The Mitzvah of Dwelling in the Sukkah - Rabbi Avraham Alashvili shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to “Lema’an Yishme’u,” a podcast of Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 Hello. We’re a month before Sukkos, and there’s a halacha in the Shulchan Aruch, section 429, that thirty days before a festival, we study its laws. On 15 Elul, that means studying the laws of Sukkos. So now is the time to discuss them. In a sense, Sukkos begins immediately after Yom Kippur. What do I mean by “begins”? The preparations for Sukkos begin on the night after Yom Kippur. It says that immediately after Yom Kippur, we begin building the sukkah. Some people do build it that night, but according to the Alter Rebbe, the sukkah should be built the next day, in the morning after davening. That’s what he writes—not on the night after Yom Kippur. Interesting. And in Chabad, generally, we build the sukkah… Yes, [unclear] says that on that night we talk about building the sukkah, but don’t actually do it. We talk about it. Now, though, we’re going to discuss not the laws of building a sukkah, but the laws of dwelling in a sukkah. Dwelling in a sukkah is a positive Torah commandment. It says: “You shall dwell in sukkos for seven days, so that your generations may know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in sukkos when I brought them out of the land of Egypt.” That is the commandment to dwell in a sukkah. Now, from this verse we learn, first of all, that “sukkos” does not necessarily mean actual huts; it refers to the Clouds of Glory. There’s a dispute about this in the Gemara, but the halachic view is that it was not that the Children of Israel made huts in the desert and lived in them. Rather, it was a miracle: Hakadosh Boruch Hu led the Children of Israel through the desert for forty years with the Clouds of Glory, which shaded them and protected them from the sun. The wording here is: “so that scorching heat

02:54 Speaker 2 and sun would not strike them.” That means the sukkos we make must also be made to provide shade. That’s the point: they must be made specifically for shade, not as shelters from rain. When we make a sukkah, we need to make sure it is intended to provide shade, just as the Clouds of Glory miraculously protected them from the sun. Now, there’s another point here. The verse says, “when I brought them out of the land of Egypt.” This emphasizes that sukkos must remind us of the Exodus from Egypt. That’s why it says that when a person sits in a sukkah and fulfills the mitzvah, he should have in mind that it commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. That is the halacha in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. Every person should therefore have in mind, when sitting in the sukkah, that he is doing so to fulfill the mitzvah of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, Who commanded us to sit in a sukkah in commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt. So the question is: the whole point of the sukkah is to commemorate the Clouds of Glory with which Hashem protected the Children of Israel in the desert. Why, then, do we need to have the Exodus from Egypt in mind, rather than the Clouds of Glory? The Rebbe discusses this at length in Likkutei Sichos. The Rebbe explains that there are two things here. The sukkah itself commemorates the Clouds of Glory; no particular intention is needed for that. The sukkah itself already reminds us of them. But the Exodus from Egypt is not recalled by the sukkah itself. So when a person sits in the sukkah, he needs to have in mind that it commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. The sukkah reminds us of the Clouds of Glory, not the Exodus. Since the verse says, “when I brought them out of the land of Egypt,” we need to have in mind that it commemorates the Exodus. In principle, mitzvos don’t require a special intention. What does that mean? You do need to intend to fulfill your obligation. All Torah mitzvos require that intention.

05:23 Speaker 2 That is certainly needed for every mitzvah. But there are three mitzvos that require a special intention specific to that mitzvah. Take the Four Species, for example: it doesn’t say that you have to have some particular event or idea in mind when taking them. You take the Four Species with the intention of fulfilling the mitzvah. “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day”—that’s it. But there are three Torah mitzvos for which a special intention is required. We said there were three, right? One is a tallis. We need to have in mind that Hakadosh Boruch Hu commanded us to wrap ourselves in a tallis so that we remember all the mitzvos and perform them. As the verse says, “So that you remember and perform all My commandments.” The second is tefillin. With tefillin, the required intention is more detailed. It says to have in mind that Hakadosh Boruch Hu commanded us to write these four passages so that we remember the miracles and wonders He performed for us, and commanded us to place tefillin on the arm, opposite the heart, and on the head, opposite the brain, so as to submit them to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. In short, there’s a whole intention for tefillin. With a sukkah, the intention is more general: that it commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. We don’t find anything beyond that. Why? Because these three mitzvos have verses saying “so that your generations may know” or “so that you remember.” They are three mitzvos for which the Torah specifies a particular intention: “so that your generations may know” for sukkah, and “so that you remember” for tzitzis. For tefillin, there’s another verse that indicates the required intention. So all three require a special intention. Now, there’s an opinion that says that if someone did not have that intention, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But the Bach’s wording is that “he has not fulfilled the mitzvah properly.” In other words, he has fulfilled his obligation, but something is lacking in the complete fulfillment of the mitzvah. If someone puts on tefillin without having in mind, while putting them on, that they represent submitting the heart and brain, and so on, he has fulfilled the mitzvah, but not properly. That’s why, when putting on tefillin—

07:52 Speaker 2 on mivtzoim, for example, at a tefillin stand—we should always tell the person why we put on tefillin. Tell him the main point: the tefillin on the arm are opposite the heart, and the tefillin on the head are opposite the brain, and we need to submit the brain and heart to Hashem. That’s an important part of the mitzvah. This is less well known regarding sukkah, but we also need to tell everyone who sits in a sukkah to have this in mind. Every time we sit in the sukkah and make the bracha, we should have in mind that it commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. So the intention here is very important. Whenever we make the bracha “leishev basukkah,” we should have in mind that it commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. There is a mitzvah to make a sukkah, but making it is only the beginning of the mitzvah. The main mitzvah is to sit in it. A person who made a sukkah but did not sit in it has not fulfilled the mitzvah. The Yerushalmi, however, says that we also make a bracha on making the sukkah. According to the Yerushalmi, one should say, “Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to make a sukkah.” So the Mordechai asks, in section 641: Why don’t we actually make that bracha? He says that when we make the bracha “leishev basukkah,” it also covers making the sukkah. Why mention this? Because the main thing is dwelling in the sukkah. Once we make the bracha “leishev basukkah,” it covers making the sukkah as well. He then asks: What about Shehecheyanu? After all, we make a Shehecheyanu too. According to halacha, we should make a Shehecheyanu when we make the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu we make during Kiddush covers the sukkah as well. What is the order when we make Kiddush? Shehecheyanu always comes last. First we make the bracha over the wine, then Kiddush, then “leishev basukkah,” and then Shehecheyanu, so that Shehecheyanu also applies to the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah. Incidentally, outside Eretz Yisroel, we don’t do it that way on the second day of Yom Tov. On the second day, we first make Shehecheyanu, and then

