Sukkah

JRJ, Summer 1985, 117-118

DECORATION OF SUKKA WITH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Question: Are there any specific requirements about de- corating a sukka? Need it be decorated with iresh anil

perishable fruits and vegetables? It seems that this is an in- appropriate waste in a period when many individuals go hungry and the food had better be given to the poor. Would it be equally appropriate to celebrate the festival by insist- ing the fruit and vegetables, normally used in this fashion, simply be donated to the poor? (Rabbi Myra Soifer, New Orleans, LA)

Answer: The decoration of sukkot with fruit and vegetables goes back to talmudic discussions. There is, for example, a statement whether “branches of fig trees on which there are figs, vines with grapes palm branches with dates, and wheat with ears on it, may be used for a sukka covering.” Though there is some discussion, they are consid- ered valid (Suk. 13b). More directly, it is simply stated that a wide va- riety of fruit and vegetables were used to decorate the sukka. This eluded pomegranates, grapes, and ears of corn, wine, oil, fine flaxen, and embroidered work (Suk. 10a, also 31b). I another place in the same tractate, there is a discussion of using ot decorations (Suk. 28b). Some later authorities mention nuts used for beautification. It is clear, therefore, that there is some warrant for de- corating the sukka in this fashion, using fruit and vegetables as well as nuts, from talmudic times onward. We find this mentioned, inciden- tally in prescriptions for the sukka given by Maimonides, Caro, and other codifiers, as well as an occasional reference in the responses

There is, however, no requirement that the sukka be decorated in this fashion. For that matter, any type of decoration seems to have been acceptable. Some sukkot of wealthy European families in the past century contained painted walls. Few of those survived, and one is exhibited in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Still others commonly were decorated by pictures made by various younger members of the family. There are no stipulations about this in the legal halachic litera ture; we are dealing with minhag in this matter.

As there are no stipulations for the decoration of the sukka, it would be a mitzvah in time of need to use the funds normally ex- pended upon such items of food for the direct alleviation of poverty. In place of the fruit and vegetables usually hung, inedible items could be hung as decoration, such as gourds, acorns, or chestnuts, along with pictures made by children in the religious schools.

Walter Jacob, Chairman CCAR Responsa Committee

RR 60-62

Congregational Succah

It has long been the custom in our congregation to build a succah on the platform between the Ark and the pulpit. Some have objected to this, on the ground that our succah should be in the open air, namely, in the patio of the synagogue.

This subject really involves two questions: First, may a succah be built anywhere in the synagogue premises as a sort of congregational succah; second, if such a congregational succah is proper, may it be built within the synagogue auditorium, as is the custom in many of our congregations?

The law requires that a man must eat and sleep in the succah, his house becoming a temporary dwelling during the festival and the succah his actual dwelling place. Thus it is necessary that each build his own succah. Not only must each succah be built by each householder, but it seems that it was by implication forbidden to build one in the Temple. The verse in Deuteronomy 16 : 21, “Thou shalt not plant any tree by the altar of God,” is commented on by Sifre to the effect that its meaning is that no structure—neither house nor succah—may be built by the altar of God (cf. also Yalkut Shimoni to the verse).

Yet this prohibition cannot be absolute, because in Nehemiah 8 : 16, where a celebration of Succoth is described, we are told that the people built succos by their homes and also in the courts of the Lord, that is, in the Temple. Besides, the Talmud declares that priests serving in the Temple are also obligated to eat in the succah (b. Arakin 3b). The Tosfos on the passage says that a succah was therefore built in the Azarah for the use of the priests. The scholars dealing with these various statements arrive at the conclusion that there were two succos in the Temple premises, one in the Azarah for the use of the priests and one in the Court of Women for use of the Israelites (cf. Chavazeleth Hasharon, David Babad, Orah Hayyim #33).

