Daf Ditty Succah 24: Succah in the wind

https://www.soundslice.com/slices/3nmVc/

“How many times must the cannon balls fly before they’re forever banded?

“How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry?”

“How many times must a man turn his head pretending he just doesn’t see?”

“How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?”

1
The Gemara suggests: Reverse the attribution of the statements according to Abaye. Rabbi Meir
is concerned about potential death, and Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about potential death,
as it is taught in a baraita: If one utilized his animal as a wall for the sukka, Rabbi Meir deems
it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi
Meir with regard to sukka, where he is concerned about potential death, and the other statement
of Rabbi Meir with regard to separation of teruma and tithes, where he is not concerned lest the
wineskin burst. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: Death is common, as
every living being will eventually die; however, the bursting of the wineskin is not common
because it is possible that he gave the wineskin to a guard for protection so that it does not burst
until he has the opportunity to separate the required teruma and tithes.

2
The Gemara asks further: And is Rabbi Yehuda not concerned about potential death? Didn’t
we learn in a mishna in tractate Yoma (2a) that the Sages said with regard to the High Priest prior
to Yom Kippur: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and since the High Priest
performing the Yom Kippur service must be married, Rabbi Yehuda says: They would even
designate another wife for him lest his wife die. Apparently, he is concerned about potential
death. The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that this designation
is unique to Yom Kippur, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: They established a higher
standard with regard to atonement? Therefore, matters that are not a source of concern in other
areas of halakha are significant with regard to Yom Kippur.

3
§ The Gemara asks: Both according to the one who said that an animal is an unfit partition due
to the concern lest it die, and according to the one who said that it is due to the concern lest it
flee, apparently it is a full-fledged partition by Torah law, and it is the Sages who issued a
decree prohibiting its use lest a problem arise. However, if that is so, according to Rabbi Meir
an animal used as a covering for a grave should be impure due to the impurity of the covering of
a grave. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (Eiruvin 15a–b) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a
living creature imparts ritual impurity due to the impurity of the covering of a grave, but Rabbi
Meir deems it pure? If according to Rabbi Meir an animal is unfit for use as a partition only due
to the concern lest it die or flee, but essentially it is a fit partition, why does it not become impure
when used as a covering of a grave?

4
Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said, contrary to that which was stated above: Rabbi Meir holds
that any partition that stands by means of air, i.e., by intangible means, like an animate being,
which stands due to its life force, is not a partition. Some say a different version of that which
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Rabbi Meir holds that any partition that is not established by a
person is not a partition.

5
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two versions of Rav Aḥa bar
Ya’akov’s statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the
case where one establishes a partition with an inflated wineskin. According to the one who said
that a partition that stands by means of air is not a partition, this partition also stands by means
of air and is therefore unfit. According to the one who said that if it is not established by a
person, it is not a partition,

6
mishna in the case of one who establishes his sukka between the trees, and the trees serve as
walls for it, the sukka is fit.

gemara Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Any partition that is not able to stand in a typical wind,
but rather is blown to and fro, is not a partition.

Summary

7
Our Sages are concerned that we might eat or drink before terumah and/or tithes have been
separated. What do they suggest? They use a wineskin as an example. What if it bursts? How
might we figure out how to tithe the remains? Could we drink when it had not been tithed?

And when we use an animal as the wall of a sukka, should we be worried that the animal might
die? It is noted that in Yoma we learned that the High Priest takes on a second wife lest his wife
dies while he is praying; he needs a family to pray for. Should we have two different standards of
atonement?

The rabbis continue to discuss the notion of an animal as a partition; a wall. They debate over
whether or not a person or another animate object can be a partition; whether or not something that
moves can act as a partition. How much might we have to tie something down. Is the sukka
automatically unfit if the walls can move in the wind?

The rabbis now consider the earlier Mishna limitation: an animal cannot serve as a surface upon
which one can write a get. Some of our Sages argue that this is in direct contradiction with other
instruction, where a get can be written upon the horn of an animal or the arm of a slave, as long as
the arm is not cut off to share the message. They diverge into a conversation about a man who

8
puts a condition into his get. As long as the condition is short-term and does not bind the wife to
her husband, it is fine.

A new Mishna teaches that in the case of a sukka using tree branches as walls, the sukka is
fit. These walls must be fit, however. The Gemara discusses different types of trees and how
much these walls are allowed to move before the sukka will be ruled invalid.

Sukka is the first masechet I have learned that refers often to other masechtot that I have
learned. So, we hear about Eiruvin and Yoma within one daf. Fun!

What's not fun is reading about the use of animals as walls, as writing surfaces. Again, no one
worries about the suffering of the animal, just the death of the animal and what that might incur
based on halachot of ritual impurity.

I have been learning Ketubot in chavruta with Rabbi Audrey Pollack over the past three years -
the opposite of learning daf yomi! Reading about the laws of divorce in the context of constructing
Sukkot is very bizarre. Those laws leave women terribly vulnerable to their husbands and ex-
husbands. For example, a note in Steinsaltz teaches us that thought the condition in a get is not
meant to last more than 30 days, as that binds a woman to her husband, many rabbis believe that
the condition can in fact last a lifetime. How are two people divorced when there is no legal
divorce??

A final thought today referring to a sukka built in the trees whose branches reach down. Perhaps
this was intended to mean that the sukka was built between two trees where the branches hung
down as walls. The rabbis seem to think that we are thinking of a sukka built under a tree. But
how would one have a fit roof under a canopy of branches?

I am learning that the process of constructing a sukka is infinitely more challenging that n I had
ever known.

Daf Shevui writes:1

Yesterday’s daf ended with a difficulty. Earlier in the daf Abaye had said that R. Meir was
concerned lest the animal died. But in solving two mishnayot he said that R. Meir was not
concerned lest the person die. Today’s section resolves the difficulty by changing Abaye’s
statement.

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.24b.9?lang=bi&p2=Daf_Shevui_to_Sukkah.24b.11&lang2=bi

9
To resolve the difficulty the Talmud reverses Abaye’s statement. The mishnah which was not
concerned lest the husband die is now attributed to R. Judah, whereas the mishnah that is concerned
lest he die is attributed to R. Meir. This is supported by a baraita which returns to our subject.

The resolution is that R. Meir is concerned with death because death is a frequent occurrence (at
least it is a certain occurrence), whereas the splitting of the wineskin in which he was holding the
wine he bought from the Samaritan is not a frequent occurrence. Thus R. Meir is a worrywart when
it comes to things that happen frequently such as death. But he doesn’t worry about things that
happen infrequently or may not ever happen at all.

Our daf continues with the sugya from the previous daf. R. Judah had said that one could use an
animal as the wall of a sukkah because he is not concerned lest the animal die. But R. Judah doesn’t
allow one to separate tithes retroactively because he is worried lest the wineskin splits. So, our
Talmud asks, why worry about one and not about the other?

