S.A.L.T. – SUKKOT 5771

By Rav David Silverberg

Motzaei

            Arguably the most famous Midrashic passage associated with the mitzva of arba minim appears in Vayikra Rabba 30:12, and draws a parallel between the four species and four different groups of Jews.  The etrog, which offers a pleasing fragrance as well as a luscious taste, corresponds to the righteous members of the nation who excel in both scholarship and mitzva performance.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, the arava is neither fragrant nor tasty, symbolic of the members of Am Yisrael who have achieved success in neither Torah learning nor mitzva observance.  The hadas – which is fragrant but inedible – and the lulav – whose dates emit no scent but can be enjoyed as food – symbolize, respectively, Jews who observe mitzvot but do not study, and Jews who excel in learning but do not perform mitzvot.  On the basis of the Midrash’s comment, the act of binding the four species together into a single bundle is often seen as a symbol of the unity and affection among all kinds of Jews for which we strive – or ought to strive.

            Several passages earlier (30:9), however, the Midrash presents a much different symbolic explanation of the arba minim – viewing them as representing not different groups  of Jews, but rather different aspects of the Almighty.  The term “hadar” used in reference to the etrog is also used to describe God’s majesty (“hod ve-hadar lavashta” – Tehillim 104:1), and God is elsewhere likened to a palm tree (“Tzadik ka-tamar yifrach” – Tehillim 92:13).  The prophet Zekharya (1:8) beheld a vision of a person, representing God, standing among the hadas branches, and a verse in Tehillim (68:5) describes the Almighty as “rokheiv ba-aravot,” establishing an association between God and the arava branches.

            At first glance, these two comments of the Midrash represent two entirely different, perhaps even mutually exclusive, perspectives on the arba minim.  One views them as expressing our desire for unity among different members of Am Yisrael, whereas the other sees the four species as symbolizing different qualities of God.

            If, however, we wish to reconcile these two passages, we might explain that they seek to reflect the close bond between God and Am Yisrael.  We are so tightly bound to our Creator that the same articles used to symbolize us are used to represent Him.  We carry the arba minim to show that we and God are one and the same.

            Indeed, this theme, of God and Benei Yisrael sharing a single identity, as it were, emerges in a number of aspects of the Sukkot celebration.  The Mishna in Masekhet Sukka (45a) discusses the ritual performed in the Beit Ha-mikdash each day of Sukkot, during which arava branches were placed to the side of the altar.  The people in the Temple courtyard would encircle the altar, declaring – according to one view in the Mishna – “Ani va-ho hoshi’a na.”  (According to the other view, they recited, “Ana Hashem hoshi’a na.”)  Tosefot explain this to mean, “Ani va-hu hoshi’a na” – “I and Him – please bring salvation!”  We ask God not only to save us, but also to save Himself, as it were.  As Tosafot cite from several Midrashic sources, Chazal established the notion that God is in exile along with Am Yisrael, as it were.   So close is the relationship between God and Israel that – to whatever extent we can metaphorically speak of God suffering – He endures the hardships and tribulations of exile together with His nation.  On Sukkot, when we celebrate the unique bond between God and Benei Yisrael, we pray for our national salvation by asking God to save both us and Himself, so-to-speak.

            This theme is also beautifully expressed in the hymn with which we traditionally conclude the hoshanot service each day of Sukkot, authored by Rabbi Eliezer Ha-kalir.  Toward the beginning of this prayer, we recite, “Ke-hoshata goi v-Elokim derushim le-yesha Elokim, ken hosha na” – “As you saved a nation and God, who required God’s salvation, so shall You save us now!”  We ask God to save us from our exile now, just as He had saved us – and Himself, as it were – in the past.  This concept reemerges later in this hymn: “Ke-hoshata kana meshoreret vayosha, le-gochah metzuyenet va-yivasha – kein hosha na.  Ke-hoshata ma’amar ve-hotzeiti etkhem, nakuv ve-hutzeiti itekhem – kein hosha na” (“As You saved the plant [Israel] who sang, ‘He saved us,’ the same is vocalized as ‘He was saved’ for the One who delivered it – so shall You save us now.  As You saved with the expression, ‘I will redeem you,’ which can also be punctuated as, ‘I will be redeemed with you’ – so shall You save us now!”).  In this passage, we emphasize that the words used to describe the salvation of Israel (“va-yosha” and “ve-hotzeiti etkhem”) can be punctuated differently such that they refer to the salvation of God Himself, as it were (“va-yivasha” and “ve-hutzeiti itekhem”).