If, then, succos were built in the Temple, are they therefore permitted in the premises of the synagogue? This very question was asked of the Geonim Natronai and Hai (cf. Levin Teshuvas Ha-Geonim, Succah, pp. 33 ff.). The answer of the Geonim is that building a succah must be done by each individual, but if it is a market town and there are strangers, or if it is a large city and many do not find room for individual succos, the succah may be built by the synagogue. Mention is made that the synagogues of Bagdad have the custom of building succos, and the Gaon admits that this is an established custom. These Geonic responsa are repeated in the twelfth century by the French scholar Abraham Ibn Yarchi (Ha-Manhig). In our days, Simon Sofer (in Hisor’rot Teshuva I, 14) says it is permissible in a big city to build a succah in the synagogue courtyard. It is clear, then, that by custom and considerable law it is unobjectionable for a congregation to have a succah in its courtyard.

As to the second question, whether a succah may be built indoors on the platform of the synagogue: a succah must have sun and shade and so must be in the open air. However, it may be built under a removable roof or skylight (see Isserles to Orah Hayyim 626 : 3). If the temple auditorium has a skylight, the platform succah could be according to law. But few auditoriums are so constructed. Therefore the succah on the platform is not to be regarded as a legal succah in which a man could be said to fulfill his obligations on “dwelling in the succah.” While the courtyard succah is, of course, technically proper, the inside succah is merely a decoration, beautifying the synagogue in the spirit of the festival.

RRT 44-47

THE PERMANENT SUCCAH

QUESTION:

A congregation in the South plans to build on its grounds a permanent boothlikc structure which is to be used as a Succah during the festival. Is it permissible to use a permanent structure for this ritual purpose? (Asked by Rabbi Kenneth Segel, New Orleans, Louisiana.)

ANSWER:

AT FIRST BLUSH it would seem to be forbidden to use a permanent structure as a Succah. The law governing the building and the use of the Succah is based on Leviticus 23:44-45, in which the commandment to “dwell in booths” is based upon the statement that God provided booths (Succahs) for the children of Israel in the desert. Upon this verse the Talmud, Succah 2a, comments as follows: On the festival of Succos a man must move from his fixed dwelling place to a temporary or makeshift hut (diras aroy). Therefore, all the laws as to the building of the Succah speak of its light or makeshift construction.

Furthermore, the first Mishnah of the tractate speaks of “an old succah,” and that is defined as a Succah that is already as much as thirty days old. Such a thirtyday-old Succah is deemed invalid by the school of Shammai. On the positive side, it has become an established custom to start building the Succah as soon as Yom Kippur is over—in other words, no earlier than four days before the festival begins. This custom is based upon the chief source of our Ashkenazic customs, Maharil (in his laws on Succos), and is confirmed as a custom by Isserles in the Shulchan Aruch, Orah Hayyim 625:1. All the above regulations would indicate that the permanent structure suggested in the question would be deemed invalid by Jewish traditional law.

However, a deeper study of the matter would reveal that the above objections are not at all crucial. First of all, as to the requirement that it be a “temporary structure,” it is quite permissible to build a Succah, for example, in a garret, provided that the roof or skylight is removed so that those who sit in the Succah can see the sky and the stars through the covering of fir branches (s’chach). There is, of course, a further requirement that the permanent roof of the garret shall not overlap onto the Succah as much as four cubits. If there is less than four cubits of permanent roof over the rims of the Succah, this Succah which is part of the permanent house is quite valid. This is discussed in the Mishnah 1:10 (cf. Bertinoro).

As to the objection to “an old Succah,” i.e., one that is more than thirty days old, the objection is confined only to the school of Shammai; but the school of Hillel declares such a Succah quite valid. This is discussed in the first Mishnah of the tractate; and in the Talmud 9a, the following becomes clear, that it makes no difference how early a man builds it, provided he builds it for the purpose of a Succah. If he built it to be a Succah, not merely to be any sort of booth, then there is no such objection as “an old Succah.” See especially Rashi’s statement (ibid.).

As a matter of fact, it became an established custom in many places to have a permanent structure with a hinged roof—provided, of course, that the hinged roof be lifted out of the way and its place taken by the usual branches (s’chach). It would be invalid to put the s’chach on while the permanent hinged roof is still on the building. The roof must be raised, and when the roof is opened to the sky, the s’chach must be put on. See Isserles to Orah Hayyim 626:3 for a full statement of the use of such a structure. In fact the Talmud itself (in 8b) speaks of buildings built by Gentiles for cattle, or for people to live in, which may properly be used for a Succah if prepared as described above.