R. Judah doesn’t allow to declare ahead of time that that which he tithes later will count as tithes
retroactively because he rejects a principle called “bererah.” This principle allows us to take
something whose status is determined later on and let us consider the status as having been
determined at an earlier period. In our case, we could say that when he later on separates terumah
and tithes the wine that he drank earlier was considered to have already been tithed.

In the continuation of the baraita about tithing retroactively, R. Judah (or others speaking on his
behalf) explicitly asks R. Meir about the splitting of the wineskin. Thus, it seems quite clear that
R. Judah doesn’t allow one to do this because he is concerned about this possibility, and not
because he doesn’t hold by the principle of “bererah.” This would return us to our original
difficulty—why is R. Judah concerned about the splitting of the wineskin, but not about death.

The Talmud now reinterprets the baraita such that R. Judah does not let one drink the wine before
tithing because he doesn’t believe in the legal concept called bererah. When he said to R. Meir
“aren’t you concerned about the wineskin splitting” he wasn’t expressing his own opinion, he was
rebutting R. Meir on R. Meir’s own terms. R. Meir allows for “bererah” but still he should be
concerned lest the wineskin splits and it will turn out he drank untithed wine. R. Judah wouldn’t
allow one to do so for other reasons—namely he doesn’t allow for “bererah.”

The sugya ends with another source in which it seems that R. Judah is concerned about the
possibility of death. Mishnah Yoma 1:1 talks about preparing the High Priest for the Yom Kippur
ritual. The Torah says that he has to make atonement for him and his house—meaning his family,
including his wife. Assuming he is already married to one woman, R. Judah says that the rabbis
assign him a second wife just in case his first wife dies right before Yom Kippur, and he can’t
make atonement for him and his wife. Here we see that R. Judah is concerned about death.
The Talmud resolves this by saying that generally R. Judah is not concerned about death but that
there is a higher standard regarding the Yom Kippur ceremony. Since this was such a crucial
ceremony, R. Judah would say we have to take even remote possibilities into account. But in other
matters, R. Judah is not concerned about remote possibilities.

10
On the previous page we saw that R. Zera and Abaye dispute why R. Meir doesn’t allow one to
use an animal as a partition. While they provide different reasons, both say that it is “lest”
something else occur. This implies that while the animal could actually act as a partition according
to Torah law, the rabbis rule strictly and don’t allow it. Usually this results in a stringency—the
animal cannot be used as a partition. However, in one case it results in a leniency. If one uses it as
a covering for a grave, R. Meir says that it isn’t susceptible to impurity, as a covering for a grave
usually is. Thus, from this halakhah we can see that R. Meir holds that an animal simply doesn’t
count as a partition, even from Torah law. The reasoning is not “lest” it die or run away.

We now have a whole new explanation for R. Meir. R. Aha b. Jacob says that R. Meir doesn’t
count as a partition anything that stands through “wind” or “spirit.” Since an animal stands through
its own spirit, it can’t count as a partition.

This is a slightly different version of R. Aha b. Jacob’s explanation of R. Meir.

Both statements of R. Aha b. Jacob would mean that an animal can’t be used as the wall of a
sukkah, or for any other partition. So, in what case would these two reasons differ.
They would differ if one used an inflated wine skin (one blown up by one’s mouth) as a partition.
If R. Meir holds that partitions that stand by wind are not valid partitions, then this one is invalid.
But it is made by human hands, so if he disqualifies an animal because it is not made by human
hands, then this inflated skin is valid for use as the wall of a sukkah. I’m sure you’re glad to know!

Today’s section begins with a new mishnah.

Whereas the previous mishnayot discussed one who supports his skhakh on trees, this mishnah
teaches that one can use trees as walls for a sukkah.

R. Aha b. Jacob says that in order for a partition to count (for any halakhic matter requiring a
partition) the partition needs to be able to withstand a normal wind. We shall now explore how
this relates to our mishnah.

The Talmud uses the above mishnah to raise a difficulty on R. Aha b. Jacob. The mishnah allows
one to use a tree as a wall. But trees sway with the wind—they are not able to withstand a normal
wind.

The Talmud now offers a series of contextualization to reconcile the mishnah with R. Aha b.
Jacob’s statement. First of all, the trees we are talking about are solid trees, not bushes, which are
also called “trees” by the rabbis.

But even solid trees have swaying branches that don’t stand up to a normal wind.
The Talmud answers this by supposing that he plaited the branches so that they wouldn’t move
with the wind.

11
But now that we’ve come this far in understanding the mishnah—that it refers to solid trees whose
branches have also been made solid by being plaited—why do we even need the mishnah?
Obviously, these trees can be used as walls!

The answer is that without this mishnah we might have thought that since at least on Shabbat or
Yom Tov one cannot use a tree, that we wouldn’t let him use it as a wall. Therefore, the mishnah
must teach us that he can use it as a wall, even on Shabbat or Yom Tov.

MAN-MADE "MECHITZOS"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara earlier (23a) quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah disagree about
a Sukah that has an animal as one of its walls. Rebbi Meir says that the Sukah is invalid, and Rebbi
Yehudah says that it is valid. The Gemara refutes the first two reasons that are given for the view
of Rebbi Meir.

Rav Acha bar Yakov offers another reason. He says (according to the second version of his
statement) that Rebbi Meir disqualifies such a Sukah because any Mechitzah that is not made by
man is not a valid Mechitzah.

Why, though, is an animal that a man positioned in place to serve as a Mechitzah not considered a
Mechitzah made by man? Since the man brought the animal to the Sukah and situated it at the
Sukkah’s open side, he did make the Mechitzah! It seems that, according to Rebbi Meir, the
material itself from which the Mechitzah is made must be processed by man and not just put in its
place by man. However, the Mishnah (24b) clearly states that a Sukah that has a tree as one of its
walls is valid, but according to Rebbi Meir it should be invalid, since man did not make the material
of the Mechitzah. (SEFAS EMES)

The SEFAS EMES points out that TOSFOS in Eruvin (15a, DH Tel) explains that when Rav
Acha bar Yakov says that Rebbi Meir maintains that a Mechitzah must be made by man in order
to be a valid Mechitzah, he does not mean that the material itself must be manmade. Rather, he
means that it must be the type of material that can be made by man. The only item considered
something that cannot be made by man is a living being, because it is impossible for man to create
a living being. Any other object, though, is valid as a Mechitzah, even though that object itself was
not processed by human hands, such as a tree, since it is possible for man to process wood. This is
likely the intention of Rashi here as well (DH Ru'ach Chayim) when he says that it is impossible
for a person to fill up something with "Ru'ach Chayim" (the "spirit of life"). In contrast, a person
can process wood, cut it, and nail it into the shape that he wants.

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-024.htm

12
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, Rabbi Meir forbids the use of a live animal as one of the walls
of a sukkah, while Rabbi Yehuda permits it. Abayye explained Rabbi Meir’s position as reflecting
a concern lest the animal die, resulting in a wall that is no longer high enough for the minimum
necessary for a kosher sukkah.

