English translation — אמור ג

Talk 3<pg>140</pg>

A.

The author wrote at the beginning of the laws of Sukkah<sup>1</sup>

: "In sukkot you shall dwell seven days etc. for in sukkot I settled the children of Israel<sup>2</sup>,

they are clouds of glory that surrounded them so that<sup>3</sup>

the heat and sun should not strike you."

And its source is in the Tur there,

which brings the language of the verses<sup>2</sup>

"In sukkot you shall dwell seven days etc. so that your generations may know that in sukkot I settled the children of Israel when I brought them out etc.",

and in the continuation of the matter he explains,

that "the sukkot that the verse says I settled them in are clouds of His glory<sup>4</sup>

that surrounded them so that the heat and sun should not strike them and an example of this He commanded us to make sukkot so that we remember His wonders and His awesome deeds."

And it requires explanation: Is it not the way of the author to explain the reasons of the laws or to bring their source in the Written Torah,

but only to rule the law in practice?

And the later authorities explained⁵

that this is a law,

that there is an obligation to intend at the time of fulfilling the commandment of dwelling in the sukkah that it is a memorial to the "clouds of glory that surrounded them etc."

And it is in the manner of the words of the Bach⁶,

who asked this question on the Tur

(that "he elaborated to explain and expound the verse 'In sukkot you shall dwell'"),

and he explains,

"that he holds that since it is written 'so that they shall know etc.' he did not fulfill the commandment properly if he did not know the intention of the commandment of the sukkah according to its simple meaning."

Except that the Beit Yosef disagrees with the Bach regarding the essence of this intention⁷,

for the Bach holds that "the main intention in sitting in the sukkah is that he remember the Exodus from Egypt"⁸

(and according to his approach this is the intention of the Tur, who explained here the reason that "the Torah linked the commandment of sukkah to the Exodus from Egypt",

to inform us that the commandment of sukkah is a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt)

; and the Beit Yosef holds that the commandment of sukkah is a remembrance of the miracle

(particular)

of "the Clouds of Glory that surrounded them so that the sun and heat would not strike them",

and it is not a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt⁹,

and therefore the author changed from the language of the Tur and did not copy the end of the verse "when I brought them out etc."

(and wrote only "In sukkot you shall dwell..

for I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot, they are the Clouds of Glory etc.'),

for in his opinion a person must intend only this, that the commandment of sukkah is a remembrance of the Clouds of Glory.

<pg>141</pg>

[And with this is also understood the precise wording of the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch¹,

that he changed from the language of the author and copied

(as in the Tur)

also the end of the verse "when I brought them out of the land of Egypt",

for the Alter Rebbe ruled¹⁰

according to the approach of the Bach that "every person must¹¹

intend in his sitting in the sukkah that he sits in order to fulfill the commandment of the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded us to sit in the sukkah as a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt",

and therefore he copied the words "when I brought them out of the land of Egypt" at the beginning of the section,

for this is the main point of "so that they know",

the knowledge and intention that the commandment of sukkah is a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt].

2.

And one must examine this,

for according to this, the author should have written explicitly "and he should intend in his sitting etc."¹²,

in the manner that he wrote in the laws of tzitzis¹³

"he should intend when wrapping himself etc. so that we remember etc.",

and similarly in the laws of tefillin¹⁴

he wrote "he should intend when laying them etc. so that we remember etc."

[And as explained in the Bach¹⁵,

that regarding these three commandments,

tzitzis, tefillin, and sukkah,

"the essence of the commandment and its fulfillment depends on its intention",

since it is stated regarding them¹⁶

"in order that etc."].

And more difficult,

that also in the Tur here he did not write "and he should intend etc.",

as he wrote regarding tzitzis and tefillin¹⁷,

and simply the reason for this is,

because he copied from the verse also the words "in order that your generations may know",

in which it is explicit that the commandment is knowledge and intention¹⁸,

therefore there is no place to write that a person needs to intend because this is explicit in the language of the verse that he brought.

And based on this, it will be puzzling regarding the author,

that he omitted these words

("so that your generations may know"),

and in his language there is not

("In sukkot you shall dwell..

for I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot..

they are clouds of glory etc.'")

only an explanation of the reason for the commandment and there is in this no instruction and command to man.

And therefore it seems to explain the intention of the author

(not that this reason is part of the intention of the commandment,

but)

that in this reason and verse he explains the definition of the commandment of sukkah,

that in this there is a practical difference for several laws,

as follows.