Of course, whether the permanent Succah described in the question is a valid Succah would depend, therefore, upon the following: First, that the congregation from the very beginning intends it to be used for the purpose of a Succah. This, indeed, is the fact. Second, that it is not at all sufficient merely to decorate the building with fruits, etc.; the roof must be removed and a temporary roof of branches made. If that is done, the all-around Succah is quite valid according to Jewish tradition.

NRR 46-47

SUCCAH AND ARTIFICIAL FRUIT

QUESTION:

Is it permissible to have artificial fruit as decorations for the Succah? The advantage of artificial fruit would be that it does not spoil quickly and can be used year after year. (Asked by Rabbi Richard A. Zionts, Shreveport, Louisiana.)

ANSWER:

OF COURSE, Succos being harvest time, it is natural to decorate the Succah with fruits which are readily available, apples, pears, etc., and in fact, this is the general and natural custom. But would it be permitted to use artificial fruits because of the advantages mentioned in the question?

The question amounts to this: Did they ever use anything but real fruit as decoration, and is real fruit actually required? What laws there are concerning the decorations generally deal with the question whether these fruits may be eaten during Succos, or are they a part of the Succah and must they remain as such until the festival is over? (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 638:2).

Nevertheless, while the obvious custom and the law about eating the decorations indicate that real fruit was used, there are some indications that other types of decoration were used. Thus, for example, in the Palestinian Talmud (Succah 51b) there is a discussion as to the height that the Succah must have, and the specific question is whether the decorations may be counted as diminishing the height or not. On that question the Talmud says that if the decorations are of the sort suitable for the Succah covering (schach), then they may be said to diminish the height of the Succah. What is meant by “suitable for the Succah covering”? It means vegetable matter, branches, etc. Then this would indicate that the decorations need not necessarily be vegetable matter at all since the Talmud asks “if it is.” As a matter of fact, Epstein in Aruch Ha-Shulchan makes this distinction quite clear. In discussing the law which forbids the eating of the decorations, he says, “If the decorations are food, i.e., edible, they may not be taken down and used during Succos” (Orach Chayim 638:10).

But we do not need to rely entirely on this negative inference. As a matter of fact, we have positive statements that non-edibles were used for Succah decorations. Maharil (14th century), speaking of the decorations of the Succah, says, “Praiseworthy is the custom of the Ashkenaz that we spread beautiful cloths (tapestries) as decorations of the Succah. ” And in fact Isserles, in his note to Orach Chayim 638:2, also speaks of the custom of decorating the Succah with hangings of handsome cloths.

Therefore, although there is no mention of artificial fruit (it may be they did not know of such), nevertheless the law is clear that they used decorations that were not edible (at least on the walls of the Succah). Therefore we may well conclude that there is no clear or real objection to the suggested use of artificial fruit.

CARR 271-272

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

**181. Sukkah as a**

Huppah

QUESTION: May a sukkah be used as a

huppah? Is it possible to use a sukkah in this fashion in the courtyard of a

synagogue? May it be used in the case of a symbolic sukkah on the bimah of a

synagogue? (L. P, Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER: Traditionally a wedding is not

conducted, except under emergency conditions, during hol hamoed sukkot

(Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 64.5; Orah Hayim 524.1). Yet, if we intend to do so,

and are not constrained by the earlier prohibition, we should then inquire about the nature of the

huppah in general. Although the term huppah has been used in the

Talmud, its meaning there was quite different from the meaning which we have given it.