10:28 Speaker 2 And then leishev basukkah. Why? Because we already said Shehecheyanu over sitting in the sukkah on the first night. So the Shehecheyanu is for Yom Tov, not for sitting in the sukkah. There is a difference. The siddur also states explicitly that on the second night of Yom Tov outside Israel, we first say Shehecheyanu and then leishev basukkah. But on the first night of Yom Tov, everyone agrees that we first say leishev basukkah and then Shehecheyanu, so that the Shehecheyanu also covers the sukkah. Now, my question is about those listening to Kiddush. Say someone has guests in his sukkah and they listen to Kiddush. They don’t make Kiddush themselves. It might be the family—I don’t know, whoever is there. Does the person making Kiddush fulfill their obligation to say the blessing of leishev basukkah, or not? According to the principle we mentioned, that Shehecheyanu also applies to leishev basukkah, it’s clear that the person making Kiddush fulfills the obligation of everyone listening to say leishev basukkah. It’s as though they themselves said that blessing and the Shehecheyanu he says. So when they eat bread after Kiddush, they shouldn’t need to say leishev basukkah, because they’ve already done so. But I know the custom is that the listeners—those who don’t make Kiddush themselves—do say leishev basukkah over the bread. Seemingly, that isn’t the right custom. I don’t have an explanation for it, but I think they should not say the blessing, because the Shehecheyanu at Kiddush has already covered their obligation of leishev basukkah. In other words, just as a person making Kiddush fulfills the listeners’ obligation for the blessing over the wine, for Kiddush, and for Shehecheyanu, so too he fulfills their obligation for leishev basukkah. That’s one point. Second, the Shehecheyanu that a person says after leishev basukkah also covers leishev basukkah. So if he

12:52 Speaker 2 says leishev basukkah afterward, that’s the reverse order. So in my opinion—at any rate, this is also the practice in my home—the people listening fulfill their obligation to say leishev basukkah through Kiddush and don’t say it afterward. That’s how we do it, but I don’t want to introduce new customs. Whoever wants to can do so, but in my opinion they shouldn’t say the blessing over sitting in the sukkah, because they’ve already fulfilled that obligation. It’s also preferable that they fulfill it then, so that the blessing of Shehecheyanu applies to sitting in the sukkah as well. That’s one point. The second point I wanted to discuss is someone who eats somewhere else, in another person’s sukkah, on the first night. He was invited there. Say he built a sukkah, but on the first night he was a guest at someone else’s. He said Shehecheyanu there—or heard it there and fulfilled his obligation. Whether he said it himself or heard it during Kiddush makes no difference. That covers his sitting in his friend’s sukkah, but seemingly it doesn’t cover his own sukkah. After all, we said every sukkah requires Shehecheyanu. Not only sitting in the sukkah, but building the sukkah also requires Shehecheyanu. How can a Shehecheyanu said in another sukkah cover my sukkah? There is, after all, a reason to say Shehecheyanu over your own sukkah, over building it. Yet nowhere does it say that you have to say Shehecheyanu again over your own sukkah. So perhaps there is some preference [?]—perhaps there’s reason to make a point of saying Shehecheyanu specifically in your own sukkah. Maybe there is; I don’t know. In practice, I wouldn’t insist on it so strongly. But in principle, seemingly it really would be preferable to eat in your own sukkah and say Shehecheyanu over it. Still, this can be explained. Strictly speaking, one would have had to

15:09 Speaker 2 say Shehecheyanu over building the sukkah. In practice, we say Shehecheyanu over sitting in the sukkah, because that is the main mitzvah. So building the sukkah no longer requires its own Shehecheyanu, because the blessing we say over sitting in the sukkah includes building it. In other words, the sukkah doesn’t require a separate Shehecheyanu because building it is subordinate to the mitzvah of sitting in it. You can fulfill the mitzvah of sitting in a sukkah anywhere, so you don’t need to say Shehecheyanu over building your own. That explains, after the fact, why no further blessing is needed. But if someone who built a sukkah can sit in his own sukkah on the first night, that would be better. There is some reason to favor sitting specifically in your own sukkah, so that the Shehecheyanu also applies to the sukkah you built—not merely as something subordinate, but because you’re sitting in your own sukkah. Incidentally, the law is that a person fulfills the mitzvah of sukkah in a borrowed sukkah as well. That’s unlike the Four Species, where it says, “You shall take for yourselves,” meaning they must be your own. You cannot fulfill your obligation with borrowed ones. On the first day of Sukkos, you cannot fulfill the mitzvah of the Four Species with a lulav that isn’t yours. So if you don’t have the Four Species, you ask someone for them and receive them as a gift on condition that you return them. Your friend gives them to you and says, “This is a gift on condition that you return it.” They become yours at the moment you perform the mitzvah, and you fulfill your obligation. But with a sukkah it isn’t like that. The owner doesn’t have to tell you, “Listen, I’m giving you the sukkah as a gift on condition that you return it.” No. A person might see an unoccupied sukkah and enter it, even though it isn’t his. It says that generally, a person doesn’t mind someone sitting in his sukkah. Of course, that’s only provided

17:20 Speaker 2 the person who ate there cleans up after himself. Otherwise there’s a problem. If he leaves it dirty, the owner may object to the fact that he didn’t clean up. He may object to his eating there at all, and it’s possible that the person won’t have fulfilled his obligation. So someone entering a sukkah that isn’t his must clean up afterward and leave it as orderly as he found it, so the owner won’t object. But in principle, by law, a person also fulfills his obligation in a borrowed sukkah. It says, “You shall make the festival of Sukkos for yourself,” which sounds as though it must specifically be yours. The Gemara says: no, “for yourself” means not a stolen one. If a person steals a sukkah, he doesn’t fulfill his obligation. But a borrowed one is fine. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between this and a lulav? With a lulav, you say that a borrowed one doesn’t fulfill the obligation, but with a sukkah, a borrowed one does. What’s the difference? It answers that the verse says, “Every citizen of Israel shall dwell in sukkahs.” It says that all Jews could dwell in a single sukkah. “Every citizen of Israel”—what does that mean? It includes the possibility of sitting in a sukkah that isn’t yours, a borrowed one. So “Every citizen of Israel shall dwell in sukkahs” includes a sukkah that isn’t your own. I have a novel thought on this. It doesn’t really affect practice; it’s just an idea. The Alter Rebbe doesn’t bring this derivation, even though he sets out both the laws and their reasons. He does write that one fulfills the obligation of sukkah with a borrowed sukkah, but not a stolen one, because the verse says, “You shall make the festival of Sukkos for yourself.” But he doesn’t explain why one fulfills the obligation with a borrowed sukkah, despite the requirement that it be yours. He doesn’t explain the verse “Every citizen of Israel shall dwell in sukkahs”; he doesn’t quote that from the Gemara. Why not? I thought that perhaps, according to the Alter Rebbe, it isn’t necessary to derive permission for a borrowed sukkah from “Every citizen.” Instead, it says, “You shall make the festival of Sukkos for yourself”—“you shall make” and “for yourself” are singular. It doesn’t say “you shall make for yourselves.” With a lulav, it says “You shall take for yourselves,” meaning each and every person. For counting the Omer, it says “You shall count for yourselves,” meaning each and every person. For tzitzis, it says “They shall make tzitzis for themselves,” meaning each and every person. But for Sukkos, it’s singular: “You shall make for yourself.” From that itself, seemingly, we can learn that all Jews could sit in one sukkah. Make one sukkah, and everyone can sit there. So this already teaches us that each person doesn’t need his own; one person can make it for everyone. That’s my own novel thought about the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. I’m not sure it’s entirely precise, because, after all, the Gemara explicitly says [?] otherwise, as it were—it gives a different derivation. But my point is that the Alter Rebbe doesn’t quote it. Generally he gives the laws and their reasons and quotes everything, yet here he doesn’t bring this derivation from “Every citizen of Israel.” So I thought perhaps that’s the explanation. I don’t know. It’s a possibility, as they say. One of the important things about the mitzvah of sukkah is the first night. On the first night of Sukkos, unlike the other days or nights, there is an obligation to eat a kezayis of bread in the sukkah. A kezayis of bread in the sukkah. We learn this by comparison with the festival of matzah: just as there is an obligation to eat a kezayis of matzah on the night of Pesach, so too—here it says “the fifteenth day of the month,” and there it says “the fifteenth day of the month.” The Gemara derives it from that comparison and says