            Having repaired our relationship with the Almighty during the Days of Awe, on Sukkot we celebrate the unique bonds of love that connect us to our Creator.  On the basis of this special bond, we approach the Almighty and demand that He redeem us because as long as we suffer, He suffers with us.  We can pray that He grant us deliverance because He, too, languishes in exile as long as we live in exile.  In a sense, our renewed closeness with God grants us greater “leverage” in appealing for redemption.  We insist that He redeem our nation if for no other reason that He, too, in light of His special love for Israel, is also in desperate need of deliverance.

(Based on Rav Zvi Romm, “I and He: Perspectives on the Mitzvah of Lulav” in the Tishrei, 5771 edition of Chavrusa)

Sunday

            Both in the amida prayer and in the text of kiddush, we refer to the festival of Sukkot as “zeman simchateinu” (“our occasion of joy”).  The experience of “simcha” is clearly one of the dominant themes – or perhaps even the central theme – of this holiday, as indicated already in the Torah.  Although the formal mitzva of simcha applies on other festivals, as well, the Torah places particular emphasis on this experience in the context of Sukkot (Vayikra 23:40, Devarim 16:14-15).  In the times of the Mikdash, the Sukkot observance included the special Simchat Beit Ha-sho’eiva celebration in the Temple, which did not occur at any other time.  The Rambam famously noted the “simcha yeteira” (“extra joy”) that was observed in the Mikdash during Sukkot (Hilkhot Lulav 8:12), and, appropriately, he chose the closing chapter of Hilkhot Lulav as the context in which to discuss the importance of simcha in our religious observance.

            Many writers and darshanim noted the irony in the fact that it is specifically on the “occasion of joy” when we are commanded to leave our homes and take residence in crude, unstable and insecure structures.  Intuitively, perhaps, we might have expected the Torah to require celebrating the holiday of joy in the comfort and security of our homes, where the atmosphere is far more conducive to the experience of serenity, contentment and happiness which characterizes the observance of Sukkot.

            One explanation is that precisely to the contrary, the mitzva of sukka is intended (at least in part) to convey the message that genuine happiness does not require the material comforts upon which we have come to rely in our pursuit of personal contentment.  The Torah commands us to celebrate and experience joy without those things which we normally associate with joy – our homes and their furnishings.  It is precisely in the primitive and crude structure of the sukka where we are to look for the sense of purpose and satisfaction that leads to true simcha.  We are mistaken if we hinge our feelings of contentment on our material possessions.  Simcha is found in the sukka, celebrating our close relationship with God together with our families, not in material luxury.

            The ironic link between simcha and the sukka conveys an additional message, as well.  The sukka signifies not only simplicity and primitiveness, but also vulnerability.  In the sukka, we are exposed and insecure; we do not enjoy the protection of sturdy walls or insulation – or an alarm system.  Moving from our homes to the sukka, we forfeit the feeling of security and protection that our permanent, stable homes afford us.  In this sense, the sukka symbolizes the anxieties and insecurities that we all experience.  All people, at most or all times in life, have worries and concerns.  Rav Soloveitchik zt”l suggested that the image depicted in Shir Hashirim (3:7-8) of King Shelomo’s bed, which was surrounded by warriors due to the monarch’s “pachad ba-leilot” (nighttime fears), expresses this natural feeling of fear and anxiety that accompanies us throughout our lives.  King Shelomo, and the Israelite kingdom which he led, had attained all the wealth, power and prestige that any person and nation could ever aspire to.  And yet, even he experienced “pachad ba-leilot,” he had his share of fears and worries.  If our homes symbolize the sense of security and assuredness that we all desire, the sukka signifies the inescapable reality of fear and uncertainty which we all experience.