3.

And this will be understood according to the language of the Alter Rebbe there,

that he wrote: "In sukkot you shall dwell seven days, so that your generations may know that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot when I brought them out of the land of Egypt,

they were clouds of His glory that He encircled them with for shade, so that the heat and sun should not strike them,

and corresponding to this He commanded us to make sukkot that are made for shade, so that we may mention His wonders and awesome deeds."

And one must clarify the content of the addition of the Alter Rebbe to the language of the Tur

(and the Shulchan Aruch)

"clouds of His glory that He encircled them with for shade, so that the heat and sun should not strike them",

for seemingly that they were "for shade" is included in what is said "so that the heat and sun should not strike them",

and what does he add by saying "for shade".

And similarly in the continuation of his language,

the Alter Rebbe adds to the language of the Tur — "and corresponding to this He commanded us to make sukkot that are made for shade",

these words

("that are made for shade")

are not in the Tur.

And we must say,

that it teaches us a beneficial point,

that from this that the verse attributes the mitzvah of sukkah to "the clouds of His glory with which He surrounded them for shade",

we infer,

that the definition of the mitzvah of sukkah is that it must be "made for shade"¹⁹.

And this is that in addition to this that one of the conditions of the sukkah is that its shade must be greater than its sunlight²⁰,

behold its definition<pg>142</pg>

and essence of the sukkah

(of the mitzvah)

is — a sukkah made for shade

(and a sukkah that lacks this condition does not have the name sukkah at all).

[And one should say,

that this matter is from the practical halachic differences between the two opinions&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

if "I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot" means "actual sukkot" or "clouds of glory": according to the opinion that they were "actual sukkot",

the primary definition of a sukkah is a temporary dwelling&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;,

like the sukkot that the Jewish people made in the desert,

which were "a temporary dwelling"&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

; but according to the opinion that they were "clouds of glory",

the sukkot that we make are a remembrance

(only)

of this detail of the clouds of glory,

"that He surrounded them with them for shade so that the heat of the sun and the sun should not strike them"

(as below section 7),

and therefore the definition of a sukkah is that it is made for shade&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;].

And this foundation is explicit in the language of the Alter Rebbe immediately at the beginning of the following section&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

(in which he begins to explain the laws of the actual making of the sukkah),

that he wrote "A person does not fulfill his obligation except with a sukkah that is made only for shade, like the clouds of glory, but if it is made also for dwelling..

and not to take shelter in its shade alone,

or it is made also to use it for a modest use..

or it is made also for a shelter and a refuge from a storm and from rain,

any [sukkah] that is not made for shade alone is not a sukkah but a house etc.".

In the Gemara²⁶

this condition is mentioned only regarding the fitness of a stolen sukkah

(for even though these sukkahs were not made for the sake of the mitzvah,

nevertheless they are fit if they were made for the sake of shade),

but the Alter Rebbe writes that this is a condition for every sukkah²⁷,

to the extent that the intention of its making must be solely for "shade only",

without admixture of any other intention²⁸

— "to use it

(also)

for a use of modesty",

or even that it be "also for a shelter and a refuge from storm and rain"²⁹

[even though it is explicit in the verse³⁰

that this is<pg>143</pg>

the essence of a sukkah,

"And a sukkah shall be for shade by day from the heat and for a shelter and a refuge from storm and rain"]

— because according to the Alter Rebbe,

this is the definition of the mitzvah of sukkah,

that it be made for shade only, like the clouds of glory "with which He surrounded them for shade".

And it can be said that therefore the Alter Rebbe began the laws of making a sukkah with this law

[unlike the Tur

(and likewise in the Shulchan Aruch)

who did not mention this law here at all,

and begins the siman with the laws of "the fit place

(for making a sukkah)

how?³¹,

that he should make it under the air of the heavens, as it is written "in sukkot you shall dwell" and they expounded³²

"and not in a sukkah that is under a sukkah, and not in a sukkah that is under a house, and not in a sukkah that is under a tree"],

since this is not one of the conditions of the sukkah,

but rather this is the definition of a sukkah,

that "any [sukkah] that is not made for shade alone is not a sukkah."