The Gemara perceives Abaye’s explanation as representing a larger issue. When we face a given
situation, do we anticipate that it will remain static, or do we need to be concerned that it may
change? Take, for example, the case of a married couple, when the husband is a kohen and the
wife – who is not from a family of kohanim – eats teruma (tithes) thanks to her status as the wife
of a kohen. If the husband sets out on an overseas journey, can she continue to eat terumah, or does
she need to be concerned that he has died on his journey, and she no longer has the right to do so?

The Gemara (23b) finds two tannaitic statements regarding this very question, which seem to
contradict one another. Abayye argues that this is exactly the argument between Rabbi Meir and
Rabbi Yehudah. According to the former, she cannot eat teruma when her husband is traveling;
according to the latter, she can assume he is still alive and can continue eating terumah based on
their relationship.

Yet the Gemara on our daf points to a Mishnah where Rabbi Yehuda does seem to be concerned
that the status quo will change. On Yom Kippur, it is essential that the Kohen Gadol be married.
This is derived from the passage (Vayikra 16:6) that teaches how the Kohen Gadol entering
the Holy of Holies as part of the Yom Kippur service must seek atonement “for himself and for his
household.” The term “his household” is understood by the Gemara to mean his wife. Thus,
the Kohen Gadol must be married. According to the Mishnah in Yoma (2a) Rabbi Yehudah
requires the Kohen Gadol to marry a second wife (which is Biblically permitted. Contemporary
Jewish tradition that forbids bigamy is a relatively late institution) just in case his first wife dies –
which seems to indicate that Rabbi Yehudah agrees that we cannot assume that the status quo will
remain intact.

In answer to this question, the Gemara quotes Rav Huna the son of Rabbi Yehoshua who explains
that this is a unique case because of the heightened concern that we have for the process of
atonement that takes place on Yom Kippur.

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_sukkah2026/

13
Rashi explains that the inability of a wall to withstand the wind means that it flaps to and fro in the
wind.4 HaRav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, (Igros Moshe O.C. 5:40-2) writes that this comment of Rashi
implies that the wall is invalid even if it is secured at the top and bottom.

If the wall is not solid, and it is blown with the wind until it becomes somewhat rounded, this is
unacceptable for a sukkah. A person would not reside in a dwelling with this type of wall. Although
it is valid for the halachos of Shabbos once it is tied, nevertheless, it fails the test of ‫תדורו כעין תשבו‬
. The Gemara initially challenges the statement of Rabbi Acha which is cited in reference to sukkah
and contrasts it to the halachos of walls on Shabbos. This is because the halachah requires in both
cases that a wall be able to stand in a normal wind. For Shabbos, though, once it is tied down it is
valid.

Magen Avraham (630:#16) explains that the guideline of “being able to withstand a normal wind”
is a qualitative standard, and it is not measured in each situation subjectively. In other words, even
if a sukkah is shielded by buildings and no wind can reach it, if the walls are flimsy and would not
be able to withstand a normal wind if they would be exposed, that sukkah is disqualified. Shulchan
Aruch HaRav corroborates this opinion and compares it to the law of a suspended wall which does
not reach within three tefachim of the ground. This wall is invalid because a goat can poke its head
underneath. This measurement is applicable even in a place where no goats are present, because it
is a qualitative measurement rather than a subjective limit.

Rambam (1) rules that one may use an animal as a partition for the sukkah, thus indicating that he
is not concerned that the animal may die. Rav Avrohom di Boton (2) notes that this is contradicted
by Rambam’s ruling (3) concerning a person who promised that sometime before his death he
commits to be a nazir.

Rambam rules he is a nazir immediately because we are fearful that he may die. Rav Tzvi
Ashkenazi (4) notes another contradiction. Rambam (5)

Yet rules that if a man gives a ‫ גט‬to his wife and stipulates that it will be activated a moment before
he dies, if he is a kohen she is immediately prohibited from eating terumah because we are
concerned that he may die. Accordingly, Rambam should rule like R’ Yehudah (‫ ) ב יומא‬and require
that we prepare a replacement wife for the Kohen Gadol. Yet, he rules according to Rabanan who
are not concerned with the possibility that the Kohen Gadol’s wife may die (6).

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Sukkah%20024.pdf

14
Rav Yaakov Ettlinger (7) posited an explanation that would resolve these contradictions. He
suggests that the distinction lies in whether the concern for death is limited to a defined period of
time or if it is a concern for an indefinite period of time. In other words, in a given period, even if
that period is five years or more, it is uncommon for any particular person to die and therefore we
assume this person is characteristic of the majority of people who will not die during this defined
period of time.

If, however, the period is undefined, and the concern is that this person may at some point die we
must exercise concern immediately since we know that everyone will eventually die. Therefore,
concerning the animal used for the partition or the wife of the Kohen Gadol, Rambam rules there
is no immediate concern for the possibility of death, since we are dealing with a defined period of
time. In the other cases where the concern would be for an undefined period, caution must be
exercised immediately.

Our daf we see that if one uses trees that are well secured for the walls of one’s sukkah, it is kosher.
The Mekor Chaim, zt”l, explains that these trees represent Torah, the “tree of life,” and repentance
which is also like a tree. The Torah compares a human being to a “tree of the field,” and teshuvah
is the process through which a person is recreated and begins a new life. The ill winds of the yetzer
hara try to overwhelm a person and drive him to despair that change is impossible, so we need to
deeply believe that teshuvah always helps. As the Toras Avos, zt”l, writes, “Why does Hashem
give us life? Because as long as we are alive, we can still repair everything that we have done
wrong!”

Just when Rav Boruch Ber Lebovitz, zt”l, returned to Poland with his family after World War 1,
his father, Rav Shmuel Lebovitz, zt”l, took ill. Rav Boruch Ber sat at his father’s bedside day and
night until the family began to fear for his health as well. After much pleading, they convinced the
Rav to allow one of his students to sit up with his ailing father while the Rosh Yeshiva grabbed
some much needed rest. That night, Rav Shmuel died. Rav Boruch Ber felt terrible guilt: if only
he had been there to comfort and care for his father, perhaps he would still be alive. He was so
pained by this thought that he could no longer teach.

15
The Chofetz Chaim, zt”l, heard about the problem and summoned Rav Boruch Ber. When he
arrived, the Chofetz Chaim held Rav Boruch Ber’s hands for half an hour and gently repeated,
“Teshuvah is a gift from our Creator. It doesn’t only atone for a person’s sins; it transforms him
into a completely new person. Why should you feel so pained about the past? You are a completely
different person now.” Later, whenever Rav Boruch Ber felt the sadness and guilt come over him,
he would echo the gentle words of the Chofetz Chaim. “I am a new person! I am a new person!”

