Walking out of the Sukkah

Several current Israeli gedolei haposkim have said that if you make kiddush in the Sukkah, and walk out to wash netilas yadayim for hamotzi, you've lost your Kiddush Bemakom Seudah and you have to make kiddush again, unless you yourself drank a reviis.

My father was not noheig like that, I am not noheig like that, and the Feinsteins are not noheig like that.  Nobody I know is noheig like that. One might argue that this was just an oversight, and makom heinichu etc.  But Reb Yossele Slutzker, a great poseik and a talmid of Reb Chaim Volozhiner, addressed the question and said that exactly this case happened once when he was in Reb Chaim Volozhiner's sukkah, and everyone yelled at him to make kiddush again, as the Magen Avraham (273 SK 5 DH Tzarich) says is necessary.  Reb Chaim said it's not a problem, because כיון שהניח מקצת חבירים שנתחברו יחד כדי לצאת בקידוש זה וחזר לחביריו, it is like the halacha in in OC 178 that shinui makom does not create a new chiyuv bracha when you left chaveirim in the first place.  This is in teshuva 7.

ואגב דקיימינן בהאי ענינא דקידוש במקום סעודה אמרתי לכתוב כאן מה ששמעתי מפ"ק אדמו"ר הגאןן המפורסם החסיד מהור"ר חיים זצןק"ל בעל נפש החיים בהיותינו יחד הוציא אןותנו בקידוש ליל א' של יו"ט ואחר הקידוש יצא אחד לחוץ ןחזר מיד ואוושו עליו שצריך לחזור ולקדש כמו דכתב המ"א בסימן רע"ג סק"ה ד"ה צריך כו' דאם יצא ממקומו בנתיים צריך לקדש שנית ואמר מורנו שאין צריך כיןן שהניח מקצת חבריס שנתחברו יחד כדי לצאת בקידוש זה וחזר לחביריו הו"ל כההיא דסימן קע"ח דבהניח מקצת חבריס אין צריך לחזןור ןלברך בשינוי מקוס ואע"ג שדבריו ז"ל אין צריך חיזןוק יש לצרף מה שראיתי בחידושי הריטב"א במסכת סוכה דף מ"ה ד"ה ורבה כו' דז"ל מיהו כי אמרינן דמברך על הסוכה כל זמן שנכנס בה היינו כשיוצא מתחלה יציאה גמורה לעשות ענינו ושלא לחזור לאלתר דהוי כחליצה דתפילין אבל לא יצא מתחלה אלא לדבר עס חבירו אן להביא דבר לסוכה לצורך שעתו לא הויא יציאה כלל לחייבו בברכה כשחוזר וכיוצא בזה לענין ברכת נהנין כשעמד בתוך הסעודה על דעת לחזור לאלתר שאינן טעןון ברכה לאחריו ולא לפנין ולקבעי הדר ואע"פ שלא הניח שס זקן אן חולה וכדפרישנא בדוכתא עכ"ל הריטב"א וצ"ע שלא הביאו דעתו כלל וכפי העולה בזכרוני ראיתי פ"א בכנה"ג דחולק על גוף הדין של המ"א ואין הספר ת"י לעיין בן ועיין בח"ש מה דכתבנן בדברי המג"א סימן קפ"ד סק"ג 

Josh and Avi put their finger on something that I was wonderring about, which is that the teshuva implies that if everyone was out of the sukkah, they would indeed have to repeat the kiddush.  I agree, it does seem that way.  The only reason I'm not 100% sure is because Reb Yossele in that teshuva says that while Reb Chaim doesn't need validation, he did find a Ritva in Sukkah 45, as follows.

מ"ה ד"ה ורבה כו' דז"ל מיהו כי אמרינן דמברך על הסוכה כל זמן שנכנס בה היינו כשיוצא מתחלה יציאה גמורה לעשות ענינו ושלא לחזור לאלתר דהוי כחליצה דתפילין אבל לא יצא מתחלה אלא לדבר עם חבירו או להביא דבר לסוכה לצורך שעתו לא הויא יציאה כלל לחייבו בברכה כשחוזר וכיוצא בזה לענין ברכת נהנין כשעמד בתוך הסעודה על דעת לחזור לאלתר שאינן טעון ברכה לאחריו ולא לפניו ולקבעי' הדר ואע"פ שלא הניח שם זקן אן חולה וכדפרישנא בדוכתא עכ"ל הריטב"א וצ"ע שלא הבאו דעתו כלל

Clearly, he disagrees with the essential din of the Magen Avraham.  In any case, I am not confident that he intended to pasken like that.  I believe he only wanted to say what Reb Chaim said, and I agree that Reb Chaim's statement does support the idea that if everyone goes out, at least if they all go out at once, they have to make kiddush again.

In one sense, this is a big chiddush, because hesech hadaas is more chamur by kiddush than it is by brachos, as the Biur Halacha says in 178.  On the other hand, assuming that heini'ach means it's not a hefesk, in other words, if the circumstances are clear that you absolutely intend to return and only walked out for a momentary need, then it's not a hefsek,, then your requirement to return and eat there because you made kiddush there (and that the kiddush would become a bracha levatala if it was batteil) creates the biggest possible keviyus.


In teshuva 22, he says a tremendous chiddush, a fascinating chumra, that coincidentally was also said by my oldest son, Reb Mordechai.  He says that even though you're not chayav to eat peiros in the sukkah, but if you're in middle of a meal and walk into the house, you can not eat peiros.  Your achila doesn't need a new bracha because it's part of the keviyus seuda- so it's a keviyus, and it cannot be outside of the sukkah. It's a pretty strong svara.

The sefer is not on hebrewbooks, but it is available in Otzar Hahochma, if you have a subscription.

שו"ת רבינו יוסף מסלוצק.  He writes beautifully, and he was the Rebbi muvhak of Reb Michaleh Trestiner, Reb Moshe's uncle, who made Reb Moshe's father's shidduch (but with a tnai, that Reb Dovid Feinstein drop his Kaidaner Chasidus, spend some years in Volozhin, and adopt minhagei haGra.  Funny thing is that even after Reb Dovid did this, he was the dayan, and then the Rov, of the Kaidaner kehillah in his town.)

Avi, in the comments, tells us that this is also said in modern sefarim, from Rav Feinhandler, and lhbchlch Rav Nissin Karelitz and Rav Ch Kanievsky.  I would add that this depends, of course, on whether you would make a bracha on the peiros or drink.  In other words, if it's at desert time and you're in the house taking an apple, it is likely that you ought to make a bracha on the apple itself because it's not lelafeis es hapas.  Even if you don't make a bracha, or if you would remove the safek by eating it with bread, there is enough reason to say that it's not part of the keviyus of the meal, and so it would be muttar to eat outside of the sukkah.  Although you might see this as a safek bittul asei, I would say that since you're away from your meal, and it's not really lelafeis, there is no safek at all.

Sukkos. Reb Meir Simcha about When Sukkos Got Its New Name, and My Suggestion about Ancient Origins.

Reb Meir Simcha's interesting addition to the Gaon's vort.  The Gaon, of course, answers the Tur's question about the timing of Sukkos in the Fall when we first experienced being in Sukkos in the Spring.  He says that with the sin of the Eigel the Ananei HaKavod went away.  The sin was forgiven on Yom Kippur, on the eleventh Moshe gave us the tzivui to build the Mishkan, they collected on the twelth and thirteenth, the donations were determined to be sufficient and the people were told to stop bringing on  the fourteenth (or it was Shabbos and it was assur to do anything, see Shabbos 86b,), and they began building on the fifteenth, at which point the ananim came back.  It is the return of the ananim that we celebrate.

Reb Meir Simcha in Parshas Mishpatim points out that the holiday is only called Sukkos in Sefer Devarim.  He says this is because it was only after Moshe's return that it acquired a new meaning and its new name.  The holiday existed before, but it was exclusively agricultural, and it was only called Chag Ha'Asif.  After the kaparah and the return of the Ananim, the date acquired a new meaning and the holiday was given its new name, Sukkos.

Reb Meir Simcha:

חג האסיף. וכן ב'כי תשא' (להלן לד, כב). לא כן בדברים (טז, יג) כתיב 'חג הסוכות'. הטעם על פי דברי הגר"א (שיר השירים ד, טז) כשניתן לוחות השניים ומשה ירד מן ההר וחזרו ענני הכבוד בט"ו לחודש תשרי נצטוו על סוכות כידוע. ולכך, אז קודם דברות שניות נקרא חג האסיף ולא חג הסוכות. ומסולק קושיית ר' חנינא בראש השנה דף יג ע"א יעויין שם והבן, ולא שייך לקרותו חג האסיף על סוכה, ועיין

Reb Meir Simcha's interpretation is reminiscent of the idea that Pesach, or at least celebration that involved eating Matzos, preceded Yetzias Mitzrayim, as we see from the stories of Avraham (as we discussed here) and Lot.  No doubt, it had some meaning even then, but it certainly wasn't called Pesach.  Pasach on what?  It was probably just called Chag HaMatzos.  But once we left Mitzrayim, and Hashem was Posei'ach on our houses, it got a new meaning and a new name- Pesach.