In the Talmud it referred to the marriage chamber, often beautifully and generously

decorated by the groom’s father (San. 108a). Subsequently, there was considerable difference of

opinion as to what huppah actually meant as indicated in the comments by Joe Sirkes

(Tur Even Haezer 61). Huppah may have meant the isolation of the groom with

the bride, or the mere fact that she entered his house (even in the company of others according

to Rabbanu Nissim), or that some cloth, possibly a portion of the groom’s coat, was placed over

the girl’s head during the blessings, or that the father gave the girl to the husband. These and

others are all possible definitions of the huppah. None of them have anything to do with

the small canopy which we now erect for a wedding ceremony. The canopy was probably first

mentioned by Moses Halevi Mintz in the fifteenth century (Maharam Minz #109). There it

stated that the community provided a kipah, or canopy, for the couple in which they were seated

outside the synagogue before the ceremony. This, of course, had nothing to do with the

ceremony itself. Moses Isserles first mentioned the huppah as used by us (Shulhan

Arukh to Even Haezer 55.1), and it is clear that this was a novelty, symbolic of the room in

which the bride and groom were later alone together. Solomon B. Freehof has concluded

(“Huppah,” In the Time of Harvest, pp. 192 ff) that this symbolic home was arranged

during the period of poverty in Poland and Russia in which one could hardly expect a young

student to be able to provide a home or even a room for the bride. Instead, they often resided in

the home of the girl’s parents. The huppah served to meet the ancient requirements, and

the community arranged for this symbolic room on neutral ground, i.e., the courtyard of the

synagogue. As the huppah stood for the sexual union of the bride and groom, it was

considered inappropriate to bring the huppah into the synagogue. For that reason, the

ceremony previously held within the synagogue was moved to the exterior into the

courtyard. Any kind of symbolic hut may be used, and there would be no reason for

excluding a sukkah. The construction of the sukkah would not interfere with such a

use. All the regulations which deal with the construction of a sukkah are quite specific.

They treat its dimensions, the nature of its sides and the roof. The main concern, however, is the

visibility of the sky through the roofing material, which may not be solid. For that reason, a

sukkah may not be placed under a tree, does not become a permanent part of a home,

etc. (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 426 ff). The sukkah is to be used as much as

possible during the week of the festival. The family should live in it and minimally take one meal

in it (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 439). All of this makes it clear that the sukkah is

the equivalent of a home for that week. The symbolism of the huppah would fit to a

sukkah if (a) the sukkah belongs to the groom, and therefore, demonstrated his

intention of providing a home for his newly established family; (b) the sukkah belongs to

the synagogue, and therefore, to the entire community. It would provide the same symbolism as

the communal synagogue huppah. For these reasons, it would be perfectly

possible to use an outdoor sukkah as a huppah if a wedding is permitted at this

time. For that matter, it would be equally appropriate to use the interior huppah placed on

the bimah of many synagogues. As the huppah is symbolic, we may use it in this

manner.February 1979

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 272-273

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

182. Decoration of Sukkah with Fruit and

Vegetables

QUESTION: Are there any specific requirements about

decorating a sukkah? Need it be decorated with fresh and perishable fruits and vegetables? It seems that this is an inappropriate waste in a period when many individuals go hungry, and the food should be given to poor people. Would it be equally appropriate to celebrate the festival by insisting the fruit and vegetables, normally used in this fashion, simply be donated to the poor? (Rabbi M. Soifer, New Orleans,

LA)

ANSWER: The

decoration of sukkot with fruit and vegetables goes back to Talmudic discussions. There is, for example, a statement whether “branches of fig trees on which there are figs, vines with grapes, palm branches with dates, and wheat with ears on it, may be used for a sukkah covering.” Though there is some discussion, they are considered valid (Suk. 13b). More directly, it is simply stated that a wide variety of fruit and vegetables were used to decorate the sukkah. This included nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, grapes and ears of corn along with phials of wine, oil, fine flax and embroidered work (Suk. 10a, also 31b). In another place in the same tractate, there is a discussion of using other decorations (Suk. 28b). Some later authorities mention nuts used for beautification. It is clear, therefore, that there is some warrant for decorating the sukkah in this fashion, using fruit and vegetables as well as nuts, from Talmudic times onward. We find this mentioned, incidentally, in prescriptions for the sukkah given by Maimonides, Caro and other codifiers, as well as an occasional reference in the responsa. There is, however, no requirement that the sukkah be decorated in this fashion. For that matter, any type of decoration seems to have been acceptable. Some sukkot of wealthy European families in the last century contained painted walls. Few of those survived and one is exhibited in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Others were decorated with pictures made by various younger members of the family. There are no stipulations about this in the legal halakhic literature and we are dealing with minhag in this matter.