Mark Kerzner writes:5

If one made trees serve as walls of his sukkah, this is valid, and we don't say that perhaps the Sages
decreed not to do this, out of concern that someone may use a tree on a holiday. They didn't.

However, Rav Acha bar Yakov stated a rule that any partition that moves is not a valid partition.
What about our sukkah, which is surrounded by trees whose branches are always moving! - Rav
Acha will answer that we don't know all the circumstances: the rule only applies if he has tied the
tree branches with interwoven branches of palm trees. Thus, the permission that we had suddenly
becomes very limited.

One who is busy with a mitzvah such as traveling to study Torah, greet his teacher or redeem a
Jewish captive does not have to observe the mitzvah of sukkah. Why? Since he is busy with one
mitzvah, he should not abandon it in order to do another one. And how do we know this principle?
Since the Torah said, When you sit in your home.

This is said about reading the Shma prayer, but it teaches us a general principle: one only has to
do a mitzvah if he is sitting in his home and is not busy with another mitzvah.

But maybe the Torah is talking about one who is sitting in his home and is already doing a mitzvah
which would then teach us precisely the opposite, namely, that one has to drop a mitzvah and do
another one!? No, the Torah said an extra word your home, to teach that you are busy only with
your affairs. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Rav David Brofsky writes:6

5
https://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=5&CHAPTER=6#P5088
6
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/holidays/halakhot-sukka-construction

16
A Wall that Cannot Withstand a Ruach Metzuya – Canvas Sukkot

The Mishna (12a) teaches that “all materials are valid for the walls.” Indeed, throughout
the masekhet, the gemara describes constructing walls from materials which one cannot use
for sekhakh (2a, 21b, 23a, 24b). Interestingly, the Or Zaru’a (Hilkhot sukka 289:2; see also
Hagahot Asheri 1:24) cites a Yerushalmi which warns that one may not construct a sukka from
materials which are mekabel tum’a (objects which potentially may become impure), i.e. materials
which may not be used for sekhakh. This position is troubling, not only because that gemara
consistently implies that one may use objects which are mekabel tum’a for walls, but also because
the Yerushalmi itself (1:6) implies the opposite!

The Rishonim, and the Shulchan Arukh (630:1) rule that one may construct the walls of
a sukka from any material. Although the Bach suggests that one should refrain from constructing
the walls from materials which one may not use for sekhakh, the Acharonim reject this stringency.

As mentioned above, one may use any material for constructing the walls of the sukka. The
Talmud even discusses scenarios in which one may use an animal (sukka 23a), or even one’s friend
(Eruvin 44a-b) as a wall.

Although the Talmud permits one to construct the walls of the sukka from any material, the gemara
establishes certain limitations to this principle. For example, the Gemara (24a) teaches that the
walls of the sukka must be able to withstand a common wind (ruach metsuyah) without moving.

If he makes his sukka between trees, so that the trees form its walls, it is valid. R. Acha
b. Yaakov said, “A partition which is unable to withstand a normal wind is not a valid
partition. Haven’t we learned, “if he makes his sukka between trees, so that the trees
form its walls, it is valid.” But do [the trees] do not sway to and fro? — We are dealing
here with solid [trees]. But are there not the swaying branches? — [It refers to] where
he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees.

The gemara describes how one may use trees as the walls for one’s sukka, as long as the trees are
solid and firmly rooted, and the branches are tied down. Apparently, R. Acha b. Yaakov
understands that although the wind will not knock down the walls of the sukka, walls that move
cannot be considered halakhically valid walls (Sha’ar Ha-Tziyun 45).

How much must the walls move in order to be disqualified? Furthermore, what is the basis for this
halakha?

Some (Chazon Ish, Hilkhot Eruvin 13:6) suggest that a mechitza that cannot withstand a ruach
metzuya is not valid only when the walls move in a fashion which disqualifies them as walls,
i.e. they fall, or they sway more than three tefachim in either direction. Earlier authorities, such
as R. Moshe di Trani (1505-1585, known as the Mabit) in his Kiryat Sefer (Hilkhot Sukka, Chapter
4), agree. According to this approach, one should be permitted to construct a sukka in an area
without wind. Indeed, the Be’er Heitev (630:10) cites those who permit building a sukka from

17
thin sheets in a courtyard surrounded by walls. The Chazon Ish (OC 52:14) is inclined to agree
with this conclusion.

Others disagree and understand that a wall which can be swayed by the wind is simply not
considered a halakhically valid wall. Many Rishonim (see Ritva, sukka 24b s.v. amar, for
example) explain that even if the wind moves the walls, without causing it them to fall, they are
disqualified. Some bring a proof from the following gemara (22b):

If one erects his sukka on the top of a wagon, or on the deck of a ship, it is
valid. According to whom is our Mishna? According to R. Akiva, as it has been taught,
He who erects his sukka on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R.
Akiva valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiva when they were journeying on
a ship that R. Akiva arose and erected a sukka on the deck of the ship. On the morrow
the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, “Akiva, where is your sukka?
Abayye said, “All are in accord that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze
it is nothing; if it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all are in accord that
it is valid. Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not
a normal sea breeze; R. Gamaliel is of the opinion that the sukka must be a permanent
abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing, while R. Akiva
is of the opinion that the sukka must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a
normal land breeze, it is valid.

According to this passage, R. Akiva erected the sukka on the ship, knowing that a normal sea
breeze might topple his sukka. In other words, he did not refrain from building the sukka on the
ship, lest it fall. Rather, apparently whether a wall can withstand a normal land breeze defines
whether it is a valid mechitza, and therefore even if one builds a sukka that can withstand a normal
land breeze in a place with a stronger breeze, which is likely to topple the sukka, the sukka is still
valid.

If the strength of the walls, and not whether practically they will or will not sway in the
wind, determines the validity of a sukka, then even if a sukka which cannot withstand a ruach
metuyah is built in an enclosed area, or an area without wind, it should still be invalid, as
the mechitzot simply to not qualify as valid walls (Magen Avraham 15).

R. Aryeh Pomeranzyck (Emek Beracha, sukka, 19) and R. Tzvi Pesach Frank (Mikraei
Kodesh, sukka 1:2) discuss this issue in depth, as does R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, OC
5:40:2), who explains that this law based is upon the principle of teshvu ke-ein taduru --
one’s sukka should be like one’s house, which does not sway in the wind.

The Shulchan Arukh 630:10 rules in accordance with the gemara cited above:

One who makes is sukka between the trees, so that the trees will form its walls- if [the
trees] are strong, or if he tied them and strengthened them so that the wind should not
constantly move them… [this sukka] is valid.

18
 Therefore, one should not eat or sleep in a sukka whose walls sway. While the Chazon Ish
identifies three tefachim as the amount of swaying which invalidates a sukka, R. Ovadya Yosef
(Yechavveh Da’at 3:46) insists that any sawing disqualifies the sukka. R. Moshe Feinstein
(Iggerot Moshe OC 5:40:2) writes that slight swaying (nidnud ketzat) may not disqualify
the sukka.