Now that Reb Meir Simcha has told us that the Holiday was celebrated for a different reason until a later date, at which time it acquired a new meaning and a new name, I offer you my speculation about the holiday in even more ancient times, when I had an entirely different meaning.

I suppose this might be of some use for those of us that are asked, by Gentiles or uneducated Jews, to explain why we sit in Sukkos.  One can do as Reb Yaakov does in his Emes L'Yaakov, and offer the alternatives of the agricultural explanation-חג האסיף and  פסולת גורן ויקב, or the religious explanation- ענני הכבוד , סוכות ממש, but I suggest that the simplest thing would be the following.  Sukkos is a holiday that commemorates our national origin as tent-dwelling desert wanderers.  It's kosher, it's simple, and it's not incorrect.  

R' Tal Benschar, in the comments, points out that this pshat disregards the explicit statement in the Torah that Sukkos is because כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל and nothing else.  

But I still say that if it's also called Chag Ha'Asif, which tells us that it has a meaning besides בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל.  If it has additional meanings besides כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל, I can offer, speculatively, this meaning as well.  

Lulav before Shachris-- A Tadir Kodem Problem

I originally posted this in 2006.  I'm making minor changes and re-posting, because the original post only got one decent he'ara, and I think that you, and you know to whom I'm talking, can help expand the vort.

A friend called me to complain about Reb Moshe’s teshuva in Orach Chaim 4 99, where Reb Moshe says that he doesn’t approve of the minhag to make the bracha on the lulav in the sukkah before davening, because there is a todir, or if you prefer, tadir problem; davening is tadir vis a vis lulav. (Rav Shach says exactly the same thing, that in Kletzk the minhag was to make the bracha on the lulav before davening, but he didn’t do so because of the tadir problem.)

My friend's complaint was the following: The Pri Megadim in hilchos tefillin, in the Eshel Avraham, says that if you don’t want to wear your talis gadol walking to shul, but you do want to wear your tefillin, there is no tadir problem, because since you don’t want to put on the talis now, there is no question about which is todir, the talis or the tefillin. Now you want to put on the tefillin only, so talis is not in the cheshbon. The Pri Megadim shtells tzu the halacha of musaf and mincha in 286, that even if it is zman minchah, you daven musaf first. So, my friend asked, if you want to do the mitzva of lulav now, and you don’t want to daven shachris now, and you have a minyan kavu’a later to daven, according to the Pri Megadim there should be no tadir problem at all.

I told him that it is not a kashe, because the Pri Megadim is only talking about talis, which is not a chiyuv be’etzem. There is no chiyuv of tzitzis unless I want to wear the beged, and since I don’t want to wear the beged now, there is no chiyuv at all. But by shachris, it doesn’t matter if I want to daven now— it is the zman chiyuv of tefilla, so there is a din of todir whether I like it or not. And the din of tadir is mechayev that I cannot do a different, less tadir mitzva.

He then asked, if I were right, what is the Pri Megadim’s tzushtell to 286? There, of course, Mincha is a chiyuv, not a choice. We looked, and it came out that 286 is talking about a tzibur that was davening late on Yom Kipur, and they didn’t start musaf before the zman mincha came, that they should daven musaf first. But if you look carefully there, and at Reb Moshe’s teshuva in OC 4 68, you will see that the Rambam says that in such a case, the tzibur should daven musaf first only “shelo yit’u—” because doing Mincah first will confuse them. And Reb Moshe brings that the Rosh used to daven musaf while the tzibur was saying the yotzros of shachris, and later daven mincha with them. So you see that the Rosh holds that tadir is mechayev that you daven the tadir first, even if that means that you will be davenning musaf beyichidus. This is an exact tzushtell to the case of the lulav and shachris— that I cannot take the lulav before davenning, because tadir is mechayev that I daven first. And even though the tzibur has the minyan later, and I cannot daven now unless I daven beyichidus, it’s too bad. The din of tadir says that you cannot take the lulav first, or that you should daven shachris beyichidus and then take the lulav, or, of course, just wait till you daven shachris betzibur and then take the lulav.

So he then asked, if so, what does the Pri Megadim mean when he shtells tzu 286? It seems the 286 says farkert from him!

We realized, though, that it appears that in 286 there is a difference between Mincha Gedola and Mincha Ketana. There might be a chiluk that if it is the time of Minchah Gedolah, then it is better to daven musaf first, but if it is the time of Minchah Ketanah, then you should daven mincha first. If so, this is exactly the difference between other mitzvos and talis: Mincha Gedola is like a talis, because you may choose to daven Mincha Gedola if you like, but it is not the real time of chiyuv. Only then if you don’t plan to daven Mincha Gedola, you should daven musaf first, and that is the Pri Megadim's source for saying that you can wear your Tefillin before your Tallis. . But if it were a real chiyuv, namely Mincha Ketana, then tadir would say that you have to daven mincha first- at least theoretically, but in fact, of course, there's a shema yit’u problem.

The shaylah also comes up in Kiddush Levana— how can we do that if we have a chiyuv to say havdala? And it certainly is not a tadir versus m’kudash issue. Unless you say that you need people to say sholom aleichem to, which you won’t have if you wait until after havdala.

By the way, Rav Shternbuch says as a davar poshut not like Reb Moshe, but instead that if you do not intend to do a mitzvah now, even though it’s the zman, it doesn’t come into the cheshbon and you don’t have to worry about tadir.  It's too bad he didn't explain to Reb Moshe and Rav Shach why it's so pashut, because they, nebach, didn't understand it.

But I do have to mention that in the Keser Rosh, from Reb Chaim Volozhiner's talmid, printed in the Siddur HaGra before the Maaseh Rav, see #109 where he says that Reb Chaim did make the bracha on the Esrog in his Sukka before Davening.

The truth is, most likely this is not an argument about how to apply the rules of Tadir. It is pretty obvious that the precedence of Tadir only applies where the non-Tadir can be done equally well later. If you will lose something significant in the non-Tadir by the delay, you certainly should do it first.  So if making the bracha in a sukkah is significant, and you will not be able to make it in the sukkah after Shachris, you should do it in the sukkah before Shachris. Obviously, Reb Moshe and Rav Shach didn't think that making the bracha in a sukkah was significant.


NOTE:
Now that I've erased the original, I really ought to mention BlackLeibel's comment back in 2006.

The Todir Kodem problem aside, according to the Ar"i, the Chid"a and others, the Ikar of Netilas Lulav is in the Sukka and the appropriate time is after Tefilla, before Hallel. Compliance would necessitate either a mass exit from Shul to the Sukka before Hallel or Davening Shacharis in the Sukka. Instead, we (of noble Hungarian descent or, apparently, most Kletzkers) Bentch Lulav in the Sukka before Davening. (See Pri Etz Chaim, Shaar 29, Ch.3 and Divrei Chaim, Drushei Sukkoth.)

UPDATE 2018
This comment came in - I wish I had time to look into it. I actually was thinking about this possibility recently, and now I can check was RAW says about it.

See Minchas Asher on parshas pinchas. He deals with this Rav Moshe and connects it to a machlokes Tosfos and Talmidei R Yonah Brachos 28a regarding mincha/mussaf precedence when the zman mincha strikes. Talmidei R Yonah seem to say that since I plan to daven mincha later, there's no clash now, so no need to apply Tadir kodem. However, Tosfos needs to invoke the advantage of davening mincha ktana. If not for this advantage, tosfos would have said you are obligated to daven mincha first. TRY like RMF, and Tosfos is the other way 

בין איך משוגע

My father zatzal used to tell stories about Reb Aizekel (Eizel) Charif.  In one of the stories, Reb Aizikel woke his rebbetzin up in middle of the night, and asked her, in profound agitation, בין איך קלאר אדער בין איך משוגע?  Am I sane, or am I crazy?

She was shocked and afraid, and she said, Reb Aizek, what do you mean?  He insisted, and repeated, בין איך קלאר אדער בין איך משוגע?  I am gozeir on you as your husband that you have to tell me what you really believe!  She answered, with worry and dismay, Reb Aizek, I promise that you are the most sane man in the world, you are 100% sane.

Reb Aizek said, (sometimes my father said he started dancing and said) Oy, Baruch Hashem!  Baruch Hashem!  Someone gave me this sefer that he just published, and I was reading it, and I came to realize that there are only two possibilities.  Either I am crazy, or he is crazy.  Baruch Hashem!  If I am not crazy, Iz ehr meshuga, then he is crazy!



I was talking to a friend recently, and we began to talk about the sugya of לקבעא קמא הדר- that sometimes, walking out and returning is called a hefsek and if you return it is a new beginning and you have to make a new birkas hanehenin, but sometimes it is not considered an interruption, and so when you return you are continuing the same meal  He asked me the following question.

We know that if a person ate a kezayis of mezonos and left the room, he does not have to make another bracha when he returns.  Because mezonos obligates a person to return to the place where he ate, his leaving is not called a hefsek.  לקבעא קמא הדר

What if a person was eating mezonos and shehakol, and he left the room, and he returned.  Would he have to repeat the shehakol?