As there are no stipulations for the decoration of the

sukkah, it would be a mitzvah in time of need to use the funds normally expended upon such items of food for the direct alleviation of poverty. In place of the fruit and vegetables usually hung, inedible items could be hung as decoration, such as gourds, acorns, chestnuts, etc., along with pictures made by children in the religious schools.

October 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5755.4 91-96

CCAR RESPONSA

A Non-Traditional Sukkah

5755.4

Sh’elah

What is the liberal Jewish definition of the mitzvah of sukkah? Can a non-traditional structure (such as a tent) be considered a sukkah for us? Does eating meals outdoors suffice? (Rabbi Judith Z. Abrams, Houston, Texas)

T’shuvah

Like Pesach, the festival of Sukkot is the occasion for much detailed discussion in the halakhic literature. In particular, a plethora of information awaits anyone seeking instruction concerning the size, shape, structure, and material for the making of a sukkah.[1] Our task is to consider these rules in the context of contemporary Reform Jewish practice. Does Reform Judaism insist upon all the traditional requirements, or can the goals and purposes of sukkah observance be met through the use of structures that do not meet these requirements? Indeed, does the Reform Jewish idea of sukkah necessitate a physical structure of any kind?  

The Halakhah.  

We begin with the definition of a sukkah presented in the halakhic literature. The sukkah is a temporary structure (dirat ar`ai) which becomes the functional equivalent of one’s home during the festival.[2] Thus, the height of a sukkah may not exceed twenty cubits, since to build it that high would require that the walls be sturdy enough to support a permanent structure (dirat keva`).[3] Nor may the height be lower than ten handbreadths, for such a structure would be considered dirah seruchah, unfit for even temporary habitation.[4] The area of the sukkah must be sufficient to allow an individual to eat a meal within it.[5] The `ikar, or essence of the sukkah rests in the s’khakh, the material which serves as its roof or covering.[6] The s’khakh must consist of detached vegetation that cannot contract ritual impurity, and there must be enough of it so that the amount of shadow it casts exceeds the amount of sunlight which enters the sukkah.[7] The walls of the sukkah (there must be at least three), by contrast, may be constructed out of any material, so long as they are sturdy enough to withstand a normal wind.[8] The walls, if they are anchored in the roof of the sukkah, must extend to within three handbreadths of the ground.[9] The sukkah must have a roof; should the walls come together in the manner of a conical hut, the structure is not a valid sukkah.[10]  

Reform Perspectives.  

It should be obvious from the foregoing that the suggestions raised in the sh’elah are not halakhically acceptable. A tent, because it has neither roof nor s’khakh, is an invalid sukkah (sukkah p’sulah), and eating one’s meals outdoors hardly qualifies, since the minimal definition of a sukkah requires a structure with roof and walls. Yet the question asks us to look beyond the halakhic tradition and to reexamine the very parameters of this mitzvah. Reform Judaism, after all, has long championed the cause of “creative ritual” and has introduced many fundamental innovations into the corpus of Jewish religious observance. Perhaps there is good reason why we ought to do so in this case.  

For the sake of clarity, let us formulate the question as follows. It is a fact that many, indeed most Reform Jews, do not construct sukkot and thus do not fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah in its traditional sense. On the other hand, these Jews might well be prepared to observe the festival in some other, arguably related manner. Though not everyone will wish to purchase or erect a sukkah, there are those (families with young children, for example) who would find it enjoyable to eat festive meals in their camping tents. And many who are unable or unwilling to build a sukkah would presumably be quite willing to eat outdoors, particularly if the early fall weather is pleasant. Though their practice would be decidedly non-traditional, these individuals would be willing to leave their permanent homes to take their meals in “temporary dwellings”. Would this not fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah for liberal Jews? Would it not meet the intent, the essential purpose of the observance, by calling to mind the miracles which God did for us when we came out of Egypt?[11] Indeed, given that the rabbinic tradition is divided over whether God actually caused our ancestors to “dwell in booths” in the desert,[12] do we really need to construct huts in accordance with a long list of concrete halakhic specifications in order to remember the wilderness experience?  