            The theme of vulnerability as it applies to the sukka lends an especially powerful dimension to the prominence of simcha in the Sukkot celebration.  The Torah teaches us that we can, and must, experience simcha despite our natural fears and anxieties.  We are commanded to rejoice in our relationship with our Creator even as we are understandably beset by a range of concerns and fears.  The mitzva of sukka tells us that we cannot wait for every problem to be solved, for every hole in our lives to be filled, before feeling happy and content.  We will always live in a “sukka”; there will always be legitimate concerns that weigh heavily upon our minds and cause us to feel unsettled.  Nevertheless, we can and must experience the simcha of serving the Almighty, even amid the struggles and difficulties that we encounter on a daily basis.

(Based in part on Rabbi Menachem Penner, “Chomer L’Drush and Ideas for Sukkot” in the Tishrei, 5771 edition of Chavrusa)

Monday

            The Torah introduces the mitzva of arba minim in Sefer Vayikra (23:40): “You shall take for yourselves on the first day, a fruit of a citrus tree, a palm branch…and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days.”  This verse speaks of an obligation to take the four species “on the first day,” while specifying that we must “rejoice before the Lord” with these species for all seven days of Sukkot.  The Mishna (Sukka 42b) and Gemara (Sukka 43a) explain that on the first day, the Torah obligation of arba minim applies everywhere, whereas on the other six days, it applies only “before the Lord your God” – meaning, in the Mikdash.  It is only by force of rabbinic enactment that we take the arba minim outside the Beit Ha-mikdash on the second through seventh days of Sukkot.

            There is a debate among the Rishonim as to which areas are included within the category of “Mikdash” with regard to this halakha.  The Rambam, in his commentary to the Mishna, famously proposes a broad interpretation of the term, claiming that it refers to the entire city of Jerusalem.  In his view, then, in Jerusalem there is a Torah obligation to take the arba minim on each of the seven days of Sukkot.  The Netziv, in his Meromei Sadeh commentary to the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 29a), explains that the Rambam understood the term “lifnei Hashem” (“before the Lord”) in light of a verse later in the Torah where this same phrase appears.  In Sefer Devarim (12:18), the Torah speaks of the obligation to eat ma’aser sheni and sacrificial shelamim meat specifically “lifnei Hashem Elokekha.”  As we know, these foods may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem, and thus this verse establishes a precedent to the usage of the term “lifnei Hashem” as referring to the entire city, and not merely to the Temple precinct itself.

            On the opposite extreme, the Turei Even (Rosh Hashanah 30a) and Minchat Chinukh (324) write that the Torah obligation on the last six days of Sukkot applies only in the azara – the Temple courtyard.  The Minchat Chinukh draws proof from the mitzva of aliya le-regel – the festival pilgrimages on Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot – which require one to be present “in the presence of the Lord” (“et penei Hashem Elokekha” – Devarim 16:16).  As the Rambam rules in Hilkhot Chagiga (1:1), one fulfills this mitzva only by being present in the azara, the Temple courtyard, thus indicating that the “presence of the Lord” is defined as only the azara.  With respect to arba minim, then, too, the obligation on the last six days applies only in the azara.

            Rav Eliyahu Weissfish, in his Chag Ha-asif (Jerusalem, 5760), suggests that the Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, perhaps followed a middle position between these two extremes (and did not follow his view in his commentary to the Mishna).  In Hilkhot Lulav (8:12), the Rambam discusses the special Simchat Beit Ha-sho’eiva celebration that was held in the Beit Ha-mikdash each night of Sukkot, and cites as the source of this halakha the aforementioned verse that speaks of the arba minim: “…and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days.”  It thus emerges that the same verse that requires taking the four species “before the Lord your God for seven days” also requires conducting festivities “before the Lord…for seven days.”  Presumably, then, the Torah obligation of arba minim on all seven days of Sukkot applies to the area where the Simchat Beit Ha-sho’eiva celebration took place.  And it is clear from the Mishna in Masekhet Sukka (51a) that the Simchat Beit Ha-sho’eiva celebration was held in the ezrat nashim section, which is not, at least strictly speaking, part of the formal courtyard of the Temple.  Halakhically speaking, the ezrat nashim had the status of the area of the Temple Mount outside the Temple courtyard.  As Rav Weissfish notes, this appears to prove that, at least in the Rambam’s view, the Torah obligation of arba minim would apply on all seven days of Sukkot in the entire of the Temple Mount.  It would not be restricted to the azara, but neither would it be expanded to the entire city of Jerusalem.