The natural answer is that no, he would not have to repeat the shehakol.  If he doesn't have to repeat the mezonos because his obligation to return renders his having left insignificant, then he shouldn't have to repeat any bracha.  It seems obvious to me that the din that you don't repeat mezonos is not because mezonos requires that you go back to where  you ate.  It is because mezonos creates a reality of kvius.  Because of that kevius, you have to make the bracha achrona where you ate.  If there were no brachos in the world, the concept of kevius would still apply.  The din of going back is a siman, not a siba.  If so, if there's a reality of kvius, the kvius is applicable to all your brachos.

So my friend told me that he saw a certain great posek, a man that was well known to have shas and poskim and rishonim in his pocket, said that he does have to repeat the shehakol.

I asked him, but why is this different that one who was eating a shehakol food and left the room, but he left his friends there, and he intends to return because of his friends.  He told me it's a good question, but if that posek said farkert, it's my problem to be meyasheiv the sugya.

I haven't looked at any of the mareh mekomos.  I'm afraid it will say what he says.  If it does, then the only choice I will have is to accept the unfortunate reality of the title of this post.  As the Mahari Viel said, פסקי בעלי בתים ופסקי לומדים שני הפכים הם.
(שו"ת מהר"י ווייל סוף סימן קמ"ו, הובא בסמ"ע סימן ג' ס"ק י"ג)

Marei mekomos, thank you Eli.
Badei Hashulchan here and also here
Teshuvos Maharim Padua  (Not the famous Maharam Padua, who lived three hundred years earlier, but he was the Rov of Brisk a generation before the Maharil Diskin, so read it carefully.)


Also on the issue of לקבעא קמא הדר:

What if a person heard kiddush in his Sukkah, but he didn't drink a reviis of wine.  Let's say he wasn't the one that made kiddush, or even if he made kiddush, he drank rov kos but not a revi'is.  Then he walked out to wash netilas yadayim for Hamotzi.  Is he yotzei Kiddush bimkom seuda?  Or does his walking out mean there's a hefsek and his kiddush was not bimkom seuda, since it is not related to the seuda he will eat after washing?

I would think that his obligation and intent to return to eat bread means that he never "left" the sukkah.  It's not worse than leaving friends and intending to come back- which is another example of לקבעא קמא הדר.  Indeed, that is what Reb Yosef Peimer from Slutzk, a talmid of Reb Chaim Volozhiner says in his teshuvos at the end of #7 (here's more about him.)  Rav Chaim Volozhiner is saying a big chiddush:  he is the only one who connects the halacha of leaving a friend behind, which is usually related to the din of making new brachos, to the din of Kiddush Bimkom Seuda.

ואגב דקיימינן בהאי ענינא דקידוש במקום סעודה אמרתי לכתוב כאן מה ששמעתי מפ"ק אדמו"ר הגאןן המפורסם החסיד מהור"ר חיים זצוק"ל בעל נפש החיים בהיותינו יחד הוציא אותנו בקידוש ליל א' של יו"ט ואחר הקידוש יצא אחד לחוץ וחזר מיד ואוושו עלין שצריך לחזור ולקדש כמו דכתב המ"א בסימן רע"ג סק"ה ד"ה צריך כן' דאם יצא ממקומו בנתיים צריך לקדש שנית ואמר מורנו שאין צריך כיןן שהניח מקצת חברים שנתחברו יחד כדי לצאת בקידוש זה וחזר לחביריו הו"ל כההיא דסימן קע"ח דבהניח מקצת חברים אין צריך לחזור ולברך בשינוי מקום ואע"ג שדבריו ז"ל אין צריך חיזוק יש לצרף מה שראיתי בחידושי הריטב"א במסכת סוכה דף מ"ה ד"ה ורבה כו' דז"ל מיהו כי אמרינן דמברך על הסוכה כל זמן שנכנס בה היינו כשיוצא מתחלה יציאה גמורה לעשות ענינו ושלא לחזור לאלתר דהוי כחליצה דתפילין אבל לא יצא מתחלה אלא לדבר עם חבירו או להביא דבר לסוכה לצורך שעתו לא הויא יציאה כלל לחייבו בברכה כשחוזר וכיוצא בזה לענין ברכת נהנין כשעמד בתוך הסעודה על דעת לחזור לאלתר שאינו טעון ברכה לאחריו ולא לפניו ולקבעי' הדר ואע"פ שלא הניח שם זקן או חולה וכדפרישנא בדוכתא עכ"ל הריטב"א וצ"ע שלאו הביאו דעתו כלל וכפי העולה בזכרוני ראיתי פ"א בכנה"ג דחולק על גוף הדין של המ"א ואין הספר ת"י לעיין בן ועיין בח"ש מה דכתבנו בדברי המג"א סימן קפ"ד סק"ג 

 But they tell me that the Chazon Ish argues. It's remarkable.  All of Klal Yisrael does this.  You make kiddush in the Sukkah, you go out to wash, and then you make hamotzi.  This is a hefsek, and it's not the same seuda, so it's a problem of not making kiddush bimkom seudah?

And once again, I have a very big problem understanding this.  We all know that talking between bracha and achila is a hefsek, but not where the talking is for the purpose of the Achila, like "Bring salt."  So we ought to learn a general svara that a hefsek for the needs of the seuda is not a hefsek.  If so, going out to wash in order to eat is not in the parsha of hefsek at all.  Not only is it not a hefsek, it's exactly the opposite of a hefsek- it's a "Not Hefsek," it's a chibbur.  In fact, I believe that if you sat down to eat, and you realized you hadn’t fed your animals, and you go outside to feed them so you can eat, it is not a hefsek either.  To me, this is a poshuteh svara.  So why don’t any of these gedolim say this simple, baalebatische svara?  Is there something wrong with me?  Has my brain gotten dim with age?  Has my almost exclusive focus on the Daf Yomi for twenty five years made me simplistic?  Very possible.



UPDATE
After thinking about this for a while, I've come to realize that the problem with being a baal habayis is the tendency to form an immediate opinion and to close one's mind, instead of delving into the sugya to see what other ways there are to learn it.  It's a matter of being outside the milieu of shakla vetarya, and also simple laziness and inertia.  So, yes.  Unfortunately, it's true.


By the way, Reb Yosef (Yosalleh) Peimer was like a father to Reb Elya Pruzhiner, Reb Moshe Feinstein's uncle (who made Reb Moshe's father's shidduch with his sister in law on the condition that the Feinsteins drop their Kaidaner Chasidus and adopt the minhagei haGra,) who was born in Slutsk.

Yiddish Expressions and their Sources in Chazal- A Yavan in Sukkah

This was originally posted in '12, but it has been updated.  And again, in 2015, with a great find.

Today, when my mother shetichyeh realized that she had forgotten something, she said "א קאצ'ישע קאפ."  A cat's head.  I don't recall hearing that expression before- that a person that forgets things has a cat's head.  I've since seen that some say א קאצין מוח, same idea, a cat's brain.  I don't know why we would malign the cat's memory, but it reminded me of the Gemara (Horios 13b) ת"ר חמשה דברים משכחים את הלימוד האוכל ממה שאוכל עכבר וממה שאוכל חתול והאוכל לב של בהמה והרגיל בזיתים והשותה מים של שיורי רחיצה והרוחץ רגליו זו על גבי זו ויש אומרים אף המניח כליו תחת מראשותיו, that eating a food that had been partially eaten by a cat or a rodent damages the memory.  It stands to reason that a cat and a rodent have terrible memories, because they are always eating things that a cat or a rodent had begun eating.

There are many Yiddish expressions that stem from Chazal.  Obviously, Yiddish can become ugly in the mouths of vulgar people, but so much of it stems from Tanach and Chazal because of Klal Yisrael's obsessive love of the Torah.  I once enjoyed a conversation with Dr. Jean Jofen on this topic, one of the many areas of her expertise.  One example we discussed was that an expression for "a tiny amount," an iota, is a כי הוא זה.  A person who wanted to say that he knew absolutely nothing would say "I don't know a כי הוא זה.  This, of course, comes from the Gemara (Bava Kamma 106b) that when the Torah uses those words, it refers to a man that makes a partial admission of liability- I don't owe you הוא, I only owe you זה.  So the words כי הוא זה came to mean "a little bit."

Another one is ווי א האן אין בני אדם.  When you look at someone askance, you are looking at him ווי א האן אין בני אדם, like a chicken at a human being.  This comes from Kapparos.  We take a chicken by the legs and swing him around our heads while saying the passuk בני אדם יושבי חושך וצלמות....  One imagines that the chicken is looking down at us and wondering what on Earth is going on.  The chicken is totally confused and thinks that we are deranged.  He looks at us ווי א האן אין בני אדם.

Then, there is לא דובים ולא יער, which means "never happened, none of it is true."  This comes from the Gemara (Sota 47) that says that the story (Melachim II 2:23-25) of Elisha and the bears was only a vision or a metaphor, and there were no bears and no forest.  לא דובים ולא יער.  (Another expression that means "totally fabricated" is נישט געשטויגען נישט געפלויגען, which means "didn't rise and didn't fly," and it is our reaction to the claims of miracles about a certain Jew that lived toward the end of the second Beis Hamikdash.)