In addition to fearing that the walls may sway in the wind, the Tur (630), citing Rabbeinu Peretz,
raises another concern.

It is improper to make the walls from sheets of flax... even if he tied them securely
[because] sometimes they become unfastened, without his being aware, and the result is
a wall that does not stand in the wind.

Rabbeinu Perets rules that one should not even use walls made from sheets if they are tied down,
lest they will become detached. Rabbeinu Peretz apparently did not consider these sheets to be
inherently not valid to serve as walls for the sukka, but rather he is concerned that they may become
unfastened. The Shulchan Arukh (630:10) cites this view. Therefore, although this restriction is
not recorded in the gemara, normative practice prohibits making the walls of the sukka from sheets,
lest they become unfastened.

Many contemporary authorities note the popularity of sukkot constructed from canvas, or at times,
plastic walls. Seemingly, according to what we learned above, even if the walls do not sway in
the wind, one should still refrain from constructing a sukka from sheets. R. Moshe Sternbuch, for
example, in his Mo’adim U-Zemanim (1:84) explains that in his view slight movement of the walls
does not pose a problem, and therefore if one secures the sheet tightly, all around the frame, then
the sukka is valid. He still insists that one should preferably not rely upon this, as does R. Moshe
Feinstein (OC 5:40:2), who notes that this leniency doesn’t appear in any of the commentaries on
the Shulchan Arukh.

Some suggest that if the canvas walls are attached tightly, and fitted with metal rings, that there is
no fear that they will become detached, then they may be used (Sukka Ke-Hilkhata Chapter 4, note
2; Cheiko Mamtakim, 630:42). Although reasonable, one might still insist that the Shulchan
Arukh intended to discourage the use of a fabric for sukka walls in all cases. R. Moshe Feinstein
(ibid.) writes that one should not misinterpret the availability of canvas sukkot as an endorsement
of their validity. Interestingly, it is worth noting that the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (530:32) writes
that be-diavad, if one tied the canvas walls, the sukka is valid.

In recent years, the practice of using horizontal poles, or tightly strung strings, and relying upon
the halakha of lavud, has gained great popularity. As long as there are no uninterrupted gaps of
more than three tefachim, for a height of ten tefachim, the walls of the sukka are valid, even though
the majority of space is not filled with solid matter. Therefore, assuming that three tefachim is,
minimally, 24 cm, and ten tefachim is between 80–100 cm, then one should place a horizontal pole
or string at approximately 24 cm intervals, until three “walls” of 80-100 cm are constructed. The
Shulchan Arukh even mentions this practice, which originally appeared in the Hagahot Rabbeinu
Peretz to the Semak. He writes that “One who wishes to make [his walls with] sheets, should
preferably weave mechitzot of reeds, less than three tefachim apart.”

19
This practice is also relevant for those who construct sukkot on their balconies, often using the
picketed balcony as the walls.

Not all agree that one can construct a sukka from horizontal strings within three tefachim of
one another. The Magen Avraham (630; see also Mishna Berura 7), based upon the view of
Tosafot (sukka 16b, s.v. be-fachot), writes that unless one encloses the entire sukka, i.e. all four
walls, with these walls, one cannot rely upon lavud for all three walls of one’s sukka. The Eliyah
Rabbah (19) writes that one should not be concerned with their view in our case, as the true
halakhic wall, in our case, is the canvas wall, and the lavud wall is added as a stringency (see also
Sha’ar Ha-Tziyun 49).

Supporting the Sekhakh on a Davar Ha-Mekabel Tum’a

The walls of the sukka serve two functions: First and foremost, they are the mechitzot of
the sukka. As we discussed last week, a sukka must be constructed of at least three walls, or two
walls and a piece. Secondly, the walls may (although not necessarily) support the sekhakh, which
must cover the entire sukka. In this second context, the Mishna teaches:

If a man supports his sukka with the legs of a bed, it is valid. R. Yehuda said, “If it
cannot stand by itself, it is invalid.”

Why does R. Yehuda prohibit placing the sukka (i.e. the sekhakh) on the legs of a bed? The gemara
continues:

What is the reason of R. Yehuda? — R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree. One says,
“It is because the sukka has no permanence (mipnei she-ein la keva),” and the other
says, “It is because he support [the sekhakh] with something which is mekabel tum’a.”

The Rishonim offer different explanations for both interpretations of R. Yehuda, and, as we shall
see, differ regarding the final halakha.

Why does “because the sukka has no permanence” invalidate a sukka resting upon the legs
of a bed? In what way does resting the sekhakh on the legs of a bed undermine the permanence of
a sukka? The Rishonim offer different interpretations. Rashi (s.v. she-ein), for example, explains
that since the entire sukka rests upon the bed, and is therefore mobile, it lacks “permanence”. Of
course, some Rishonim (see Tosafot s.v. she-ein) question how his case differs from
a sukka resting on a boat or a wagon (22b), which are also mobile! The Ra’avad (Hasagot Ha-
Ra’avad, 10a) adopts an opposite interpretation: This sukka lacks “permanence”- because if the
bed is moved the sukka will collapse.

Why would R. Yehuda not permit one to support the sekhakh on something which is mekabel
tum’a? Rashi (s.v. she-ma’amidah) explains:

20
 Even though we only learned this disqualification regarding sekhakh, since
[the ma'amid] supports the sekhakh, it is as if he used that which is mekabek
tum’a for sekhakh.

Rashi implies that by supporting the sekhakh with an object which is mekbel tum’a, it is as if this
object was used as the sekhakh. This interpretation is difficult, not only because he implies that
this is a problem mi-de’oraita, but also because he views that which supports, or enables, as the
part of that which is supported or enabled itself!

Other Rishonim (Ra’avad, 10a; Ritva s.v. ve-chad; Ran s.v. matnitin) explain, simply, that
the Rabbis prohibited placing sekhakh upon a davar she-mekabel tum’a lest one come to use this
material as sekhakh. Some question what the difference is between placing sekhakh upon the legs
of a bed, and constructing a sukka on the top of a tree, which is also invalid for sekhakh! The
Ra’avad (Hasagot Ha-Ra’avad 10a) suggests that since it is uncommon to use trees, which are
attached to the ground and annot be used as sekhakh, when building a sukka, the Rabbis saw no
reason to prohibit “ma’amid” (supporting) on a tree.

Alternatively, the Ramban (Milchamot, 10a) notes that the Rabbis prohibited
supporting sekhakh on a material which is invalid for sekhakh; one who builds a sukka in a treetop,
however, doesn’t place the sekhakh on the tree, but rather rests the sukka on the tree.

The Rishonim differ as to whether the halakha follows the first opinion of the mishna, the
Chachamim, who permit supporting a sukka on the leg of a bed, or R. Yehuda. Furthermore, even
if the halakha follows the opinion of R. Yehuda, is that because such a sukka lacks permanence,
or because the sekhakh rests upon a material which is mekabel tum’a.