19:32 Speaker 2 “All who are native-born in Israel shall dwell in sukkos.” He doesn’t quote that from the Gemara. Why not? I thought that, according to the Alter Rebbe, the phrase “all who are native-born” doesn’t necessarily come to include a borrowed sukkah. Rather, it says, “You shall make yourself the festival of Sukkos”—“yourself” in the singular. It’s written in the singular, not “you shall make for yourselves.” With the lulav it says, “You shall take for yourselves,” meaning each and every person. With Sefiras HaOmer it says, “You shall count for yourselves,” each and every person. With tzitzis it says, “They shall make for themselves tzitzis,” each and every person. But with Sukkos it says in the singular, “You shall make for yourself.” From that itself, it would seem, we can learn that all of Israel are fit to sit in one sukkah. Make one sukkah for yourself, and everyone can sit there. So the wording itself seems to teach that each person doesn’t have to make one; one person can make it for everyone. That’s my own thought about the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. I’m not sure it’s exactly right, because, after all, there’s an explicit Gemara, isn’t there? It gives a different derivation. But my point is that the Alter Rebbe doesn’t quote the verse, “All who are native-born in Israel.” Generally, he writes the laws and their reasons and quotes everything, but here he doesn’t bring that derivation. So I thought perhaps that’s the explanation. I don’t know. It’s a possibility, as they say. One of the important things about the mitzvah of sukkah is the first night. On the first night of Sukkos, unlike the other days or nights, there’s an obligation to eat a kezayis of bread in the sukkah. A kezayis of bread in the sukkah. We learn this through a comparison to the festival of matzos: just as there’s an obligation to eat a kezayis of matzah on Pesach night, so too here. In both places it says “the fifteenth day of the month.” The Gemara learns from this—it says

21:50 Speaker 2 By a gezeirah shavah: just as there is an obligation to eat a kezayis of matzah on the first night, the night of the fifteenth, so too there is a Torah obligation to eat a kezayis of bread in the sukkah. This has a practical bearing. There is a dispute about the first night when it rains in the sukkah. Ordinarily, one is exempt from sitting in the sukkah when it rains, but what about the kezayis of bread? Is one obligated to eat it there even while it is raining? The halachic authorities disagree. This is brought in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, section 639. One opinion says yes, one must eat there even in the rain. The other says no; when it rains, one is exempt. In practice, the halachah is that one must eat there. The Alter Rebbe rules that one should eat there even while it is raining. That is the halachah. But in Eretz Yisroel it hardly rains. I know, I know that outside Eretz Yisroel—at any rate, in New York—it was very common for it to rain on the first night, and that posed a problem. The Gemara quotes a baraisa: when someone enters the sukkah and it rains, it is like a master telling his servant to pour him a cup of water. The servant pours it, and then the master throws the water in his face. That is the image of rain in the sukkah. It is as though Hakadosh Boruch Hu is telling him, “I don’t want your service.” That is not how you serve someone water. In short, you understand—the water is thrown in your face, and then you have to leave the sukkah. It says he leaves; but on the first night, when one eats the kezayis of bread, one does not leave the sukkah. One is obligated to eat there. In any case, someone asked the Rebbe a question during the week. After he had spent several days in the sukkah, it rained and he could not go in to eat. So he asked the Rebbe whether this, too, was part of that idea. Was this also considered being sent out of the sukkah? When it rains, is that also considered

24:20 Speaker 2 having the water thrown in his face? The Rebbe explained to him that no, since he had already eaten in the sukkah for several days, recited the blessing of leisheiv basukkah, and eaten several meals there. In particular, on the first night, when he was obligated to eat there, he had eaten in the sukkah, and it was a rainy night, yet he sat there comfortably. So we do not say about this, “I do not want your service.” That is not what it means. There are some reasons the Rebbe gives here, perhaps—I don’t know. The Gemara does not specify what kind of departure it means, but the Rebbe notes that it speaks of someone who is already in the sukkah and has to leave it. It is not that he cannot enter the sukkah; he has to leave it. In other words, it is talking about someone who went in to eat in the sukkah—on the first night or another night, it does not matter—and has to leave. But someone who is prevented from entering the sukkah is not what it is talking about. It applies only to someone who leaves the sukkah, not to someone who cannot enter it. That distinction between being unable to enter and having to leave the sukkah is interesting. Being sent out of the sukkah is worse, after all. But the obligation to eat a kezayis of bread in the sukkah applies to everyone from the age of chinuch. Children from the age of chinuch, from age six—that is the wording—must go and eat a kezayis. They must eat it within the required time, within the time of kedei achilas pras, which is four minutes, just as with eating matzah. Without talking. It is an obligation. It has to be just like eating matzah. This is not so well known. You eat in the sukkah, you know, you eat the whole meal. No. You have to eat the kezayis of bread immediately after washing your hands and saying Hamotzi. Each person says the blessing and eats a kezayis of bread, a kezayis within the time of