The question challenges us to consider the meaning of ritual observance in Reform Judaism. Is ritual, in and of itself, ever a “necessity” for us? Does a traditional practice possess any obligatory force above and beyond the moral or religious meaning it conveys? Put in this way, we believe the answer to the question is “yes”. And that means that the answer to the present sh’elah is “no”: it does not fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah to eat outdoors, or in a tent, or in some other non-traditional manner.  

Jewish religious life, for us no less than for other Jews, expresses itself through the practice of concrete rituals and observances. These observances, to be sure, carry “messages” of universal moral significance, but the messages do not exist for us as Jews in the absence of the rituals. For example, Shabbat communicates the values of rest, of physical and spiritual refreshment, of human dignity, of appreciation of God’s creative labors and so forth. These values, which are hardly unique to Judaism, can be transmitted and taught in any number of ways. The institution of the Jewish Sabbath is our particular way of transmitting and teaching them. Marked off by kiddush and havdalah, colored by festive meals and songs that express `oneg and kavod, given content by a special liturgy and by a complex of permitted and prohibited activities, Shabbat not only allows us to rehearse its “message”; it stirs us to remember who and what we are as a people. The same is true with Passover. We could absorb the message of the holiday by simply contemplating the themes of slavery and liberation. But that does not suffice for us, because our Passover is not Passover without matzah, the haggadah, the seder and its special foods and spirit. It is through these concrete observances, rituals by which the Jewish people has come to express its understanding of itself as an historical religious community, that we identify ourselves with their experience. Surely we would not suggest that liberal Jews could somehow “fulfill” the mitzvot of Shabbat and Passover by stripping these special times of the very rituals that make them special, that make them Jewish. And just as surely, we do not think that liberal Jews can “fulfill” the mitzvah of sukkah by substituting some non-traditional approximation for the age-old Jewish observance.  

It is true that Reform Judaism has radically altered or done away with many traditional observances. When we have done so, however, we have tended to justify our decision on the grounds that the observance in question was fatally flawed, no longer in keeping with the spirit of modern culture and civilization, or objectionable on moral or aesthetic grounds.[13] We do not find the mitzvah of sukkah problematic by any of these considerations,[14] nor do we believe that the temper of the times demands a new, more “progressive” definition of this observance.[15] We know that it can be somewhat burdensome to build a sukkah or to travel to one, but this “burden” is hardly a crushing one. The availability of prefabricated sukkot in a variety of price ranges enables most households to erect such a structure with a minimum of muss and fuss. Moreover, synagogues and other communal institutions erect sukkot on their premises, making it relatively easy for those who do not have their own sukkot to observe the mitzvah.  

None of this is to say that there is no value in non-traditional styles of observance. On the contrary: Jewish tradition recognizes that even a less-than-perfect performance of a mitzvah can bring merit to its doer.[16] We would by all means encourage our people to mark the seasons of the Jewish year to whatever extent they can. If one cannot build a sukkah, one might purchase a lulav and etrog; if one cannot do that, one can attend festival services at the synagogue. In addition, our tendency toward creative approaches to liturgy should prove that we Reform Jews certainly do not oppose the search for new and innovative ways of celebrating Jewish life. In response to the present sh’elah, we might say that it is better for Jews to consciously and explicitly mark the occasion of Sukkot by eating outdoors or in a tent than for them to ignore the holiday entirely by doing nothing at all to observe it. But to repeat: this is not the mitzvah of sukkah, and it is better still for our people to come to fulfill that mitzvah in the way that Jews have over the course of many centuries come to fulfill it.  