There are many such expressions.  Another is א יאהר און א מיטוואך (or א יאהר מיט א מיטוואך), translating to "a year and a Wednesday", meaning "a long, long, time."  This also comes from a Gemara (Kesuvos 2a: if after an engagement the groom delays the marriage, the dilatory groom's obligation of spousal support vests a year after the engagement, but only beginning on the first Wednesday after the year because of the rule called 'Shakdu.'  The kalla will eventually be taken care of, but she might have to wait  א יאהר מיט א מיטוואך.)  The common expression for senility- עובר בטל- comes, of course, directly from Avos 5:21, בן מאה כאילו עבר ובטל מן העולם.

I recently was thinking about the word "Parev," or, as used now, Parveh. Remarkably, the word seems to have sprung into existence only in the late eighteen hundreds! What is its etymology? Nobody knows, There are innumerable explanations, most of which are not at all credible. For example - 

פארעוו פאר וואם הייסט א מאכל וואם איז ניט פליישיק און ניט מילכיק פארעוו פארעוו פרבה מלשון פרבר  כלפי בר שעומד בחוץ שלא השתמשו בו לא חלב ולא בשר 

(ר׳ יצחק ליפיעץ)

Then there are the believable ones. The first was suggested to me by my son in law, Harav Moshe Jofen, and I later sort of found it in Reb Dovid Kohen's Yiddish, HaSofoh Hakedoisha,  יידיש השפה הקדושה - א, קאהן, דוד בן צבי משה
where he says

פארעווע ר"ל לא בשרי ולא חלבי 

נראה שהמקור ממשנה ביומא ל:א וגם לד:ב שהכהן גדול שעבר עבורת יום הכפורים והיה צריך לטבול בין חליפת בגדי זהב לבגדי לבן וכן להיפוך היה טובל בבית הפרוה שהיה בקודש משא"כ טבילה ראשונה שהיתה בחול ובגמרא שם לה א אמרו שפרווה אמגושא וכתב שם רש"י שהיה מכשף והוא בנה אותו מקום ועיין שם בתוס' הרי שהטבילה היתה באמצע ונמצא שפרווה הוי כמקום אמצעי בין הדברים הקיצונים במו בשר וחלב 

The idea is not well expressed there, but I think that if the Parvah chamber is the source, it is be because it was situated on the line between Ezras Yisrael and Ezras Kohanim -  it straddled the line. It was liminal.

Then Rav Kohen brings something intriguing:

וידידי הגאון רב אהרן ישעיה בלויא שליט"א ביאר מרש"י קידושין לג:א ד"ה דגיסי בהו דבלע"ז פריביץ וכ"ה בכתובות חיטין פריווירי"ץ שהדבר נאכל עם הכל או בשר או חלב 

In a glossary of the French words in Rashi, he says

 544 עירובץ מז. גס

 פריבי״ץ privez חופשי

 הכוונה: חופשי ביחסי בני-אדם, שאין ביניהם מחיצת נימוסים: השווה בצרפתית של היום privauté

 ״התנהגות חופשית מאוד, לא-מנומסת, בפרט בין גבר לאשה״. הלעז חסר בדפוסים.

(Google translates  "privauté" as "familiarity.")
I like this pshat! Of course, we would need to explain why the word disappeared for six hundred years, between the time of Rashi and its next appearance, when French would not be the source for new Yiddish words.



The one that has forever puzzled me is ווי א יון אין סוכה, literally, something completely out of place.  Literally, it means "like a Greek in a Sukkah."  Now, I know that a Greek, a paradigmatic non-Jew, would be out of place in a Sukkah.  But the specificity of the expression makes it clear that it comes from somewhere.

Here's one approach- Rabbi David Hollander, writing in the Algemeiner, said that it reflects the passuk יפת אלוקים ליפת וישכון באהלי שם:

דער ערשטער טייל פון די געוואונשענע שיריים איז אין פאַרשטיין פאַרוואָס מיר זאָגן "ווי אַ יוון אין סוכה"? פאַרוואָס דווקא ווי אַ "יוון", נישט ווי אַ טערק, אַ רוימער, אָדער וועלכער גוי עס זאָל נישט זיין?

....why do we say "like a Greek in Sukkah?"  Why not a Turk, a Roman, or some other kind of gentile?

דער תירוץ איז, אַז יוון, די גריכן פון אַמאָל און היינט, האָבן זיך אויסגעצייכנט אין אויסערלעכער שיינקייט, אין מאָלערייען, אין סקולפּטור, אין מוזיק און אין אַרכיטעקטור, אָבער זיי האָבן דאַן, אין די ערשטע יאָרן נאָך בריאת העולם, זיך דערווייטערט פון דעם עיקר, ווי עס שטייט אין דער תורה, "יפת אלוקים ליפת וישכון באהלי שם". יפת'ס שיינקייט איז אַ ברכה, אָבער מיט אַ שטרענגן תנאי, און דאָס איז, "וישכון באהלי שם", אונטער ג-ט'ס ממשלה. אָבער יפת, די יוונים, האָבן זיך דערווייטערט פון דעם "וישכון באהלי שם" (בראשית ט', כ"ז). די חז"ל (מגילה ט') זאָגן "יפיפיתו של יפת יהא באהלי שם",יעמאָלט איז יפת שיין, בשעת עס איז באהלי שם.

The answer is that the Greek, ancient and modern,  excelled in external beauty, in painting, in sculpture, in music and architecture, but they distanced themselves, long ago, from the most important thing.  As it says in the Torah (Breishis 9:27), "Hashem , give beauty to Yefeth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem". Yefeth's beauty is a blessing, but with a strong prerequisite- that it be under G-d's rule.  But Yefeth, the Greeks, grasped the beauty and disdained the tent of Shem.

ר' יהודה הלוי וואָרנט אַז יוון איז בלויז "פּרחים" אָבער "בלי פּירות". די מוזיקאַלישע כלים זיינען געווען אָן אהלי שם, ווי רש"י זאָגט (בראשית כ') אַז עס איז געווען "לזמר לעבודת אלילים".

Reb Yehuda Halevi warns that Greece is merely flowers without fruit.  The  musical instruments were used outside the tent of Shem, they were used to serenade the pagan idols.

מיר, אידן, לעבן אין דער קולטור פון די יוונים, פון די קינסטלער וועלכע זיינען נישט געבונדן צו דעם "וישכון באהלי שם", און ביי זיי איז כל דבר אסור מותר, מיטן תירוץ אַז די אַרטיסטן מעגן עובר זיין אויף אַלע מאָראַלישע געזעצן, ווייל זיי, די אַרטיסטן, האָבן געשאַפן אַ לעבנס-וועג, וואָס דערלויבט אַלץ ווייל עס איז נישט "באהלי שם".

צום באַדויערן זיינען פילע אידן געוואָרן די אָנפירער פון דער קולטור פון יוון, און דאָס האָט געבראַכט די השכלה-באַוועגונג, און דערנאָך דעם געפעלשטן "דזשודאַאיזם", וואָס איז געוואָרן דער "יוון אין סוכה" מיט שיינע טעמפּלען, מיט מוזיק אַלס דער עיקר, אָבער ס'איז בלויז "פּרחים בלי פּירות".

דער יוון איז ליידער אַריין אין אונדזער אידישער סוכה...

So the idea is that Yefeth, the Greek people, were given the gift of creating aesthetic beauty, which was intended to be used in service of Hashem.  They rejected "the tents of Shem," and used their gift for exactly the opposite purpose, to glorify physicality and paganism.  For a Yavan to walk into a sukkah highlights the ironic contrast- the Yavan and that which was offered but determinedly and absolutely rejected.

Nachum J suggests that the incongruity of a Yavan in a Sukkah refers to the Gemara in Avoda Zara 3a:

אמרו לפניו רבש"ע תנה לנו מראש ונעשנה אמר להן הקב"ה שוטים שבעולם מי שטרח בערב שבת יאכל בשבת מי שלא טרח בערב שבת מהיכן יאכל בשבת אלא אף על פי כן מצוה קלה יש לי וסוכה שמה לכו ועשו אותה ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (דברים ז) אשר אנכי מצוך היום היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא היום ליטול שכר אלא שאין הקב"ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו ואמאי קרי ליה מצוה קלה משום דלית ביה חסרון כיס מיד כל אחד [ואחד] נוטל והולך ועושה סוכה בראש גגו והקדוש ברוך הוא מקדיר עליהם חמה בתקופת תמוז וכל אחד ואחד מבעט בסוכתו ויוצא שנאמר (תהילים ב) ננתקה את מוסרותימו ונשליכה ממנו עבותימו 

that when Mashiach comes, the nations will say they deserve a chance to do the mitzvos; Hashem will offer them Sukka, and when the sun beats down on their heads, they will say enough is enough, and kick the sukka and stomp out.  So the concept is that Sukka is specifically something that resonates with the Jewish personality, and having a Yavan in a sukka is like having your neighbor come along on your honeymoon.