And based on this, it can be said,

that the intention of the Alter Rebbe here

(in his copying the language of the Mechaber,

and adding to it

(a)

the word "

(that He surrounded them with them)

for shade",

(b)

and in the language of the Tur "and a likeness to this You commanded us to make sukkot" he adds "that are made for shade")

is to explain the words of the Mechaber,

that in that which the Mechaber brought the opinion that "in sukkot I caused the children of Israel to dwell" "they are clouds of glory that He surrounded them with them so that the scorching heat and sun should not strike them",

his intention is to define,

that also the sukkot that we were commanded to make,

their definition is,

that they must be "made for shade."

4.

And one should add to this,

and immediately,

that it is puzzling in what the Alter Rebbe added the word "for shade" — "His clouds of glory that surrounded them for shade so that it should not strike etc." — for even though this is in accordance with the continuation of his language "He commanded us to make sukkot that are made for shade"

(as above),

this is a repetition of language,

and even if he had written only "so that the scorching heat and sun should not strike them" the continuation to this that "He commanded us to make sukkot that are made for shade" would be understood.

And according to the above that the intention of the Alter Rebbe here is to define the essence of a sukkah in halachah,

it can be said,

that even this precision pertains to halachah.

And this will be understood by first introducing the difference in plain meaning between "for shade" or "so that sun and heat should not strike them": In "so that sun and heat should not strike them" the benefit to the person sitting in the sukkah is emphasized,

that the heat of the sun does not strike him; in "for shade" the existence of the "shade" is emphasized

(created by the sukkah)

as an entity in itself.

And it can be said,

that the practical difference between them concerns the matter that its shade must be greater than its sunlight,

whether this is a measure regarding the roofing,

that its shade should be greater than its sunlight³³,

or that the main point is that regarding the person sitting in the sukkah the shade should be greater than the sunlight.

And according to this — in that the Alter Rebbe adds that the clouds of glory were "for a shade, so that the sun and heat should not strike them" hints,

that in the shade of the sukkah there are two aspects:

(a)

From the aspect of the sechach — in the manner of the clouds of glory that were "for a shade",

(b)

From the aspect of the person,

just as the clouds of glory effected that "they should not be struck"

(the person)

by sun and heat".

And with this we can explain the words of the Alter Rebbe regarding the law that its shade is greater than its sunlight,

and his language is³⁴

: "If there is no<pg>144</pg>

The sechach is more than the air, but if they are equal, it is invalid, because the sun that enters the air of the sechach, when it reaches the ground of the sukkah, spreads more than it is above in the air of the sechach, and it turns out that the sukkah below on its ground has more sun than shade.

And in the next section

he continues "But if below on its ground its sun and its shade are equal, it is kosher, because it is known that above in the sechach the air is less than the sechach, and its shade above is more than its sun

And this is complete sechach."

And at first glance his words contradict each other,

that from his words in the first law it follows that if the shade and the sun are equal, it should be a kosher sukkah,

and the reason we invalidate it is only because "the sukkah below on its ground has more sun than shade",

whereas from his words in the second law it follows the opposite, that if the shade and the sun are equal, this is not sufficient to validate the sukkah,

and that the sukkah is kosher when they are equal below is only because "its shade above is more than its sun".

Also, one must understand the precision of his language there that "if below..

its sunlight and its shade are equal, it is valid according to..

(shin)

its shade above is greater than its sunlight and this is "complete s'chach" which seemingly is superfluous language,

And why is the reason that "its shade above is greater than its sunlight" not sufficient?

And based on the above, one can say,

that the measure of s'chach "above" and the measure of s'chach "below" are two different laws,

different in their essential definition&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

: The law of the shade of the sukkah relative to the person

("below"),

is primarily a negative law,

i.e., it is invalid if by him its sunlight is greater than its shade,

because then it is not similar to the Clouds of Glory that caused "that the scorching heat and sun should not strike them"

(but if they are equal, there is no invalidity here)

; however, the law regarding the s'chach of the sukkah

("above")

is a positive matter,

that the s'chach of the sukkah should be "for shade",

and this is specifically when "its shade is greater than its sunlight",

for then it is "complete s'chach"

(but also when they are only equal, there is no invalidity here,

rather it is not "complete s'chach" — according to the precise language of the Alter Rebbe).