26:26 Speaker 2 kedei achilas pras. That is a Torah obligation. People are not so aware of it. You do not just eat, you know. And there is a point in eating it with an appetite, just as one eats matzah with an appetite. One should not eat anything beforehand. In other words, it has to be immediate. You do not eat salads and other things first; you eat bread alone for the sake of the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. The Rambam says a person could avoid entering a sukkah altogether: he simply would not eat any bread all week—except, of course, on the first night, when he must eat in the sukkah, as we said. And of course, on Shabbos and Yom Tov one must eat bread. But the obligation of sukkah itself does not require a person to eat bread. If a person eats things that, according to the halachah of sukkah, do not require a sukkah, he does not have to enter one. Only if he eats mezonos in the amount of a kebeitzah or more, or if he eats bread. Mezonos means anything made from grain, whether cooked or baked; it makes no difference. If you eat more than that amount, you need to enter the sukkah. Incidentally, only then do we recite the blessing of leisheiv basukkah. So when you enter a sukkah—say, you come to a farbrengen and sit in the sukkah—if you want to say leisheiv basukkah, you have to make sure to eat a kebeitzah. You have to eat an amount of a kebeitzah within the time of kedei achilas pras. There is a time limit for that, too. It is not enough to eat a kebeitzah over the course of the entire farbrengen; you have to pay attention to this. You go to sleep in the sukkah, and you want to make sure the blessing will not be in vain, so you have to eat a certain amount. A kebeitzah is fifty-six cubic centimeters. We do not measure food by grams—some people calculate it in grams, but you need enough volume, enough cubic centimeters. So you take, say, four crackers; perhaps that is already a kebeitzah. Say, four crackers—not small ones,

28:50 Speaker 2 somewhat large ones. But you have to make sure to eat the required amount. Or, as the Zohar puts it. If you do not intend to eat mezonos and are just drinking something, you do not need to say leisheiv basukkah. There is an interesting halachah: a person enters his friend’s sukkah because, say, he feels hot and wants to sit down. Suppose his friend’s sukkah has air-conditioning. He sits there to rest and enjoy the air-conditioning, and he must first say the blessing. But if he enters his friend’s sukkah to drink water, he does not need to say a blessing for being in the sukkah. Why? Because drinking water is exempt from sukkah. But sitting there, relaxing there—that is what the halachah calls “strolling in the sukkah.” What does “strolling in the sukkah” mean? The word refers to shade, to someone seeking shade—not to what we call a hike. What we call a hike today is not what people once meant. Today we walk in the sun for miles. “We went for a stroll.” What do you mean, a stroll? You did not stroll; you just wore yourselves out. That is what we call a stroll. But in halachah, it means relaxing in the shade. When a person enters for the shade, he must say leisheiv basukkah. Now, I have not seen people do that. Many times I have seen dancing and rejoicing near the table, and people get tired and go into the sukkah to get some air and sit for a while. I have not seen them say leisheiv basukkah, but really they should. It is a novel practical ruling, but people have not been careful about saying the blessing for sitting there. Perhaps it is also because they do not intend to sit in the sukkah for the sake of the sukkah; they just want to rest and happen to find a place there. But if they enter the sukkah specifically because it is a sukkah, there is a particular point to entering it. The whole idea is that it says, “You shall dwell”—in the same manner as you live at home. A person should do in the sukkah what he does in his home. So a person generally needs to know that throughout this week

30:57 Speaker 2 The sukkah is the main place; the house is secondary. So everything a person does at home, he should do in the sukkah. Even when he goes into the sukkah just to relax and get some air, he should realize that he is fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah. And if it is someone else’s sukkah, he needs to make the blessing. If it is his own sukkah, he does not need to, because the blessing he made over his meal in the morning covers his time in the sukkah for the rest of the day, until his next meal. That is why we do not make a blessing over other activities in the sukkah. But if he is in someone else’s sukkah and has not made a blessing over being there, he needs to make one even just for sitting there. That is a point of halachah we need to be careful about and keep in mind. When must we go into the sukkah? Strictly according to halachah, as I said earlier, when eating mezonos, drinking, or eating bread. But we also mentioned someone drinking wine. There is a difference of opinion about wine, so one should go into the sukkah, but not make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah.” Incidentally, the Torah says that throughout the festival—all eight days of Sukkos and the seven days of Pesach—there is a mitzvah to eat meat and an obligation to drink wine. Eating meat is a mitzvah instituted by the Sages, while drinking a revi’is of wine each day is an obligation because of the mitzvah of rejoicing: “There is no rejoicing except with wine.” That is from the Torah. It specifies a revi’is of wine, not grapes. The point of the revi’is of wine is to help a person reach a state of joy—not that the wine itself produces the joy, but that it lifts you toward it. Someone who finds wine distressing is exempt, because joy is the point here. With the mitzvah of the four cups, you drink four cups of wine on Pesach night, and the mitzvah

33:06 Speaker 2 is the act of drinking itself. Therefore, even someone who finds it distressing is obligated to drink. On Chol Hamoed, on Yom Tov, and throughout Sukkos, when there is an obligation to drink wine, the obligation is not the act of drinking itself; it is the joy the wine brings. So if it puts a person in a state of distress, he need not drink. That allows many people who feel wine is harmful to them not to drink it. Still, on Yom Tov itself, one should at least drink a little wine. In any case, it is a mitzvah from the Torah, and I maintain that the Torah obligation is to drink at night and by day, at the evening meal and the daytime meal—two revi’is in all. In any case, if a person wants to drink only wine, he cannot do so outside the sukkah. He must drink it in the sukkah, but without making the blessing “leisheiv basukkah.” For mezonos, he does make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah” if he eats more than a kebeitzah—more than 56 cubic centimeters. Of course, there must be a two-hour break from the meal. If a person finishes a meal and leaves the sukkah for two hours, then when he returns he needs to make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah.” There must be a two-hour break, or he must have intended to leave for two hours—one or the other. Otherwise, the blessing over the meal has already covered it. But if, say, right after a meal he leaves for a few minutes, returns to the sukkah, and then eats mezonos, fruit, or some other dessert, he does not make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah.” Now, the Chabad custom is to make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah” at Havdalah as well. This is an innovation from the time of the Frierdiker Rebbe. According to halachah, one would not need to make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah” at Havdalah, because it is only wine. The Chabad custom is that at Havdalah we make

35:14 Speaker 2 the blessing “leisheiv basukkah.” The question is what happens if Havdalah is made over wine or beer. Over beer, one does not make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah.” But with wine, since there is an opinion that one does make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah” over a revi’is of wine, and Havdalah is a significant occasion, one does make it. One needs to drink a revi’is of the Havdalah wine for the after-blessing, and, of course, one makes the blessing “leisheiv basukkah.” I myself saw this several times when they made Havdalah. Anyone who has been to 770 knows the sukkah in the corner, right? The person in the sukkah makes the blessing “leisheiv basukkah,” and everyone listens. Now, one time the person making Havdalah forgot to make the blessing and was about to drink the wine, and the Rebbe signaled to him to make the blessing “leisheiv basukkah.” So we see that care is taken to make that blessing. Sometimes people forget. But what happens if someone makes Havdalah and then wants to eat a meal? When he makes the blessing “leisheiv basukkah,” he should have in mind that it also covers the meal. But if he eats the meal later—say, an hour or two after Havdalah—that is a different matter. You have to know whether the meal follows closely or not. Within an hour is still considered close; two hours is longer. I am not sure what the ruling is for an hour and a half. The best thing is a two-hour interval. In other words, if there is a two-hour gap, he can certainly make the blessing. Of course, in Chabad we are careful not to drink outside the sukkah. That is what it says; it says in [unclear][?]. The Alter Rebbe also rules stringently: not to drink wine, not to drink anything,

