonable reader. This style was general in ancient days; all adopted it in the same way as poets [adopt a certain style]. Our Sages say, in reference to the words, “and a paddle (yated) thou shalt have upon thy weapon” [azeneka, Deut. 23:14]: Do not read azeneka, “thy weapon,” but ozneka, “thy ear.” You are thus told, that if you hear a person uttering something disgraceful, put your fingers into your ears. Now, I wonder whether those ignorant persons [who take the Midrashic interpretations literally] believe that the author of this saying gave it as the true interpretation of the text quoted, and as the meaning of this precept: that in truth yated, “the paddle,” is used for “the finger, “and azeneka denotes “thy ear.” I cannot think that any person whose intellect is sound can admit this. The author employed the text as a beautiful poetical phrase, in teaching an excellent moral lesson, namely this: It is as bad to listen to bad language as it is to use it. This lesson is poetically connected with the above text. In the same sense you must understand the phrase, “Do not read so, but so,” wherever it occurs in the Midrash. I have departed from my subject, but it was for the purpose of making a remark useful to every intellectual member of the Rabbanites. I now return to our theme. I believe that the four species are a symbolical expression of our rejoicing that the Israelites changed the wilderness, “no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates, or of water to drink” (Num. 20:5), with a country full of fruit-trees and rivers. In order to remember this we take the fruit which is the most pleasant of the fruit of the land, branches which smell best, most beautiful leaves, and also the best of herbs, i.e., the willows of the brook. These four kinds have also those three purposes: First, they were plentiful in those days in Palestine, so that every one could easily get them. Secondly, they have a good appearance, they are green; some of them, viz., the citron and the myrtle, are also excellent as regards their smell, the branches of the palm-tree and the willow having neither good nor bad smell. Thirdly, they keep fresh and green for seven days, which is not the case with peaches, pomegranates, asparagus, nuts, and the like.

THE precepts of the eighth class are enumerated in “the Section on Seasons” (Sefer zemannim). With a few exceptions, the reasons for all of them are stated in the Law. The object of Sabbath is obvious, and requires no explanation. The rest it affords to man is known; one-seventh of the life of every man, whether small or great, passes thus in comfort, and in rest from trouble and exertion. This the Sabbath effects in addition to the perpetuation and confirmation of the grand doctrine of the Creation. The object of the Fast of Atonement is evident. The Fast creates the sense of repentance; it is the same day on which the chief of all prophets came down [from Mount Sinai] with the second tables, and announced to the people the divine pardon of their great sin; the day was therefore appointed for ever as a day devoted to repentance and true worship of God. For this reason all material enjoyment, all trouble and care for the body, are interdicted, no work may be done; the day must be spent in confession; ever- one shall confess his sins and abandon them. Other holy days are appointed for rejoicing and for such pleasant gathering as people generally need. They also promote the good feeling that men should have to each other in their social and political relations. The appointment of the special days for such purposes has its cause. The reason for the Passover is well known. It is kept seven days, because the period of seven days is the unit of time intermediate between a day and a month. It is also known how great is the importance of this period in Nature, and in many religious duties. For the Law always follows Nature, and in some respects brings it to perfection; for Nature is not capable of designing and thinking, whilst the Law is the result of the wisdom and guidance of God, who is the author of the intellect of all rational beings. This, however, is not the theme of the present chapter: let us return to our subject. The Feast of Weeks is the anniversary of the Revelation on Mount Sinai. In order to raise the importance of this day, we count the days that pass since the preceding festival, just as one who expects his most intimate friend on a certain day counts the days and even the hours. This is the reason why we count the days that pass since the offering of the Omer, between the anniversary of our departure from Egypt and the anniversary of the Lawgiving. The latter was the aim and object of the exodus from Egypt, and thus God said, “I brought you unto myself” (Exod. 19:4). As that great revelation took place only on one day, so we keep its anniversary only one day: but if the eating of unleavened bread on Passover were only commanded for one day, we should not have noticed it, and its object would not have been manifest. For it frequently happens that we take the same kind of food for two or three days. But by our continuing for a whole period [of seven days] to eat unleavened bread, its object becomes clear and evident. New-Year is likewise kept for one day; for it is a day of repentance, on which we are stirred up from our forgetfulness. For this reason