S, in the comments, cites the following, from a book called יידיש- השפה הקדושה:

עם פאסט וויא א יון אין סוכה
 זה מתאים כמו יוני בסוכה
 יש מפרשים שהיו אומרים ״כמו איואן(שם פרטי של גוי רוסי) בסוכה״ שאין מקומו שם. והנני מעתיק מש״ב באהל דוד ח״א
 בהערות לזכריה יד-טז ״והיה כל הנותר מכל הגוים הבאים על ירושלים ועלו מדי שנה בשנה להשתהות למלך ה׳ צב־אות
 ולחג את חג הסכת״.... עיין רש״י שפי׳ על פי הא דעבודה זרה ג, א שהקב״ה יבדוק הגוים על ידי מצות סוכה עיי״ש. ויתכן
 דמכאן בא הביטוי ביידיש ״א יון אין סוכה״ ששינו יון במקום רומי מטעם הצנזורה. דעיין שבת טו,א רש״י ד״ה המלכות
 הרשעה רומי״ דבדפוס וויען הגירסא יון מטעם הצנזורה (דבווילנא הצארית משלה דת יון האורטודוקסי [גריק
 אורטודוקס בלע״ז] ובוויען משלה דת רומי הקטוליקי. ועיין שם לעיל יא. א ד״ה ולא תחת ולקמן שם לג,ב ודף נו,א ודו״ק.
 ושמעתי שהיו קוראים לרוסים ולאלו שהיו מדת גריק ארטעדאקס בשם יונים וכ״ה בספר ביון מצולה.

This is almost exactly what Dr. Nachum J said, as I mentioned above. The interesting addition is the passuk in Zechariah that says that the gentiles will come and join us in our celebration of Sukkos.  Of course, this is what the Gemara in Avoda Zara comes from, but the expression might have come from a bemused reaction to the passuk in Zechariah.  They're going to come and celebrate Sukkos? נאר דאס פעלט אונז אויס.  That's all we're missing.  Wonderful.

In any case, I think I'm satisfied with this etymology: Based on the passuk in Zecharyah, the Gemara in Avoda Zara, and the pasuk in Breishis, the expression, which means "Something with Zero shaychus," is well grounded in Chazal and Tanach.  A Yavan in a Sukka is in a place that has absolutely no shaychus to him, where he completely does not belong.

The sefer cited, יידיש- השפה הקדושה, is very interesting, and contains some of the etymologies I mentioned in this post.  It is available at Hebrewbooks.org here.  It was written by HaRav Dovid Cohen of Gevul Yavetz.  So I'm not the only person that writes about these havolim.

Rabbi Dr. GS reminds us of the Gemara (Sukka 2b-3a) that tells us how careful Queen Hellenni was to ensure that her children were in a Sukkah, even though she herself was not obligated to be there.  Good idea. Except that Hellini was queen of Adiabene, an Assyrian kingdom in Iraq, and she wasn't Greek, and she and her son Munbaz were geirim.  But it does sound like a Greek name, and she certainly wasn't obligated to be in the Sukka.  And, as RDGS pointedly notes, the Yevanim in the story of Chanuka weren't Greek either.

RDGS, never one to leave well enough alone, now directs our attention to an interesting article by Philologos in the Forwards, in which the identity of those whom we refer to as Assyrians and as Greeks and Yevanim is examined.  As it turns out, Heleni was no less Greek than Assyrian, and, if she descended from Alexander, more.

Ok, now we've cleared up this one.  Next:   עס האט א טעם ווי מען שמייסט א יון.  Literally- It [has as much flavor as /makes as much sense as-] (i.e., no flavor/rationale at all-) beating a Greek.

UPDATE:
My son in law, Harav Moshe Jofen, directs our attention to a Braisa in Maseches Sofrim, 1:7.

מעשה בחמשה זקנים שכתבו לתלמי המלך את התורה יונית והיה היום קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה העגל שלא היתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה

Once, five elders wrote the Torah in Greek for King Ptolemy.  That day was as hard for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made, because the Torah can't be translated as it requires.

How does this relate to the Sukka?

The Vilner Gaon (this is being written on his Yahrtzeit) asks, why is Sukkos in the Fall, when the events it commemorates took place in the Spring.  Chazal do offer other explanations, but the Gaon's explanation is emblematic of his unique gadlus.  The Gaon explains that when we made the Eigel, the Ananei Hakavod that indicated the presence of the Shechina left us.  The sin of the Eigel was forgiven on Yom Kippur, and on that day Moshe descended with the new Luchos from Har Sinai.  The next day, the eleventh of Tishrei, Moshe gave us the commandment to build the Mishkan.  On the twelfth and thirteenth, people brought their contributions.  On the fourteenth, an accounting was made of what was brought, and we were told to stop bringing.  On the fifteenth, the building of the Mishkan began, and the Ananei Hakavod returned.  Sukkos commemorates our regaining Hashem's love- not just the forgiveness, which occurred on Yom Kippur, but the return to the state of being loved by the Ribono shel Olam, as we were before the sin of the Eigel.

On a simple level, we can say that Ptolmey, a Greek king, instigated the translation of the Torah, which was akin to the creation of the Eigel.  Sukkos represents the perfect opposite of the Eigel.  If the Greek king equals the Eigel, and the Sukkah is the sign that the sin of the Eigel was totally erased, then the diametric opposite of the Sukka is the Greek, Yavan.

More importantly, we need to think about why Chazal chose "the day the Eigel was made" to describe the Ptolomeic translation.  We know that in Chazal, the Greeks represent a concept of the absolute limitation of knowledge to the empirical.  (see Ramban in Parshas Achrei Mos, Vayikra 16:8, והנה רמז לך ר"א שתדע סודו כשתגיע לפסוק ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים. והמלה מורכבת, וחביריה רבים. והנה העניין מבואר, זולתי אם תחקור מה עניין לשכלים הנבדלים ולרוחות בקורבן. וזה יודע ברוחות, בחכמת נגרומנסי"א, ויודע גם בשכלים, ברמזי התורה למבין סודם, ולא אוכל לפרש. כי היינו צריכים לחסום פי המתחכמים בטבע הנמשכים אחרי היוני אשר הכחיש כל דבר זולתי המורגש לו, והגיס דעתו לחשוב הוא ותלמידיו הרשעים, כי כל עניין שלא השיג אליו הוא בסברתו איננו אמת..)   For the Greek, the idea that human knowledge is imperfect and unreliable, and that we need to admit our limits and to trust the truths of the Torah, is anathema.  This is what the Braisa means when it says that לא היתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה, that the Torah could not be translated as it needs to be- without faith in the Ribono shel Olam, the Torah is a mere book of thoughts, subject to human interpretation and criticism and the vagaries of ephemeral fashions of philosophy.  The Sukka represents the idea that human ability and thought are not enough, and we need to place our faith into the hands of the Ribono shel Olam: the only thing we can rely on is impermanence. The only absolute truth is knowledge imparted by the Ribono shel Olam.

Briefly: The sukka represents faith in Hashem, the awareness that nothing we do is permanent and nothing we know is absolute.  Yavan represents human self-reliance and the rejection of revelation in favor of empiricism.  A Yavan and a Sukka are fundamentally incompatible.

I think this pshat is the best of all.

ANOTHER UPDATE:
I just saw a scolarly discussion in the Sefarim Blog about the term Yevanim in Yiddish.  It was written by an "S", and I assume it's not the S I mention above.  It goes as follows:

Yevanim was a particularly loaded term in Russia (for historical purposes this includes regions outside of Russia proper, like Ukraine), because Jews called the non-Jews Yevanim. They did so because many Ukrainians were of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (the Russian Orthodox Church is an Eastern Orthodox Church and in that way 'related' to Greece as well). It is for this reason that Hanover called his account of the Khmelnitzky massacres Yeven Metzula, and refers to the Cossacks as yevanim - but we can see it from other sources, too. For example, see attached for a horrifying account of a massacre on the second day of Pesach 1655. You can see he calls the Cossacks yevanim (from here and here).

Supposedly it was also a play on the name Ivan (ed.- as Rav Dovid Cohen suggested,) but I'm not sure if that's just folk etymology. But more importantly, we can see that some works took it seriously and changed yevanim to something else, to avoid offending the censor. See here where changing yevanim to "yehirim" in Maoz Tzur was a somewhat common change.

And see here where it documents in the 1840s that Jews called the Russians yevanim  - and doubtless you can show it from many Yiddish sources, too. See here where I discuss how the Slavuta Talmud actually changes a gemara; "Rabbi said, why speak Syriac in Eretz Yisrael? Speak Hebrew or Greek!" to "Speak Hebrew or Akum!" 