37:22 Speaker 2 and not to eat anything outside the sukkah, regardless of the blessing. In other words, do not eat or drink anything outside the sukkah. Women are exempt from sukkah, even [unclear]. But if they want to sit in the sukkah, of course they may, if there is room. Especially on the first night, women sit in the sukkah, though less so during the rest of the week. It is interesting that women are exempt from both lulav and sukkah, yet they make a blessing over the lulav. In practice, they are less particular about sitting in the sukkah. Why is that? The Alter Rebbe discusses this specifically in section 17 of the laws of tzitzis. Women took it upon themselves to observe mitzvos that are personal obligations. But they did not do so with something that is not a personal obligation. That is why we see women being particular about lulav and shofar. Sitting in the sukkah is not a personal obligation; rather, if you want to eat, you need to go into the sukkah. There is no obligation to eat there. As for young children, one must train them from the age of six. It says that a mother is not required to train them to sit in the sukkah. Say the father is not there, and the mother prepares food for the child at home: he can even eat it at home. There is no prohibition in that, because she is not telling him to eat at home; he can take the plate of food into the sukkah and eat there. Still, it is advisable for the mother to tell him to sit in the sukkah, even though she is not obligated to, for the sake of training him. A child aged six or older must be trained to sit in the sukkah. His father must train him. The mother is exempt, but we do not follow only the strict letter of the law; we also go beyond it. So the mother should tell him to eat in the sukkah. So children, too

39:28 Speaker 2 Children. According to halachah, one should sleep in the sukkah. After all, a person lives in his home, so why shouldn’t he sleep in the sukkah? Indeed, halachah says to sleep in the sukkah. Why don’t we? The Rema writes that in these countries, where it is cold, there is the issue of discomfort. By “these countries,” he means Russia or Poland, where it was cold during Sukkos, unlike in Eretz Yisroel, where it is warmer. So a person who is uncomfortable is exempt from dwelling in the sukkah, under the laws concerning discomfort. Now, even in Eretz Yisroel, you could say that for us it’s not... Sometimes, especially this year, it’s really hot, almost still summer. So dwelling in the sukkah can sometimes be genuinely uncomfortable because of the heat. Sometimes it’s hot outside, and sometimes the nights are hot too, and that also counts as discomfort. But in Chabad, that isn’t why we don’t sleep in the sukkah. Rather, we rely on the Rema’s ruling that someone who is uncomfortable is exempt from the sukkah, and we add another kind of discomfort here. The Mitteler Rebbe introduced the practice of not sleeping in the sukkah. He said, “How can one sleep within the encompassing lights of Binah?” The s’chach represents the encompassing lights of Binah, a matter of holiness. How can one sleep in such a place? The question arises: If these are the encompassing lights of Binah, why did the Torah command us to sleep in the sukkah at all? If one cannot sleep there, why did the Torah include sleeping in the sukkah in the command to “dwell as you live”? True, there is no separate, practical mitzvah of sleeping in the sukkah. We don’t make a blessing over sleeping in the sukkah; there is no such separate mitzvah. Sleeping in the sukkah is part of the general mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah, not a mitzvah of its own. It is included in “dwell as you live.” So how could the Torah command it in the first place? Why didn’t it say that, apart from

41:46 Speaker 2 sleeping, one should not sleep there? Another question: There is a halachah that a sukkah unfit for sleeping is invalid. Say the sukkah is in a place with a bad smell, and one can’t sleep there. Then the sukkah itself is invalid even for dwelling in. In other words, if you can’t sleep in the sukkah, you can’t sit there either. So if you say that one can’t sleep in a sukkah because of the encompassing lights of Binah, the sukkah should be invalid for sitting in as well. How can that be? That’s a strong question. Here the Rebbe cites an important principle from the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim: “The Torah speaks to the majority.” The Rambam writes that the Torah’s mitzvos are intended for the great majority of Jews, but there will always be a few people for whom a particular mitzvah is not suitable. They still have to fulfill it. What does “not suitable” mean? That fulfilling it causes them discomfort. Interestingly, that’s what he says. Take tefillin, for example. Some people find tefillin uncomfortable. I don’t know—the leather, or something else. Everyone has their own difficulty with one mitzvah or another. People ask, “Which mitzvah do you like? Which one are you drawn to?” It’s like laws enacted by a country: they’re intended for most of its people, but they won’t suit everyone. The same is true of the Torah’s mitzvos; not every mitzvah can suit every person. Actually, from the perspective of Chassidus, this reasoning is difficult to reconcile. It’s a line of reasoning from Moreh Nevuchim. But it’s used regarding the sukkah too. Regarding sleeping in the sukkah, the Rebbe cites the reasoning in Moreh Nevuchim that the Torah speaks to the majority. Since most Jews do not sense

43:58 Speaker 2 the encompassing lights of Binah, they have no problem sleeping there. But the exceptionally righteous, who sense their holiness, find it distressing to sleep in the sukkah. That is why our Rebbeim did not sleep there. The Rebbe says that from the Mitteler Rebbe onward, through to the Rebbe, they did not sleep in the sukkah—even though we are careful to sit in the sukkah even when it rains. The Baal Shem Tov’s disciples sat in the sukkah even in the rain, and even made a blessing there. In other words, it isn’t physical discomfort that keeps us from sleeping in the sukkah. If sleeping in the sukkah were called for, even with the spiritual considerations of Kabbalah that the Rebbe [unclear][?], we would sleep there too. There is something spiritual that prevents us from doing so, a kind of spiritual discomfort more serious than physical discomfort. It’s hard for us to picture, and hard to explain. That is, one feels spiritual distress over fulfilling a mitzvah. It sounds contradictory, but it has to do with the inner meaning of the mitzvah. Let me give another example. Suppose there were a mitzvah whose fulfillment would present a spiritual problem for a person. Say a kohen finds a lost object in a cemetery. He must not enter the cemetery to retrieve it, because the mitzvah of returning a lost object conflicts with the restriction on a kohen entering a cemetery. There is a problem here, a clash. Something spiritual prevents you from doing that act. So there are cases where a spiritual consideration prevents you from doing something, even though doing it would be a great thing. That’s only an example; it isn’t really the same. Here we aren’t talking about two