The Rambam (see Commentary to the Mishna, and note his omission of this halakha in the
Mishnah Torah), Ba’al Ha-Ma’or (10a), Ra’avya (631), Maharil (Responsa 83), and others rule
like the Chakhamim. Other Rishonim rule in accordance with R. Yehuda. However, while the
Rosh (1:1) accepts the opinion which explains that R. Yehuda requires that the sukka have
“permanence," the Ramban (Milchamot, 10a), and many other Rishonim, rules that one may not
rest the sekhakh upon a davar she-mekabel tum’a.

Interestingly, the Shulchan Arukh appears to rule like the Chakhamim, as he validates
a sukka resting upon the legs of a bed (630:3). On the other hand, elsewhere (629:7) he explicitly
expresses doubt whether one may use a ladder, which is mekabel tum’a, to support the sekhakh.

The Acharonim disagree as to how to understand this doubt of the Shulchan Arukh. On the one
hand, the Taz (10) explains that a ladder is not valid for sekhakh, because it is more than
four tefachim wide, and the Rabbis prohibited using boards more than four tefachim wide
(sukka 14a) Therefore, the Shulchan Arukh feared that one might confuse using this ladder to
support sekhakh, and using this actual ladder as sekhakh. On the other hand, other Acharonim,
including the Magen Avraham, Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav and the Chayye Adam insist that the
Shulchan Arukh is expressing his concern that it may be prohibited to support sekhakh on a
material which is mekabel tum’a.

21
The Arukh Ha-Shulchan (629:19) asserts that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion,
and that one should follow the opinion which is not concerned with supporting sekhakh upon a
material which is mekabel tum’a.

The Mishna Berura (630:59; see also Sha’ar Ha-Tziyun 60), however, writes that although the law
is really in accordance with the more lenient opinion, one should preferably act stringently
regarding this matter.

Interestingly, the Shulchan Arukh implies that all agree that one may rest the sekhakh upon
a material which is not mekabel tum’a, which is supported by a material which is mekabel tum’a –
known as ma’amid de-ma’amid. The Shulchan Arukh (629:8) permits one to attach the wooden
beams of the sukka with metal nails, which are mekabel tum’a. Many Acharonim (see Mishna
Berura 629:26, and Sha’ar Ha-Tziyun 51) understand that even those who are stringent
regarding ma’amid al davar she-mekabel tum’a, certainly permit one to place sekhakh on
materials which are not mekabel tum’a, which are supported by material which is mekabel
tum’a. Chazon Ish (143:2) disagrees, and to this day his student use only wooden pegs, which are
not mekabel tum’a, in constructing the sukka.

In practice, it is customary not to be concerned with ma’amid de-ma’amid, and to

construct sukkot with metal frames. However, many avoid placing sekhakh directly upon
materials which are mekabel tume-ah. Rather, they place wooden beams above the metal
horizontal beams of the frame and place the sekhakh onto the wooden beams.

Sukkahs in the Wind

A Teshuvah by Rabbi Dov Linzer

Rabbi Dov Linzer writes:

Question:

Given the strong winds that we have been experiencing, is it permissible to

take down the sukkah on Hol HaMoed to prevent it from being damaged or
from causing injury? If I do take it down, am I exempt from eating in
a sukkah, or do I have to find a sukkah that is still up?

22
Answer:

Dismantling a Sukkah on Hol HaMoed

When it comes to taking precautions due to strong winds, the first thing to note is that if the wind
is so bad that there is a concern that a flying skhakh could hit someone and cause serious injury,
then there is no question that the sukkah should be taken down immediately, even on Shabbat or
Yom Tov. For those that would hesitate to do such, it should be noted that at most we are dealing
with a rabbinic prohibition since this is dismantling without the intent to rebuild in the same place
(see Shabbat 31b, Rambam Shabbat 10:15, and Arukh HaShulkhan OH 313:6 and 314:5). When
it comes to any risk to public safety, even one much more minor than this, such as a sharp object
or ember left in the middle of the street, the halakha is that rabbinic prohibitions may and must be
overridden (Shabbat 42a and Shulkhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 308:18 and 334:27). If possible, it is
of course preferable to have a non-Jew do take the sukkah down, and if these conditions are
expected, one should do everything possible to make sure that it is taken down before Shabbat
or Yom Tov.

What if there is no concern of possible injury? Could the sukkah be taken down on Hol HaMoed in
such a case?

This question has already been dealt with by a number of poskim. It seems to first have been raised
by Rav Tourney in Ikrei HaDaat (OH 2:68), who gives arguments both to forbid and permit taking
down a sukkah on Hol HaMoed. And there are some poskim who go so far to forbid
removing schach from one sukkah even if it is to be used in another sukkah (Shoel u’Mayshiv,
fourth ma’hadurah, 3:28 forbids, while Tzitz Eliezer (13:68) permits).

23
An excellent and clearly written teshuva on this topic can be found in Li’horot Natan, 7:47-49,
written by Rabbi Natan Geshtenter (1932-2010, Bnei Brak), who concludes that it is permissible,
even without a strong justifying reason. His arguments are persuasive and compelling, and I
believe that his position is the correct one to be followed. Here’s why.

The Problem of being Designated for a Mitzvah

Some have argued that the principle of huktza li’mitzvato, that an object set aside for its
mitzvah use is forbidden to be used for anything else, would prohibit the taking down of
the sukkah. This principle is based on Gemara Sukkah (9a) which states that the schach (and
possibly the walls) are considered sanctified during Sukkot. In addition, Gemara Sukkah (10a) (as
well as Shabbat 22a and 45a, and Beitzah 30b) states that the sukkah decorations are forbidden
because they are huktzeh li’mitzvato, designated for mitzvah use (see Tosafot, Sukkah 9a, Beitzah
30b, and Shabbat 22a, as well as other Rishonim who explore the differences between the concept
of sanctity and huktzeh li’mitzvato).

All the sources and poskim make it clear that this restriction means only that someone cannot take
the schach, or other parts of the sukkah away from the mitzvah for the purpose of using it or
benefiting from it (Rambam, Sukkah 6:15, and Shulkhan Arukh, OH 638:1). It does not mean that
it cannot be removed from its mitzvah function. There is thus no problem dismantling
the sukkah from this perspective.

There is another issue, however, to deal with – does the sukkah have to be standing for all 7 days
to be valid? The Mishna (Sukkah 48a) states that one should not take down the sukkah on Hoshana
Rabbah, which could be reflecting this idea. Rashi, however, explains that this Mishnah is only
articulating a practical concern – you should not take it apart because you might need to use it later
in the day. It is thus more advice than a restriction, and regardless, would not apply if
the sukkah would be destroyed anyway, or, to take another scenario, if the person had another
place to eat, for example, if he was travelling to a different state on Hol HaMoed. Rashi’s

24
explanation is quoted by all the major poskim (Tur, Beit Yosef, Levush, Arukh HaShulkhan
and Mishne Brurah on OH 666), and this is the position that we follow as a matter of halakha.