            (It should be noted that Rabbenu Mano’ach, a commentator to the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, understood that the Rambam in Hilkhot Lulav follows the view he expresses in his commentary to the Mishna, that the obligation applies throughout Jerusalem.)

Tuesday

            The Gemara in Masekhet Sukka (46a) cites a Tosefta that rules that after one builds a sukka, he recites the berakha of she-hechiyanu.  Then, on Sukkot, when he enters the sukka for the first time, he recites the berakha on the mitzva of sukka (“le-shev ba-sukka”).  Later, however, the Gemara cites Rav Ashi as noting that Rav Kahana would recite both berakhot together with kiddush on the first night of Sukkot.  This is the position codified in the Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 641:1).

            The Shulchan Arukh explains that in principle, it would be appropriate to recite she-hechiyanu immediately upon completing the construction of the sukka, to express joy over the building of the structure.  But in practice – perhaps in the interest of simplicity – we recite the berakha with kiddush on the first night of Sukkot.  This means that on the first night of Sukkot, we recite one berakha to express our joy over the structure of the sukka – she-hechiyanu – and a second berakha to praise God for giving us the mitzva of sukka – “le-shev ba-sukka.”  Of course, the berakha of she-hechiyanu recited on this night refers not only to the structure of the sukka, but also to the occurrence of the holiday.  Just as we recite she-hechiyanu on Rosh Hashanah, Pesach, Yom Kippur, Shavuot and Shemini Atzeret, we recite this berakha on Sukkot to express our joy over the arrival of the holiday.

            The halakhic authorities discuss a case of a person who, for whatever reason, did not or could not eat in the sukka on the first night, such as if he was ill or otherwise unable to eat in the sukka, and he ate his Yom Tov meal indoors.  At kiddush, he recited the berakha of she-hechiyanu over the occasion of Yom Tov, as required by Halakha.  If, the following day, he eats a meal in his sukka, must he recite she-hechiyanu over the sukka?  Seemingly, since he recited this berakha over the holiday, but not over the sukka, he must repeat the berakha the next day when he eats in the sukka for the first time. Indeed, the Ran (to Sukka 46a) cites the Ra’avad as claiming that one must recite she-hechiyanu the next day in such  a case, since the berakha he recited the previous night referred only to the occasion of the Yom Tov, and not to the sukka.  The Rama codifies this ruling as the authoritative halakha (641:1).

The Bach, however, in one of his responsa (132), disagrees.  Noting that some authorities dispute the Ra’avad’s ruling, the Bach writes that it is preferable not to recite she-hechiyanu in this case, rather than run the risk of reciting an unwarranted berakha.  These authorities, it appears, maintained that the berakha of she-hechiyanu recited in the home at the time of kiddush could fulfill the obligation vis-à-vis the sukka, as well.  Even though in this case the individual recited she-hechiyanu indoors, over the Yom Tov, the berakha can somehow refer to the structure of the sukka, as well.

            A possible source for such a notion is a comment by Tosafot (Sukka 46a) concerning the reverse case – of a person who recited she-hechiyanu over the sukka before Sukkot.  Tosafot understood from the Gemara’s discussion that if a person recited she-hechiyanu after building the sukka (contrary to the accepted practice), he does not recite she-hechiyanu on the first night of Sukkot.  Even though he recited the berakha over the structure, and not over the Yom Tov, his recitation nevertheless fulfills the obligation with respect to the Yom Tov, as well.  Tosafot apparently felt that the sukka and the Yom Tov of Sukkot are closely enough interconnected that a she-hechiyanu recitation for one suffices for the other, as well.