46:14 Speaker 2 conflicting mitzvos, but about a spiritual feeling. Still, the example shows how a spiritual consideration can interfere with fulfilling the mitzvah of sleeping in the sukkah. That’s what I was explaining. And this applies only to a small minority. Chabad chassidim, because they are connected to the Rebbe, follow his practice and do not sleep in the sukkah. But of course there is no campaign to tell everyone not to sleep in the sukkah. Chas veshalom. Some people even asked the Rebbe because they wanted to sleep in the sukkah, and the Rebbe told them they could. He did not rule it out. The Rebbe only said that chassidim who are connected to him do not sleep in the sukkah. There is certainly no prohibition against sleeping there. Anyone who wants to can sleep there. Someone who feels he doesn’t understand the explanation, that these are matters of the utmost importance and he can’t follow this practice, should sleep in the sukkah. Incidentally, the Rebbe did not sleep in the sukkah, but during Sukkos he hardly slept at all. It wasn’t as though he simply slept elsewhere. I don’t know—perhaps he didn’t sleep at all. I don’t know what people say. Some say he didn’t sleep at all, that he simply didn’t lie down. He didn’t say that. So it isn’t so simple. Perhaps we, too, should sleep... Incidentally, those who were [unclear][?] with the Rebbe, and even now those who study the sichos of the Beis Hashoevah, hardly sleep. What does the Gemara say? “We did not see sleep with our eyes” during the Simchas Beis Hashoevah. It brings evidence that during the dancing at the Simchas Beis Hashoevah, they would doze on one another’s shoulders. They would rest against one another, that is, and wouldn’t go inside. There must have been sukkahs there, he says, and nobody

48:18 Speaker 2 We don’t go to sleep in the sukkah. Yet later on, the halachah says that even dozing off is prohibited outside the sukkah. Unlike eating, even a little sleep refreshes a person, just as a lot of sleep does. So even a short sleep is forbidden outside the sukkah. Now, what is the issue? What is the problem with sleeping in the sukkah? Sleep in the sukkah is connected with the encompassing level of Binah. Of course, there are also concerns similar to why one does not sleep wearing tefillin, lest he pass wind, and so on. Here too, because of the sukkah’s holiness, we do not want such situations to arise. But the truth is that even according to the revealed dimension of Torah, there are things we do not bring into a sukkah because of its holiness. For example, we do not bring in things that are repulsive, such as a garbage can. It is very important not to bring a garbage can into the sukkah, even though you need one, because it is not respectful to the sukkah. There are detailed rules about this: you should bring into the sukkah only things appropriate for a sukkah. It is an explicit halachah. Things that disgrace the sukkah are not brought in. Even according to the revealed dimension of Torah, the sukkah has holiness, although it is an encompassing holiness. In Chabad, there is another level, and they said that sleeping there is also problematic. But this is certainly not for everyone. It is only for someone who understands the idea, its inner meaning. It is not something to publicize. Not like someone who came to speak at a sukkah somewhere and said, “You should know, it is forbidden to sleep in a sukkah.” That is the first mitzvah he starts talking about! That is just foolish. Women recite the blessing in the sukkah. First, the candles should be lit in the sukkah. Shabbos candles, Yom Tov candles—a person is obligated to light them in the sukkah. If there is a concern that they will go out, you need to arrange things so they will not go out.

50:25 Speaker 2 Nowadays there are those candles you put inside a holder, and generally, if there is no wind—or if you put them in a certain corner—they do not go out. Now, when women light Yom Tov candles, they recite Shehecheyanu then. So their Shehecheyanu applies only to Yom Tov and the sukkah, right? Women want to recite Shehecheyanu for the sukkah as well, right? But in fact, when a woman recites Shehecheyanu at candle-lighting, the mitzvah of the sukkah has not yet begun. Sukkos has not started in a way that would allow Shehecheyanu to cover it. The mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah begins only at night, while Yom Tov candle-lighting is before sunset. So she fulfills the obligation of Shehecheyanu for Yom Tov, but not for dwelling in the sukkah. Women are not actually obligated in that mitzvah, but let’s say a man lights the Yom Tov candles: should he recite Shehecheyanu or not? The rule is that if the man of the house lights the candles, he does not recite Shehecheyanu at candle-lighting. He recites it at Kiddush, not at candle-lighting, so that Shehecheyanu will also apply to dwelling in the sukkah. The woman, though, does recite it for Yom Tov. Then at Kiddush she hears it and has in mind the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah. So women hear Shehecheyanu twice. We already said that a woman does not need to recite the blessing for sitting in the sukkah herself, because she heard it at Kiddush. She is not obligated to recite it, and even if she wants to, she fulfills her obligation through her husband. Now, people flying on Chol Hamoed ask: what if the flight is twelve hours long? You have to know that it is forbidden to fast for an entire day on Chol Hamoed. So if someone is stringent and neither drinks nor eats anything on the flight, and he travels in the morning—say, he leaves at six in the morning—

52:29 Speaker 2 then he is effectively fasting for twelve hours. That is why it is forbidden. He should drink or eat something that counts as a casual snack. Besides, a flight through the air is exempt. Even if you are traveling to Saudi Arabia, you are traveling for a mitzvah, so you are exempt. But even someone who wants to be stringent is adopting a stringency that leads to a leniency. Therefore, on a flight you can drink something and eat something, a piece of fruit or the like. If you want to eat [unclear], you can eat bread and everything else too. I am saying that someone who wants to be stringent and travels on Chol Hamoed must eat or drink something so that he is not fasting on Chol Hamoed. If someone goes somewhere for a particular purpose, even for business, and there is no sukkah there, he is exempt. Here he is traveling for a mitzvah, so he is certainly exempt. There are explicit halachos about when a person is exempt and when he is not. Now, we do not rely on these exemptions. We are careful to eat and drink everything in a sukkah. But here another factor comes into play: fasting on Chol Hamoed is forbidden by Torah law, not just rabbinic law. There are many leniencies in halachah. Incidentally, the law exempting someone who suffers from being in the sukkah includes many kinds of discomfort that we would never have thought would qualify. For example, the halachah discusses a kashrus supervisor overseeing wine production by a non-Jew. There is no sukkah there, and he is moving around the vineyard all the time. He is exempt from the sukkah. Or someone goes to collect debts owed to him in a town where there is no sukkah at all. He travels there to collect the debts, and he too is exempt from the sukkah. There are many circumstances in which a person is exempt. So I am saying that the law concerning someone who suffers in the sukkah—

54:40 Speaker 2 the Torah took people’s circumstances into account. There are two... Generally, suffering does not exempt someone from a mitzvah. There are only two mitzvos where it does: tefillin and sukkah. We do not find another law that exempts a person because he is suffering. A person cannot say, “I can’t make a sukkah now. I can’t daven.” There is no exemption for suffering with other mitzvos. Why is there such an exemption for tefillin? Because with tefillin, one must not divert one’s attention from them. If you are distressed, you are not thinking about the tefillin, so you are exempt from wearing them. And tefillin is a Torah obligation. We see that here, a person’s distress is an important part of the conditions of the mitzvah. That is why all this relates to sleeping in the sukkah. It is not as though our Sages invented something that did not exist before. The law concerning someone who suffers encompasses all the ways a person might suffer. It is not something new that we have just invented. There are different kinds of people who suffer. A person may be very sensitive, an istenis, and say, “I am exempt.” If he is an istenis and cannot sit in the sukkah, then he cannot; he has a problem. Say he is allergic to the s’chach—then he is exempt. As we said, the Torah... the Rambam... [unclear] the sukkah; it causes an allergy. Why should he have to make an effort? So the exemption for someone who suffers in the sukkah is an integral part of the laws of sukkah. It is not an external detail; it is part of the nature of the mitzvah. Perhaps the Torah took people into account because the sukkah is a temporary dwelling, and exempted them. Look, there is a problem with making an interruption between Kiddush and the meal. A person makes Kiddush, and then he must eat immediately—that is the wording: “immediately.” How long is “immediately”? I—we do not know exactly what it means.