However, it should be noted that Ran explains that the reason for this restriction is a
more fundamental concern – that it would define the sukkah to not be made for 7 days. Following
this, it should not be allowed to dismantle a sukkah any earlier than absolutely necessary.
Nevertheless, this position is not quoted in poskim, and some explicitly reject it.

One final concern that is raised is the ruling in Shulkhan Arukh (OH 15) that a person may
not remove tzitzit from a garment to put them on another garment, because this would be making
a garment that requires tztizit to be tztzit-less. However, there is no restriction against discarding
the garment or cutting it up (Mishne Brurah no. 3, based on Magen Avraham, no. 2), and thus no
restriction against taking down a sukkah: this is no different than removing the tzizit and discarding
the garment.

Taking Down a Structure on Hol HaMoed (and Yom Tov)

In addition to the issues discussed above, some have raised the concern of sitrah, taking down a
structure, which should be forbidden on Hol HaMoed because it is a melakha. But, in fact, this is
not a problem at all. When it comes to taking down the schach, we are talking only about stirat
ohel, removing a roof, not stirat binyan, destroying a structure, and stirat ohel is just a problem
on Yom Tov and not on Hol HaMoed (Arukh HaShulkhan, OH 638:8-9, Mishne Brurah, Beiur
Halakha).

The same would be true when it comes to taking down the walls in most of our
contemporary sukkot which are not attached to the ground. In such cases there is no stirat binyan,
and thus it is totally permissible on Hol HaMoed. Even in the case of a sukkah attached to the
ground, if there was a concern of financial loss or potential damage to others, it would be permitted
to be dismantled (SA OH 540:1 and Mishne Brurah no. 5.]

25
 Blowin’ in the Wind

Rabbi Ariel Rackovsky writes:7

For this morning, I had been planning on delivering a rousing sermon about the recent Nobel Prize
in Literature, awarded to the great Reb Shabsai Zissel Zimmerman. I was even going to connect it
with the holiday of Sukkos, especially since many of his lyrics seem to be tailor made for this day.

How many times must a man look up Before he can see the sky?

Could that be referring to anything other than a Sukkah? I was going to speak about my hope that
the expansion of the definition of “literature” gives will eventually encompass Rabbinic sermons.
And then the phone calls started coming in. The first came from Ben Fine, who, along with his
helpers, spent several days erecting the shul Sukkah. On Erev Yom Tov, Ben came by the shul to
check in on the Sukkah and found more than half of the schach strewn across the parking lot. Ben
is a busy man and didn’t have time to put it all back himself, so he asked me what to do. I told him
to tell Stuart that if there are not five men at the shul in ten minutes, there won’t be a Sukkah. A
few calls later, two men showed up- Ben Kogutt and Evan Smith had joined him to put the schach
back up again. When we arrived at shul before Yom Tov, some more s chach had fallen down, and
Paul Geller and David Radunsky put it back up. They were not the only ones whose schach had
fallen; for the rest of the day, I received text messages and other inquiries, and I began to think of
different lyrics from Bob Dylan- “The answer, my friends...” And, in the face of that wind,
everyone asked: “Can I tie down my schach?”

There is a halacha concerning the walls and schach of a Sukkah, that have to withstand a ruach
metzuyah, a common breeze.8 That is why the tarp walls you have on your prefabricated Sukkah
have to be secured- they cannot blow back and forth more than 3 tefachim, or about 9 inches, in
any direction. The halacha is that your schach has to be able to withstand a normal breeze wherever
you live, without any kind of assistance, but an inability to withstand unusual gale force zephyrs
would not invalidate the schach if it were secured in place. When Ben called me about the shul
Sukkah, I asked him, “In your estimation, is it unusually windy today?” Ben was emphatic on this
point, and I allowed it. Why is this so significant? If I put up the frame of the Sukkah and the walls
blow a little more, does that mean it’s not a Sukkah at all? And if the schach is tied down
because it can be a little windy, does that make it any less of a source of shade, and any less
functional?

7
https://images.shulcloud.com/95/uploads/Blogs/Sukkott-II-BlowinInTheWind.pdf
8
Orach Chaim 628:2

26
Perhaps we can suggest that a Sukkah has to be able to withstand the ruach metzuyah, the
common winds blowing at the time because that is the circumstance under which the Sukkah
is strongest, the one under which it thrives. More than that, though, a Sukkah is
representative of the home a Jew builds, as it is the d irat ara’i, the temporary primary
dwelling of a Jew for the duration of Sukkos. The circumstances under which the Sukkah has
to stand are representative of the way a Jew must thrive and navigate this world; a Jew must
be able to withstand a ruach metzuya, the prevalent and common “winds” at the time-
literally, the zeitgeist. A Jew doesn’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind
is blowing, but isn’t easy to tell the world around us, you go your way and I’ll go mine. For
some, especially our children, it is the winds of peer pressure that are hardest to resist. It
takes strength of character for our children to be able to say no to friends who want to eat at
a non-kosher establishment, or to be different and bow out when other kids are going trick-
or-treating. It takes courage and spine for a Jewish college student to remain a committed,
observant Jew when religious dogma is questioned and religious practice is not necessarily
socially supported, and to be a voice for Israel on college campuses where the winds of moral
relativism blow strongly, and anti-Israel activism is rampant. It takes fortitude to calmly and
rationally evaluate the latest parenting fads for ourselves as they sweep the carpool lane and
engender insecurity and angst in anyone who hasn’t subscribed to or know about them. But
as much as a Jew has to withstand these “winds,” we are allowed to move a little bit, like the
walls of the Sukkah.

After all, “The times, they are a changin’.” Our challenge is to adhere to timeless Torah
principles while making them ever relevant to the next generation, and to those who are
seeking. May we apply the timeless lessons of the holiday today and beyond, as we confront
and remain steadfast in the face of the winds that always blow against our Sukkah.

Is a canvas sukkah kosher if the walls move in the wind?

Sukkah walls that move in a regular wind are not valid walls.9 There are different opinions as to
what type of movement invalidates a sukkah. To satisfy all opinions, the walls should not move in
the wind at all (see Yechaveh Daas 3:46).

This standard is difficult to achieve with a canvas sukkah. In the past few years, some sukkah
merchants have addressed this concern by including stretchable straps with the canvas walls. The
straps wrap around the sukkah. The first strap should be placed 40 inches above the ground.

The next strap should be placed less than 9 inches below the first, and each subsequent strap should
be placed within 9 inches of the strap above it, until the bottom strap is within 9 inches of the
ground. Depending on the thickness of the straps, this will require stretching either four or five
straps around the sukkah.

This series of straps which do not move in the wind are considered halachically acceptable walls,
based on a concept known as lovud.

