레위기 23:43의 인용 해설

They were in that same miracle: Rashba"m explained that they [the Jews] were redeemed through them [the women]. And similarly, in the Megilla, through Esther, and in Chanuka, through Judith. And it is difficult, since "even" implies that they aren't the main thing. And also, the version in the Jerusalem Talmud is "even they were in that same uncertainty," implying in that danger of "to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish" (Esther 3:13). And this that we say that they [women] are exempt from [the commandment of] sukka, even though that even they were in that same miracle, is [based on] "that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths" (Leviticus 23:43), there, is regarding a positive Torah commandment. However, regarding the four cups, which is rabbinic, they established it also for women, since they were in that same miracle.

ושאין לה ג' דפנות – as it is written (defectively, without the “vav” twice in Leviticus 23:42 and once more fully in Leviticus 23:43): “in booths,” “in booths,” “in booths”. Two are defective/lacking and one is full (see Talmud Sukkah 6b); one [of them] is for the S’khakh/the cover of the festive booth/Sukkah, for the explanation of [the word] “Sukkah” is S’khakh, there remains to them three for the three walls. A traditional interpretation of a law (i.e., a usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai) is brought and we diminish one wall and establish it as a handbreadth, there remains two walls according to the traditional law and the third [wall] is a handbreadth [long]. Therefore, a Sukkah which has two walls one adjacent to the other, we make a third wall which has in it a handbreadth and a bit more and set it up at less than three [handbreadths] from one of the [other] two walls, for anything where there is a gap that is less than three handbreadths [distant] is like a legal fiction of considering separated parts as united [if the gap is less than three handbreadths], and I is considered as if it is a wall of four handbreadths and the result is that most of the wall is made, and this Sukkah has three walls, and one must make the form of an opening for it. But if the two walls are opposite each other and the between them, it is perforated, one brings a partition/barrier of four handbreadths and a bit more and establishes it no less than three-handbreadths near one of the two walls and it is considered as if there is with this barrier seven handbreadths which is the appropriate measurement of a Sukkah lengthwise and by width, for the Sukkah must have seven [handbreadths] by seven [handbreadths] in order to support one’s head, the majority of one’s body and one’s table, six [handbreadths] by six [handbreadths] for one’s head and the majority of one’s body and one’s table and one handbreadth by one handbreadth for one’s table.

I believe that the solution to why both of these Baraithot are quoted by Torat Kohanim is quite self-explanatory as we explained earlier. The whole point of our moving into the Sukkah is to remind ourselves of the miracles G'd performed for us after the Exodus as we know from Leviticus 23,43. This move into the Sukkah is an additional dimension of our recalling the Exodus. It was quite natural therefore to suppose that we should also eat matzot on that festival to symbolise our remembrance of that miracle seeing the Torah commanded us to sit in the Sukkah, something we do not have to do on Passover. The Torah had to write the word הזה to teach us that there is no need to do this. On the other hand, the festival of Passover also reflects a dimension of that miracle which is not present in the festival of Sukkot in that we celebrate it on the anniversary of its occurrence, on the 15th of Nissan. One could have supposed therefore that it would be in order to observe it while sitting in Sukkot, seeing that we have to sit in the Sukkah even when we observe this remembrance without it being on the anniversary of the event it commemorates. It was reasonable then for the author of the Baraitha to assume that but for the extra words הזה on both occasions such a קל וחומר would have been in order. The author tries to demolish the explanation by Lechem Mishneh arguing that if the whole קל וחומר was only based on a possible הלכה as opposed to a definite one, it could not have been called קל וחומר at all. [I have left out some of the details of this reasoning. Ed.]

"In booths you shall live" (Lev. 23:42), "they shall live in booths" (Lev. 23:42), "in booths I made [them] live" (Lev. 23:43): in one [case the word for booths, sukkot, is written out] fully and in two [cases, the word is written] defectively.