the shofar is blown on this day, as we have shown in Mishneh-torah. The day is, as it were, a preparation for and an introduction to the day of the Fast, as is obvious from the national tradition about the days between New-Year and the Day of Atonement. The Feast of Tabernacles, which is a feast of rejoicing and gladness, is kept seven days, in order that the idea of the festival may be more noticeable. The reason why it is kept in the autumn is stated in the Law, “When thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field” (Exod. 23:16); that is to say, when you rest and are free from pressing labours. Aristotle, in the ninth book of his Ethics, mentions this as a general custom among the nations. He says: “In ancient times the sacrifices and assemblies of the people took place after the ingathering of the corn and the fruit, as if the sacrifices were offered on account of the harvest.” Another reason is this—in this season it is possible to dwell in tabernacles, as there is neither great heat nor troublesome rain. The two festivals, Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, imply also the teaching of certain truths and certain moral lessons. Passover teaches us to remember the miracles which God wrought in Egypt, and to perpetuate their memory; the Feast of Tabernacles reminds us of the miracles wrought in the wilderness. The moral lessons derived from these feasts is this: man ought to remember his evil days in his days of prosperity. He will thereby be induced to thank God repeatedly, to lead a modest and humble life. We eat, therefore, unleavened bread and bitter herbs on Passover in memory of what has happened unto us, and leave [on Succoth] our houses in order to dwell in tabernacles, as inhabitants of deserts do that are in want of comfort. We shall thereby remember that this has once been our condition; [comp.] “I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths” (Lev. 23:43); although we dwell now in elegant houses, in the best and most fertile land, by the kindness of God, and because of His promises to our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were perfect in their opinions and in their conduct. This idea is likewise an important element in our religion; that whatever good we have received and ever will receive of God, is owing to the merits of the Patriarchs, who “kept the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment” (Gen. 18:19). We join to the Feast of Tabernacles the Feast of the Eighth Day, in order to complete our rejoicings, which cannot be perfect in booths, but in comfortable and well-built houses. As regards the four species [the branches of the palm tree, the citron, the myrtle, and the willows of the brook] our Sages gave a reason for their use by way of Agadic interpretation, the method of which is well known to those who are acquainted with the style of our Sages. They use the text of the Bible only as a kind of poetical language [for their own ideas], and do not intend thereby to give an interpretation of the text. As to the value of these Midrashic interpretations, we meet with two different opinions. For some think that the Midrash contains the real explanation of the text, whilst others, finding that it cannot be reconciled with the words quoted, reject and ridicule it. The former struggle and fight to prove and to confirm such interpretations according to their opinion, and to keep them as the real meaning of the text; they consider them in the same light as traditional laws. Neither of the two classes understood it, that our Sages employ biblical texts merely as poetical expressions, the meaning of which is clear to every reasonable reader. This style was general in ancient days; all adopted it in the same way as poets [adopt a certain style]. Our Sages say, in reference to the words, “and a paddle (yated) thou shalt have upon thy weapon” [azeneka, Deut. 23:14]: Do not read azeneka, “thy weapon,” but ozneka, “thy ear.” You are thus told, that if you hear a person uttering something disgraceful, put your fingers into your ears. Now, I wonder whether those ignorant persons [who take the Midrashic interpretations literally] believe that the author of this saying gave it as the true interpretation of the text quoted, and as the meaning of this precept: that in truth yated, “the paddle,” is used for “the finger, “and azeneka denotes “thy ear.” I cannot think that any person whose intellect is sound can admit this. The author employed the text as a beautiful poetical phrase, in teaching an excellent moral lesson, namely this: It is as bad to listen to bad language as it is to use it. This lesson is poetically connected with the above text. In the same sense you must understand the phrase, “Do not read so, but so,” wherever it occurs in the Midrash. I have departed from my subject, but it was for the purpose of making a remark useful to every intellectual member of the Rabbanites. I now return to our theme. I believe that the four species are a symbolical expression of our rejoicing that the Israelites changed the wilderness, “no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates, or of water to drink” (Num. 20:5), with a country full of fruit-trees and rivers. In order to remember this we take the fruit which is the most pleasant of the fruit of the land, branches which smell best, most beautiful leaves, and also the best of herbs, i.e., the willows of the brook. These four kinds have also those three purposes: First, they were plentiful in those days in Palestine, so that every one could easily get them. Secondly, they have a good appearance, they are green; some of them, viz., the citron and the myrtle, are also excellent as regards their smell, the branches of the palm-tree and the willow having neither good nor bad smell. Thirdly, they keep fresh and green for seven days, which is not the case with peaches, pomegranates, asparagus, nuts, and the like.