And this is the difference between the two laws: the first law comes to teach us the law of the measure of the roofing "below",

which is invalid as above,

and therefore the reason that they invalidate the sukkah when above its shade and its sun are equal,

is because "the sukkah below..

its sun is more than its shade"

(and because of this the name "invalid" applies to the sukkah³⁹)

; and the second law comes to inform us of the measure of the roofing "above",

<pg>145</pg>

that this is a positive law,

that "complete roofing" is only when its shade is more than its sun,

and therefore,

the reason that this sukkah

(where below they are equal)

is valid is only because "its shade above is more than its sun and behold it is complete roofing"

(but if also above they were

(only)

equal,

it is not a valid sukkah

(at least initially^*39),

since there is no "complete roofing" in it).

5.

And furthermore it must be said,

that in this that in the definition of the mitzvah of sukkah the Alter Rebbe emphasizes that the sukkah is "for shade"

(as above),

his intention is to hint,

that the primary definition of the sukkah is not that for a person it is forbidden to have a situation of "its sunnier side is greater than its shaded side"

(in the manner of "neither sun nor heat shall strike them"),

but rather the obligation⁴⁰,

that the sechach be made "for shade"⁴¹,

"its shaded side is greater than its sunnier side".

And the practical difference: if the sechach above its shaded side is greater than its sunnier side,

but the sukkah below its sunnier side is greater than its shaded side⁴²

(by this "that the sun that enters the airspace of the sechach when it reaches the floor of the sukkah spreads more than it is above in the airspace of the sechach"),

and it is found that above there is "complete sechach",

but below there is a disqualification of its sunnier side is greater than its shaded side.

And behold, it stands to reason to say,

that since there is a disqualification in the sukkah,

if so, what does it help that above there is "complete sechach".

But according to the above

(that the essential definition of the sukkah is that the sechach is made "for shade")

it can be said,

that if above there is "complete sechach",

we do not take into account what is done below on the floor of the sukkah; for only when above they are equal

(and there is no "complete sechach")

then the sukkah is disqualified when below its sunlight is greater than its shade,

but if above there is "complete sechach",

it does not matter to us what is below, that its shade is not greater than its sunlight,

since the essential definition of the sukkah is that the sukkah

(namely the sechach)

is "made for shade".

[And based on this, perhaps one may add explanation in the addition of the Alter Rebbe,

that he adds

(as above)

that when "its shade above is greater than its sunlight" it is kosher because "it is complete sechach" — it can be said,

that his intention in this is also to teach us,

that when a person makes "complete sechach"

(that its shade is greater than its sunlight),

it does not matter to us what is below, that its shade is not greater than its sunlight&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

since the essential definition of the sukkah is that the sukkah

(namely the sechach)

is "made for shade"].

6.

And behold, the explanation of the above in the words of the Alter Rebbe,

that his intention

(at the beginning of Hilchos Sukkah)

is to define the essence of a sukkah

(and not to explain the reasons for the commandment or its intention)

is also proven from the continuation of his language in this section,

that after he brought the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch "In sukkot you shall dwell..

In sukkot I caused the children of Israel to dwell..

they were clouds of His glory that surrounded them for shade..

And corresponding to this He commanded us to make sukkot made for shade etc.",

he continues

(in the words of the Magen Avraham,

from the Bach)

"And so every person needs&lt;pg&gt;146&lt;/pg&gt;

to intend in his sitting in the sukkah that he sits in it in order to fulfill the commandment of the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded us to sit in the sukkah as a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt".

His holy words "And so every person must intend etc.'",

for ostensibly it should have said "And every person must intend etc.'",

(since before this he did not mention any intention that a person must intend)⁴⁴?

And now, according to the words of the later authorities mentioned above

(another opinion)

that according to the author one must intend that the mitzvah of sukkah is a remembrance of the miracle of "For I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot",

that He encompassed them with clouds of glory etc.,

ostensibly it can be said,

that this is the intention of the Alter Rebbe,

that at first he brought the words of the

(Tur and)

Shulchan Aruch that the sukkot are a remembrance of the clouds of glory

[And in particular,

that

(a)

the Alter Rebbe also copies the words "so that your generations may know"⁴⁵,

(b)

he copies the continuation of the language of the Tur "and as a parallel to this He commanded us to make sukkot..

in order that we recall His wonders and His awesome deeds",

and that is,

that a person must intend this at the time of his sitting in the sukkah],

and afterwards he adds,

"And so every person must intend in his sitting in the sukkah

[an additional intention⁴⁶,

namely]

that he sits in it in order to fulfill the commandment of the Holy One blessed be He..

a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt".