9
https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/canvas-sukkah-kosher-walls-move-wind/

27
The principal of lovud states that the space between two objects that are within
three tefachim (approximately 9 inches) of each other, is treated as sealed in the eyes of halachah.
Thus the series of taut straps placed within 9 inches of each other form a halachically valid wall,
irrespective of the canvas.

life structure GOMEGA

Abiding by the parametric constraints, a network of instances and hidden intensities is revealed.
The resultant form recalls the transience of a cloud, a fin, the hump of a camel, the hull of a boat,
the contours of a hillside… allegories that convey a sense of limitless formal possibilities and
experiences.

Temporality is explored through the materials and construction method. The sukkah is composed
of walls of identical polystyrene foam panels and gathered schach. By boring the schach along its
length, the rigid foam walls are fastened to one another in continuous ascension, creating a resilient
yet lightweight structure that is both transparent and monolithic. The depth of the walls, and schach
assure sufficient shading during the day, but allow the sky to be viewed at night.

28
Secured by the frictional force of the schach, the individual walls are unyielding to the wind; yet,
the offset of the walls, and the profile of the structure allow winds to permeate or gently carry the
structure as a whole. Evocative of the nomadic condition, this interplay of resistance and
acquiescence along with the structure’s propensity for analogies natural or artificial creates a
contemplative space, at once adrift and yet rooted in time.

Bob Dylan sold his iconic music collection, including a hit made
famous by someone else
Kim Bellware writes:10

A year before “Blowin’ in the Wind” would drift over a crowd of a quarter-million people gathered
for the historic 1963 March on Washington, the New World Singers were in the basement of
Gerde’s Folk City in New York, hastily trying to learn the freshly written tune.

Bob Dylan, then a young New York transplant from Minnesota, was already cultivating a
reputation in the city’s folk scene. He had allegedly scratched out the lyrics to “Blowin’ in the
Wind” in just 10 minutes and set it to a melody inspired by “No More Auction Block for Me,” an
anti-slavery spiritual that predated the Civil War.

Dylan gave the song to Gil Turner, the leader of the New World Singers, who also happened to be
the editor of the Greenwich Village protest music zine Broadside — and, more important, the
emcee of the weekly Hoot Night at Gerde’s, according to Jeff Place, the curator and senior archivist
for Smithsonian Folkways.

“It was part of him building his reputation,” Place said of Dylan’s decision to share the song. Dylan
had finished the lyrics on the same night that the New World Singers performed it.

Dylan reprised the song for his set later that night at Gerde’s but gave a disclaimer about its
cerebral lyrics: “This here ain’t no protest song or anything like that, 'cause I don’t write no protest
songs.”

The lyrics were published in Broadside, “a zine that people bought for 30 cents and would learn
songs from to play around the Village,” Place told The Washington Post on Monday. “It was a
song that blew a lot of people away in the whole folk scene.”

“Blowin’ in the Wind” is among the roughly 600 songs in an expansive writing catalogue
that Dylan sold to Universal Music Publishing Group in a blockbuster deal announced Monday.
The rumored nine-figure deal transfers ownership of every Dylan song from 1962 to UMPG but
excludes any work that Dylan, 79, may create in the future.

UMPG Chairman Jody Gerson in a statement Monday said Dylan’s “cultural importance can’t be
overstated,” calling the musician “one of the greatest songwriters of all time.”

10
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/12/08/bob-dylan-blowin-in-the-wind/

29
Dylan built that reputation over decades, but it was jump-started with “Blowin’ in the Wind,” said
Place.

“It really elevated him to this reputation as ‘the new Woody Guthrie,’ ” Place said. But in 1962,
with only his debut record under his belt, Dylan’s reputation remained somewhat localized on the
East Coast folk scene.
The Chad Mitchell Trio recorded a version early in 1963, but it wasn’t until the summer of that
year when “Blowin’ in the Wind” — this time propelled by the honeyed harmonies of the folk
group Peter, Paul and Mary — broke through to a massive audience.

The group’s manager, who also worked with Dylan, passed them a demo of the song, which they
recorded as a follow-up to their hit “Puff (The Magic Dragon).”

Peter, Paul and Mary’s version quickly shot to the top of the Billboard Music Charts and peaked
at No. 2, where the song’s introspective message stood in contrast to other radio hits at the
time, like the Four Seasons’ “Candy Girl” and “Wipe Out” by the Surfaris.

A week after the song peaked on the charts, the group performed “Blowin’ in the Wind” in front
of a quarter-million people who had gathered from around the United States on the Mall for the
March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

The most iconic portion of the program would be Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream”
speech, which was preceded by performers including gospel artist Mahalia Jackson; folk singer
Joan Baez; Peter, Paul and Mary; and Dylan (who performed his song “Only a Pawn in Their
Game,” about the assassination of Medgar Evers).

As Peter, Paul and Mary crooned over gentle guitars, people in the crowd joined hands, raised
them overhead and swayed to the lyrics.

Band member Mary Travers later told the Educational Radio Network that the group covered
Dylan’s record “because the song speaks of caring. Of listening to one another.”

In a magazine interview a year earlier, Dylan offered little analysis of his song, saying the
“answers” it alludes to “ain’t in no book or movie or TV show or discussion group. Man, it’s in
the wind — and it’s blowing in the wind.”

The song would become an unofficial anthem of the 1960s civil rights movement and was a hit for
many of the popular artists who covered it.

“Peter, Paul and Mary, Joan Baez — these were palatable to a lot of mainstream America,” Place
said. “Dylan might have been a little too edgy, and his voice might have put people off.”

Dylan’s version of “Blowin’ in the Wind,” released in May 1963, failed to chart — though he
would score a No. 2 hit two years later with “Like a Rolling Stone.”

30
But while Dylan’s version of “Blowin’ in the Wind” is not the one most Americans played on their
turntables, its appeal crossed over to influential Black artists of the civil rights era, and the song
was recorded by Stevie Wonder, Sam Cooke, Lena Horne and the Staples Singers.

“If you go back to the early [years] when Dylan broke out … you didn’t have a whole lot of African
Americans living in cities who were listening to Dylan records,” Place said. “'Blowin’ in the Wind’
was kind of different; not really many of his other songs from that era broke out and got covered
by African American artists.”

“Blowin’ in the Wind” has endured to become perhaps the most-covered of Dylan’s songs, with
more than 300 versions spanning the decades. It’s been sung by icons like Johnny Cash and Dolly
Parton and featured in award-winning films like “Forrest Gump.” It’s also part of the body of work
that helped Dylan earn a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012 and a Nobel Prize in literature in
2016.

Place said he was hard-pressed to think of another song that’s enjoyed the same legacy, and he
puts it in the running to become an artifact of the 20th century that lives far into the future, even if
Dylan’s name is uncoupled from the song.

“If you wrote a song that’s played 150 years from now, you’ve really done it,” Place said. “I think
['Blowin’ in the Wind'] has that potential.”

31