And a public announcement is made concerning the need to uproot any instances of diverse kinds that have grown in the fields. The Gemara asks: Granted, an announcement is made concerning the need to uproot diverse kinds, as the beginning of the month of Adar is a time of sowing. Instances of diverse kinds are already noticeable, and therefore it is a fitting time to deal with the matter. But with regard to the announcement concerning the half-shekels, from where do we derive that it should be made at this point in the year? Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiyya said: It is as the verse states: “This is the burnt-offering of each New Moon in its renewal throughout the months of the year” (Numbers 28:14). The Torah says: There is a month in which you must begin to renew and bring the daily and additional offering from animals purchased with the new collections of half-shekels collected that year. Each year a collection is made with which to finance the purchase of communal offerings for the following year. Offerings during that year may be purchased only from collections made for that year. Elsewhere it is derived through a verbal analogy that the yearly cycle begins with the month of Nisan. And since starting from and during the month of Nisan the offerings must be brought from the new collections of half-shekels, it is necessary to make the collection in the preceding month, i.e., in Adar. Therefore, they advance the reading of Shekalim, and they read it on the first of Adar, in order that the people will be reminded to bring the half-shekels to the Temple in good time. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna taught? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, for if someone would suggest that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, one could counter: Didn’t he say that two weeks is a sufficient period of preparation? As it is taught in a baraita: We begin to inquire into the halakhot of Passover thirty days before Passover. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: We begin to inquire only two weeks before Passover. As such, it should be sufficient to announce the collection of half-shekels from two weeks before Nisan, and there should be no need to advance the announcement to the beginning of Adar, as stated in the mishna. Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is possible that even he agrees that the announcement concerning the collection of the half-shekels should be made on the first of Adar, since the Master said: On the fifteenth of Adar money-changing tables for collecting the half-shekels are set up throughout the country, and on the twenty-fifth of Adar they are set up in the Temple. Because of the possibility to donate the half-shekels at the tables already from the fifteenth, they advance the reading of Shekalim to inform people of that possibility and read it two weeks earlier, on the first of Adar. § The Gemara clarifies which passage is read: What is this portion of Shekalim? Rav said: It is the portion of “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My offering, the provision of My offerings made by fire” (Numbers 28), which details the daily and additional offerings. And Shmuel said: It is the portion of “When you take the count” (Exodus 30:11–16). Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of “When you take the count,” this is the reason that it is called the portion of Shekalim, for the obligation to give half-shekels is written in that portion. However, according to one who said that it is the portion of “My offering, the provision of My offerings,” why should that portion be read? Is there anything written about the half-shekels here? The Gemara answers: Yes. What is the reason that they are collected in Adar? As per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi, the half-shekels are collected to be used for the coming year’s daily and additional offerings. Therefore, reading the portion concerning those offerings will serve well as a reminder for people to donate. Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of “Command the children of Israel: My offering, the provision of My offerings,” it is logical to read that portion, because the offerings that will be purchased with the half-shekels are written there, as per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi. However, according to one who said that it is the portion of “When you take the count,” why should that portion be read? Is anything about the offerings written in that portion? The collection of half-shekels for use in the construction of the sockets of the Tabernacle are the only thing written in that portion. What does that have to do with the collection of half-shekels for the purchase of offerings that is held in the month of Adar? The Gemara answers: The selection of that portion is in accordance with the explanation of the portion that Rav Yosef taught: The three instances of the word: Contribution, in that portion teach that there were three contributions of half-shekels: The contribution of the altar is for the purchase of communal offerings to be sacrificed on the altar; and the contribution of the sockets is for constructing the sockets; and the contribution of the Temple maintenance is for the Temple maintenance. Therefore, according to Rav Yosef, it is understandable why the portion of “When you take the count” is read. It deals explicitly with the collection of half-shekels. The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of “When you take the count,” this is what is different about this New Moon of Adar and other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat. On the New Moon of Adar, “When you take the count” is read because it describes the collection of half-shekels. On other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, the portion of “Command the children of Israel” is read because it mentions the additional offerings brought on Shabbat and the New Moon. However, according to the one who said that “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My offering,” what is different about the portion read on the New Moon of Adar and the portion read on other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat, for the same portion is read in all cases? The Gemara answers: They are different: For on other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, six people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and one reads from the portion for the New Moon, whereas now, on the New Moon of Adar, if it occurs on Shabbat, all seven read from the portion of the New Moon. The Gemara asks: This answer works out well according to the one who said that when the mishna states that on the fifth Shabbat, we resume the regular order of readings. The intention is that one resumes the regular weekly order of Torah portions. This implies that on the previous four Shabbatot, the regular portion was not read at all. Rather, only the special portions delineated in the mishna were read. Therefore, it makes sense to say that all seven people read from the special portion. However, according to the one who says that the mishna’s intention is that one resumes the regular order of concluding readings from the Prophets [haftarot], and on the previous Shabbatot one also reads from the regular portion of the matter of the day, then the original question stands: What is different about the portion read on the New Moon of Adar and the portion read on other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: They are different: For whereas on other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, six people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and one reads from the portion for the New Moon, now, on the New Moon of Adar, if it occurs on Shabbat, three people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and four read from the portion for the New Moon. The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (Megilla 3:1): When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, they read the Torah portion of Shekalim, and they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest (II Kings 12:1–17). Granted, according to the one who said that Shekalim is the portion of “When you take the count,” this is the reason that they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest: Because it is comparable in content to the Torah reading, as it is written in the story of Jehoiada: “The money of his assessment of persons” (II Kings 12:5), which is referring to his collection of the half-shekels, and the haftara should always contain a theme similar to the Torah reading. However, according to the one who said that “My offering, the provision of My offerings” is read as the portion of Shekalim, is the haftara comparable to that portion? It is comparable, as per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi: It is appropriate to read the portion about offerings because the collection of half-shekels is for that purpose. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the New Moon of Adar occurs on the Shabbat on which the portion to be read for the regular weekly reading is adjacent to the portion read as Shekalim, whether on the Shabbat preceding the Shabbat on which Shekalim will be read as part of the weekly reading or following it, then they read and repeat Shekalim on both Shabbatot, one time as the special portion Shekalim and the other as part of the regular order. Granted, according to the one who said that the portion of “When you take the count” is read as Shekalim, this is how it is possible: That portion could occur at that time in the yearlong cycle of the order of readings. In the regular order of reading, “When you take the count” is often read during the beginning of Adar. However, according to the one who said that the portion of “Command the children of Israel, and say to them, My offering” is read as Shekalim, does that portion ever occur at that time of the year? That portion usually occurs much later in the year, in the summer. The Gemara answers: Yes, it sometimes occurs that this portion is read during the beginning of Adar, for the people of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who complete the cycle of reading the Torah not in one year but in three years. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, they read the portion of “When you take the count,” and they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest. § Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, the congregation takes out three Torah scrolls from the ark and reads from them. From the first one, they read the portion of the regular weekly reading of the matter of the day; and from the second one they read the portion for the New Moon; and from the third one they read Shekalim, which begins with “When you take the count.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa further said: When the New Moon of Tevet, which always falls during Hanukkah, occurs on Shabbat, they bring three Torah scrolls and read from them. From the first one, they read the portion of the regular cycle of reading of the matter of the day; and from the second one, they read the portion for the New Moon; and from the third one, they read the portion for Hanukkah. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa to state the halakha in both cases, as, if it had been stated only with regard to the New Moon of Tevet, one could have mistakenly thought that only with regard to that case does Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa state that three Torah scrolls are used. But with regard to the New Moon of Adar, one might think that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that the portion of Shekalim is the portion of “My offering, the provision of My offerings,” and two Torah scrolls will therefore suffice, since the same portion is used both for the portion for the New Moon and for the portion of Shekalim. Therefore, he teaches us that three Torah scrolls are used even on the New Moon of Adar. The Gemara asks: But, based on that logic, let Rabbi Yitzḥak just say the halakha with respect to this case of the New Moon of Adar, and there would be no need to state that case of the New Moon of Tevet. The Gemara answers: Indeed, one was stated from the other by inference, i.e., Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stated the halakha explicitly only with regard to the New Moon of Adar, and it was inferred that the same is true of the New Moon of Tevet. § An amoraic dispute was stated: When the New Moon of Tevet occurs on a weekday, what Torah portion is read? Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: Three people read from the portion for the New Moon, and one reads from the portion for Hanukkah. And Rav Dimi of Haifa said: Three read from the portion for Hanukkah, and one reads from the portion for the New Moon. Rabbi Mani said: It stands to reason to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, for it is already an established principle that when a frequent practice and an infrequent practice conflict, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. Since the portion for the New Moon is read more frequently than the portion for Hanukkah, it should be given greater prominence. Rabbi Avin said: It stands to reason to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rav Dimi, for the following reason: What caused the fourth person to come and read from the Torah? The New Moon, as on the other days of Hanukkah only three people read from the Torah. Therefore, it is only logical that the fourth person should read from the portion for the New Moon. The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Yosef said: We do not concern ourselves with making the portion for the New Moon the primary reading. Rather, three people read from the portion for Hanukkah, and only the fourth reads the portion for the New Moon. And Rabba said: We do not concern ourselves with making the portion for Hanukkah the primary reading. Rather, three people read from the portion for the New Moon, and only the fourth reads the portion for Hanukkah. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not concern ourselves with making the portion for Hanukkah the primary reading, and therefore the portion for the New Moon is primary. § An amoraic dispute was stated: If the Shabbat on which the portion of Shekalim is to be read occurs on the Shabbat in which the regular weekly portion is “And you shall command” (Exodus 27:20–30:10), what should be done? Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: Six people read from the portion “And you shall command,” until but not including the weekly portion of “When you take the count” (Exodus 27:20–30:10), and one person reads the portion of Shekalim from “When you take the count,” until but not including the verse: “And you shall make a copper laver” (Exodus 30:11–16). Abaye said:

And which is the fourth Shabbat? The Shabbat of whichever week during which the New Moon of Nisan occurs, and this is the case even if it occurs on Friday. § The mishna states: On the fifth Shabbat, we resume the regular weekly order. The Gemara clarifies the mishna’s intent: To the order of what does one resume? Rabbi Ami said: One resumes the regular weekly order of Torah portions. Rabbi Ami holds that on the weeks on which the special portions are read, the regular weekly Torah portion is not read at all, and therefore the cycle is resumed only on the fifth Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: One resumes the regular weekly order of the haftarot. Rabbi Yirmeya holds that even on the Shabbatot on which the special portions are read, the regular weekly portion is still read; the special portion is read by the last reader as the maftir. However, the haftara of the regular cycle is entirely replaced with a portion from the Prophets that parallels the special portion. As such, it is the cycle of haftarot that is resumed on the fifth Shabbat. Abaye said: It stands to reason that one should rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as we learned in the mishna: For all special days, we interrupt the regular order of readings, and a special portion relating to the character of the day is read. This applies to the New Moons, to Hanukkah, and to Purim, to fast days, and to non-priestly watches, and to Yom Kippur. Abaye explains his proof: Granted, according to the one who said that one resumes the regular weekly order of Torah portions, this statement in the mishna is referring to the fact that there is a reading of the weekly Torah portion on weekdays. If one of the special days listed in the mishna occurs on Monday or Thursday, the weekly Torah reading is replaced by the special portion for that day. However, according to one who said that one resumes the regular weekly order of haftarot, what could the mishna mean when it says that the regular cycle is interrupted? Is there a haftara on weekdays? The mishna therefore supports Rabbi Ami’s opinion. And the other one, Rabbi Yirmeya, would counter: This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. On days when there is a haftara, the reference in the mishna is to the order of the haftarot. On weekdays, when there is no haftara, the reference is to the order of the Torah readings. Therefore, no proof can be deduced from the mishna. The Gemara asks: But on fast days, why do I need to have any interruption of the regular order of Torah readings? Let us read in the morning the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day, and in the afternoon service let us read the portion of a fast day. The Gemara comments: This supports the statement of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said: From the morning of communal fasts, a gathering is held in the synagogue. The community leaders examine the conduct of the townspeople and admonish those whose behavior is found wanting. Therefore, there is no time in the morning to read the Torah portion for fast days. The Gemara asks: What does the community do on a public fast day? Abaye said: From the morning until the middle of the day, the community gathers in the synagogue, and the leaders examine the affairs of the town to determine whether and how the people’s conduct needs to be improved. From the middle of the day until the evening, a quarter of the day is spent reading from the Torah and reading the haftara, and a quarter of the day is spent praying, as it is stated: “And they read in the book of the Torah of the Lord their God one quarter of the day, and a quarter of the day they confessed, and they prostrated themselves before the Lord their God” (Nehemiah 9:3). The Gemara objects: But perhaps I should reverse the order, and the first half of the day should be spent reading from the Torah and praying, and the second half of the day should be spent examining the affairs of the townspeople. The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel due to the transgression of the exiles gathered around me, and I sat appalled until the evening offering” (Ezra 9:4), and it is written in the next verse: “And at the evening offering I arose from my fast, and having rent my garment and my mantle; I fell on my knees, and I spread out my hands to the Lord my God” (Ezra 9:5). This indicates that the first half of a public fast should be dedicated to an inspection of the community’s behavior, and the rest of the day should be devoted to prayer. MISHNA: On the first day of Passover, the congregation reads from the portion of the Festivals of Leviticus (Leviticus 22:26–23:44). On Shavuot they read the portion of “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9–12). On Rosh HaShana they read the portion of “And on the seventh month on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23–25). On Yom Kippur they read the portion of “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first Festival day of Sukkot they read from the portion of the Festivals of Leviticus (Leviticus 22:26–23:44), and on the other days of Sukkot they read selections from the portion of the offerings of Sukkot (Numbers 29:12–39). On each day of Hanukkah they read selections from the portion of the dedication of the altar by the tribal princes (Numbers 7). On Purim they read the portion of “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17:8–16). On the New Moon they read the portion of “And in the beginnings of your months” (Numbers 28:11–15). And in the non-priestly watches they read the act of Creation (Genesis 1:1–2:3). The Jewish people were divided into twenty-four watches. Each week, it would be the turn of a different watch to send representatives to Jerusalem to be present in the Temple to witness the sacrificial service. Those remaining behind would fast during the week, from Monday to Thursday, offer special prayers, and read the account of Creation from the Torah. On