But it is forced to explain thus the wording of the Alter Rebbe,

that his wording is a clear wording,

that if his intention was that a person should intend at the time of his sitting in the sukkah

(or at the time of making the sukkah)

that it is a memorial to the clouds of glory,

he should have said so explicitly⁴⁶.

And therefore it appears to explain the words of the Alter Rebbe,

that from this that "In sukkot you shall dwell..

in order that they know..

that in sukkot I caused to dwell..

they are..

the clouds of His glory etc.'",

two matters branch out:

(a)

The law regarding the manner of making the sukkah — "and as an example of this He commanded us to make sukkot that are made for shade, so that we should remember etc.'",

that one is obligated "to make sukkot that are made for shade"

[i.e., "for shade only",

as above],

and this law is not a matter of the intention of the commandment

(that a person must intend at the time of making the sukkah that it is a reminder of the clouds of glory),

but rather the essence of the object of the sukkah,

that since it is "made for shade",

it is a reminder of the clouds of glory "with which He surrounded them for shade"⁴⁷.

(b)

"And likewise every person must intend in his sitting in the sukkah that he sits in it in order to fulfill the commandment of the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded us to sit in the sukkah as a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt" — in addition to the law regarding making a sukkah in the manner of "made for shade"

(only),

there is an obligation to intend at the time of sitting in the sukkah,

that it is a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt⁴⁸.

7.

But it still requires explanation in what was said there,

that since the mitzvah of sukkah is a reminder of the clouds of glory "with which He surrounded them for shade" therefore the essence of a sukkah is a sukkah made only for shade — for seemingly,

behold the clouds of glory that surrounded&lt;pg&gt;147&lt;/pg&gt;

the children of Israel were not for shade alone,

but served for several other matters,

as explained in Chazal that the cloud would level the mountains and kill the snakes&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;,

and also protected from the arrows of the enemies&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;,

and why was this matter singled out from the clouds of glory "with which He surrounded them for shade",

because of which the reminder of the clouds of glory is specifically and only in making sukkos that are made for shade

(only)?

And it must be said,

that on the contrary,

with this is resolved the difficulty of the Bach&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

(and further),

for "how many good qualities does the Omnipresent have upon us, that He fed us the manna and gave us the well and other kindnesses, and why did He command more in the mitzvah of sukkah to remember the kindness of the dwelling of sukkot more than other kindnesses"?

And it is explained in the commentaries&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

"that the well and the manna were...

a necessary thing that it is impossible without their existence at all" and therefore "a reminder was not established for them, but the clouds of glory, which were not so necessary like them, but rather so that they would not be in heat by day and cold by night&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

the days of the festival were established as a reminder of their matter."

And similarly it is regarding the matter of the details of the things that the clouds of glory served in them,

that the matters of protection in them

(like the protection from the enemies and the killing of snakes and scorpions)

that pertained to lives, they do not make a remembrance for them

[and even this that they leveled the mountains

(lowering the high etc.),

for since this relates to the essence of their walking in the desert,

it can be said that this is like a necessary matter,

so that they could reach the Land of Israel],

rather the remembrance of the festival of Sukkot was established from the outset only on this detail "that He surrounded them with them for shade so that sunstroke and sun would not strike them",

which is a kindness and extra affection so that their walking in the desert would be in a manner that has no distress at all&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;.

And based on this, simply also the question of the Ra"am is resolved⁵⁵

(which is brought in the Bach here⁵⁶),

"Why did the Torah not command that they make in the sukkah one above and one below and four from four sides<pg>148</pg>

like the clouds of glory

[and in other commentaries⁵⁷

they added to ask,

that in the sukkah they do not even need four walls, but two walls and the third a handbreadth suffice⁵⁸]?

And some answered⁵⁹

"that the question is fundamentally not [valid] since the sukkah is only a mere example in order that we remember His wonders and awesome deeds

[as the Tur says "and an example of this He commanded us to make sukkot in order that we remember His wonders and awesome deeds"]

that He did for our forefathers in the encompassing of the clouds, therefore with an example and a reminder any small thing suffices etc.'

And according to the above perhaps one could say,

that this is not only "an example and a reminder any small thing",

but on the contrary,

this is precisely⁶⁰.

For since the entire reminder is only about this detail of the clouds of glory "that He encompassed them with them for shade",

therefore it suffices "to make sukkot that are made for shade",

for which two walls and a handbreadth with the roofing above are sufficient.

(From the talks of the second day of Chol HaMoed Sukkos and Simchas Torah 5726)