56:50 Speaker 2 Elsewhere, regarding candle-lighting, it says that “immediately” means within ten minutes. It says that someone who lights candles must accept Shabbos within ten minutes. So that is “immediately.” I thought that perhaps “immediately” here also means ten minutes. Of course, “immediately” when it comes to the Geulah means right now, not in ten minutes. We want it right now. But regarding Kiddush, “immediately” means... Now there is another point. Suppose a person makes Kiddush and then goes to the bathroom, and he stays there a long time. That is already longer than “immediately,” so it is no longer Kiddush in the place of the meal. He would have to make Kiddush again. If he stays there more than ten minutes, he has also changed locations. In other words, the instruction to eat immediately applies even if someone remains seated at the table without eating; that is also a problem. But if he leaves for more than ten minutes, there is an additional problem. Now, as for washing hands, even if he goes to another room, if he leaves only briefly—for a minute or two—it is not a problem. A ten-minute interruption combined with leaving the place where he made Kiddush means that the Kiddush will not count as being in the place of the meal. More than ten minutes is a problem; for less than that, there is no problem leaving. Besides, you are leaving for the sake of the meal: you are washing your hands for the meal. So even if the place to wash is on another floor—say you eat downstairs, or you make Kiddush in the sukkah and the water is in your apartment on the fourth floor—if it takes five minutes to go up to the fourth floor and come back, there is no problem. He has no choice. That is

58:43 Speaker 2 If he has no choice. Of course, it’s preferable to wash his hands near his sukkah. But you have to be careful: if you do it on the ground, on Shabbos you can’t pour water onto the ground, because of the issue of watering. And if there’s sand there, there may also be an issue of kneading. So you have to be careful about pouring water on the ground in the sukkah on Yom Tov. But you should arrange to wash your hands near the sukkah, rather than go somewhere far away. Again, if there’s no other choice, there’s no other choice. Because besides leaving the place of the meal, there’s also the issue of a long interruption between washing your hands and Hamotzi. You may not interrupt between washing and Hamotzi. So it’s best to have everything close together. But after the fact, as I said, two conditions are needed for it to count as an interruption: more than ten minutes, and a change of location—he went somewhere else. The Chabad custom is to place the lulav in the sukkah on Erev Yom Tov. There are—Chabad has two customs here. You know Chabad is different in almost everything; in just about anything you can think of, Chabad differs from everyone else. We spoke, for example, about shemitah: in Chabad, we already make a prozbul on 15 Shvat of the shemitah year. Even though according to halachah—the main halachic ruling—it should be done at the end of the seventh year. The Alter Rebbe rules that shemitah begins right at its start. So there is such an opinion, and we are stringent and also make a prozbul at the beginning, on Rosh Hashanah. We do it at the end too, but that’s prozbul. Whatever you think of, you’ll find different Chabad customs. With the four species, there are many differences in Chabad, as we said: Calabria esrogim, various hiddurim, and taking more than three hadassim. The Rebbe asked—the Rebbe asked that people take at least six hadassim.

1:00:57 Speaker 2 The Rebbe himself takes thirty-six hadassim. Some people really are particular about taking thirty-six. But they don’t take nine because—well, I don’t know. Twelve they do take; you can take twelve, but nine, it says not to. It doesn’t say—I think so, yes. Six, twelve, eighteen, thirty-six. Numbers like that, when making a point of having extra hadassim. The hadassim also need to cover the aravos. There’s a point here: usually the aravos are taller than the hadassim. According to Kabbalah, the hadassim correspond to chesed, gevurah, and tiferes, and the aravos to netzach and hod. Since those are a lower level among the middos, the hadassim need to cover the aravos. So it says—how do you cover them? You can’t, really. You have to trim the aravos from the bottom so that they’re level with the hadassim. That’s more or less how you can cover them. And the binding should have one hadas on the right, one on the left, and one in the middle, with the aravos also one here and one there, but arranged so that the hadassim cover the aravos. It’s hard, so people take many hadassim to cover them somewhat. To cover them—it’s almost impossible, because the aravos also stick out. You have to be careful with the leaves of the aravos. You know, this is a question every Jew faces. If even one leaf falls off an aravah, it’s no longer mehudar. With a hadas, it can still be mehudar. But if even one leaf falls off an aravah, it’s no longer mehudar. Do you know what that means? The leaves of an aravah fall off so easily. You just touch a leaf, especially when it’s moist; you put it into the binding and the leaves simply fall off. So within three tefachim—the required length of the aravah—you need to “take care

1:03:07 Speaker 2 that its leaves do not fall off.” You determine which three tefachim those are. Not a single leaf should fall off. At the top, of course, which is the main part; at the bottom, they don’t fall off as much. So you have to be careful about that. But there’s one point I want to make now. In Chabad, we bind the lulav in the sukkah on Erev Yom Tov. The question arises—and the Rebbe asks this—what sanctity does the sukkah have on Erev Sukkos? What’s the point of being in a sukkah that has no sanctity? On Erev Sukkos, it’s nothing; the sukkah doesn’t yet have that significance. The Rebbe explains that binding the lulav on Erev Yom Tov also has no significance in itself. In other words, just as the sukkah on Erev Sukkos is a preparation for the mitzvah of sukkah, so binding the lulav on Erev Yom Tov is a preparation for the mitzvah of lulav. So we prepare the lulav in the place being prepared for the mitzvah of sukkah. They have the same status in that respect, and that is why we do it specifically in the sukkah. Especially in Chabad, where we make the blessing over the lulav before davening. Where? In the sukkah. Why do we make the blessing before davening? So that we can do it in the sukkah, because you can’t leave in the middle of davening. Really, we should make the blessing over the lulav after davening, before Hallel, like blowing the shofar. Mitzvos are performed after davening, not before. We don’t perform mitzvos before davening; it’s always afterward. Whether it’s a bris milah or anything else, it’s afterward. Lulav, shofar—they’re done after davening. Davening comes first. But here, suddenly, there’s lulav. In Chabad, following Kabbalah, as has been our practice, we make the blessing in the sukkah. Why? Because there’s a significance to it. The Raavad asks: Is this a requirement of the sukkah or a requirement of the lulav? Is it part of the rule of “you shall dwell in it as you live,” or not? Or is it a hiddur of the lulav? The practical difference is whether this is a requirement of