The choice, as we see it, is between two definitions of rabbinic responsibility. On the one hand, we can decide that our role is to tell our people that they may be satisfied with ersatz Jewish rituals or with whatever level of observance they are able to reach at the moment. On the other, while we validate their good intentions, we can resolve to teach, to lead, and to encourage them to adopt into their lives those forms of Jewish observance that, while resonating with our modern temperament, have become emblematic of Torah, of our people’s particular religious experience in its search for God.  

We think that the second alternative is the better one.  

C.C.A.R. Responsa Committee

Gunther Plaut, Chair,
Mark Washofsky, Co-Chair
Joan S. Friedman
Jerome Malino
Richard Rheins
Daniel Schiff
Faedra L. Weiss
Moshe Zemer  

NOTES

[1] The texts are centered chiefly in the Talmudic tractate Sukkah; the law is codified by the Rambam in Yad, Hilkhot Shofar veSukkah veLulav, chs. 4-6, and by Karo and Isserles in Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim chs. 625-669.

[2] Lev. 23:42 reads: “you shall dwell in sukkot for seven days”; from this, the tradition derives that one should live in the sukkah precisely as one lives the rest of the year in one’s home (teishvu ke`ein taduru; BT. Sukkah 28b).

[3] This reasoning follows the opinion of Rava, Sukkah 2a, who holds that the essence of a sukkah is that it is a temporary structure. R. Zeira, ad loc., offers a competing theory: a sukkah requires shade (cf. Isaiah 4:6), and if the height of the walls exceeds twenty cubits, one dwells in the shade of the walls rather than that of the s’khakh.

[4] M. Sukkah 1:1; BT. Sukkah 2a; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:1; SA, OC 633:1.

[5] “The sukkah must contain one’s head, the major part of one’s body, and one’s table”; this area is generally rendered as “seven square handbreadths” (BT. Sukkah 3a; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:1; OC 634:1).

[6] Rashi, BT. Sukkah 2a, s.v. v’shechamatah.

[7] M. Sukkah 1:1 and 1:4; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 5:1; SA, OC 629 and 631. A sukkah may not as a rule be built under a tree, since its shade will derive from that tree and its branches (M. Sukkah 1:2; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 5:12. For special circumstances see SA, OC 626:1.).

[8] M. Sukkah 1:1 and 1:5; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:2 and 4:16; SA, OC 630:1ff.

[9] M. Sukkah 1:9; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:4; SA, OC 630:9.

[10] See M. Sukkah 1:11 and BT. Sukkah 19b; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:7; SA, OC 631:10.

[11] See Sefer Ha-Chinukh, # 325.

[12] See BT. Sukkah 11b. The dispute concerns the meaning of the sukkot mentioned in Lev. 23:43. R. Akiva reads the word in its concrete sense: “booths”. But R. Eliezer understands it to mean `ananei kavod, “clouds of glory.”

[13] Much could be said about all of these; this is not, however, the occasion for detailed discussion. We would mention only that the phenomenon of “adjustments” in ritual practice did not start with Reform Judaism. It is in fact the very history of Jewish tradition. Our own subject is a case in point: while the original definition of the commandment to dwell in the sukkah required that one sleep in the sukkah during the entire festival, the climatic conditions of northern and eastern Europe led to the removal of this requirement. See Arukh HaShulchan, OC 639, pars. 11- 13.

[14] That a sukkah is not a terribly aesthetic or “nice” place for modern, upper-middle-class Jews to dine is hardly a valid objection; the whole point of “living” in a temporary dwelling is to leave our comfortable lifestyles behind, however briefly.

[15] This is not to say that we do not believe in the possibility of a progressive understanding of our tradition. Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof taught us that Reform responsa ought to be written in a “liberally affirmative” spirit. We do not share the passion of many contemporary Orthodox poskim to forbid new ideas or to insist upon ever-increasing levels of ritual stringency, absolute precision in measurement, etc. We interpret broadly rather than narrowly, and proudly so. In this case, however, a “broad” construction of the kind discussed would mean altering the mitzvah of sukkah beyond recognition.

[16] See M. B’rakhot 1:2: one who recites the morning Sh’ma later than its appointed time nonetheless receives the reward “of one who reads (the Sh’ma) in the Torah.”