fast days, they read the portion of blessings and curses (Leviticus, chapter 26). One should not interrupt the reading of the curses by having two different people read them. Rather, one person reads all of them. On Mondays, and on Thursdays, and on Shabbat during the afternoon service, they read in accordance with the regular weekly order, i.e., they proceed to read the first section of the Torah portion that follows the portion that was read on the previous Shabbat morning. However, these readings are not counted as a progression in the reckoning of reading the Torah portions, i.e., they do not proceed on Monday to read the section that immediately follows the section read on Shabbat during the afternoon, and then the following section on Thursday. Rather, until the reading on the following Shabbat morning, they return to and read the same first section of the Torah portion that follows the portion that was read on the previous Shabbat morning. On Festivals and holidays, they read a portion relating to the character of the day, as it is stated: “And Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44), which indicates that part of the mitzva of the Festivals is that the people should read the portion relating to them, each one in its appointed time. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: On the first day of Passover, the congregation reads from the portion of the Festivals (Leviticus 22:26–23:44), and they read as the haftara the account of the Passover celebrated at Gilgal (Joshua 5:2–14). The Gemara comments: And nowadays, in the Diaspora, when there are two Festival days of Passover, on the first day they read as the haftara the account of the Passover celebrated at Gilgal, and on the next day they read from the account of the Passover observed by Josiah (II Kings 23). The baraita continues: And on the other days of Passover, one collects and reads from various Torah portions of matters relating to Passover. The Gemara asks: What are these portions? Rav Pappa said: A mnemonic for them is mem, alef, peh vav. Each letter stands for a different reading: Mem for the portion of: “Draw out [mishkhu] and take your lambs” (Exodus 12:21–51); alef for the portion of “If [im] you lend money to any of My people” (Exodus 22:24–23:19); peh for the portion of “Hew [pesol] for yourself” (Exodus 34:1–26); and vav for the portion “And the Lord spoke [vaydabber]” (Numbers 9:1–14). The baraita continues: On the last Festival day of Passover, they read the portion of “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh let the people go” (Exodus 13:17–15:26), because it includes the account of the splitting of the Red Sea, and they read as the haftara the portion “And David spoke” (II Samuel 22), which is the song of David. And in the Diaspora, on the next day, the eighth day of Passover, they read the portion “All the firstborns” (Deuteronomy 15:19–16:17), and they read as the haftara the portion of “This very day” (Isaiah 10:32–12:6), because it discusses the downfall of Sennacherib, which occurred on the night of Passover. Abaye said: And nowadays, on the eight days of Passover in the Diaspora, everyone is accustomed to read portions that are indicated by the mnemonic phrase: Draw the bull, sanctify with money, hew in the wilderness, send the firstborn. This alludes to the following portions: “Draw out and take your lambs” (Exodus 12:21–51) and “A bull or a sheep” (Leviticus 22:26–23:44); “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:1–16) and “If you lend money to any of My people” (Exodus 22:24–23:19); “Hew for yourself” (Exodus 34:1–26) and “And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai” (Numbers 9:1–14); “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh let the people go” (Exodus 13:17–15:26) and “All the firstborns” (Deuteronomy 15:19–16:17). The baraita continues: On Shavuot they read the portion of “Seven weeks,” and they read as the haftara from Habakkuk, chapter 2, since it mentions the giving of the Torah at Sinai. Others say: They read the portion of “In the third month” (Exodus 19:1–20:23), which describes the giving of the Torah, and they read as the haftara from the account of the Divine Chariot (Ezekiel 1). The Gemara comments: And nowadays, in the Diaspora, when there are two days of Shavuot, we act in accordance with both opinions, but in the reverse order. On the first day they read the portion of “In the third month,” and on the second day they read the portion of “Seven weeks.” The baraita continues: On Rosh HaShana they read the portion of “On the seventh month on the first of the month” (Numbers 29:1–6) and they read as the haftara “Is Ephraim My dear son?” (Jeremiah 31:1–20), as it contains the verse: “I earnestly remember him still,” which recalls God’s love for His people. And some say that they read “And the Lord visited Sarah” (Genesis 21), which describes how God blessed her that she should have a child, and, according to tradition, God blessed her on Rosh HaShana. And they read as the haftara from the account of Hannah (I Samuel 1:1–2:10), who, according to tradition, was also blessed on Rosh HaShana that she should have a child. The Gemara comments: And nowadays, when there are two days of Rosh HaShana, on the first day they read Genesis 21 in accordance with the opinion cited as: Some say. And on the next day they read “And God