Mishnah Sukkot 2

If one sleeps under a bed in the sukkah, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehudah said, We were accustomed to sleep under the bed in the presence of the Elders and they didn’t say anything to us. Rabbi Shimon said, It once happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabban Gamliel, slept on one occasion under the bed, and Rabban Gamliel said to the Elders, You have seen Tabi, my slave, that he is a learned man, and knows that slaves are exempt from the sukkah, therefore he sleeps under the bed. Thus, incidentally, we learn that one who sleeps under the bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

One cannot sleep under a bed in a sukkah since that would be considered as sleeping in a booth within a booth. Rabban Gamliel’s example serves as a further application and proof. Since his slave Tabi is learned, it is assumed he knows the ruling that slaves are exempt from the sukkah. Hence, he slept under the bed in the sukkah. The mishnah concludes that therefore, had he not been a slave, he would not have slept under the bed.

If one props up his sukkah with the legs of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Yehudah says, If it cannot stand up by itself, it is invalid. If a sukkah is unevenly roofed, but its shaded part is more than its unshaded part, it is valid. If thickly roofed as over a house, even though the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid.

"What is the reason of R. Yehudah? R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree. One says, It is because the sukkah has no permanence, and the other says, It is because he keeps it up with something susceptible to ritual uncleanliness. What essentially differentiates them? If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes in the ground and covered them with a sukkah covering. According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he keeps it up with something susceptible to ritual uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to ritual uncleanness."

(meaning the roof), but if he placed a sukkah covering above a bed, it is valid. What is the reason? According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he sets it up with something susceptible to ritual uncleanliness, here he does not set it up with something susceptible to ritual uncleanliness."

If one builds his sukkah on the top of a wagon or on the deck of a ship, it is valid, and they may go up into it on a festival day. If at the top of a tree or on the back of a camel, it is valid, but they may not go up into it on a festival day. If two (sides of the sukkah) were formed by a tree and one by hand (formed by men’s hands), or if two by hand and one by a tree, it is valid, but they may not go up into it on a festival day. If three by hand and one by a tree, it is valid and they may go up into it on a festival day. This is the general principle: In every case where if the tree were removed, it could stand by itself, it is valid and they may go up into it on a festival day.

If one constructs the sukkah between the trees and the trees form its sides, it is valid. Those who are sent forth on a religious duty are exempt from the sukkah. Sick persons and their attendants are exempt from the sukkah. People may partake of an improvised meal or drink outside the sukkah.

The confusing aspect of mishnah three concerns the fashioning of the walls by trees and men’s hands. I have inserted these additional qualifiers in the parentheses. The main idea is that the s’chach must be supported on poles and not by the branches of the tree. In mishnah 4, the improvised meal is a snack needed to curb one’s hunger before partaking of a full meal which must be eaten in the sukkah except where noted above. A further example will be given in the next mishnah.

It once happened that they brought cooked food to Rabban Yochannen ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a bucket of water to Rabban Gamliel and they said, Bring them up to the sukkah. But when they gave R. Zadok less than an egg’s bulk of food he took it in a napkin and ate it outside the sukkah; and he did not recite the Grace after it.

Rabbi Eliezer says, A man is duty bound to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one each day and one every night. But the Sages say, There is no prescribed number except only on the night of the first night of the Festival of Tabernacles. And Rabbi Eliezer made a further statement, If one had not eaten on the first night of the Festival of Tabernacles, he must fulfill his lapse on the last night of the festival. But the Sages say, The matter cannot be rectified; regarding this Scripture says, That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is lacking cannot be numbered

We can look at a summary of the laws of dwelling in a sukkah culled from the various codes of Jewish law:

If it rains on the first night of Sukkot, one must wait a reasonable amount of time for the rain to stop. If it does not, then one must make Kiddush in the sukkah, wash and eat a small kezayit (size of an olive) of challah and not make the blessing "Leishev BaSukkah". If it then stops raining after one has eaten indoors, one must go out to the sukkah again, wash, and make the blessing, "Leishev BaSukkah" and eat in the sukkah.
On the second night of Sukkot, one does not have to wait as long to make Kiddush, but one must still try to eat a kezayit of challah in the sukkah. On all other nights, it is not necessary to wait until it stops raining, but one can eat inside the house. If the rain interferes with the normal use of the sukkah, then one eats inside.
The first night of Sukkot we make the brocho "Borei Pri Hagafen", then Kiddush, then "Leishev BaSukkah", then "Shehecheyanu". The second night of Sukkot, we make a Borei Pri Hagafen, then Kiddush, then shehecheyanu. There are different customs when one makes the brocho "leishev BaSukkah" on the second night.

If a man’s head and the greater part of his body were in the sukkah but his table were in the house, the School of Shammai declare it invalid, but the School of Hillel declare it valid. The School of Hillel said to the school of Shammai, was it not a fact that the Elders of the School of Shammai and the Elders of the school of Hillel once visited Rabbi Yochannen ben Hahoroni and they found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body inside the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? The School of Shammai replied to them, Is there evidence form that? But they even said to him. If thou have been wont to act thus thou hast never in thy life fulfilled the obligation of the sukkah.

Here we see an example where the view of the School of Shammai is accepted. The commentaries state that the reason for this injunction was because in mishnaic times, it was customary to sit on couches leaning to the left at meals. One must be completely inside the sukkah to fulfill the mitzvah of leishev basukkah.

Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the sukkah; but a minor who no longer needs his mother is duty bound to observe the sukkah. It once happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and he broke away some of the ceiling plaster and covered it with sukkah roofing(s’chach) over the bed for the sake of the child.

Throughout the seven days a man must make his sukkah his principle abode and his house a temporary dwelling. If rain fell, when may he clear out? When a dish

(of food) would be spoiled. They made a comparison. To what can the matter be compared? To a slave who came to fill the cup for his master and he poured the jug over his face.

We have commented on these laws in the beginning of this chapter by looking at the comments of the Rambam. The reader is referred back to the introduction of this chapter to review those comments. The analogy of the master pouring water over the slave’s face is to remind us that we must leave the sukkah reluctantly and distressed if it rains too hard to remain.

Proper respect should be given to the sukkah and one is not allowed to derive benefit from its materials during the year. It should be decorated and adorned so as to enhance the joyfulness of the festival.

"If one potential witness says, 'I saw it and it appeared to be two stories high', and another witness says, 'it was three stories high', their testimonies may be combined and the moon sanctified on this basis. If one witness says, 'it was approximately three stories high', and another witness says, 'it was five stories high', their testimonies cannot be combined together..."

If witnesses say, 'we saw the moon without concentrating our attention, and afterwords, when we concentrated our attention, with the intention of sighting it and reporting it, we did not see it', this is not considered valid testimony... Perhaps clouds came together, appeared like the moon, and then dispersed."

"If witnesses say, 'we saw the moon on the twenty-ninth day in the morning, in the east before sunrise, and afterwords in the evening we saw it in the west on the thirtieth night', their testimony is believed...since it is obvious that what they saw in the morning was not the moon, but clouds and that testimony is disregarded... but their second observation is accepted..."

" A minimum of three judges is required to sanctify the new moon. Similarly, the calculations must be made by three judges...The new moon is only sanctified during the day. If it was sanctified a night, the sanctification is of no consequence. The new moon is not sanctified by observation, but by the authority of the court that declares, 'It has been sanctified!'..."

Rabban Gamliel had diagrams of the shapes of the moon on a tablet and on the wall of the upper chamber. These he sued to show the ordinary people asking, "Did you see the moon like this or like that?" It once happened that two came and said, "We saw it in the east in the morning and in the west in the evening". Rabbi Yochannen ben Nuri said, "they are false witnesses." But, when they arrived in Yavneh, Rabban Gamliel accepted them. And on another occasion, two came and said, "We saw it at its proper time, but on the following night, we did not see it"; and Rabban Gamliel accepted them. Rabbi Dose ben Hyrcanus said, "They are false witnesses", and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya replied, "I agree with you."