1:05:08 Speaker 2 the sukkah or a hiddur of the lulav. If it’s a hiddur of the lulav, then you can’t make the blessing in the sukkah while it’s raining; you have to wait. Sorry—yes, if it’s a requirement of the sukkah, then when it rains you’re exempt from doing it there. The rain exempts you, and you can make the blessing outside. But if it’s a requirement of the lulav—that there is a particular point in doing it with the lulav—and the wording also implies that it’s a mitzvah to make the blessing inside the sukkah, then it seems to be a requirement of the lulav: to make its blessing in the sukkah, connecting the lulav with the sukkah. According to Kabbalah, this has significance. So if it’s raining, you wait until the rain stops, then go in and make the blessing. You don’t make the blessing while it’s raining. For the lulav, the sukkah has to be fit for use as a sukkah, because this is a requirement of the lulav. Do you understand? There’s no exemption. The rain doesn’t exempt you from the lulav, so you have to wait. That’s a novel point with practical implications. Now, there’s another rule: you may not eat before taking the lulav. So we make the blessing over the lulav first. And since in Chabad we eat before davening—some people—what do I mean by “eat”? We make a point of eating beforehand. This is one of the things that’s hard to explain to the wider world. Others are strict about it. Halachah says not to eat before davening. How do we eat before davening? What permits that? It’s permitted so that we can daven properly. When a person is hungry, he can’t daven like a human being; he davens like a robot. Granted, some people are robots even after they eat. But the idea is that a person should be able to concentrate during davening. So in Chabad, there’s a hiddur in eating. You know, a book came out by Rabbi Groner about the doctors and the Rebbe, and when the Rebbe was ill in 5748, the doctors told the Rebbe not to eat before davening, because it

1:07:20 Speaker 2 It causes him problems with his heart and his intestines, and the heart—that affects the heart. And the Rebbe said, “I can’t change the custom. This is my practice: I always eat before davening.” So they said—and he told her, “I’ll listen to you for just one day, but not on a regular basis.” For the Rebbe, eating before davening was important. So you need to understand: today, eating means eating so that we’ll have the strength to daven—not eating cholent before davening. We’re talking about having some mezonos so that, at least on Shabbos, we can daven properly. On weekdays, I don’t know; people are in a hurry and daven quickly. I don’t know. In other words, there’s no mitzvah to eat before davening, let’s put it that way. I once heard—I don’t know how accurate this is—that a chossid who had come to Chabad from outside Chabad went into yechidus with the Rebbe. He had three practices that were different from Chabad custom: first, he ate seudah shlishis; second, he slept in the sukkah; and he was careful not to eat before davening. So what should he do about them? Or did he also say that he recited Shir Hashirim on Friday evening, something like that? I don’t know. In any case, the Rebbe told him to continue all of them. But as for eating before davening, he needed to eat. Now, eating before davening isn’t a mitzvah in itself. What’s the idea? The Rebbe wants our davening to be complete. So when a person eats, he thinks: Why am I eating? Why am I eating before davening? After all, it’s forbidden to eat before davening. But since halachah says that if you need to eat in order to concentrate, you may eat, you need to eat before davening so that you can concentrate. The eating reminds you

1:09:15 Speaker 2 that you have to daven like a person, the way you’re supposed to daven. In other words, there’s no point to the eating itself except as preparation. That’s why, on Shabbos, when we eat before davening, we don’t make Kiddush over that food. Why don’t we make Kiddush? After all, Kiddush has to be made where one eats a meal, and you’re eating mezonos. Why don’t we eat? Because this isn’t mealtime; it’s davening time. Here, the eating is part of the davening. So those who eat for the sake of eating need to know: they’re accomplishing nothing. They’re doing something wrong. Eating before davening is meant to remind us that we need to daven with concentration, and it helps us daven with concentration. The main thing here is the davening, not the eating. So we make the brachah over the lulav; when we make the brachah over the lulav, there’s another aspect to it. We gain the opportunity to eat before davening. On a Yom Tov with long davening, we can daven properly. Ah, I wanted to discuss one more point.

1:10:10 Speaker 3 With the Rabbi’s permission, I think we need to finish this section. So why do we bind the lulav specifically in the sukkah?

1:10:16 Speaker 2 I explained: the sukkah, and the binding and preparation, are not independent mitzvos. There’s no mitzvah to bind the lulav; binding it doesn’t fulfill the mitzvah of lulav. And you haven’t yet fulfilled the mitzvah with the sukkah you built, either—it’s still erev Sukkos. So you prepare the lulav in the place you’ve prepared for the sukkah. Both are forms of preparation. That’s the idea. Ah, I wanted to mention that in Chabad we customarily make a sukkah with four walls. Sefer Haminhagim says that our custom is not to make a sukkah with three walls, as halachah permits, but to have four complete walls. And there’s the matter of beautifying the mitzvah [unclear]. We need to understand what beautifying the mitzvah [unclear] means. You might ask: what kind of beautifying the mitzvah [unclear] is that? Why do we need to do it? I saw somewhere that the Shelah says it’s because of the positive commandment, “This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him”—to make a beautiful sukkah. So how do you make a beautiful sukkah? Four walls make a beautiful sukkah; three walls don’t. So we make four walls because of “This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him.” That was the Chabad custom. Nowadays you see all sorts of things, and you know about the Baal Shem Tov’s sukkah. But the basic idea was to make a sukkah with four walls. We’ve already discussed this: it’s “This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him.” That raises the question: why don’t we put decorations in the sukkah in Chabad? Sometimes a child comes home from kindergarten with drawings. To avoid upsetting the child, fine, put them up—but not as sukkah decorations. Sometimes you can’t explain to a child that we don’t have the custom of decorating the sukkah. He may accept it, but if he cries and says, “This is what I made it for,” then, so as not to upset him, put it up somewhere, you know,

1:12:19 Speaker 2 so that it’s there. Not on the s’chach, of course, but on a wall. In principle, though, in Chabad we don’t decorate the sukkah with the kinds of decorations and hanging fruit mentioned in the Gemara. So what’s the explanation? The Rebbe writes somewhere that in Chabad, the people are the sukkah’s adornment. The men—those sitting in the sukkah—are its adornment. That is to say, its beauty and the s’chach are the sukkah’s adornment, as with the elders and [unclear]. But beyond that, the people sitting in the sukkah should make it beautiful. What good are decorations if the people in the sukkah are sitting there in a bad mood? Yes. It says that a sukkah doesn’t like people getting angry inside it. You mustn’t get angry in a sukkah. You need to conduct yourself in the sukkah with dignity, with calm, with peace of mind and with joy. And this is a good time to end by wishing that we truly have “You shall rejoice on your festival”—that we be joyful in the sukkah and outside the sukkah, that there be joy throughout the year, and that “everlasting joy shall be upon their heads.” May you be blessed with many years.