This appears to have been the assumption of those authorities cited by the Bach, who argue with the Ra’avad’s ruling regarding one who ate indoors on the first night of Sukkot.  In their view, the she-hechiyanu recitation over the occasion of the Yom Tov suffices to fulfill the obligation with respect to the sukka, as well, and therefore the individual would not recite she-hechiyanu over the sukka the next day.

Wednesday

            Yesterday, we noted a surprising ruling of Tosefot (Sukka 46a) concerning the recitation of the berakha of she-hechiyanu on the first night of Sukkot.  From the Gemara’s discussion it emerges that this berakha is to be recited over the completion of the building of the sukka, though in practice, according to accepted halakhic protocol, we delay the recitation of she-hechiyanu until the first night of Sukkot.  This berakha is recited – together with the berakha of “le-shev ba-sukka,” over the mitzva of residing in the sukka – as part of kiddush on the first night of Sukkot.  Tosefot infer from the Gemara’s formulation in this context that if one recited she-hechiyanu after building the sukka, before Sukkot, he does not recite she-hechiyanu at kiddush on the first night of Sukkot.

            As Tosafot themselves note, however, there is an obvious difficulty with this ruling.  After all, we recite she-hechiyanu on the first night of Sukkot not only to express our joy over the sukka, but also to celebrate the occasion of the Yom Tov – just as we recite she-hechiyanu on other holidays.  Therefore, even if one recited she-hechiyanu before Sukkot over the building of the sukka, he must, seemingly, repeat the berakha on the first night on the occasion of the Yom Tov.  How can the berakha recited over the sukka fulfill the obligation vis-à-vis the Yom Tov?

            Tosafot answer, ambiguously, “Perhaps, since the sukka results from the holiday, it is logical that its berakha of she-hechiyanu – even if it was recited in the weekday [before Sukkot] – exempts him even on the holiday…”  According to Tosafot, the berakha recited over the construction of the sukka can fulfill the requirement to recite the berakha over the occasion of Yom Tov because the sukka is a function of the Yom Tov.

            Rav Soloveitchik (cited by Rav Tzvi Reichman in Reshimot Shiurim – Sukka) explained Tosefot’s comments by drawing a subtle distinction between two possible perspectives on the she-hechiyanu blessing recited on Yom Tov.  One could approach this berakha as a recitation related specifically to the kedushat ha-yom, the halakhic sanctity of Yom Tov.  That is to say, we recite this berakha every Yom Tov because the occasion of kedushat ha-yom requires it.  According to this perspective, it seems very difficult to explain Tosefot’s ruling.  This berakha must be recited only after the onset of kedushat ha-yom, as it is this status which gives rise to the obligation.  Alternatively, however, we could view the requirement of she-hechiyanu on Yom Tov more broadly, as relating to the general occasion of the holiday.  It is not the formal status of kedushat ha-yom per se that requires reciting this berakha, but rather the arrival of the special occasion of the holiday.  If so, then we could perhaps entertain the notion that the she-hechiyanu recited over the sukka fulfills as well the obligation of she-hechiyanu over the Yom Tov.  Since the sukka’s construction quite clearly relates to the upcoming celebration of Sukkot, the recitation of she-hechiyanu over the occasion of building a sukka serves the purpose of reciting the berakha to express joy over the arrival of this annual occasion.  (Note that according to Rav Soloveitchik’s explanation of Tosefot’s ruling, it would not affect the issue discussed yesterday, of somebody who recited she-hechiyanu with kiddush indoors on the first night of Sukkot.)

            Rav Avraham Erlenger, in the introduction to his Birkat Avraham (Masekhet Sukka), suggests a different explanation of Tosefot’s comments.  In his view, Tosefot’s ruling reflects the inherent connection between the mitzva of sukka and the holiday of Sukkot.  The occasion of Sukkot is not merely the date when the mitzva of sukka applies.  Rather, as the holiday’s most common name implies, the holiday is defined, at its core, as the time when we reside in sukkot.  It is due to this fundamental association between the mitzva of sukka and the holiday of Sukkot that, according to Tosefot, a she-hechiyanu recited over one fulfills the obligation for the other.  When one recites she-hechiyanu over the sukka, he has effectively recited the berakha over the Yom Tov, as well, and for this reason, in Tosefot’s view, he does not repeat the berakha on Yom Tov.