UPDATE OCTOBER 2015:
I just saw such a fascinating thing- will this never end??  The Shach, in his peirush on the Torah in Emor, Vayikra 23:43 says

 הרי הז׳ צדיקים רמוזים שהם באים ויושבים בסוכה על כן צריך לשבת בה באימה וביראה בבושה וענוה. ולא ימשך אחר אכילה ושתיה שלא יבא לידי נבלה. ולא יכניס לתוכה עכו״ם שהסוכה צלה דמהמנותא ועכו״ם לית ליה מהמנותא ואז בורחת הקדושה וז׳ הצדיקים מקללים קללות נמרצות

*

UPDATE
We were discussing the word Parev, or as people say now, Parveh. There is no clear source for this word, and it seems to have only come into use in the nineteenth century. My son in law, Harav Moshe Jofen, said that it comes from Liskas Beis HaParveh, the chamber that was half in Ezras Yisrael and half in Ezras Kehuna. I scoffed, even though I saw someone else that suggested it, but I'm wondering if he's right.

Schach That is only Kosher on One Axis, and Eiruv Tavshilin a Few Days Before Yomtov.

UPDATED OCTOBER 2020.  I realized that I was wrong and that Reb Moshe passels this schach no matter how you put it up.  See end of section I.

I
DIRECTIONAL S'CHACH

The Chicago Rabbinical Counsel, pursuant to the psak of Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz and Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, has made it known that a certain commercially available fencing product is kosher to be used as Schach.  The original psak can be seen here.  However, they include a link to a caveat: it is only kosher when it is supported by some other schach other than this fencing- on bamboo, for example- and also that it lies perpendicular to the other schach.   The warning can be seen here.  If you remember your High School math, the Cartesian terms would be that this Schach is only kosher on the X axis.  If you place it on the Y axis, it will be passul.

Let's call it "X Axis Schach."

Here is a picture of the schach in use in a sukkah.

In the picture you can see a black line.  This is one of the wires that are woven through the reeds to hold them together.   A moment's thought should make it clear why this schach is only kosher perpendicular to the support bamboo.  If a moment's thought does not do it, I note the explanation below.

Unfortunately, from my examination of this product, I believe it to be mostly open, חמתו מרובה מצלתו.  It might be that since its use is limited to cases where it is perpendicular to other kosher schach, it can be assumed that between itself and the support schach there will be a total of צלתו מרובה מחמתו.  This, however, is a risky assumption, but well within the purview of reliance on one's poseik.  For skeptics, the only way to make a final determination would be to use a light meter and a flashlight in a darkened room. Rabbi Reuven Drucker, the Marah D'Asra of the Agudah of Highland Park New Jersey and Menahel of Yeshiva Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in Washington Heights, is an expert in such determinations.

UPDATE
I was just informed that Rabbi Fishbane, head of the CRC, says that they did measure it and they found it to be tzilsa merubah.  Rabbi Fishbane is universally respected in the Kashrus World, has well established his credentials as a man to be relied upon, and I cede to his opinion.
SECOND UPDATE
Oddly, in the printed CRC information sheet, this schach is discussed, and the paragraph ends by saying that as in all cases, one should ensure that the schach is Tzilso Merubah.  Evidently, someone at the office was not convinced that it is mostly reed.

EXPLANATION
If the schach is placed parallel (Y Axis) to the support schach, then removing the wire would result in all the reeds falling down between the supports.  If it is placed perpendicularly (X Axis,) then even if the wire were to be removed, the reeds would stay in place.  Thus, when the fencing is parallel, the wire is the only reason the schach stays where it belongs, and under the rule of Maamid Bedavar Hamekabel Tumah the reeds are no more kasher than the wire itself.  It is like having a metal lattice holding up the schach.  (Many poskim are not concerned about maamid..)

UPDATE:

I realized that Reb Moshe passels this schach in OC I 177. The emplacement of the wire by the manufacturer to lend the product stability and functionality renders the whole thing ראוי לקבל טומאה.  Like venetian blinds. Finished.

Of course, if you know kol hatorah kullah, including Taharos, and you disagree, please feel free to differ.


II
ON EIRUV TAVSHILIN

On another topic:  Some people, not chalilah in reference to anyone who will be eating in my house this Yomtov, are obsessive about the Eiruv Tavshilin.  They are afraid someone (me) will forget to make the eiruv.    Others might themselves be worried that they will get busy and forget erev yomtov.  For those unfortunate compulsives, I have some advice.  Make the eiruv two or three days before yomtov.  As the Tur points out, his father, the Rosh, says that according to Rav Ashi, such an eiruv is kasher, and we pasken like Rav Ashi (as the basra.)  True, the Mechaber (OC 527, see, for example, here, in Seif 4 and 25 ) holds that lechatchila one should be choshesh for the shitta of Ravva (and the Maharshal that says that the Rosh's analysis is incorrect) and only rely on an erev yomtov Eiruv, but bedieved it is certainly kasher.  So for anyone taking this to heart, remember: if you make the eiruv a few days before Yomtov, or erev yomtov for the last days as well, it's kosher.  But don't make a bracha, neither now nor later on erev Yomtov.  And make sure the Eiruv food remains edible and available until Shabbos begins.

UPDATE 10/8/21

I was wrong to just blithely suggest making the eiruv days before. The Taz 527:2k12 and the Magen Avraham sk13 both prohibit doing so in the first instance, although both accept its validity bedi'eved. So I would modify the suggestion by saying that one should make an early eiruv with a tnai - if I remember, then this eiruv is nothing. If I forget, I will be someich on this eiruv.

Sukkos in the Fall

The Tur (OC 625) asks, if on Sukkos we re-enact our sojourn in the eponymous Sukkos in the desert, why does it occur in the Fall, when the event took place when we left Egypt, in the Spring.  He answers that after a wet and cold Winter, many people find it pleasurable to eat outdoors as the weather improves.  If we made the holiday in the Spring, it would not have the symbolic force that it does now.  We make it in the Fall, when nobody else eats or sleeps outdoors, so that we should be emphatically reminded of our reason for doing so.  As the Bach says, the mitzva of Sukkos requires a specific awareness of the reason for the commandment.  (I apologize to my friends in the Southern Hemisphere for the Hemispheric chauvinism.)

The Rambam (Moreh 3:43) says exactly the opposite of the Tur: that this season was picked because it's neither too hot nor too cold for a Succah (in Eretz Yisrael's climate, of course).

These are unsatisfying answers.  We are taught that our holidays are not mere tableaux vivants re-enactments, but instead a re-experience of the mazal and segula of the moment, a wellspring from which we draw spiritual strength.  It is hard to accept the Rambam's and the Tur's assertions that Sukkos has no inherent temporal/spiritual relation to its place in the calendar.


Addressing this issue, the Vilner Gaon (born 1720) and the Chasam Sofer (born 1762) say identical answers.  The Vilner Gaon is in Shir Hashirim 1:4, here.  The Chasam Sofer is in his Drashos, page 29a, in the Drasha for Shabbos Shuva of תקצ"ד, D'H B'Yalkut, here.

Thank you, Heather H., for pointing out that today, October 17, is the Gaon's Yahrtzeit, 19 Tishrei Tof Kuf Nun Ches/1797.  The Chasam Sofer's Yahrtzeit, 25 Tishrei Tof Reish/1839, is next Sunday, October 23.  May they be meilitzei yosher for us and all Klal Yisrael.

They answer that the Clouds which (according to Rebbi Eliezer) the Sukkos represent, departed upon the sin of the Eigel.  The Clouds only returned after we did teshuva and began building the Mishkan.  When was that?  Our teshuva was accepted on Yom Kippur, the tenth.  On the eleventh, Moshe Rabbeinu gave us the commandment to build the Mishkan; on the twelfth and thirteenth, we collected the material and money we needed; on the fourteenth, the calculations, assignments and disbursements were made, and on the fifteenth of Tishrei, the work began.  It is not just the Ananim we are celebrating- we're celebrating Hashem's return of the Ananei Hakavod as a sign of His love after we did teshuva.  The Teshuva did not merely erase our sins, it reinstated Hashem's love.  It is the great joy of the return of the ananei hakavod that we are celebrating.

The problem with this teretz is the pessukim in Nechemiah 9:19-20, which say
 יח אף כי עשו להם עגל מסכה ויאמרו זה אלהיך אשר העלך ממצרים ויעשו נאצות גדלות.  יט ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם ביומם להנחתם בהדרך ואת-עמוד האש בלילה להאיר להם ואת-הדרך אשר ילכו בה

Even when they made the Eigel and said "This is your god that took you out of Egypt", and they did great blasphemies, You, in Your great mercy, did not leave them in the Desert.  The Pillar of Cloud did not move away from them in the day to lead them on the path, nor the Pillar of Fire to illuminate the road they walked upon.

It appears that these pesukim, which clearly state that the sin of the Eigel did not cause the Cloud to go away, contradict the assertion of the Gaon and the Chasam Sofer.

The answer is, of course, that there is a difference between the Amud Ha'anan and the Ananei Hakavod.  The Pillar of Cloud remained with them, but the Clouds of Glory, which covered and protected them, did disappear, and only came back when they began building the Mishkan.


You might disagree with this distinction.  After all, the Aruch Hashulchan seems to commingle the two Ananim:

ותניא (סוכה יא ב): "כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל" – ענני כבוד היו, דברי רבי אליעזר. רבי עקיבא אומר: סוכות ממש עשו להם.