Rabban Gamliel sent to him (Rabbi Yehoshua), "I order you to come before me with you staff and your money on the day you calculate to be the Day of Atonement." Rabbi Akiva went and found him looking troubled. He said to him, "I can prove that whatever rabban Gamliel has done is decisive, for it is said, 'These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, Holy convocations, which you shall proclaim'. Whether at their proper time or not, I have no other festivals than these." Rabbi Yehoshua came to Rabbi Dosa who said to him, "If we desire to argue against the court of Rabban Gamliel, we must argue against every court that has arisen from the days of Moshe until now, as it is said, 'Then went up Moshe and Aharon, Nadab and Abihu, and sevnty of the Elders of Israel...' Why were not the names of the elders expressly mentioned? To teach us that any three persons who have risen up as a court over Israel, are like the court of Moshe." Rabbi Yehoshua took his staff and his money in his hand and went to Yavneh on the day the he calculated to be the Day of Atonement. Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him and said,

"Come in peace my master and my disciple; my master in wisdom and my disciple because you have accepted my words."

In these mishnayot, we see that RabbanGamliel was an accomplished Astronomer. As head of the court, he had the responsibility to make sure that the wirnesses saw the new crescent not only in its proper time but also in the correct location. As head of the court, it was also Rabban Gamliel's authority to decide matters of Jewish law. Thus, even if Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya's calculations were correct, he could not go against the standing of the court. This was derived by Rabbi Akiva using the Torah's phrase " to you" meaning the designated authoirty (in this case Rabban Gamliel).

There is an interesting ancedote about Rabban Gamliel from the Talmud in Tractate Eruvin 43b:

"A Tanna taught: Rabban Gamliel had a tube through which he could see at a distance of two thousand cubits across the land and a corresponding distance across the sea. If a man desires to ascertain the depth of a ravine, let him use a tube and by looking through it, be in a position to ascertain the depth of the ravine. And if he wishes to ascertain the height of a palm tree, let him measure his own height and the length of his shadow, as well as the shadow of the tree, and he will know the height of the tree..."

This description may sound like a telescope, but on closer examination, it seems that the "tube" is using angles and trigonometry and is therefore more likely an "astrolabe". We cannot interpret the word "see" literally. Rashi comments on this verse in the Talmud:

"It is a hollow tube which, when it is long, enables one to see a short distance, and when it is short, enables one to see a long distance. Rabban Gamliel's tube was adjusted to give vision for two thousand cubits on land or sea...The observer should measure first for what distance the tube is adjusted. Then let him go to the edge of the valley and look down into it. Let him walk back until he finds that the bottom of the valley is just visible in the tube so that if he walked back any further, he would not be able to see the bottom of the valley. He will know the depth of the valley since he knows how far he has walked back from the edge of the valley..."

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya was also an astronomer as can be seen from the following anecdote (Tractate Horayot 10a):

"Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya were traveling by sea. The former took with him a supply of bread for the voyage, but the latter also took along some flour. When Rabban Gamliel had eaten his bread, he also had to use some of Rabbi Yehoshua's flour. He asked Rabbi Yehoshua, ' How did you know that the voyage was going to take so long that you brought flour with you?' Rabbi Yehoshua replied, 'There is a star which appears every seventy years and leads sailors astray. I thought that it might appear during our voyage and lead us astray.' "

From the description, it sounds like Rabbi Yehoshua is describing the periodic return of a comet (such as Halley's comet which returns every 76 years). Modern studies of cometary orbits, using Kepler's Laws and Isaac Newton's Laws of Physics would not begin until Edmund Halley's famous work in the early eighteenth century!