            As for the final halakha, the Bei’ur Halakha (641) notes that the Peri Megadim and Birkei Yosef were uncertain whether one should repeat she-hechiyanu on the first night of Yom Tov in such a case.  He therefore concludes that one should not recite a berakha, in light of the principle that one does not recite a berakha in situations of uncertainty.

Thursday

            In one of the most famous passages of his commentary to the Tur, the Bach (O.C. 625) asserts that the Torah obligation of sukka requires a person to not only take residence in the sukka, but also to think about its commemorative function.  He notes that the Tur, uncharacteristically, incorporates within his codification of the halakhot of sukka a discussion of the meaning and significance underlying this mitzva.  Namely, the Tur notes that the sukka commemorates the “clouds of glory” with which God encircled Benei Yisrael in the wilderness.  (Following the Tur’s example, the Shulchan Arukh similarly begins his discussion of Sukkot with this point.)  Evidently, the Bach reasons, the Tur included this point amidst his discussion of the mitzva because one must be cognizant of the symbolic purpose of the sukka in order to fulfill the mitzva.  The Bach draws support for his theory from the Torah’s presentation of this mitzva, which it concludes by stating, “in order that your generations know that I had the Israelites dwell in sukkot when I took them from Egypt” (Vayikra 23:43).  The Torah does not often reveal the reason behind mitzvot.  When it does, we may assume that the reason constitutes part of the mitzva.  In this instance, then, we must not only reside in the sukka, but also remember the “sukkot” in which Benei Yisrael resided in the wilderness.  The Mishna Berura cites the Bach’s ruling toward the beginning of the laws of Sukkot (625:1).

            Rav Avraham Erlenger, in the introduction to his Birkat Avraham (Masekhet Sukka), suggests that the Bach’s theory may underlie a comment of the Gemara toward the beginning of Masekhet Sukka (2a).  Discussing the halakha that disqualifies a sukka that extends higher than twenty amot (cubits), the Gemara cites Rabba as pointing to the aforementioned verse as the source of this halakha.  Noting the commemorative function of the sukka, Rabba explains, “Until twenty amot – a person knows that he resides in a sukka; beyond twenty amot – a person does not know that he resides in a sukka, because the eye cannot easily see it.”  Rabba clearly assumes that a person’s perception and intention is critical for performing this mitzva.  A sukka that cannot be easily recognized as such is therefore disqualified, as it does not facilitate the commemorative purpose of the sukka obligation.

            Interestingly enough, the Peri Megadim detects a possible indication of the Bach’s theory in the word “sukka” itself.  We normally interpret this word as stemming from the Hebrew word for “cover” (as in the word “ve-sakota” in Shemot 40:3).  The Peri Megadim, however, notes that the Hebrew root s.kh. can also refer to careful gazing.  Thus, for example, as Rashi cites in his commentary to Parashat Noach (Bereishit 11:29), Sara was called “Yiska” because she could see things through ru’ach ha-kodesh (prophetic insight), and/or because people would gaze at her beauty.  Accordingly, the Peri Megadim suggests, the term “sukka” perhaps alludes to the “gazing” and contemplation of God’s miracles in the wilderness, which this mitzva requires.

            The Bach’s ruling may yield interesting practical implications beyond the requirement to have in mind the “clouds of glory” in the sukka.  His son-in-law, the Taz (640:8), writes that people in a condition that does not allow for serious thought and concentration are exempt from the obligation of sukka, since they cannot achieve the mitzva’s purpose of contemplating the miracles of the wilderness.  Of course, people for whom the sukka causes discomfort – such as ill patients who find it uncomfortably cold in the sukka – are exempt from this mitzva.  The Taz, however, claims that even if a person’s distress is not intensified in the sukka – such as a person suffering from a severely painful bone injury, perhaps – is exempt, due to his inability to focus his mind on the commemorative function of the sukka.  Since, in his view, this concentration is required as an integral component of the mitzva, in situations where such concentration is impossible the mitzva does not apply.