והנה לדברי רבי אליעזר – וודאי דשייך לעשות זכרון לדבר הגדול הזה, שהקיפן בענני כבוד. וכמו שהתוודו בעלותם מן הגולה בנחמיה (ט), שאמרו: "אף כי עשו להם עגל מסכה... ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר, את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם..., ואת עמוד האש בלילה...". דבענני כבוד היתה התגלות אלקות ממש, כמו שאמר משה רבינו בעניינא דמרגלים: "אשר עין בעין נראה אתה ד', ועננך עומד עליהם, ובעמוד ענן אתה הולך לפניהם יומם, ובעמוד אש לילה"

Also, we find that Chazal equate the Amud Ha'anan and the Ananei Hakavod, in Medrash Bamidbar Rabbah II:

וכמה ענני כבוד היו מקיפין את ישראל במדבר 

ר' הושעיה ור' יאשיה, ר' יאשיה אמר: חמישה. ארבע לארבע רוחות, וא' מהלך לפניהם. ר' הושעיה אמר: שבעה. ארבעה לארבע רוחות השמים, וא' מלמעלן, וא' מלמטן, ואחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם רחוק ג' ימים, והיה מכה לפניהם את הנחשים, ואת העקרבים, ואת השרפים, ואת הסלעים, ואם היה מקום נמוך היה מגביהו, ואם היה מקום גבוה היה משפילו, ועושה אותם מישור, שנאמר (ישעיה מ): כל גיא ינשא וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו. 

Also, see (sorry about the transcription errors: my secretary stepped out for a moment...)  Mechilta D'Rebbi Yishmael in Beshalach, 13:21, where it says very clearly

 וה׳ הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן מלמד ששבעה ענני כבוד היו עם ישראל  

יומם  בעמוד  ענן  הרי אחד .  ועננך  עומד  עליהם  (ב מ ׳  יד  יד )  הרי שנים .  ובעמוד  ענן  את ה  הולך  לפניהם  יומם  (שס)  הרי שלשה. ובהאריך  הענן  (בפ׳  סיס )  הרי  ארבעה. ובהעלות  הענן  (שמ׳  פ לו )  הרי  המשה. ואם  לא  יעלה  הענן  (שם לז)  הרי  ששה. כי  ענן  ה׳ על  המשכן  יומם  (שם  לה)  הרי  שבעה.  ארבעה 15 מארבע  רותות  ואחו  מלמ עלה  ואחד  םלמסד .  וא ח ד  שמ ק ד י ם  לפ נ י ה ם  פ ת ק ן  לה ם  את  הד ר כ י ם  מג ב י ר . לה ם  את  הש פ ל  ומ ש פ י ל  לה ם  את  הג ב ו ה  וע ו ש ה  לה ס  דר ך  ס ר ס  ומ י ש ו ר  כע נ י ן  שנ א י  כל  ני א  י נ ש א וכ ל  הר  וג ב ע ה  יש פ ל ו  וה י ה  הע ק ב  לפ י ש ו ר  וה ר כ ס י ם  לב ק ע ה  (ישע׳ פ ד) וא ו ם ׳  והיתד. פס ל ה  לש א ר עפ ו  אש ר  יש א ר  מא ש ו ר  כא ש ר  הי ת ה  לי ש ר א ל  כי ו ם  על ו ת ו  מא ר ץ  פצ ר י ם  (ישע׳  י א  שז). הד י  זה  נ א כפ ל מ ד  ו נ מ צ א  למ ד  מה  לע ת י ד  לב ו א  כל  גיא יג ש א  וכ ל  ה ר  וג ב ע ה  יש פ ל ו  כך  היד, לה ן  בע ל י י ת ן 20 פא ר ץ  מצ ר י ם .  די א  והי  הל ך  לפ נ י ה ם  י ו מ ם  ר׳  יו ס י  הנ ל י ל י  או מ ר  אל מ ל א  פק ר א  כ ת ו ב  אי אפ ש ר ל א פ ר ו  כא ב  שנ ו ס ל  סו נ ס  לפ נ י  בנ ו  וכ ר ב  שנ ו ס ל  פו נ ס  לפ נ י  עב ד ו .  לל כ ת  י ו מ ם  ול י ל ה  פק י ש  נס י ע ת ן כי פ י ם  לנ ס י ע ת ן  בל י ל ו ת  פ ה  נס י ע ת ן  בי פ י ם  לא  הי ו  טח ו ס ר י ן  או ר ה  אף  נס י ע ת ן  בל י ל ו ת  לא  הי ו פח ו ס ר י ן  או ר ה .  מה  נס י ע ת ן  בל י ל ו ת  לא  יר ע ב ו  ול א  י נ פ א ו  ול א  יכ ם  שר ב  וש מ ש  (י ש ע ׳  מם  י) אף נס י ע ת ן  בי מ י ם  לא  יר ע ב ו  ול א  יצ מ א ו  ול א  יכ ם  שר ב  וש מ ש .

וה' הולך לפניהם יומם. את מוצא שבעה ענני כבוד היו, אלו הן: וה' הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן, הרי אחד. "ועננך עומד עליהם" (במדבר יד , יד), הרי שנים. "ובעמוד ענן" (שם), הרי שלשה. (שם ט, יט) "ובהאריך הענן", ארבע. "ובהעלות הענן" (שמות מ , לו), חמשה. (שם, לז) "ואם לא יעלה הענן", ששה. (שם, לח) "כי ענן ה' על המשכן", שבעה. ארבע מארבע רוחות: ואחד מלמטה, ואחד מלמעלה, ואחד מהלך לפניהם. כל הנמוך מגביהו, וכל הגבוה מנמיכו, ושורף נחשים ועקרבים, מכבד ומרבץ את הדרך לפניהם

וה' הולך לפניהם יומם - נמצאת אומר שבעה עננים הם: "וה' הולך לפניהם יומם", וגו' (במדבר יד) "ועננך עומד עליהם", (שם) "ובעמוד ענן", (במדבר ט) "ובהאריך הענן", (שמות מ) "ובהעלות הענן", (שם) "ואם לא יעלה הענן", (שם) "כי ענן ה' על המשכן".

שבעה עננים: ארבע מארבע רוחותיהם, אחד למעלה ואחד למטה, אחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם, כל הנמוך - מגביהו, וכל הגבוה - משפילו, שנאמר (ישעיה מ) "כל גיא ינשא, וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו, והיה העקוב למישור, והרכסים לבקעה". והיה מכה נחשים ועקרבים לפניהם, מכבד ומרבץ לפניהם.

ר' יהודה אומר: שלשה עשר עננים היו: שנים לכל רוח ורוח, שנים מלמעלה ושנים מלמטה, ואחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם.

ר' יאשיה אומר: ארבעה: אחד לפניהם ואחד לאחריהם, אחד למעלה ואחד למטה.

ר' אומר: שנים.

It's possible that some ananim went away and some didn't.  But the pashtus of the Passuk in Nechemiah is that all of the Ananim remained after the sin of the Eigel, even before Yom Kippur.  So what's pshat in the teretz of Gaon and the Chasam Sofer?  We can find the answer to this question in the Chasam Sofer, here, (Drashos, page 53b, D'H Sha'alah).

The Chasam Sofer asks, why does the Gemara in Sukkos 26b not suggest that women ought to be Chayav in Sukka because they were involved in the miracle no less than the men?   He answers, as he said earlier, that Sukkos commemorates not the Clouds, but the return of the Clouds after Teshuva.  He says that the Clouds did not actually disappear, but they ejected any sinner that attempted to enter into them.  The men, who were excommunicated for their sin of the Eigel, remained outside of the cloud until they began building the Mishkan.  The women, on the other hand, had never participated in the Eigel, and were never driven away from the Anan.  While any man entering the Anan were spit out, the women were able to enter the Anan at will.  Since for the women nothing changed, the redemptive experience of Sukkos did not apply to them at all, and we certainly could not say they're chayav on the basis of אף הן היו באותו הנס.  They weren't באותו הנס at all.

According to the Chasam Sofer, we can understand the pesukim in Nechemiah to mean that the Anan never went away, and still guided them.  But it did not allow the men to enter into it, it was poleit them.  Only when they began building the Mishkan were the men allowed to enter into the cloud, and it is this redemptive experience that took place on the fifteenth of Tishrei that we celebrate.

I want to point out an irony.  According to the Chasam Sofer, the reason that we wouldn't apply אף הן היו באותו הנס to obligate women to do the Mitzva of Sukka is because they never sinned, they never were kicked out, and they never earned redemption.  Sukkos is the holiday that commemorates a fall and a return to Hashem's love.  They never fell, and Hashem loved them all the time, so they have no reconciliation to celebrate.  Although it sounds strange, it makes perfect sense.  The descendants of an alternative Avraham Avinu who never said "Bamah Eida" would never have been redeemed from Mitzrayim.  I recently read that a physician lamented how he spends half an hour teaching a patient about lifestyle changes that will ensure that his heart remains healthy, and a cardiac surgeon that repairs a heart damaged by by a bad lifestyle is paid thirty to forty times as much for his half hour.  Somehow, that reminded me of the Chasam Sofer's teretz.