tested Abraham” (Genesis 22), in order to mention the merit of the binding of Isaac on the day of God’s judgment, and they read as the haftara “Is Ephraim My dear son?” The baraita continues: On Yom Kippur they read the portion of “After the death” (Leviticus 16), and they read as the haftara the portion of “For thus says the High and Lofty One” (Isaiah 57:14–58:14), which deals with fasting and repentance. And during the afternoon service they read from the portion detailing forbidden sexual relations (Leviticus 18) to convey the severity of these transgressions, so that if anyone transgressed any of these prohibitions he will repent on Yom Kippur. And they read as the haftara the book of Jonah, which mentions the repentance of the people of Nineveh. Having mentioned the haftara read on Yom Kippur, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Wherever you find a reference in the Bible to the might of the Holy One, Blessed be He, you also find a reference to His humility adjacent to it. Evidence of this fact is written in the Torah, repeated in the Prophets, and stated a third time in the Writings. It is written in the Torah: “For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17), and it is written immediately afterward: “He executes the judgment of the fatherless and widow” (Deuteronomy 10:18), displaying his humility in caring for even the weakest parts of society. It is repeated in the Prophets: “For thus says the High and Lofty One that inhabits eternity, Whose name is sacred” (Isaiah 57:15), and it is written immediately afterward: “In the high and holy place I dwell with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones” (Isaiah 57:15). It is stated a third time in the Writings, as it is written: “Extol Him Who rides upon the clouds, Whose name is the Lord” (Psalms 68:5), and it is written immediately afterward: “A father of the fatherless, and a judge of widows” (Psalms 68:6). The baraita continues: On the first Festival day of Sukkot, they read from the portion of the Festivals found in Leviticus (Leviticus 22:26–23:44), and they read as the haftara the portion of “Behold the day of the Lord comes” (Zechariah 14), which mentions the festival of Sukkot. The Gemara comments: And nowadays, in the Diaspora, when there are two Festival days of Sukkot, on the next day, they read the same Torah portion. But what do they read as the haftara? They read the portion of “And all the men of Israel assembled themselves to King Solomon” (I Kings 8:2–21), which describes events that took place on the festival of Sukkot. The baraita continues: And on all the other days of Sukkot, they read selections from the portion of the offerings of Sukkot found in the book of Numbers, chapter 29. On the last Festival day of Sukkot, i.e., the Eighth Day of Assembly, they read the portion of “All the firstborns,” starting with the portion of “You shall tithe,” since it includes many mitzvot and statutes relating to gifts for the poor, who should be helped during this period of rejoicing, and it concludes with the halakhot governing firstborns (Deuteronomy 14:22–16:17). And they read as the haftara the portion of “And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying” (I Kings 8:54–9:1), which occurred on that day. On the next day, the second day of the Eighth Day of Assembly in the Diaspora, they read the portion of “And this is the blessing” (Deuteronomy, chapters 33–34) until the end of the Torah, and they read as the haftara “And Solomon stood” (I Kings 8:22–53). Rav Huna said that Rav said: When Shabbat occurs on one of the intermediate days of a Festival, whether on Passover or on Sukkot, they read the Torah portion of “See, You say to me” (Exodus 33:12–34:26), as it includes the halakhot of the Festivals and the intermediate days. They read as the haftara, on Passover, from the portion of the dry bones (Ezekiel 37:1–14), which portrays redemption from servitude, and on Sukkot they read “And it shall come to pass on that day when Gog shall come” (Ezekiel 38:18–39:16), which speaks of the future redemption. The baraita continues: On each day of Hanukkah they read a selection from the portion of the dedication of the altar by the tribal princes (Numbers 7), and they read as the haftara from the portion of the lamps of Zechariah (Zechariah 2:14–4:7). The Gemara comments: And if it occurs that there are two Shabbatot during Hanukkah, on the first Shabbat they read from the portion of the lamps of Zechariah, and on the latter one they read from the portion of the lamps of Solomon (I Kings 7:40–50), which discusses the lamps in the Temple. The baraita continues: On Purim they read the portion of “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17:8–16). On the New Moon they read the portion of “And in the beginnings of your month” (Numbers 28:11–15). When the New Moon occurs on Shabbat, they read as the haftara the portion that concludes with “And it shall come to pass that every New Moon, and every Shabbat, shall all flesh come to bow down on the ground before Me” (Isaiah 66), as it mentions both Shabbat and the New Moon. When the New Moon occurs on Sunday, on the previous day, i.e., Shabbat, they read as the haftara the portion of “And Jonathan said to him: Tomorrow is the New Moon” (I Samuel 20:18–42), which describes events that took place on the eve of the New Moon. Rav Huna said: