json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Sukkah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sukkah",
    "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
    "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": true,
    "isSource": true,
    "isPrimary": true,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה סוכה",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
        "Seder Moed"
    ],
    "text": {
        "Introduction": [
            "Tractate Sukkah can be divided into several sections.  The first two chapters deal with the laws of the sukkah, how one builds a sukkah and how one observes the commandment of dwelling in a sukkah.",
            "The third chapter deals with the laws of the lulav, the four species that one picks up every day during the holiday.  ",
            "The fourth and fifth chapters deal with several ceremonies or rituals connected to Sukkot that were observed in the time of the Temple.  They are the beating of the willows, the water libation, and the celebration known as “simhat bet hashoevah.”  We will discuss these in greater detail when we come across them.",
            "Sukkah is perhaps the tractate in Seder Moed whose halakhot most directly correspond to halakhah as it is observed today.  Jews still build sukkot and still take up a lulav, willow (aravah), myrtle (hadas) and etrog every year on Sukkot.  While there are, as always, many differences between the precise manner in which we observe halakhah today and the way it was observed during the time of the Mishnah, they are, in my opinion, lesser in this area of halakhah than in others.  This makes Sukkah a somewhat easier tractate to learn—we can more often picture what they are doing."
        ],
        "": [
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> Tractate Sukkah begins with a mishnah that is remarkably similar to the first mishnah of Eruvin.  It states the maximum and minimum height of a sukkah.  We should note that the word “sukkah” in the mishnah sometimes refers to the “skhakh”, the dead branches used to make the sukkah’s roof.  The mishnah pays far more attention to the roof of the sukkah than to its walls. The second half of the mishnah deals with an old sukkah, one which was not built to be a sukkah for the festival of Sukkot, but was built to serve as shade in general.  In the Middle East many farmers build such structures in order to provide shade from the hot sun.",
                    "<b>A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. Rabbi Judah validates it.</b>  The roof of the sukkah cannot be more than 20 cubits higher than the ground.  This is about 10 meters, which would make a very high sukkah.  There are several reasons provided for this in the Talmud.  At such a great height, one would not notice the skhakh, and noticing that one is sitting under skhakh is part of the experience of sitting in the sukkah.  Another possibility is that if the skhakh is above twenty cubits one will be sitting in the shade of the walls and not the shade of the skhakh.  Finally, a sukkah that is higher than twenty cubits will of necessity have to be built stronger.  As it becomes more permanent, it becomes less like a sukkah and more like a house. As Rabbi Judah did with regard to the “post and beam” in Eruvin (see the intro to Eruvin, and the first mishnah) so too with regard to the sukkah he sets no limit as to a sukkah’s height.",
                    "<b>One which is not ten handbreadths high, or which does not have three walls, or which has more sun than shade, is not valid.</b>  The second section of the mishnah provides three requirements that everyone agrees with. First of all, the sukkah must be 10 handbreadths high.  This is equivalent to about a meter high, still quite small. Were the sukkah smaller than ten handbreadths a person could not even sit inside it.  Secondly, the sukkah must have three walls.  Finally, the skhakh must provide more shade than the amount of sun it allows in.",
                    "<b>An old sukkah:  Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.</b>  Bet Hillel allows a person to use an old sukkah. For Bet Hillel the intention that went in to building the sukkah is not critical, what is critical is the use of the sukkah.  In contrast, for Bet Shammai an old sukkah, one that was not made with the intent to use it on the festival, is invalid, even if it matches all of the other halakhic criteria.  However, Beth Shammai agrees that any sukkah that was made thirty days before the festival is valid, since we can assume that he made it knowing that he might use it on Sukkot.  The only debate is over a sukkah that was made more than thirty days before Sukkot without the intention of using it on Sukkot."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a person who makes a valid sukkah (we will learn more about what a valid sukkah is later) but then something is placed on top of his sukkah that does not count as valid skhakh.  This causes the otherwise valid sukkah to be invalid.",
                    "<b>One who makes his sukkah under a tree, it is as if he made it within the house.</b>  A tree while still attached to the ground cannot be used for skhakh, the roofing of the sukkah. Skhakh must come from a natural source, but it must be detached from the ground.  Therefore, if one puts his sukkah underneath a tree it is invalid, just as it would be invalid if one built a sukkah inside a house with the ceiling as his roof.",
                    "<b>One [who makes] a sukkah on top of another sukkah, the upper one is valid but the lower is invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.</b>  If a person builds one sukkah on top of another, it turns out that the skhakh of the bottom sukkah is the floor of the top sukkah.  Even if the skhakh meets all other halakhic requirements it is still invalid because the fact that someone is living above makes it again similar to a person who builds his sukkah inside a house. Rabbi Judah holds that if there is no one who is living in the upper one, than the bottom one is valid. The upper sukkah is not considered to be living quarters unless someone is actually living there."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If he spread a sheet over it because of the sun or beneath it because of falling [leaves];<br>Or if he spread [a sheet] over the frame of a four-post bed, [the sukkah] is invalid.<br>But he may spread it over the frame of a two-post bed.</b><br>This mishnah teaches that if there is a roof-like structure underneath or above the sukkah it invalidates the skhakh.<br>Section one:  If he spread a sheet on top of the sukkah to keep out the sun, or a sheet underneath the skhakh to keep out the falling leaves, the sheet invalidates the sukkah.  This is because a sheet cannot be used for skhakh, so in essence he is using invalid skhakh to form his sukkah.<br>Section two:  Similarly, if he spreads a sheet over a four-post bed, the sheet invalidates his skhakh, because the sheet forms a roof.  However, the sheet does not invalidate the skhakh if it was spread over a two-post bed.  This is because the sheet forms a tent-like structure, one that slopes to the sides and is not considered a roof.  Since there is no roof made of a sheet, the only roof is the skhakh and the sukkah is valid."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches a few general rules regarding what can be used as skhakh, the covering on top of the sukkah.",
                    "<b>If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid.</b>  In this section we learn several important rules governing skhakh.  The first is that the skhakh must be detached from the ground.  If one takes living vines and trains them on top of his sukkah, the sukkah is invalid.  This is true even if he put some valid skhakh on top of the vines that were still attached to the ground. The sukkah becomes valid only if he puts more valid skhakh than the invalid attached vines, or if he cuts down the vines.  This is an important point. The only thing that makes the vines invalid is that they are still attached to the ground.",
                    "<b>This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.</b>  There are two general rules presented here. The first is that the skhakh has to be something that cannot receive ritual impurity. This means that clothing, chairs, tables, dishes, sheets, etc. cannot be used as skhakh.  Basically, this includes most things that have been “made” or “fashioned” by human hands.  Branches of trees cannot become impure and hence can be used for skhakh.  Secondly, it has to be something that originally grew from the ground.  This rules out metal, stone, clay, plastic etc. Interestingly, these two rules, and that in the previous section, are in a sense foils for one another. The skhakh must be dead, but it must be something that was once alive.  Something has to have been done to it by human hands it has to be cut from the ground, but not too much can be done with it humans can’t turn it into useful instruments.  The skkakh is then “liminal” it mediates between the natural world and the humanly created world.  So too it is above us, mediating between God and humanity."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis  mishnah deals with material that fits all of the criteria brought up in yesterday’s mishnah it comes from the ground, it is detached from the ground and it is not receptive to impurity and yet still cannot be used as skhakh.",
                    "<b>Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood they do not use them as skhakh.</b>  The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that these bundles cannot be used as skhakh because it might look as if he is putting them up there for storage or to dry them out and not to use them for shade.",
                    "<b>But all of them, if he untied them, are valid.</b>  However, if he unties them, it no longer looks like he put them up there to dry or to store them and therefore the sukkah is valid.",
                    "<b>And they are all valid for the walls.</b>  Everything that is invalid for the skhakh is valid for the walls. When it comes to the walls all we are concerned about is that there are walls we are not at all concerned with the material of the walls.  We should note that the word “sukkah” itself means “to cover” and the word “skhakh” is from the same root as the word for “sukkah.”  A “sukkah” is defined by its skhakh but not by its walls."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to discuss things that meet the requirements for skhakh as listed in mishnayot 3-4 (comes from the ground, is detached from the ground and is not receptive to impurity) but are still not valid to use as skhakh.",
                    "<b>They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words or Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that one can use wooden planks whereas Rabbi Meir holds that these cannot be used. In the Talmud they debate how wide these planks are some say that they are four handbreaths wide and others say that they are only three handbreadths wide. All agree that planks thinner than three handbreadths can be used.  In any case, Rabbi Meir rejects the use of broad wooden planks because the sukkah will look too much like a house.  Rabbi Judah accepts them and seems to simply be unconcerned if the sukkah looks like a house.  We have seen that Rabbi Judah allows very strong and stable structures to be valid sukkot above in mishnah one he allowed a sukkah that was over 20 cubits high.  We shall also see Rabbi Judah with a similar type of opinion in 2:2.",
                    "<b>If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it.</b>  This section goes according to Rabbi Meir who forbids using wooden planks.  Rabbi Meir admits that one wooden plank, even if it were wide, would not invalidate the entire sukkah, just the area that it actually covers.  Therefore, he shouldn’t sleep (or eat) underneath this plank, but he may utilize other areas of the sukkah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nRoofs were usually made by first putting on a layer of wooden planks and then covering them with plaster to seal out the rain.  Plaster on a roof would render the sukkah invalid because it does not come from vegetation.  This mishnah discusses a house that has a roof made of wood but there is no plaster on top of it.",
                    "<b>A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two.</b>  Rabbi Judah relates here the opinions of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.  Bet Shammai holds that in order to make this roof valid he must do two things.  First of all, he must pick up every plank, loosen it and only then put it back down in its place. This seems to be a demonstrative act to show that this is a sukkah and not a house.  He must also remove every other plank so that it also looks like a sukkah and not a house.  Bet Hillel is more lenient and allows one to do either he either loosens the planks by picking them up or he removes one from between two.  He need not do both acts.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].</b>  Rabbi Meir rules differently.  Assumedly, he believes that this is what Bet Hillel actually said and not as Rabbi Judah related.  According to Rabbi Meir, the symbolic act of loosening the planks is not necessary nor does it help.  Rather, he must remove one out of every two planks so that the sukkah does not look like a house. This is in line and somewhat modifies that which Rabbi Meir said in yesterday’s mishnah wooden planks may not be used.  Here we see that they can be used, but they must not be placed right next to each other.  Rather there must be gaps equal to their thickness.  Assumedly, he will fill in these gaps with other, less controversial, types of skhakh."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first section of this mishnah is concerned with someone who uses metal objects as skhakh.  The second section deals with the strange case of one who carves out room in a haystack to make a sukkah.",
                    "<b>One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid.</b>  Neither iron spits nor bedposts can be used as skhakh because they are both made of metal.  However, they can be put on top of the sukkah as long as there is valid skhakh between the posts or spits and the valid skakhah is of great quantity than the metal.",
                    "<b>One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.</b>  In this case a person does not make a sukkah but rather the sukkah is made by his hollowing out a hole in a haystack. This is not valid because instead of making a sukkah, the sukkah has been made on its own. In other words, one must make his sukkah by taking skhakh and putting it on top of a framework of walls.  The one who hollows out the haystack has made an absence of space, a negative act, but not the positive act of creating a sukkah.  Hence the sukkah is not valid."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses the height of the walls as well as the proximity of the skhakh to the walls.",
                    "<b>If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid.</b>  The walls of the sukkah must be ten handbreadths high.  However, there is a special rule according to which a gap of less than three handbreadths is not considered sufficient to render a sukkah invalid. Therefore, if he suspends the walls on a pole above the ground and the walls do not fully reach the ground but they are less than three handbreadths from the ground, the sukkah is valid.  In other words, we look at those three handbreadths as if they don’t exist.  Of course, the total height of the walls must be ten handbreadths, as we learn in the next section. But if the gap is larger than three handbreadths, then we can't count the walls as having reached the ground.",
                    "<b>If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid.</b>  If he raises the walls from the ground upwards, the walls do not have to go all the way up to reach the skhakh.  It is sufficient for the walls to be ten handbreadths high, when measured from the ground. Ten handbreadths is about one meter high. This is the standard minimum height for matters which require a wall.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice].</b>  Rabbi Yose disagrees with the opinion in section one.  He says that the same rule concerning raising the walls from the floor to the skhakh applies if he suspends the walls from the skhakh.  As long as the walls are ten handbreadths they are valid, even if they don’t reach within three handbreadths of the ground.  To reiterate:  the debate between Rabbi Yose and the other sages is with regard to a ten handbreadth wall hanging down from the skhakh (assumedly from a pole upon which the skhakh rests) which does not reach to within three handbreadths of the ground.  Rabbi Yose says this is valid whereas the other sages say it is not.  According to the sages it must reach within three handbreadths of the ground.",
                    "<b>If he distances the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid.</b>  This section discusses how close the walls must be horizontally to the skhakh; the previous discussions were about their vertical distance from the skhakh.  The walls must be no less than three handbreadths from the skhakh.  Otherwise there is a three handbreadth gap in the roof of the sukkah, which would mean that that wall could count as one of the walls of the sukkah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if there is a three handbreadth horizontal gap between the skhakh and the walls the sukkah is invalid.  Today we learn that this is only true if there is a gap. If there is material in this gap separating the wall from the skhakh and the material is not valid for skhakh, then the sukkah is invalid only if the invalid skhakh is greater than four cubits.",
                    "<b>If [the roof of] a house is opened, and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the covering, it is invalid.</b>  In this case a person opened a hole in the roof of his house and covered the hole with valid skhakh.  This is a valid sukkah as long as the hole is less than four cubits from the walls.  This space between the walls and skhakh is not open, but rather has a regular roof (plaster and wood).  The roof is considered as if it is part of the walls, at least for a distance of four cubits.  As an aside, I have heard of people who actually do this.  They have a retractable roof, less than four cubits from the walls and they open it up on Sukkot and have a sukkah in their house!",
                    "<b>Similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns.</b>  The mishnah notes another possible circumstance in which this halakhah is applicable. A courtyard is surrounded by a section of columns and covered with a roof.  In such a case, the open space is slightly removed from the walls.  If he covers the open space with valid skhakh and the walls are no more than four cubits from the skhakh, then the sukkah is valid.",
                    "<b>A large sukkah which was surrounded with material which is invalid for skhakh, if there is a space of four cubits beneath it, it is invalid.</b>  This final case is pretty much the same halakhic situation as that in the first two.  Again, a person has a sukkah in which there is some distance from the skhakh in the middle to the walls on the side.  If he fills in this gap with material that is invalid for a sukkah (perhaps he does not have enough kosher material which he can use) than the sukkah is valid.  Obviously, in all three cases in the mishnah, when he goes to sit or dwell in the sukkah, he must sit underneath valid skhakh."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah contains two debates between Rabbi Eliezer and the other sages. The first concerns one who makes his sukkah by leaning one wall against the other. The second concerns the validity of reed mats as skhakh.",
                    "<b>One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid.</b>  In this case a person made a sukkah in a cone-shape, somewhat like a teepee.  It seems that the upper sections of the walls must have been made of valid skhakh. Alternatively, he leaned a wall made of skhakh against another wall not made of skhakh, somewhat like a lean-to. Rabbi Eliezer rules that this is invalid since a sukkah needs to have a roof.  The sages rule that it is valid.  In the Talmud, they claim that the positions should be reversed, Rabbi Eliezer ruling that it is inivalid and the sages that it is invalid.  The halakhah is that these types of sukkot are invalid.",
                    "<b>A large reed mat:  if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.</b>  This section requires a few words of introduction concerning the susceptibility of objects to impurity.  Objects are susceptible to impurities if they are “vessels”.  This halakhic category includes most objects that have been fashioned to be of use for people, but not things that are used for building.  For instance a cup is susceptible to impurity but a brick is not.  In the case under discussion here, a reed mat made to be sat upon is susceptible to impurities whereas a reed mat made to be used as skhakh is not. According to the sages, all small mats may have been made to be sat upon and hence they are all susceptible to impurity.  We learned above in mishnah four that anything that is receptive to impurity cannot be used as skhakh. Hence, small reed mats cannot be used for skhakh.  A large reed mat may have been made either to sit upon or to use as skhakh.  Hence, its susceptibility to impurity and its validity as skhakh depend upon the intent in which it was made. If it was made to be used for sitting it cannot be used as skhakh, but if it was made to be used as skhakh then it is valid.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer says that the size of the skhakh does not matter.  All that matters is whether the mat was made for sitting or for skhakh.  As long as it was made for skhakh it can be used as such, no matter its size."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches that a person who sleeps underneath a bed inside the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation to dwell in the sukkah. This is because the bed, which is not valid skhakh acts as a barrier between him and the valid skhakh above.\nWe should note that in mishnaic and talmudic times it was clearly customary and obligatory to sleep inside the sukkah.  The practice of not sleeping in the sukkah has its origins in cold medieval Europe where a person would truly suffer by sleeping in the sukkah.",
                    "<b>He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  The problem with sleeping under a bed inside a sukkah is that there is a covering which creates a barrier over the person so that the skhakh is not what is covering him.  In the Talmud they restrict this halakhah to a bed that is ten handbreadths high, the minimum height of a sukkah.  Sleeping under such a bed would be akin to sleeping in an invalid sukkah inside a valid sukkah. However, one may sleep under a smaller bed and still fulfill one’s obligation to dwell in the sukkah.  Note that this is what allows one to sleep under a blanket in the sukkah.  The blanket is less than ten handbreadths from the body.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the bed does not serve as a barrier between him and the sukkah and hence one who sleeps under a bed has fulfilled his obligation.  Interestingly, Rabbi Judah notes that this was actually their custom.  It might be that students visiting their rabbis on Sukkot, which seems to have been a norm on festivals, found the sukkot quite crowded.  Hence, some people would sleep under the beds, causing the question to arise: is this legitimate behavior?",
                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed.   And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Shimon agrees with the sages in section one and he brings a story to illustrate his point.  Rabban Gamaliel owned a famous slave named Tabi.  In tractate Berakhot 2:7 that Rabban Gamaliel respected his slave, and that when Tabi died he even mourned for him.  In this mishnah, Tabi exemplifies his knowledge of halakhah by sleeping under the bed in the sukkah.  He knew that he was exempt from the sukkah, as are all slaves, so he did a demonstrative act to let others know that one who sleeps under the bed has not fulfilled his sukkah obligation."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThere are two completely separate topics addressed in this mishnah. The first deals with a person who supports his sukkah on bedposts.\nThe second deals with the necessary thickness and orderliness of the skhakh.",
                    "<b>One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid.</b>  In this case a person used his bedposts to support his sukkah. The bedposts served as the poles upon which the skhakh rested.  The sages say that it is valid but Rabbi Judah requires a structure that cannot be carried around and hence he invalidates it.  We should note that on several occasions we have seen that Rabbi Judah validates permanent like structures for a sukkah (see 1:1, 1:7).  Here we see that he invalidates portable sukkot.",
                    "<b>A disorderly sukkah (and whose shade is more than its sun is valid.</b>  There are two readings of this mishnah.  According to the reading which has the words “and one,” the mishnah discusses two matters:  1) a disorderly sukkah and 2) a sukkah whose skhakh provides more shade than the sun that it allows in.  A disorderly sukkah according to this explanation is a sukkah whose skhakh looks disorganized.  Some of it is poking up and some of it is sticking down.  As long as there is more shade than sun, this sukkah is valid. According to the other explanation and reading of the mishnah the words “and one” are not part of the mishnah.  Rather the mishnah refers to a sukkah without a lot of skhakh. Such a sukkah is valid as long as the shade is more than the sun.",
                    "<b>One whose [skhakh] is thick like [the roof] of a house is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it.</b>  Despite common belief, the skhakh of a sukkah can be so thick that one cannot even see anything through it.  However, the halakhah is that although such a sukkah is valid, it is not desirable. One should strive to have skhakh that is not quite this thick."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThere are two interrelated subjects in this mishnah:  1) building a sukkah in a strange place; 2) entering the sukkah on the festival. As background we should note that on a festival or Shabbat it is forbidden to climb a tree, lest one break off a branch, which is prohibited on Shabbat and a festival.  It is also forbidden to ride on an animal on a festival or Shabbat.\nThe mishnah uses the language “go up into” the sukkah because sukkot were often built on the flat roofs of their homes.  Nevertheless, not all of these mishnayot describe actually going up into a sukkah.",
                    "<b>One who makes his sukkah on the top of a wagon, or on the deck of a ship, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival.</b>  One can build a sukkah on a wagon or on a ship and one can enter into it on Shabbat.  The Talmud explains that the sukkah has to be strong enough to stand up to a wind of common strength.  One who builds such a sukkah can enter into on the festival because there is no prohibition of getting onto a ship or a wagon on the festival.  Indeed, there is a well-known story in the Talmud of rabbis traveling on Sukkot and making a sukkah on the ship. Assumedly, Rabbi Judah who in yesterday’s mishnah stated that a sukkah made using a bed’s bedposts is invalid, would also invalidate a sukkah made on a wagon or ship.",
                    "<b>If he made it on the top of a tree, or on the back of a camel, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival.</b>  A sukkah made on top of a tree or on the back of a camel is also a valid sukkah (I have actually seen such a thing in Neot Kedumim, near where we live in Israel).  However, since it is forbidden to climb a tree or ride on an animal on Shabbat or a festival, these sukkot could only be used during Hol Hamoed, the non-festival days of Sukkot.",
                    "<b>If the tree [formed] two [walls] and one was made by the hands of man, or if two were made by the hands of man and one was formed by the tree, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival.</b>  In this and the next section the person doesn’t make his sukkah in a tree but rather he uses a tree to support the roof of his sukkah.  A tree can be used to support the sukkah’s wall even though the leaves may not count as skhakh when they are attached to the tree. A sukkah must have at least three walls, so if he uses a tree to support even one these three walls he cannot enter the sukkah on the festival because that would be considered using the tree.",
                    "<b>If three walls were made by the hands of man and one was formed by the tree, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival. This is the general rule:  in any case in which if the tree was removed the [sukkah] could stand on its own, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival.</b>  If, however, he has four walls and only one supported by the tree then the sukkah would be valid and would be able to stand even without the tree.  Hence, he may enter this sukkah on the festival because by doing so he is not actually using the tree. The tree-wall is superfluous. The mishnah now summarizes this rule citing a general principle."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first section of this mishnah continues to discuss walls used as trees for the sukkah.\nThe second section begins to discuss a new topic: when a person is obligated to be in the sukkah and what a person is obligated to do there.  This will be the topic of the remainder of the chapter of the mishnah.  Up until now all of the discussions have been about the structure of the sukkah itself.",
                    "<b>If one makes his sukkah between trees, so that the trees form its walls, it is valid.</b>  In this case a person uses a tree for all of the sukkah’s walls, not as support for the walls but rather as the walls themselves.  This might easily happen if there were some bushy trees that could block him on at least three sides.  He supports the skhakh with poles and not with the trees. The sukkah is valid and he may even use it on the festival, since the sukkah is not actually resting on the trees.",
                    "<b>Those who are agents to perform a mitzvah are exempt from [the obligations of] sukkah.</b>  People who are busy performing a mitzvah and find it difficult to eat or sleep in a sukkah are exempt from the sukkah.  This is due to the general rule that one who is engaged in one mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah.  However, this is only true if by eating or sleeping in the sukkah he would be unable or distracted from performing the other mitzvah he set out to perform.  If he could perform both at the same time, then he must do so.",
                    "<b>People who are sick and their attendants are exempt from [the obligations of] sukkah.</b>  People who are sick enough so that being in the sukkah would be a discomfort for them, are not obligated for the laws of the sukkah.  Being in the sukkah is not supposed to be painful and therefore, one who would be pained by being in the sukkah is exempt.  Note, that the mishnah is not addressed to those who might “fake” being sick in order to get out of sleeping or eating in the sukkah.   It is addressed to those who are so zealous about keeping the commandments that they would risk injury or at least illness to do so.  The rabbis tell such a person to get out of the sukkah the sukkah is not supposed to cause one pain.",
                    "<b>One may eat and drink casually outside the sukkah.</b>  Meals must be eaten in the sukkah.  However, snacking may be done outside of the sukkah.  According to the Rambam, while one can snack outside of the sukkah, one who strives to only eat and drink in the sukkah is praiseworthy."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, dealing with whether a person may snack outside of the sukkah.",
                    "<b>It once happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel and they said, “Bring them up to the sukkah.”</b>  The mishnah tells a story of two rabbis who refused to eat anything outside of the sukkah, even a couple of dates, water or the taste of a dish.  It seems that these rabbis were acting “beyond the letter of the law.” Although they could have eaten outside of the sukkah as we learned in the end of yesterday’s mishnah, they chose to be strict and ordered their servants to bring the food up to the sukkah.",
                    "<b>And when they gave Rabbi Zadok food less than the bulk of an egg, he took it in a napkin, ate it outside the sukkah and did not say a blessing after it.</b>  Rabbi Zadok on the other hand does not tell his servant to bring the small amount of food, less than an egg’s worth, up to the sukkah.  He eats it outside the sukkah.  He also performs a few more acts from which we can learn halakhah.  First of all, he takes the food in a napkin and does not wash his hands, as was customary during this period.  Secondly, he does not say a blessing afterwards.  Rabbi Zadok holds that one recites a blessing after eating only an egg’s worth of food."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah the sages and Rabbi Eliezer debate how many and which meals a person must eat in the sukkah during the festival.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: a man is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one on each day and one on each night. But the sages say: there is no fixed number, except on the first night of the festival alone.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer says that a person must eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, two each day, one during the day and one at night.  In other words, eating in the sukkah is a positive commandment on each and every day.  Just as one normally eats two meals a day, so too one is commanded to eat two meals a day in the sukkah. The sages disagree and hold that one is only obligated to eat in the sukkah on the first night of sukkot.  On all other days, he may skip meals.  Of course, if he wants to eat a meal he must do so in the sukkah.  This is similar to the obligation to eat matzah.  A person must eat matzah on the first night of Pesah.  However, on every subsequent day one need not eat matzah, there is only a prohibition from eating bread.",
                    "<b>Furthermore Rabbi Eliezer said: if one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night of the festival, he may make up for it on the last night of the festival. But the sages say: there is no compensation for this, and of this was it said: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is lacking cannot be counted” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).</b>  Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who did not eat in the sukkah on the first night may make up the missed meal by eating a festive meal on the last night of the festival, on the eve of Shmini Atzeret, the eighth day.  Although this festive meal is not eaten in the sukkah, it still counts as a replacement for the meal he missed on the first day.  In the Talmud, they question Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion.  Didn’t he say that one has to eat in the sukkah two meals every day?  If so, why does only the first meal need to be made up?  The answer seems to be that Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the other sages that the first meal is the most important one, even though the others are obligatory as well. There is also a question as to how one can make up a meal that was supposed to have been eaten in the sukkah, by eating a meal outside of the sukkah, where one eats on Shemini Atzeret. The answer to this seems to be that when it comes to Sukkot, Rabbi Eliezer counts the evening as following the day. Thus what we would call the first meal of Shemini Atzeret is really to Rabbi Eliezer the last meal of Sukkot. The sages respond to Rabbi Eliezer that a missed meal cannot be made up. They quote an often cited verse from Ecclesiastes which shows, according to its midrashic meaning, that some commandments, when not fulfilled in their proper time, cannot be made up."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe main topic of this mishnah is how much of a person’s body must be within the sukkah while he is eating.",
                    "<b>One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid.</b>  If someone has a small sukkah, one that is not capable of fitting his entire body, but only his head and most of his body, Bet Shammai declare the sukkah invalid and Bet Hillel say it is valid.  Similarly, if one has a large sukkah, a sukkah sufficient to fit his entire body, but he sat with only his head and most of his body in the sukkah, while the rest of his body was out of the sukkah, he would not have fulfilled his obligation according to Bet Hillel. We should note that the terminology of this mishnah is ambiguous.  At first it sounds like the mishnah is discussing where the person sits, regardless of the size of the sukkah.  However, the words “valid” and “invalid” at the end of section one describe the validity of the sukkah based on its size.  Hence, in my explanation I have tried to incorporate both elements.  According to Bet Shammai the sukkah must be large enough to encompass his entire body and he must sit with his whole body in the sukkah. Bet Hillel say that the sukkah need only hold his head and most of his body and when sitting in the sukkah, only his head and most of his body need be inside. The table may be outside of the sukkah.",
                    "<b>Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.</b>  This story illustrates the argument between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.  As an aside, we can note from this story and the discussion in 2:1 that space in sukkot might have been tight. This might reflect the reality in the Second Temple period in Jerusalem when many people came to make their pilgrimage. Alternatively, it may reflect the cramped housing and living spaces of 2nd century towns in the land of Israel."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMost of this mishnah is concerned with the obligation of children to observe the commandment of dwelling in the sukkah.",
                    "<b>Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah.</b>  Dwelling in the sukkah is a positive time-bound commandment, similar to hearing the shofar.  As such, women and slaves are exempt.  Children are also exempt, as long as they rely on their mothers and need to be with them most of the time.  According to the Talmud, a child who wakes up in the middle of the night and still cries for his mother is not obligated to dwell in the sukkah.  Such a child sleeps where his mother sleeps outside of the sukkah.  But if he wakes up and doesn't need his mother, then he is obligated to sleep in the sukkah.",
                    "<b>It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor.</b>  In this fascinating story, Shammai the elder opens up a hole in the roof of his house so that his newborn grandson can sleep in the sukkah.  Shammai obviously disagrees with the halakhah in the previous section.  Shammai the elder is also known to have made his son fast on Yom Kippur, far before he would have understood the meaning of fasting.  It seems that Shammai’s concept of commandment is not that one must perform an act with intent in order to affect one’s inner life (what we call “kavvanah”), rather the act must be performed regardless of whether one understands what one is doing. Children must perform mitzvot despite the fact the fact that they clearly don’t understand what they are doing."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis is the final mishnah in tractate Sukkah which deals with the topic of the sukkah. It discusses some of the essential rules of how and when one must live in the sukkah.",
                    "<b>All seven days [of the festival] a man must make the sukkah his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence.</b>  The essential commandment of the sukkah is that one should live in it during Sukkot as one lives in a permanent home the rest of the year.  In the time of the Mishnah and Talmud this meant that one would sleep and eat in the sukkah.  It also meant that they would bring their regular belongings, beds, mattresses, pillows, blankets, etc. out into the Sukkah.  Today it means that any activity that one can do with comfort in the sukkah, should be done there.  It means inviting over company and sitting there instead of inside in the living room.  It means playing games with the children in the sukkah.  It means reading there, if the lights are good enough.  It means striving to spend as much time in the sukkah as possible and not turning it into just a dining room.",
                    "<b>If rain fell, when may one be permitted to leave it? When the porridge becomes spoiled. They made a parable. To what can this be compared?  To a slave who comes to fill the cup for his master, and he poured a pitcher over his face.</b>  Nevertheless, one is not commanded to sit in the sukkah if it is raining.  Once the rain is heavy enough to drip through the skhakh and ruin the porridge (a thick soup-like mixture) then one may leave the sukkah, indeed one should leave the sukkah. Just as one would not sit inside his house underneath a leak, so too one should not sit outside in the sukkah while it is raining. The mishnah now illustrates this as a parable.  The Jew who has made a sukkah is like a slave who has prepared something with which to serve his master.  Instead of accepting the water (the sukkah) the master (God) pours a pitcher of water (the rain) over the slave’s face.  This parable is fascinating for its simplicity and intricacy.  The sukkah is in its essence a prayer for rain after all, Sukkot is the beginning of the rainy season.  Yet we don’t want rain while sitting in the sukkah.  Hence early rain is perceived as an insult and not as a blessing.  We can see from the parable just how sensitive the issue of rain was, and still is, to those living in the land of Israel."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe third chapter of Sukkah deals with the four species, which are together called the “Lulav.”  These four species are described in Leviticus 23:40, “On the first day you shall take the product of ‘hadar’ trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”  The four species are identified by the rabbis as 1) the etrog or citron; 2) the lulav or palm-branch; 3) the hadas or myrtle; 4) the arava or willow.  I will refer to them by their Hebrew names.\nThe Torah does not say exactly what one is to do with these four species and this led to different interpretations among ancient groups of Jews. In Nehemiah 8:14-18 we see Israelites using them, or more precisely, something similar to them, to build their sukkot.  Other groups of ancient Jews used them strictly in the Temple to walk around the altar.  For the rabbis the mitvah of the lulav was incumbent upon every Jew, whether at the Temple or outside of it.  The rabbis explain that each Jew must simply pick these four species up once a day on Sukkot and wave them in each direction.  This remains our custom to this day.\nThe first seven mishnayot deal with the physical attributes of the four species.  To this day, observant Jews are extremely cautious to make sure that the four species look like they are supposed to look, or in Hebrew are “mehudar”, adorned.\nYou can find many interesting pictures and information about the four species by googling them and looking at the images.",
                    "<b>A stolen or a dried up lulav is invalid.</b>  There are two potential reasons why a stolen lulav is invalid.  First of all, the Torah states, “And you shall take for yourselves (lachem) on the first day…”  The extra word “lachem (for yourselves)” is understood to mean that a person’s lulav must be their own and not one that was stolen or even borrowed.  Secondly, performing a mitzvah with a stolen item is considered a “commandment that derives from a transgression” and such an act is invalid. A dried up lulav is invalid because it is not “adorned”, meaning it does not look good.",
                    "<b>One [that came] from an asherah tree or from a condemned city is invalid.</b>  An asherah is a tree used for idol worship.  Since it is forbidden to use anything from this kind of tree, its palm-branch cannot be used to fulfill the mitvah of lulav. A “condemned city” refers to an idolatrous city which must be utterly destroyed, according to Deuteronomy 13:13-18.  Everything in the idolatrous city must be burned.  Hence it is impossible to use a lulav that comes from such a city.",
                    "<b>If its top was broken off or its leaves were detached, it is invalid.</b>  The lulav must not be broken off at its top and its leaves must still be attached to the spine, the middle leaf that goes through all lulavim.",
                    "<b>If its leaves are spread apart it is valid. Rabbi Judah says he should tie it at the top.</b>  If the leaves are still attached but they are spread apart, the lulav is still valid. Rabbi Judah says that if the leaves are still attached one should tie the lulav (just the palm-branch) together at the top.  We shall learn more about tying all four species together in mishnah eight.",
                    "<b>The thorny palms of the iron mountain are valid.</b>  The “iron mountains” are identified in Josephus, Wars of the Jews 4, 8, 2 as being mountains north of Moab, on the other side of the Jordan river.  From our mishnah we see that the palm trees that grew there seem to have been a slightly different type of palm.  Their leaves are shorter and do not grow on the whole length of the spine. Nevertheless, they are valid for the mitzvah of lulav.",
                    "<b>A lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid.</b>  The lulav must be three handbreadths, long enough so that one can wave it.  The Talmud explains that the lulav must actually be three handbreadths long, like the hadas and aravah, and then an additional handbreadth so that it can be waved.  We will learn more about waving the lulav and other four species in mishnah nine."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>A stolen or withered hadas is invalid.<br>One [that came from] an asherah or a condemned city is invalid.<br>If its tip was broken off, or its leaves were detached, or its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is invalid. But if he diminished them it is valid. But he may not diminish them on the festival.</b><br>This mishnah deals with the hadas, the myrtle.  Many of the details of this mishnah are the same as those in yesterday’s mishnah concerning the lulav.  I will comment only on aspects of the hadas that differ from those of the lulav.<br>Sections one and two:  See sections one and two of yesterday’s mishnah.<br>Section three:  The first two rules of this section are the same as that in section three of yesterday’s mishnah.  The third is unique to the hadas.  Some hadasim have berries attached to them.  While hiking last week I think I actually saw a wild hadas that had many berries (I’m not a botanist, so I’m not sure it really was a hadas). They weren’t really berries as much as little black things that looked liked capers.  In any case, too many of these berries renders the otherwise valid hadas invalid.  However, the hadas is invalid only if the berries are still on the branch. If he removes the berries, the hadas again becomes valid.  Finally, the mishnah states that he may not remove the berries on the festival itself.  This is because it is forbidden to “make a vessel” on a festival or on Shabbat and by making an invalid hadas valid, he is making a vessel."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>A stolen or withered aravah is invalid.<br>One [take from an] asherah or from a condemned city is invalid.<br>One whose tip was broken off or whose leaves were detached, or a tzatzefah is invalid.<br>One that was shriveled or had lost some of its leaves, or one grown in a rain-watered soil, is valid.</b><br>This mishnah deals with the aravah, the willow.<br>Sections one and two:  See mishnah one.<br>Section three:  The first two details are again the same as in mishnah one.  The third is unique to the aravah.  The Torah specifies that an aravah that grows on a brook, or a wadi, is the type of aravah that should be used.  According to the mishnah, this rules out the species of aravah called the “tzaftzefah”, which grows in the mountains and whose leaves are a different shape than the brook-aravah.<br>Section four:  Of the four species, the aravah is the one that most easily dries out.  Hence, the mishnah rules that if it is shriveled or lost some, but not most of its leaves, it is still valid.<br>The Torah states that the aravah is to be one that grows on a brook. The mishnah expands this to include an aravah that grows on a field watered by rain. The important thing is that the species of aravah is the same as that which grows on a brook.  It is valid even if it is not actually found on the brook.  This contrasts with the tzaftzefah, which is of a different species and does not look like a brook-aravah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah the sages debate how many of each of the species he must take.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole.</b>  According to Rabbi Ishmael, one takes three hadas branches, two branches of aravot, one lulav and one etrog.  He probably derives these numbers midrashically from the verses.  However, the hadasim need not all be perfect.  Two of them may have their tips broken off, as long as the third one does not.  The Talmud questions this addendum to Rabbi Ishmael, wondering if a hadas with its tip cut off is valid.  If it is, then why must the third one have its tip intact, and if it is not, then why bring two invalid hadasim?",
                    "<b>Rabbi Tarfon says:  even if all three have their tips broken off.</b>  Rabbi Tarfon agrees with Rabbi Ishmael regarding the numbers of each species that must be brought, but he disagrees concerning the tips of the hadasim.  He holds that a lulav with its tip broken off is valid.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.</b>  Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael concerning the number of each species.  According to Rabbi Akiva one must only bring one of each species. The accepted halakhah with regard to the number of each species is according to Rabbi Ishmael."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid.<br>One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid.<br>Of orlah or of unclean terumah it is invalid.<br>Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid.<br>Of demai (doubtfully-: Bet Shammai says it invalid, And Bet Hillel says it valid.<br>Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.</b><br>This mishnah deals with what makes an etrog invalid. Of the four species, only the etrog is a food and hence only an etrog is subject to the normal agricultural laws tithes, terumah, and orlah.  The mishnah therefore focuses on these subjects.<br>Sections one and two:  See mishnah one.<br>Section three: Orlah is fruit grown from a tree less than three years old.  It is forbidden to eat such fruit or derive any benefit from it.  Hence an etrog that is from an orlah tree cannot be used.  Similarly, it is forbidden to eat or derive any benefit from unclean (impure) terumah.  Therefore it too cannot be used in the performance of the mitzvah.<br>Section four:  A pure terumah etrog should not be used to perform the mitzvah, although if it is used it is valid.  In the Talmud they debate why it should not be used.  The core of the reasoning seems to be that by using it he may ruin it from being a food and terumah is supposed to be eaten.  Alternatively, by using a terumah etrog with the lulav he may cause the etrog to get wet and thereby susceptible to impurity [produce is susceptible to impurity only after it has been in contact with liquid].<br>Section five:  Demai is doubtfully-tithed produce, produce that was purchased from someone who is suspected of not separating tithes.  There is a frequent debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over the use of demai produce in the performance of a mitzvah. The talmudic explanation is that demai can be eaten by the poor.  Since anyone can renounce ownership over all his possessions and thereby become poor, Bet Hillel holds that anyone can use demai to perform a mitzvah. In other words, every person is potentially a poor person. Bet Shammai holds that since it cannot be eaten by anyone but the poor it cannot be used as part of the lulav.<br>Section six: Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. Nevertheless, the mishnah says that even in Jerusalem he should not use a second tithe etrog as part of his mitzvah.  The reasoning is the same as that in section four concerning pure terumah.  However, if he did use it he has performed the mitzvah, again the same rule as with terumah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid.<br>If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid.<br>An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid.<br>An etrog which is green as a leek: Rabbi Meir declares it valid And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid.</b><br>The Torah says calls an etrog “the beautiful fruit of the tree” or “the fruit of the beautiful tree.”  Due to the mention of the word “beautiful (hadar)\" the rabbis were more demanding regarding the physical perfection of the etrog than of the other three species.  Indeed, to this day people are very concerned that they should have a beautiful “mehudar” etrog.  An extreme example of this is the man who paid one thousand dollars for an etrog in the movie “Ushpizin,” a movie which I recommend.<br>Sections one and two:  If there is a rash, which might refer to some discoloration, or things like warts (not just bumps, which are considered desirable in an etrog) on a majority of the etrog, than it is invalid.  The pitom is the funny looking mushroom which sticks out of the ends of some etrogim (Google pitom and etrog and you can find some nice pictures). I should note that not all etrogim have a pitom.  An etrog without a pitom is valid, indeed in some ways it is preferable because it is less likely to become invalid.  The etrog is invalid only if the pitom was there and was then removed. However, if its stem, the part of it which attached it to the tree is removed, it is still valid.  The stem is basically not part of the etrog.<br>Likewise it is invalid if it is peeled, split or any part of it is missing.<br>Section three:  A black etrog is invalid.<br>Section four:  There is a debate over the green etrog, Rabbi Meir declaring it valid and Rabbi Judah invalidating it.  In Israel one sees many green etrogim, which never fails to surprise my family (as does the pitom-less etrog)."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches the minimum and maximum size for an etrog.",
                    "<b>The minimum size of an etrog: Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. Rabbi Judah says:  the size of an egg.</b>  Rabbi Meir sets the minimum size of an etrog at that of a nut, assumedly something about the size of a walnut.  I have never seen an actual etrog this size, but I suppose that if they are picked early from the tree one can find them this size.  Rabbi Judah sets the minimum size at that of an egg.",
                    "<b>The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands.</b>  In this section they argue about the maximum size of the etrog.  According to Rabbi Judah (who is the stricter sage in both parts of the mishnah), it must be small enough so that one could hold two with one hand. The reason is that sometimes a person might need to hold the lulav and the etrog in one hand. If the etrog is too big he might drop the etrog which might ruin it by disfiguration.  Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that the etrog can be so big that one needs both hands to hold it.  In the Talmud, Rabbi Yose tells a story of Rabbi Akiva who came to the synagogue with an etrog so large that he had to carry it on his shoulder!  In Israel, I have seen very large etrogim, ones that look like they would be difficult to carry with one hand."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAccording to some sages, three of the species (all except the etrog) must be bound together.  Our mishnah debates whether the cord used to bind the three together must be from the same species as one of the three species. The problem with it being from another type of tree is that when he picks up the lulav, he will be carrying five species the four mandated ones and the one from which he made his cord. This might be a violation of the prohibition of adding on to the Torah’s commandments.  The Torah says four species it would be prohibited to add a fifth.",
                    "<b>They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the lulav must be bound together.  The consequence of this rule is that the binding is an integral part of the lulav without it one cannot perform the mitzvah. Since the binding is integral to the lulav, it must be made from one of the four species.  Assumedly, this would be from a string made from a palm tree.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Meir says: it may be bound even with a cord.</b>  In contrast, Rabbi Meir holds that the lulav need not be bound together.  Since the binding is unnecessary, it is not part of the lulav.  Therefore, it can come from any species.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Meir said: it happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold. They answered him: but they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold].</b>  Rabbi Meir defends his opinion by relating a story in which the people of Jerusalem bound their lulavs with strands of gold.  This proves that the binding need not be from the same type of material as the four species.  The other sages admit that those lulavs were bound with gold, but they claim that underneath the gold there was a layer of binding that was made of one of the four species.  Since this was the layer that affected the binding, only it must be from one of the four species. An alternative explanation is that “underneath” means at the bottom of the lulav. The lulav needs to be bound only at the bottom and the men of Jerusalem bound their lulavs with gold only at the top."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first part of this mishnah deals with when during the Hallel (Psalms 113-118) one waives the lulav.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with when during the day one should perform the mitzvah of taking the lulav.",
                    "<b>And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says:  I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.”</b>  The mitzvah of taking the lulav involves waving it in six directions to the directions of the four winds and up and down.  The custom was and still is to waive the lulav the first time one takes it up, and then to waive it again in the synagogue at various points during the recitation of Hallel at the morning service. This is the background to our mishnah.  Here we see that there is a debate about one of these wavings.  According to all of the sages, one waves at the beginning of Psalm 118 and at the end, a Psalm that begins and ends with “Give thanks to the Lord.”  Everyone agrees that there is also a waving in the middle of this Psalm, but they disagree as to the extent of the waving.  Bet Hillel says that one waves during the first half of verse 25, “O Lord, deliver us”, but not during the second half, “O Lord, let us prosper.”  Bet Shammai says that one also waves during the second half of the verse.  Rabbi Akiva, who lived long after Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were no longer really in existence, testifies that he saw all of the people waving at “O Lord, let us prosper” as Bet Shammai stated, while Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, two of Rabbi Akiva’s elders, waived only at “O Lord, deliver us,” as Bet Hillel posited.  The halakhah is according to Bet Hillel.  As an aside, while it is typical for the rabbis to follow Bet Hillel, it is interesting to note that in this case most of the people acted like Bet Shammai.",
                    "<b>One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.</b>  It is preferable to take up the lulav first thing in the morning before one eats. This is usually done today during the morning prayer service, right before Hallel.  However, one can fulfill the mitzvah any time during the day.  If one is returning from a trip and he didn’t have a lulav with him, he should take one as soon as he gets into his house.  Even if he is in the middle of a meal and then remembers that he hasn’t performed the mitzvah of taking the lulav, he should put aside his meal and take the lulav.  One can perform the mitzvah all the way through dusk."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the time of the Mishnah not every person in the synagogue would recite the Hallel on his own, as we normally do today. Rather, the leader would recite part, or perhaps most of the verse and the rest of the congregation would respond with the second half of the verse, or with “Halleluyah.”  In this way, the leader would aid the congregation in fulfilling their obligation to recite Hallel.\nIn this mishnah we learn that slaves, women and minors cannot aid a free adult male in his recitation of the Hallel because they themselves are not obligated to recite Hallel.  This fits in with two general rules:  1) women and slaves are exempt from positive time-bound commandments; 2) a person who is not obligated for something cannot fulfill that obligation on behalf of someone who is.",
                    "<b>One who has a slave, a woman, or a minor read [the Hallel] to him, he must repeat after them what they say, and a curse be upon him.</b>  The mishnah describes an adult man who doesn’t know how to recite Hallel and therefore needs someone else to recite it for him.  Usually, this would be done by another free adult male, but for some reason, this person cannot find another free adult male who knows how to recite the Hallel.  He therefore turns to a slave, a woman or a minor who does know how to recite Hallel.  This is allowed, except unlike a normal case where the person would only answer “Halleluyah” (as is the case in section two), in this case he must repeat the entire verse after the slave, woman or minor.  In this way, he fulfills the obligation himself and they do not fulfill it on his behalf. It is interesting to note that it sounds like the rabbis had to confront the possibility that a slave, woman or minor would be more educated, at least religiously, than a free man.  It is hard to know how realistic this situation was or how often it might arise. Nevertheless, it is at least a theoretical possibility.  The mishnah is clearly disturbed by the man’s lack of knowledge and hence it says that a man who allows this situation to happen should be cursed.",
                    "<b>If an adult recited to him, he repeats after him [only] Halleluyah.</b>  This is the normal way in which Hallel was recited during the time of the Mishnah and Talmud."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first half of this mishnah continues to deal with the recitation of Hallel. The second half contains another rule regarding the lulav and etrog.",
                    "<b>In a place where the custom is to repeat [verses], he should repeat; [Where the custom is] to say them only once, he should say them once.</b>  Today it is our custom to recite certain verses of Hallel twice, specifically from Psalm 118:21 till the end of the Psalm.  In the time of the Mishnah not everyone had this custom. The mishnah states that when it comes to this issue, one should follow whatever is his local custom.",
                    "<b>[Where the custom is] to recite a blessing afterwards, he should recite the blessing afterwards. Everything is dependent on local custom.</b>  Similarly, there were different customs regarding reciting a blessing after Hallel some recited the blessing and some did not. Today our custom is to recite a blessing after Hallel on all occasions, even on those occasions where Hallel is only a custom and is not mandated (such as Rosh Hodesh and the last six days of Pesah).",
                    "<b>One who purchases a lulav from his fellow in the sabbatical year, [the latter] should give him the etrog as a gift, since one is not permitted to purchase it in the sabbatical year.</b>  On the sabbatical year all produce must be removed from one’s house and destroyed once it no longer grows in the field.  A person can harvest the etrog and use it, but once etrogim are no longer found in the trees he must get rid of the etrogim in his house.  When a person sells an etrog (or any other produced) which grew on the sabbatical year, the money retains the status of the etrog (or other produce) itself.  That is to say, when there are no more etrogim in the field he must get rid of the money as well.  The person in our mishnah is purchasing the four species from someone he fears does business in produce grown in the sabbatical year.  He shouldn’t buy from him the etrog lest the seller not get rid of the money when he is supposed to.  A person shouldn’t aid another in transgressing the commandment of observing the sabbatical year. To avoid this problem and still obtain a lulav, he should pay for the lulav (the palm) which is not subject to the laws of the sabbatical year (because it sprouted in the previous year) and have the price of the etrog included in the price of the lulav.  He receives the etrog as a present when he buys the lulav. In this way the money used to buy the etrog need not be removed from the seller's house when etrogim are no longer found on trees."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nLeviticus 23:40 reads, “On the first day you shall take...and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”  The beginning of the verse states “on the first day” and the end of the verse says, “seven days.”  From here the rabbis derived that the mitzvah of taking the lulav is for a different amount of time in different places. They read the second half of the verse as applying to the Temple, “before the Lord your God.”  Hence, the lulav should be taken up for seven days in the Temple.  Outside of the Temple, or according to other commentaries, outside of Jerusalem, the lulav need be taken for only one day.",
                    "<b>In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only.</b>  When the Temple still stood the lulav was taken in the Temple (or in Jerusalem) for seven days and outside of the Temple for only one day, as explained in the introduction.",
                    "<b>When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple,</b>  However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was a problem.  If people only observed the commandment for one day, they would soon forget that originally the commandment was observed for seven days, at least in some places.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leading rabbinic figures after the destruction of the Temple, decreed therefore that the lulav should be taken up for seven days in all places, in memory of the Temple.",
                    "<b>[He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].</b>  Having related one of the decrees that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple, the mishnah now relates another, similar decree.  We need to note a little bit of background to understand this.  On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest.  After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14).  Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest.  When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began.  In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest.  Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem.  If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered.  Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day. It is interesting to note that the rabbis who lived close to the destruction of the Temple believed that it would speedily be rebuilt.  Just as they began working on the rebuilding of the First Temple only 70 years after its destruction, rabbis who lived in the first and early second century probably assumed that their Temple would also be rebuilt in a short time.  However, after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, it probably began to dawn on many that the realistic chances of the Temple being speedily rebuilt were not good.  The hopes of course never died, but this type of legislative activity making decrees lest the Temple be rebuilt quickly, were more characteristic of the pre Bar Kokhba period."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday we don’t take the lulav on Shabbat.  However, in the time of the Mishnah if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, they would take the lulav, because as we learned in mishnah twelve, the taking of the lulav on the first day of Sukkot is mandatory even outside of the Temple.  Our mishnah teaches how they avoided the problem of carrying the lulav to the synagogue on Shabbat, which is clearly a transgression.",
                    "<b>If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday].</b>  In order to avoid the problem of carrying on Shabbat, the people would bring their lulavim to the synagogue on Friday and leave them there for the next day.",
                    "<b>The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.”</b>  The only problem with this is that a person needs to use his own lulav on the first day of the festival, because the Torah says “and you shall take for yourselves on the first day” understood to mean that the lulav must belong to the person taking it.  If all of the lulavim were heaped together in the synagogue a person might not know which lulav is his own.  Therefore the mishnah says that everyone must be able to recognize his own lulav.",
                    "<b>But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow.</b>  The verse which implies that the lulav must belong to the person taking it refers only to the first day of the festival. After this day a person may fulfill his obligation with someone else’s lulav.  The result is that if Shabbat falls on another day of the festival, not on the first day, they need not recognize which lulav belongs to them. They therefore would bring their lulav to the synagogue on Friday but they wouldn't have to worry about recognizing their own lulav."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah which discussed taking the lulav on the first day of the festival which falls on Shabbat.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].</b> According to Rabbi Yose, since a person is supposed to take the lulav on Shabbat if it is also the first day of the festival, he is not obligated if he mistakenly carries it out into the public domain.  In other words, since he was allowed to take it in the first place, he is excused for making the mistake of carrying it outside.  However, if he did this on another day of the festival, meaning if another day of the festival fell on Shabbat, he would be liable since he should not have taken it at all. If he carries it outside into the public domain intentionally he is always liable"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs anybody who has ever fulfilled the commandment of lulav knows, or for that matter, as anybody who has ever dealt with cut flowers knows, they tend to dry up over time.  This is especially true for the aravah and the hadas they simply won’t last when they are taken out of water. Our mishnah deals with putting the lulav back into water on Shabbat and on the festival.",
                    "<b>A woman may receive [a lulav] from her son or from her husband and put it back in water on Shabbat.</b>  This section really teaches two things.  The first is that putting a lulav back in water on Shabbat is permitted.  This is not similar to watering plants which is prohibited because the plants are still attached to the ground.  Secondly, the mishnah teaches that a woman may handle a lulav on Shabbat even though she is not liable to take the lulav. We might have thought that since she is exempt from the laws of lulav, that the lulav is muktzeh to her (forbidden for her to handle). The mishnah teaches that since a man is obligated to take the lulav on Shabbat (if it is the first day of the festival), then the woman may handle it as well.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: on Shabbat they may be put it back [into the water in which they were previously kept], on a festival day [water] may be added, and on the intermediate days [of the festival the water] may also be changed.</b>  Rabbi Judah expands on the previous opinion.  He agrees that on Shabbat one may put the lulav back into the water.  However, he is not allowed to add new water.  On a festival he can even add new water, but he may not completely switch the water.  That he may do only on the intermediate days of the festival (hol hamoed).",
                    "<b>A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is obligated [to take] the lulav.</b>  Once a child has reached an age where he is big enough to hold the lulav (all four species) and shake them properly, he is obligated to do so.  The Talmud Bavli and subsequent commentators interpret this to mean that at this age his father has an obligation to teach him how to shake the lulav.  His real obligation does not begin until his bar mitzvah, at age 13."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is an introduction to the remainder of the tractate Sukkot.  On Sukkot there are some mitzvot that are observed for the full eight days (seven days of Sukkot and one day of Shmini Atzeret) and there are other mitzvot that are observed for a lesser number of days, either because they are not observed on Shabbat or because they do not apply to Shmini Atzeret.\nUp until now the mishnah has spent two chapters discussing the sukkah and one chapter discussing the lulav.  In the upcoming mishnayot we will learn more about these other mitzvot including some fascinating rituals observed in the Temple.",
                    "<b>[The rituals of] the lulav and the aravah are for six or seven [days];</b>  The lulav and the special mitzvah of the aravah are observed for either six days or seven days. We will learn why in mishnayot two and three.  The mitzvah of the aravah refers to circling the altar with the aravah, a mitzvah described in detail in mishnah five.",
                    "<b>The Hallel and the rejoicing are for eight [days];</b>  The full Hallel is recited for all eight days of Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret.  Similarly, there is a mitzvah to rejoice on all eight days of the festival.  Both of these are referred to in mishnah eight.",
                    "<b>The sukkah and the water libation are for seven [days];</b>  The mitvah to sit in a sukkah is for only seven days.  On Shmini Atzeret one does not sit in the sukkah.  The water libation was a special libation of water poured onto the altar only on Sukkot.  It is described in mishnah nine.  Here we learn that they would perform this special water libation for all seven days of the festival, even on Shabbat.",
                    "<b>The flute is for five or six [days].</b>  The flute is played at a special celebration that occurred in the Temple called “Simchat Bet Hashoeva.”  This celebration does not take place on Shabbat, the first day of the festival (Yom Tov) or on Shmini Atzeret.  Hence the flute is played for only five or six days, depending on whether the first day of the festival is on Shabbat. Simchat Bet Hashoeva is described at length in chapter five."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>“The lulav for seven.” How so? If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, the lulav [is taken for] seven days; on any other day, [it is taken] for six.</b><br>As we have learned before, outside of Jerusalem it is a mitzvah from the Torah to take the lulav only on the first day of the festival.  Hence, if the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, one still performs the mitzvah of the lulav. We saw this described above in 3:13.  In such a case the lulav will be taken for seven days one day in which the mitzvah is “deoraita” from the Torah, and the rest of the days it is “derabbanan” from the rabbis.<br>However, if Shabbat falls on another day besides the first day of the festival, then since the mitzvah is only of rabbinic origin, it is not observed. In other words, the derabanan mitzvah of the lulav does not override the Shabbat.   In such a case the mitzvah is observed for only six days.<br>Since the time of the Babylonian Talmud it has become customary not to take the lulav on Shabbat, even if it falls on the first day of the festival.  However, this is not the custom reflected in the mishnah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>“The aravah seven days.” How is this? If the seventh day of [the ritual of] the aravah fell on Shabbat, [it lasts] seven days; if it fell on any other day, [it lasts only] six.</b><br>The only difference between this mishnah and the previous mishnah concerning the lulav is that the lulav is taken on Shabbat if Shabbat is the first day of the festival, whereas the aravah (the willow) is taken on Shabbat if Shabbat falls on the seventh day of the festival.  If Shabbat falls on one of the other days, the aravah ritual is not performed on that day and it will turn out that the aravah ritual happens on only six days.  In mishnah five we will learn more about the aravah ritual as it was performed in the Temple.  The reason that only the seventh day supersedes Shabbat is that the seventh day is the climax of the ritual."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn 3:13 we learned how the mitzvah of lulav was performed in the synagogue on Shabbat and how they managed to get their lulavs to the synagogue while avoiding the prohibition of carrying.  In today’s mishnah we see how the same problem was addressed when the Temple still stood and the people were bringing their lulav not to the synagogue but to the Temple.",
                    "<b>The mitzvah of the lulav how was it carried out?</b>  The question is not really how the mitzvah of lulav was in general performed, but rather how the mitzvah was performed so as to avoid the problem while avoiding certain halakhic problems that would arise on Shabbat.",
                    "<b>If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, they brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, and the attendants would receive them and arrange them on top of the portico,   and the elders laid theirs in the chamber.  And they would teach the people to say, “Whoever gets my lulav in his hand, let it be his as a gift.”</b>  The problem of taking the lulav in the Temple on Shabbat is twofold. First of all it is forbidden to carry a lulav through the public domain on Shabbat, so they would have to bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday.  Secondly, one has to be able to recognize his own lulavim because one can fulfill one's obligation only with one's own lulav.  In 3:13 we read that in the synagogue everyone recognized their lulav.  In the Temple there were just too many lulavim to hope that everyone would recognize which was theirs.  Therefore the leaders in the Temple trained everyone to say that if someone else took their lulav, then that lulav should belong to them.  In this way everyone would own the lulav that they actually ended up with.",
                    "<b>The next day they got up early, and came [to the Temple Mount] and the attendants threw down [their lulavim] before them, and they snatched at them, and so they used to come to blows with one another.</b>  While this solution resolved the halakhic problem, it created a social problem people were still jostling each other over who gets which lulav.  It might have been that everyone was trying to get their own lulav, despite what they had said the previous day.  Equally likely in my opinion, is that everyone wanted to take the nicest looking lulav they could find, even if the one that they had brought was not the best.  In any case, the mad scramble for lulavim led to brawls. This seems to be another case of people allowing their religious zeal to go overboard causing them to neglect the welfare of their fellow human being.",
                    "<b>When the court saw that they reached a state of danger, they instituted that each man should take [his lulav] in his own home.</b>  The court was quick to put an end to this situation and ruled that it is better for people just to stay at home then to potentially harm each other over the taking of the lulav.   I think it is essential to notice how far the court was willing to go to ensure the safety of the people and to prevent religious zealotry from becoming a dominant force.  Better that the opportunity to join together in fulfilling the mitzvah of the lulav should be lost than that it should bring violent results."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches how the special mitzvah of the aravah (the willow) was performed in the Temple.  This ritual is not mentioned at all in the Torah and according to the majority opinion in the Talmud it is either an ancient halakhah, a prophetic enactment or a custom.  However, others derive the mitzvah of the aravah from the Torah by using a midrash.\nIt seems likely that the Sadducees, a group that rivaled the Pharisees while the Temple stood, did not believe that this was indeed a mitzvah.  There is a story in the Talmud that one time the Baytusim (the name of a sect possibly synonymous with the Sadducees) covered the aravot with a heap of rocks to prevent the mitzvah from being performed.  The fact that other sects of Jews opposed this mitzvah explains why it was performed with so many verbal demonstrative acts (recitations and shofar blasts). This was a way to demonstrate that this mitzvah should be performed and a way to convince others to do so.\nAfter the destruction of the Temple, the custom developed to circle around the synagogue one time each day of the week while holding the lulav and seven times on Hoshanah Rabbah, the last day of Sukkot.",
                    "<b>The mitzvah of the aravah how was it [performed]?<br>There was a place below Jerusalem called Moza.  They went down there and gathered tall branches of aravot and then they came and stood them up at the sides of the altar, and their tops were bent over the altar. They then sounded a teki’ah [long blast], a teru’ah [staccato blast] and again a teki’ah.</b>  Most of this ritual is self-explanatory.   The aravot would need to be about 11 cubits high (more than five meters) so that their tops would go over the altar which was ten meters high.  The shofar blasts were meant to give the ritual great publicity and great authority. They were also a sign of rejoicing.",
                    "<b>Every day they went round the altar once, saying, “O Lord, save us, O Lord, make us prosper” (Psalms 118: 25).</b>  While circling the altar the people would recite Psalms 118:25, which is a plea to God to save us and bring us prosperity. Since Sukkot is the holiday on which we pray for the beginning of the rainy season, it is likely that the prosperity which they were praying for was rain.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: “Ani vaho, save us.”</b>  According to Albeck, Rabbi Judah pronounced the beginning of this verse differently.  Whereas we pronounce it “ana adonay”, he would pronounce it “ani vaho.”  However, the meaning of “ani vaho” is not clear.  Others read “ani vehu” which would mean “I and God”, meant to express the idea that God also participates in the sorrows and sufferings of His people Israel.",
                    "<b>On that day they went round the altar seven times.</b>  On the seventh day they would circle the altar seven times.  This is the origins of “Hoshanah Rabbah”, the last day of Sukkot on which we circle the Torah, which is placed in the middle of the synagogue, seven times.",
                    "<b>When they departed, what did they say? “O altar, beauty is to you! O altar, beauty is to you!” Rabbi Eliezer said: [they would say,] “To the Lord and to you, O altar, to the Lord and to you, O altar.”</b>  The end of this seven day ritual was also accompanied by recitations, again meant to emphasize the importance of the aravah ritual and our sadness that the joyous occasion is completed.  The people are actually paying homage, in a sense, to the altar. Through the altar the people of Israel receive atonement and hence it is desirable for us to praise it.  We should note that we often think of Judaism as an anti-iconic religion God is transcendent, has no body or image, and we therefore deemphasize religious artifacts and emphasize intentions, emotions and our intellect.  While this is not the space to enter into a thorough examination of these issues, it does seem to me that this is largely a Maimonidean concept of Judaism.  In our mishnah we see that most rabbis had no problem directly speaking to the altar itself.  Rabbi Eliezer adds that the praise should not go only to the altar, but to God as well."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first section of this mishnah teaches how the aravah ritual was performed on Shabbat.  In the second section we see that at least one rabbi thought that this was not an aravah ritual but a ritual performed with palm branches.",
                    "<b>As was its performance on a weekday, so was its performance on Shabbat, except that they would gather them on the eve of Shabbat and place them in golden basins so that they would not become wilted.</b>  The mishnah emphasizes that when this ritual was done on Shabbat (if it fell on the seventh day) it was done in the exact same way that it was done during the week.  This seems to be an emphasis of the rabbis in several places certain holiday rituals are indeed carried out on Shabbat.  This is another area of halakhah in which the rabbis/Pharisees deeply disagreed with the Sadducees and the sect from the Dead Sea.  Indeed, according to the solar calendar used by the Dead Sea Sect, the holidays mostly began on Wednesdays.  They thought that holiday ritual never superseded Shabbat and they shaped their calendar accordingly.  In contrast the Pharisees/rabbis said that on certain occasions, it did.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: they used to bring palm branches and they would beat them on the ground at the sides of the altar, and that day was called “[the day of] the beating of the palm branches.”</b>  In this section we learn that Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka disagrees with all of the previous mishnayot.  He holds that the entire ritual was done with palm branches and not with aravot. At the end of the rituals they would beat whatever had been carried around the altar for seven days (the palm branches according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, and aravot according to the other sages). That day was called “the day of the beating of the palm branches/aravot.”  To this day beating the aravot on Hoshanah Rabbah is still customary. Other commentators explain that Rabbi Yohanan’s debate with the other sages is only concerning the seventh day.  On that day one takes palm branches and aravot.  On the other days he agrees that he takes only aravot."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Immediately after beating the willows (or palm branches) the children undo their lulavs and eat their etrogim.</b> Once the ritual of the aravah was completed, children would immediately undo the ties binding their lulavim together and would immediately eat the etrogim.  This seems to encompass two concrete ways of demonstrating that the mitzvah was utterly completed.  Once the lulav is untied it is no longer really a lulav it is now just a palm branch, a willow and a myrtle branch.  Once the etrog has a bite taken out of it, it can no longer be used on Sukkot."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first section of this mishnah deals with the recitation of Hallel and “rejoicing”, two mitzvoth which one fulfills on all eight days of the festival.  The second section deals with the sukkah in which one dwells for seven days but not on Shmini Atzeret, the eighth day of Sukkot.",
                    "<b>The Hallel and rejoicing are on all eight days: How is this so? This teaches that one is obligated for the Hallel, for rejoicing and for honoring the festival on the last day, just as he is on all the other days of the festival.</b>  On all eight days of Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret the full Hallel is recited.  This is different from Pesah on which a full Hallel is recited on the first day only.  “Rejoicing” has a general meaning in that one is supposed to be happy on the festival, as it says in Leviticus 23:40, “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”  Despite the fact that the Torah specifies “seven days” the rabbis expanded this to include Shmini Atzeret.  “Rejoicing” also has a more specific ritual sense during the festival one should bring sacrifices and eat them because eating meat, a much rarer luxury in mishnaic times than it is now, was considered one of the consummate signs of rejoicing.",
                    "<b>The sukkah is for seven days. How so? Once he finished eating [his meal on the seventh day], he should not untie his sukkah, but he removes its contents from the time of minhah and onwards in honor of the last day of the festival.</b>  While the Hallel and rejoicing are for the full eight days, one sits in the sukkah for only seven days. Shmini Atzeret is distinguished by the fact that we do not sit in the sukkah.  The mishnah teaches that one should eat his last meal in the sukkah for lunch on the seventh day of Sukkot and then start to bring his nice things, his dishes, his bed, his couch etc., into the house as a sign of respect for Shmini Atzeret.  However, he should not undo his sukkah because he might still need to eat in there if he wants to eat again before the day is over.  Taking the sukkah down before Sukkot is completely over might also be perceived as a sign of disrespect for Sukkot.  It might make it look like he couldn’t wait to take down his sukkah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAnother one of the unique ceremonies performed at the Temple on Sukkot was the water libation.  During the year libations, that is pouring liquid onto the altar, were always performed with wine.  The water libation is unique and was vehemently opposed by the Sadducees, as we shall see at the end of the Mishnah.\nThe water libation functioned as a supplication to God to bring rain in the upcoming season.  As I have emphasized in other places, the rainy season in Israel is from Sukkot to Pesah.  If enough rain does not fall in this period people’s lives would have been in serious danger.  In the Temple they would pour water onto the altar to ask God to bring rain from the heavens to fill the cisterns and underground aquifers below.",
                    "<b>How was the water libation [performed]? A golden flask holding three logs was filled from the Shiloah. When they arrived at the water gate, they sounded a teki'ah [long blast], a teru'ah [a staccato note] and again a teki'ah. [The priest then] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left where there were two silver bowls. Rabbi Judah says: they were of plaster [but they looked silver] because their surfaces were darkened from the wine. They had each a hole like a slender snout, one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time. The one on the west was for water and the one on the east for wine. If he poured the flask of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To [the priest] who performed the libation they used to say, “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs.</b> The water libation ritual would begin with a procession from the Shiloah, the stream that empties out at the base of the Temple Mount. As we shall see when we learn the fifth chapter, this procession would begin in the morning after Simchat Bet Hashoevah (to be explained below). The people would make their way up to the Temple and enter through a designated gate called “the water gate.”  [Made much more famous about 2,000 years later!]  Just as we saw with the aravah ritual, here too they blew three shofar blasts.  Again, this seems to have been a way of highlighting the event and emphasizing its importance in light of the fact that others disagreed with its fulfillment.  They would then pour the water into a special bowl that had a hole in it.  The water would go down to a cistern underneath the altar called “shitin”, where according to legend it would cause the waters of the deep to rise and nourish the earth.  The wine libation was done simultaneously. Rabbi Judah disagrees with the first opinion in the mishnah concerning two matters: 1) the libation was done with a log and not with three logs.  Secondly, he holds that the water libation was for all eight days and not just on the seven days of Sukkot. In the final story a priest, identified in the Talmud as a Sadducee, pours the water onto the floor of the Temple rather than pouring it onto the altar.  In response, the people pelt him with their etrogs.  There are several fascinating aspects to this story. First of all, although the Sadducean priest disagreed with the water libation, he was still working in the Temple and he ended up with the water flask in his hand.  If the Sadducees controlled the Temple why did he have the water flask such that he had to cast it down?  Why would they have bothered bringing the water up from the Shiloah in the first place? And if the Pharisees controlled the Temple, why would they have let a Sadducean priest perform a ritual that they surely knew he disagreed with?  Another interesting point is that the people’s sentiments clearly lie with the rabbis/Pharisees. Finally, there is a very similar story in Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 13, Chapter 13: “As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a festival which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar, and was going to sacrifice, the nation rose upon him, and pelted him with citrons [which they then had in their hands, because] the law of the Jews required that at the feast of tabernacles every one should have branches of the palm tree and citron tree; which thing we have elsewhere related.” This event occurred during the Hasmonean reign, meaning sometime in the early 1st century B.C.E.  Alexander Yannai was king and high priest and was known to have had Sadducean leanings.  However, there is nothing in Josephus about a water libation.  The people pelt him with etrogs (citrons) because they oppose him as king and high priest.  It is hard to know if the story in the Mishnah is related to this story from Josephus, either historically or literarily, but one thing we can know for sure if you’re a Sadducee in the Temple on Sukkot, you’d better watch your head!"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches how they would perform the water libation on Shabbat and yet avoid the problem of having to carry the water up from the Shiloah.",
                    "<b>As it was performed on weekdays, so was it was performed on Shabbat, save that on the eve of Shabbat he would fill a non-sanctified golden barrel from the Shiloah, and place it in the chamber.</b>  Importantly, the mishnah emphasizes that the water libation was performed on Shabbat just as it was performed during the week. I believe that this is frequently one of the ways in which the rabbis emphasized the importance of controversial rituals. It is as if to say that the water libation is so crucial that it is even done on Shabbat. However, they had to make sure that the water was not carried through the public domain on Shabbat.  In order to do this they would bring the water up on Friday before Shabbat and leave it in the chamber until the next morning.  However, this posed another problem.  Water or any other liquid left overnight in a sanctified vessel becomes unfit for use in the Temple.  Therefore they would use a golden barrel that had not been consecrated.",
                    "<b>If it was poured away or uncovered, he would refill it from the laver, for wine or water which has become uncovered is invalid for the altar.</b>  If the water was poured away (perhaps by the Sadducean priest we met yesterday) then it obviously can’t be used. Similarly, if it was left uncovered it also can’t be used.  Liquids left uncovered overnight are forbidden for anyone to drink for fear that a snake put venom in them. Since exposed liquids can’t be drunk by people, it is also forbidden to use them on the altar.  If the water that they had brought up the day before could not be used, then they would just use water from the laver that was in the Temple."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first four mishnayot of the final chapter of Sukkah are about a Sukkot ritual called “Simchat Bet Hashoevah”, which is usually translated as the “Celebration of the Water-Drawing.”  The water-drawing refers to the drawing of the water from the Shiloah in order to perform the water-libation, described above in chapter four.  At the end of the all-night Simchat Bet Hashoevah ceremony, early in the morning, they would leave the Temple, go down to the Shiloah and draw the water.\nIt seems that the function of the ceremony was twofold. First of all it highlighted the importance of the water-libation, which as we saw before, was controversial. Secondly, it allowed non-priests a chance to participate in the Sukkot ritual in the Temple.  This seems to be one of the major differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees the former encouraged the participation of non-priests in Temple ritual as much as was possible, whereas the Sadducees seemed to have abhorred it.",
                    "<b>The flute was for five or six days. This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah [the place of the water-drawing] which does not override Shabbat or the festival day.</b>  The mishnah refers to a flute that was played during the Simchat Bet Hashoevah.  This celebration would only take place on five or six days because it did not override Shabbat or the festival day. So if the first day of Sukkot and Shabbat coincided, then it would happen for six days; if not for only five.  Interestingly, in the descriptions of the Bet Hashoevah that follow, the flute is no longer present.  I do not have a good answer for this absence.",
                    "<b>They said:  he who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life.</b>  The Simchat Bet Hashoevah was supposed to have been the most joyous, celebratory occasion in the Jewish calendar.  Indeed, to this day in our tefillot we call Sukkot “the time of our rejoicing (z’man simchatenu)”."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah begins to describe the Simchat Bet Hashoevah ritual.  The ritual seems to be centered around fire, which has led some scholars to suggest the Simchat Bet Hashoevah really means “The Celebration of Fire.”",
                    "<b>At the conclusion of the first festival day of Sukkot they descended to the Women’s Court (Ezrat and they would make there a great enactment.</b>  As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, they did not celebrate the Simchat Bet Hashoevah on either Shabbat or on the festival.  They would not begin until after the first festival day was completed.  The celebration would start with the people going into the “Women’s Court.” This was a section in the Temple into which both men and women could enter, but it was as far as women could go in the Temple.  Hence it was called the “Women’s Court.” The mishnah says that they would make their a “great enactment” but does not explain what this was.  The Talmud explains that they separated the men and women, putting the men below and the women up into the balcony so that they wouldn’t mix.  The fear was that in the midst of such a raucous occasion the mixture of men and women together could lead to transgression. Hence they separated between the sexes.  However, on normal occasions men and women seem to have been together in the Women’s Court.",
                    "<b>And golden candlesticks were there, and four golden bowls on the top of each of them and four ladders to each, and four youths drawn from the young priests, and in their hands there were jars of oil containing one hundred and twenty logs which they poured into the bowls.</b>  The first thing they would do was light an enormous menorah.  On each candlestick there were four golden bowls according to tomorrow’s mishnah, there was enough light to light up all of Jerusalem!  Children would climb ladders to light the menorah and they would use 120 logs of oil, which is the equivalent of fifteen liters of oil.  This works out to about half a liter of oil for each bowl."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah continues the description of the incredible light which shone from the menorah at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah.",
                    "<b>From the worn-out pants and belts of the priests they made wicks and with them they kindled the lamps.</b>  The wicks that they used to light the candles were not made from any old ordinary material.  They used the worn-out pants and belts the priests, which they wore in their Temple service. This teaches us that once something has been used for one mitzvah it is fitting that it should be used in another mitzvah as well.",
                    "<b>And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light of the Bet Hashoevah.</b>  The light from the menorah was so great that according to the mishnah it lit up all of Jerusalem."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah describes the Simchat Bet Hashoevah.",
                    "<b>Men of piety and good deeds used to dance before them with lighted torches in their hands, and they would sing songs and praises.</b>  After having lit the menorah, the party kicks off with dancing, singing and the playing of musical instruments.  The first participants mentioned are the “Hasidim” or the men of piety and men whom are known for their good deeds. This group’s participation is unusual and noteworthy for these were men chosen based on their deeds and not on their lineage.  In my opinion this was indeed one of the functions of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, to give a greater role to those who are not of the priestly or Levitical clans.  It is these people whose dancing, songs and praise would probably have stood out the most.  This dancing and singing took place in the Court of the Women.",
                    "<b>And Levites with innumerable harps, lyres, cymbals and trumpets and other musical instruments stood upon the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, corresponding to the fifteen songs of ascents in the Psalms, and it was on these [steps] that the Levites stood with their musical instruments and sang their songs.</b>  The second group is the Levites who would arrange themselves on the fifteen steps leading up from the Court of the Women to the Court of the Israelites.  The mishnah notes that these fifteen steps correlate with the fifteen Psalms which begin “A Song of Ascents (Shir Hamaalot)” (Psalms 120-134).  One can only imagine how beautiful, indeed sublime, their music must have been.",
                    "<b>Two priests stood by the upper gate which leads down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, with two trumpets in their hands. When the cock crowed they sounded a teki'ah [drawn-out blast], a teru'ah [staccato note] and again a teki'ah. When they reached the tenth step they sounded a teki'ah, a teru'ah and again a teki'ah. When they reached the Court [of the Women] they sounded a teki'ah, a teru'ah and again a teki'ah. They would sound their trumpets and proceed until they reached the gate which leads out to the east.</b>  The third group involved is the priests.  The priests begin the ceremony standing above everyone else, up in the Court of the Israelites.  When the cock crows at the crack of dawn they begin a process of descending and blowing shofar blasts at set stages.  Eventually this leads them down through the women’s court and out to the eastern gate.",
                    "<b>When they reached the gate which leads out to the east, they turned their faces from east to west and said, “Our fathers who were in this place ‘their backs were toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east’, but as for us, our eyes are turned to the Lord.” Rabbi Judah said:  they used to repeat [the last words] and say “We are the Lord’s and our eyes are turned to the Lord.”</b>  When they get to the eastern gate they are facing the sun.  They turn around so that their backs are to the sun and use this opportunity to profess their faith in God and their denial of the worship of the sun.  They quote from Ezekiel 8:16 in order to highlight that the sin of sun-worship is not just something that “others” or Greeks were engaged in, but something that Israelites themselves were accused of by Ezekiel.  It seems to me likely that there is also a polemic here against other contemporary Jewish groups who had a solar calendar.  A calendar based on the sun and actual worship of the sun could probably have been associated. Certainly it would make sense that the Pharisees/rabbis would claim that their rivals, the Essenes and perhaps the Sadducees, were not just basing their calendar on the sun but were worshipping the sun as well.  We have already seen on a number of occasions that Sukkot was a holiday full of strife between the various sects of ancient Judaism. The mishnah ends its procession at this point, but it is quite clear that it was not actually over at this moment but that from the eastern gate they would make their way down to the Shiloah spring in order to draw water for the water-libation."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nSince the previous mishnah mentioned the extra shofar blasts that were sounded during Sukkot, today’s mishnah discusses how many shofar blasts were sounded on other occasions in the Temple.  As we shall see, more shofar blasts were blown on the eve of Shabbat during Sukkot than at any other time during the year.",
                    "<b>They never have less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple, and never more than forty-eight.</b>  This is an introduction to the rest of the mishnah.  We should remember that each tekiah (unbroken sound) and each teruah (staccato sound) counts as one blast. The blasts always come in sets of three, first a tekiah, then a teruah and then another tekiah.  Sometimes this order is repeated and sometimes it is performed three times.",
                    "<b>Every day there were twenty-one blasts in the Temple, three at the opening of the gates,   nine at the morning tamid sacrifice, and nine at the evening tamid sacrifice.</b>  On normal days there were twenty-one blasts. There were three blasts in the morning to announce the opening of the Temple gates, and then nine blasts at each of the two daily sacrifices, the morning tamid and the afternoon tamid.",
                    "<b>At the musafim (additional they would add another nine.</b>  On the festivals and on Shabbat there were an extra nine blasts for the musaf offerings. The Talmud explains that no matter how many musaf offerings were offered on that day, nine and only nine blasts were sounded.  Thus even on Shabbat during the festival, when there were musaf offerings for Shabbat and for the festival, there were still only nine.",
                    "<b>And on the eve of Shabbat they would add another six, three as a sign to the people to stop working and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane.</b>  On the eve of Shabbat there were six other blasts, whose function was not connected to sacrifices or to Temple procedures but rather to Shabbat. There were three blasts that let people know that Shabbat was approaching and that they needed to stop working.  And then there were another three blasts to let people know that Shabbat had begun.  Interestingly, there was a stone from the ruins of the Temple found in Jerusalem that had written on it \"bet hatekiah lehav…\" which means \"the house of blasting to distinguish.\" Probably, the reference is to the practice in this very mishnah. This stone was once part of the section in the Temple where they blew shofar blasts to distinguish between kodesh (Shabbat) and hol (non-Shabbat).  To this day in Jerusalem and in a few other cities in Israel as well they sound a warning to let people know that Shabbat has begun. It turns out therefore, that on the eve of Shabbat during Pesah or on Shavuot, there would be thirty-six blasts 21 for the normal occasions, 9 for musaf, and 6 for the eve of Shabbat.",
                    "<b>On the eve of Shabbat in the intermediate days of the [Sukkoth] festival, there were [therefore] forty-eight blasts:  three at the opening of the gates, three at the upper gate,   three at the lower gate, three at the water-drawing, three at the altar, nine at the daily morning sacrifice, nine at the daily evening sacrifice, nine at the additional sacrifices, three as a sign to the people to cease from work, and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane.</b>  In the previous mishnah we learned that there were nine additional blasts for the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, in 4:9 we learned of three blasts for the water-libation and in 4:5 there were three blasts for the aravah ritual. Therefore, on the eve of Shabbat during Sukkot (but not on the first day) there should have been 51 blasts 36 from section four and 15 additional blasts which were special to Sukkot.  However, our mishnah teaches that there were only 48 blasts.  The best explanation for this discrepancy seems to be that this mishnah skips the three blasts that were done on the tenth step leading down to the Court of the Women during the Simchat Bet Hashoevah. Explained this way, when our mishnah says the upper gate, it refers to the first three blasts at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah. The lower gate refers to those sounded when they reached the Court of the Women. The three at the water-drawing refers to those mentioned in 4:9, and the three at the altar refers to the three at the aravah ritual (4:6). Commentators also note another problem with this mishnah. There were even more blasts sounded on Pesah when the passover offering was being sacrificed.  These could reach 27 blasts (three each time the Hallel was sung, three potential groups, each singing the Hallel three times).  If Pesah fell on the eve of Shabbat that there could be 54 blasts, more than the 48 mentioned in our mishnah."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe priests were divided into twenty-four watches, each watch serving for a week at the Temple. During a watch’s week the priests of that watch kept all of the sacrificial meat and any other part of the sacrifice that they were allowed to use.  However, during pilgrimage festivals all twenty-four watches equally divided the sacrifices that were offered on account of the festival.  Our mishnah teaches how the numerous Sukkot offerings were divvied up.",
                    "<b>On the first festival day of Sukkot there were thirteen bulls, two rams and one goat. Fourteen lambs remained for the other eight priestly watches.<br>On the first day, six [watches] offered two each and the remaining [two] one each.</b>  On the first day of Sukkot there were thirty animals sacrificed:  thirteen bulls, two rams, one goat (for a sin-offering) and fourteen lambs (Numbers 29:13-16).  This means that 16 priestly watches could take one animal each, leaving fourteen animals for the other eight watches.  On the first day of the festival, six watches would sacrifice two lambs and the other two watches would get one lamb each.",
                    "<b>On the second day five offered two each and the remaining [four] one each.</b>  On the second day there was one less bull, so the total number of animals was only 29.  Fifteen watches would take the fifteen non-lamb animals, leaving nine watches to split 14 lambs.  Five would take two lambs, leaving four to each take one.",
                    "<b>On the third day four offered two each and the remaining [six] one each.</b>  On the third day there were 11 bulls, for a total of 28 animals.  Fourteen watches would take the fourteen non-lamb animals, leaving ten watches to split 14 lambs.  Four would take two lambs, leaving six to each take one.",
                    "<b>On the fourth day three offered two each and the remaining [eight] one each.</b>  On the fourth day there were only 10 bulls, for a total of 27 animals.  Thirteen watches would take the thirteen non-lamb animals, leaving 11 watches to split 14 lambs.  Three would take two lambs, leaving eight to each take one.",
                    "<b>On the fifth day two offered two each and the remaining [ten] one each.</b>  On the fifth day there were only 9 bulls, for a total of 26 animals.  Twelve watches would take the twelve non-lamb animals, leaving 12 watches to split 14 lambs.  Two would take two lambs, leaving ten to each take one.",
                    "<b>On the sixth day one offered two and the remaining [twelve] one each.</b>  On the sixth day there were only 8 bulls, for a total of 25 animals.  Eleven watches would take the eleven non-lamb animals, leaving 13 watches to split 14 lambs.  One would take two lambs, leaving 12 to each take one.",
                    "<b>On the seventh day all were equal.</b>  On the seventh day there were 24 animals for 24 watches each watch got one.",
                    "<b>On the eighth day they again cast lots as on the other festivals.</b>  On Shmini Atzeret there were only 10 animals sacrificed, one bull, one ram, one goat and seven lambs (Numbers 29:35-38).  The watches would then cast lot to see who received what (see Yoma 2:1).",
                    "<b>They said: the [watch] that offered bulls on one day should not offer them on the next, but that they should take their turns in rotation.</b>  It is obviously better to receive a large meaty bull than a small goat.  It wouldn’t have been fair for one watch to monopolize the larger animals. Therefore a watch that got a bull one day would not get a bull the next day.  Without going through all the math, with a total of 70 bulls offered over the seven days of Sukkot, 22 of the watches would have been able to offer 3 bulls and two would have had to suffice with only 2 bulls. I think they should put this mishnah as a word problem (everyone's favorite) on a math exam!"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that the twenty-four priestly watches equally divided the sacrifices that were offered on account of the festival. Our mishnah now discusses the ownership over the other sacrifices that would have been offered on the three festivals.",
                    "<b>At three periods in the year all the priestly watches shared equally in the festival sacrifices and in the division of the showbread.</b>  This is a reference to the previous mishnah.  On all three festivals all of the watches shared equally in all of the sacrifices that came on account of the festival. This would include the musafim mentioned yesterday, but also the “hagigah” and other special sacrifices that individuals would bring on account of the festival. They also divided the showbread equally, despite the fact that the showbread is not really a sacrifice that comes on account of the festival.",
                    "<b>On Shavuot they used to say to the priest, “Here is matzah for you, here is chametz for you.”</b>  On Shavuot there were both the matzot of the showbread and leavened bread (chametz) from the two special loaves on Shavuot. Therefore they could amusingly say to the priest coming to take his share:  here’s your matzah, here’s your chametz.",
                    "<b>A watch whose period of service was fixed [for that festival week] offered the tamid, vow-offerings and freewill-offerings and all other public offerings; and it offered them all.</b>  The watch whose week fell on the week upon which there was a festival would get the offerings that were brought not on account of the festival. They would get the tamid, the daily offerings. They also received the individual voluntary offerings vow offerings and free-will offerings.  They also received other public offerings not listed in the previous mishnah. This would include the Shabbat musaf offerings.  Finally, they would get any offering that was brought for some reason other than the festival.  This would include first-born animals and tithes.  We should note that despite the fact that the festival offerings were divided up equally among the different watches, it surely would have been a bonus to have one’s watch fall on the festival for the simple reason that more people came to the Temple at these times.  It was at these times of the year that people would have brought their voluntary offerings, their first-born animals, their animal tithes and other offerings.  Hence, it was probably quite lucrative to have your watch fall during the festival.",
                    "<b>A festival which fell next to Shabbat, either before or after it, all the watches shared equally in the distribution of the showbread.</b>  If Shabbat fell either on the day before the festival or the day after, all of the watches would receive an equal portion of the showbread.  If it fell before the festival, they would have to get to Jerusalem before Shabbat, a day earlier than if the festival had fallen during the week.  If it fell after the festival, they would have to stay a day later. Since they had to be there anyway, they received a portion of the showbread even though Shabbat was not on the festival."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> The final mishnah of Sukkah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah which dealt with the division of the showbread.",
                    "<b>If one day intervened between them [Shabbat and Yom Tov], the watch whose time of service was fixed [for that week] took ten [of the] loaves, while they that were detained   took two.</b>  Yesterday we learned that if Shabbat fell next to Yom Tov (the first or last day of the festival) then all of the watches divided the showbread evenly.  Today we learn that if there was one day in between Shabbat and Yom Tov, the watch whose week it was would get most of the showbread but not all.  Since some of the watches might not be able to begin their way back home because they lived too far away to make it in one day, or might need to get to Jerusalem before Shabbat, they were compensated by getting at least a little bit of the showbread.",
                    "<b>On all other days of the year the incoming watch took six loaves and the outgoing watch six. Rabbi Judah said, the incoming watch took seven and the outgoing five.</b>  At all other times of the year the incoming and outgoing watches would split the showbread evenly.  The watches would actually switch their service on Shabbat.  The new watch would arrange the new showbread and the two would split the showbread from the previous week. Rabbi Judah says that this division was not completely equal.",
                    "<b>The incoming watch divided it in the north, and the outgoing in the south.</b>  In order that the watches should not get confused, the incoming watch would divide the showbread in the northern section of the Temple and the outgoing watch would divide in the south.",
                    "<b>[The watch of] Bilgah always divided it in the south; their ring was fixed and their alcove was blocked up.</b>  Bilgah is the name of one of the watches (see I Chronicles 24:14).  According to the mishnah and other rabbinic sources they were punished for the sins committed by Miriam, the daughter of one of the priests.  Miriam committed apostasy and married a Greek soldier, and when the Greeks entered the Temple during the time of the Maccabees she came in with him and acted in a disrespectful manner to the Temple.  As a collective punishment for the whole watch they always divided in the south, as if to say that even when they were entering their service, it is as if they are on their way out.  Alternatively, the Talmud says that Bilgah may have been punished because they were constantly late in arriving to serve in the Temple. In the Temple there were twenty-four rings, one for each watch.  When skinning a sacrifice they could put the animal’s neck through the ring and have it held up while they skinned it. Bilgah’s ring was closed up so that they couldn’t use it.  In addition, every watch had its own alcove in which they could store their knives.  Bilgah’s was closed up, again as a punishment for their misdeeds."
                ]
            ]
        ]
    },
    "schema": {
        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה סוכה",
        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sukkah",
        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Sukkah",
        "nodes": [
            {
                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
                "enTitle": "Introduction"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "",
                "enTitle": ""
            }
        ]
    }
}