Sukkos: Shehakol Tomatoes, Greenhouse Esrogim and Moonroof Schach

Shehakol Tomatoes and Greenhouse Esrogim

The bracha on a tomato or a cucumber is Borei P'ri Ha'adama- Who created the fruit of the Earth- except when it is not a fruit of the Earth.  If a vegetable is grown in a container that is not open to the ground, and has no branches that overhang the ground, it is not halachically attached to the Earth, and you cannot make the regular bracha "borei pri ha'adama" on it.  In that case, the correct bracha is She'hakol.  Some, but not all, greenhouse produce falls into this category.  Although some greenhouses have benches that are perforated and stand above open ground, some grow produce that is completely separated from and unexposed to the earth.  During the winter, you should check your produce, because it is common for winter tomatoes and cucumbers to have been grown in greenhouses, often hydroponically, and therefore require the bracha she'hakol. When in doubt, one should make the bracha She'hakol.

While the issue of correct brachos is important, it is a din derabanan, and this question has relevance to dinim de'oraysa as well.  For example, can you use an esrog that was grown in an atzitz she'eino nakuv, a closed pot that separates the plant from the earth?  We can understand that the words "Pri Ha'adama" exclude something grown without contact with the Earth.  But the bracha "borei pri ha'etz"- Who created the fruit of the tree- doesn't mention the ground or the earth, so the bracha for greenhouse grown tree fruit should still be "ha'etz," and it should therefore satisfy the requirement in the Torah to use "Pri Eitz Hadar."  Similarly in the case of Hadasim, it says Anaf Eitz Avos, but nothing about the ground.  Certainly, the Aravos and Lulav should be fine, since it doesn't even say Pri or Eitz.  On the other hand, perhaps the word "eitz" connotes a tree that grows from the Earth, in which case a greenhouse esrog or hadas would not be kosher.

This is not a remote case.  As it happens, I have both an esrog and a hadas in pots which spend the summer outdoors and (because I live in Zone 5a/b) the winter in the house.  They are over twenty two years old, and have produced a great number of kosher esrogim and hadasim, though the esrog is long past its bearing years, and I trim the Hadas more as Bonsai than as a source of Hadasim.  I just realized that the esrog, the hadas, and I, are all superannuated.

Reb Moshe (OC 4:#124) indicates that they are kosher.   (Reb Reuven Feinstein argued that  his father was only mattir bedi'eved.  That may be true, but the cited teshuva shows that he was mattir lehalacha, and in the teshuva he does not say it is only bedieved.)  Reb Yaakov Kaminetsky is also mattir lechatchila.  His son in law used to raise esrogim in a greenhouse in Monsey.  However, the Chayei Adam in his Hilchos Sukka 152:3 (discussed extensively in his Nishmas Adam there) is not sure of the halacha in the case of all the four minim.  Although he believes they ought to be kosher, he has a problem with a Rambam in Hilchos Trumos (second perek) that indicates the opposite.  Reb Aharon Kotler was the biggest machmir on this issue.  He held that not only is such a fruit not kosher for Sukkos, but if the tree the fruit grew on was ever detached from the ground, that tree is forever passul for growing arba minim.  The Yam shel Shlomo and the Chazon Ish also discuss this, but I don't have access to my notes at the moment.

As far as Brachos, the Chayei Adam in his Hilchos Brachos (I don't remember the klal number but its easy to find) says that you make a she'hakol on this kind of vegetable, and mezonos on bread that is made from this kind of wheat (astronauts, pay attention.)  However, in line with his safek in Hilchos Sukka, he leaves unresolved the halacha regarding borei pri ha'etz.

(I think it's odd to say that and explicit element- Arvei Nachal, a brook willow- is not read as requiring that it actually grow near a brook, and you can use a willow that grew far from any brook, and to then say that an implicit requirement, that the eitz be grown in the ground, is integral.)

Moonroof Schach

As for Moonroof Schach, someone pointed out that if you want to go on a trip, you can throw a schach mat over your sun or moonroof, and have a kosher sukka.  Here's a picture of the car I drive, a Subaru Forester:

The sides of the car would have a halacha of Dofen Akuma, and you can't sit under the dofen akuma, so you would have to eat under the open part, not the closed roof.  There's also an issue of having the table in a non-kosher part of the Sukka (OC 634:4).  So make sure to eat off of your lap, or to use a lap table, not the dashboard.

This arrangement is better than the idea of opening two doors on one side of the car and putting the schach on between the tops of the doors, thus creating a three-sided sukka- the car and the two doors.  The car door sukka can involve a problem of having the walls of the sukka more than three tefachim above the floor of the sukka, which is passul (no gud asik because gediim bokim bo).  The Moonroof option, on the other hand, has the walls going down to the floor.

For the first commenter, who mentioned that his daughter wants a picture of a sukka on an elephant, here.

Sukkos and Chanuka

I like to think that the end of one Yomtov is the time to start looking forward to the next one. Now that Sukkos is over, and MarCheshvan is about to begin, there's a long, empty time until the next Yomtov. But at the Ne'ilas Hachag of Simchas Torah, I heard a very nice dvar Torah from a young man, Joey Nussbaum, and it bears repeating both because of the connection between Sukkos and Chanuka and because of the explanation it provides to a perplexing Gemara in Shabbos.

We all know the Beis Yosef's question about why we celebrate eight days, when the miraculous long-burning oil only lasted seven days more than it normally would. The Aruch Hashulchan addresses this question in OC 670:5. He brings from the Sefer Chashmona'i that in the year before Matisyahu's rebellion, Antiochus had prevented the korban celebration of Sukkos and Shemini Atzeres. Therefore, when the Jews were able to re-inaugurate the Beis Hamikdash, they intentionally celebrated for eight days, in order to show that they were making up for the lost days of Sukkos and Shemini Atzeres. The eight days of burning, then, were simply a heavenly ratification of their decision to establish this eight day holiday. (This is actually made clear in the Megillas Chashmona'im.)

With this we can finally understand what Shammai means by saying that we should start with eight candles and go down one every day just as was done with the bulls that are brought on Sukkos. Everyone reading the Gemara is puzzled by this association, because this reverse progression is unique to Sukkos, and why would Chanuka davka reflect the singular rules of Sukkos? But now we understand that Chanuka was viewed as a stand-in, as a commemoration, of the Sukkos holiday and korbanos that they had been prevented from bringing.

This also explains why we find dinim of hiddur on Chanuka that we generally don't find in other dinim. The reason is, again, because Chanuka is, to some extent, a quasi-Sukkos, and Sukkos is a holiday when hiddur on the esrog and all the minim is stressed to an unusual extent.

Micha Berger of http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/11/chayei-sarah-kibbush-and-chizuq.shtml commented that he heard this association from Rav Aharon Soloveichik in 1993, and expanded on it with something else he heard from him. What follows is from Micha's website, Aspaqlaria, at the above link.

R. Chaim Soloveitchik holds that there is a distinct difference between the sanctity of Eretz Yisroel that came with the first commonwealth and that of the second.

The first Temple did not create a permanent qedushah (holiness). The reason given is “that which was acquired through conquering is lost through conquering. The First Commonwealth built on land acquired in the wars of the days of Yehoshua and the Shoftim (Judges), was itself conquered.

The Second Commonwealth was “merely” an immigration of a group of Jews who decided to live in the land as Jews. It is predicated on the mitzvos done there, the education of children raised there. That kind of sanctity can not be undone. “Qidshah lisha’atah viqidshah le’asid lavo – it was sanctified for its time and sanctified for all time to come”. Even today, Har Habayis (the Temple Mount) has the sanctity of the Temple.

R. Aharon understands his grandfather’s words in the light of this distinction. The first commonwealth was founded on kibbush. It therefore had an inherently inferior qedushah. The second commonwealth was built by chazaqah. When Hashem tells Zecharia, “Not by force and not by might but by My spirit”, He is saying that the second Temple should be build on chazaqah, not kibbush, to lead to a permanent sanctification. “Neqeivah tesoveiv gever.”

Rav Aharon Soloveitchik notes Chanukah’s connection to Sukkos. According to Seifer haMakabiim, on the first Chanukah people who had just missed being oleh regel, going up to the beis hamiqdash, with their esrog and lulav, did so then at their first opportunity. Beis Shammai taught that one should light 8 lights the first night of Chanukah, 7 the second, learning from the 70 bulls offered for the mussaf on Sukkos, which also declined in number each day: 14 the first day, 13 the second, etc… Rav Yosi bar Avin or R’ Yosi bar Zevida explains that Beis Shammai are emphasizing the link between Chanukah and Sukkos. (We follow Beis Hillel, and teach that the ideal is to increase as the holiday progresses. They do not deny the connection; but rather Beis Hillel asserts an overriding halachic principle — that we increase in holiness over time.)

The concept of being a geir vetoshav is at the center of the similarity between the two holidays. Sukkos is a time when the toshav leaves his home to experience geirus in the Sukkah. Chanukah is also about the ger’s Chazaqah, the rededication of the second Beis haMiqdash. Not about winning the war – the war wouldn’t be over for years – but about being able to live in Israel as Jews, with access to the beis hamiqdash.