            It should be noted, however, that according to the Mishna Berura (625:1), one who did not have in mind the commemorative purpose of the sukka has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation.  Although he cites the Bach’s ruling and writes that one should certainly have this intention while residing in the sukka, he rules that one fulfills the mitzva even without this intention.  This leniency would, presumably, result in a stringent ruling concerning the issue discussed by the Taz.  Since this concentration is not indispensable for the fulfillment of the mitzva, one who cannot properly focus his attention on the meaning behind the sukka would, presumably, nevertheless be obligated in the mitzva.

Friday

            The Torah’s most comprehensive discussion of the festivals appears in Sefer Vayikra (23), in Parashat Emor.  In this section, the Torah goes through the festivals according to the sequence of the calendar, starting from Pesach, such that the last holiday discussed is Sukkot (23:33-43).

            Curiously, in the middle of the subsection dealing with the festival Sukkot, the Torah inserts what appears to be its conclusion of the entire section of the festivals: “These are the festivals of the Lord that you shall declare sacred occasions for offering fire sacrifices to the Lord…” (23:37-38).  Immediately after this pair of verses, however, the Torah immediately returns to its discussion of Sukkot.  The obvious question arises as to why the conclusion was inserted in the middle of the discussion of Sukkot, rather than at the end of the section.  Why did the Torah make an “interim conclusion” before completing its presentation of the mitzvot of Sukkot?

            Rav David Zvi Hoffman, in his commentary to Sefer Vayikra, suggests a surprisingly simple explanation.  He writes that the Torah inserted these concluding verses after completing its discussion of the Sukkot observance as it applied in the wilderness, before Benei Yisrael’s entry into the Land of Israel.  Before the concluding verses, the Torah speaks of Sukkot simply as a seven-day holiday during which special sacrifices are offered (likely referring to the musaf offerings outlined in Sefer Bamidbar), and the first and eighth of which are observed as days of rest.  The specific mitzvot of Sukkot – the sukka and the four species – are mentioned later, after the conclusion.  In the wilderness, Rav Hoffman claimed, Sukkot was simply a holiday of special sacrifices and, on the first and eighth days, a period of issur melakha (when certain activities are forbidden, similar to Shabbat).  During the period of travel, the nation did not observe the mitzva of sukka, which – as the Torah writes in the second half of this subsection (23:43) – serves to commemorate this period of travel.  There would certainly be no need for this commemoration while Benei Yisrael were still in the wilderness.  The mitzva of the four species likewise did not apply in the wilderness, where they were not available.  And, the four species serve as an expression of thanksgiving for a successful harvest, which obviously did not occur during Benei Yisrael’s sojourn in arid, infertile deserts.

            The Torah makes a conclusion after its discussion of the “wilderness-style” Sukkot, because the thrust of this section is the observance of the festivals in the wilderness, around the Mishkan.  Rav Hoffman proves that this section focuses mainly on the observances in the wilderness from the fact that the only other mitzva mentioned in this section which applies only in Eretz Yisrael – the omer grain offering during Pesach – is introduced with the phrase, “When you enter the land that I am giving you…” (23:10). This clearly indicates that the rest of the section deals with laws that apply in the wilderness.  Hence, this section essentially concludes once the Torah completed the discussion of the observance of Sukkot in the wilderness.  After concluding this section, the Torah adds, as an aside, the mitzvot that would take effect once Benei Yisrael entered the land.

            This dichotomy reflects the dual nature of the Sukkot celebration.  Sukkot, on the one hand, belongs to the series of pilgrimage festivals that are arranged around the agricultural cycle: Pesach – the beginning of the spring harvest; Shavuot – the beginning of the wheat harvest; Sukkot – the completion of the gathering of the harvested grain into the warehouses.  This celebration, of course, was observed only once Benei Yisrael crossed into the Land of Israel and began engaging in agriculture.  Additionally, however, Sukkot is an essential part of what we might call the “Tishrei holiday season.”  Following the earning of atonement on Yom Kippur, we celebrate the renewal of our relationship with God and the “cleansing” that was achieved during the period of repentance.  This celebration was certainly pertinent even during the period of desert travel, before the nation’s entry into Eretz Yisrael.