12. An old Sukkah-Using a Sukkah that remains intact throughout the year [i.e. pergolas]:
If one’s Sukkah remains erect throughout the year, the question arrises as to whether something must be done to the Sukkah before Sukkos, or if it may be used in its current state. The questionable issues raised against such a Sukkah is regarding whether it can still count as a temporary dwelling even though it is erect throughout the year. The Torah obligates that the Sukkah be built as a temporary dwelling for the sake of shade, and hence perhaps having it erect for too long, and certainly making use of it for other purposes, can invalidate it. Practically, the validity of a Sukkah that remains standing for more than just the span of Sukkos is dependent on three factors:
- The usage of this Sukkah during the year.
- The amount of time it was erected before this current Sukkos.
- The purpose of its erection.
If the Sukkah was built for the sake of dwelling, or if it was built for the sake of shade but is used as one’s dwelling place, then it is invalid and the Sechach must be replaced, as will be explained in B. If the Sukkah is not used as a dwelling place then it remains valid, although may require an action of renewal to be done to the Sechach, as explained in C-D. This is dependent on how much time before Sukkos it was erected, and its purpose of erection, for shade or for the Mitzvah.
B. A Sukkah that was built to be used as a home or which is was built for shade but is used as a dwelling area during the year:
Built to be used also as a home or for storage or privacy: A person does not fulfill his obligation of Sukkah, unless the Sukkah was only built for the sake of giving shade [from the sun] alone, just as the clouds of glory. If, however, it was also built for the sake of housing, to permanently live there, and not to simply take shade in it alone, then it is not considered a Sukkah but rather a house [and is inherently invalid]. Likewise, if it was built also for purposes of privacy, to do private actions within it, such as to use it for storage or other use which needs to be done in a private area then it is invalid. Likewise, if it was built for the sake of taking shelter and cover from rain and showers, then it is invalid. Practically, the rule is that so long as the Sukkah was not built for mere shade [from sun] alone, then it is [inherently invalid as it is] not considered a Sukkah but rather a house being that a house is designated for all these purposes, and the Torah says “Sukkah” and not a house. [Nonetheless, it may be validated by lifting all the Sechach and replacing it, as will be explained.]
Built for shade but used as a dwelling: If the Sukkah [with its Sechach] was built for the sake of shade, but is used throughout the year as one’s dwelling place of eating and sleeping and performance of majority of one’s actions, it is invalid, unless the Sechach is lifted and placed back on each year before Sukkos, as will be explained. [This applies even if the Sukkah was built for the sake of the Mitzvah of Sukkos. If, however, one does not live in the Sukkah, even if he uses it for certain purposes, then it remains valid, [if it was originally built for the sake of shade, and follows the law explained in D]. [Thus, a Sukkah that is built in ones house under a retractable roof and left intact the entire year, since one lives in this Sukkah throughout the year he is required to renew the Sechach each year before Sukkos. See Q&A]
How to validate the Sechach: If the Sukkah with its Sechach that was built for shade was used throughout the year as one’s dwelling area, or if it was originally built for dwelling purposes, then [all] the Sechach must be lifted and placed back on each year before Sukkos in order to validate it, as explained above. It suffices to simply lift up [all] the Sechach and place it back down. [It does not suffice to simply lift a Tefach worth of Sechach, as is allowed in the case in C, and rather one must lift up each individual piece of Sechach in order to validate it. It is not necessary to lift up the Sechach three Tefachim, or even one Tefach, and any amount suffices. However, some Poskim rule that one is required to fully lift up each individual piece of Sechach. Meaning that one cannot lift up one end of the beam and then go around and lift up the other end of the beam, and rather the entire beam from both ends must be lifted off the Sukkah at least slightly. However, one is not required to lift up all the beams of the Sechach simultaneously, and some Poskim even rule that one is actually required to lift them up one at a time. Practically, one may lift up many pieces of Sechach at a time, if he chooses, although some are stringent esspecially by a Biblical invalidation.]
C. A Sukkah that was built for the sake of the Mitzvah and was not used as a dwelling place during the year:
A Sukkah that was built for the sake of the festival [for the purpose of fulfilling the Mitzvah] is valid even if it was built in the beginning of the year. It does not require any modification. [Thus, if one never took down the previous years Sukkah, it may be used for the current Sukkos holiday without needing any modification, as explained in Q&A.]
D. A Sukkah that was built for the sake of shade and not for the sake of the Mitzvah but was not used as a dwelling place during the year:
Built within thirty days of Sukkos: If the Sukkah was built for the sake of shade and was not used as a dwelling [as explained in B], then if this was done within thirty days before Sukkos [i.e. from the 14th day of Elul and onwards], it is valid to be used for Sukkos without doing anything to the Sukkah. [This applies even though it was not built for the sake of fulfilling the Mitzvah of Sukkah, as a Sukkah is not required to be built Lishma, and so long as it was built for shade it is valid. It likewise does not require any renewal being that it this is only required by an old Sukkah, which is defined as a Sukkah built prior to thirty days before the festival, as explained next.]
Built prior to thirty days of Sukkos: If the Sukkah was built for the sake of shade prior to 30 days before Sukkos [i.e. prior to the 14th of Elul], then [although] it is defined as an old Sukkah it nevertheless remains Kosher [even if it was built at the beginning of the previous year] if one renews something in the Sukkah for the sake of the Mitzvah, as will be explained. [This renewal is required from the letter of the law, and is not a mere stringency, and thus if it was not done the Sukkah is invalid. If it was not done before Yom Tov, then the Sukkah is invalid as the Sechach is Muktzah and cannot be renewed on Yom Tov. Nonetheless, some Poskim conclude that one is to eat in the Sukkah without a blessing in such a case to suspect for those opinions who validate it Bedieved.]
How to do the renewal of the Sukkah: The renewal must be done to the actual Sechach. The definition of a renewed action is to place new Sechach the size of at least 1×1 Tefach square for the sake of the Mitzvah. [It must have at least 1 Tefach in both width and length, and does not suffice to simply have one Tefach square, such as 1.5 Tefach in length and .5 Tefach in width. However, it does not need to be an exact square, and thus if it is 2 Tefach by one Tefach it is also valid.] Alternatively, one can place any amount of width of [new] Sechach from one end of the Sukkah to the other, whether going from the width or length of the Sukkah, even if this new Sechach is much less than one Tefach wide. [Furthermore, some Poskim rule that it suffices to simply lift (or even shake) a 1×1 Tefach of Sechach and then replace it. However, from the wording of Admur it is implied that one must actually replace the Sechach with new Sechach, and simply lifting and replacing does not suffice. Certainly, however, everyone agrees that if one lifts and replaces all the Sechach that it suffices even though no new Sechach is placed, just as we rule regarding Sechach that was built for dwelling purposes.] The above renewal is only required to be done to the Sechach, however, the walls do not require any renewal even if they were made from the beginning of the year [for shade or even for dwelling], as explained in E.
Built for non-shade purposes: If a hut was built during the year with valid Sechach, but not for the sake of providing shade or using it as a Sukkah, then the hut is invalid for Sukkos unless the Sechach is lifted up and replaced as explained in B. It does not help for the owner to now designate it for a shade purpose, due to the rule of “Taaseh Velo Min Haasuy.”
E. Walls that were built prior to thirty days before Sukkos, or that were built or used for dwelling purposes:
The entire issue above with an old Sukkah [or a Sukkah used for dwelling] is only in regard to its Sechach, and if the Sechach was erected prior to thirty days before Sukkos, and/or was used for dwelling purposes. However, if the walls were built prior to thirty days before Sukkos [or were used for dwelling purposes] they remain valid without needing any renewal or modification, even if they were explicitly made from the beginning of the year not for the sake of Sukkos.
If during the year one used the Sukkah as part of his home for eating, sleeping and other house activities, or if it was built also for this purpose, then he must lift up all the Sechach and replace it in order to validate it for Sukkos. If one did not use the Sukkah as a home during the year, then if it was built for the sake of shade prior to 30 days before Sukkos, then one is to replace a one by one Tefach of the Sechach with new Sechach prior to Sukkos. If it was built for the sake of the Mitzvah of Sukkos, or if it was built for the sake of shade within 30 days before Sukkos, then it remains valid without needing anything to be done to it before Sukkos.
If one did not take down the Sukkah from the previous year, and it is not used as a dwelling area, does it require an action of renewal to be performed to its Sechach?
Some Poskim rule the Sukkah is only valid without renewal if it was made for the sake of the Mitzvah after the passing of the previous Sukkos. If however it was made before the previous Sukkos, then an act of renewal is required prior to the coming Sukkos, as explained above regarding a Sukkah made for shade prior to 30 days. Other Poskim however rule the Sukkah remains valid and does not require any modification. It is implied from Admur like this latter opinion.
If one built the Sechach with both intent of the Mitzvah and for it to serve as shade, does it require a renewal if built thirty days before Sukkos?
If one’s Sukkah [with its Sechach] serves as an outside padio area throughout the year, does its Sechach require renewal?
Some Poskim rule one is not required to do any action of renewal in such a case. However, this only applies if the pergola beams are not attached or nailed into the roofing, as explained below under the section of Pergolas.
If one’s Sukkah serves as part of one’s home, must all the Sechach be lifted and replaced each year before Sukkos?
Ø Example: One has a retractable roof in one of the rooms of his house which serves as a Sukkah during the Holiday. May one leave the Sechach remaining throughout the year and simply open the roof to use the Sukkah, or does the Sechach require removal and replacement?
If one lives in the room then all the Sechach must be lifted and then replaced before Sukkos. This applies even if one has a retractable roof over the Sechach, nevertheless it does not suffice to simply open the roof. If however one does not live in this room, then it suffices to simply open the roof before Sukkos. Some Poskim however side that even if one lives in the room, it suffices to open the retractable roof.
The definition of living: Seemingly, it is only defined that one is living in the room regarding the above law, if one uses the room for eating, sleeping and all one’s regular house activity. If, however, one does not eat or sleep in the room then it is not considered a living area and hence does not require removal of all the Sechach prior to Sukkos.
The law by a pergola-Are its beams valid Sechach, and must one do anything to it if he desires to use it as a Sukkah?
The Halachic issues: A pergola is an outside shaded area which is made with wooden panels that create a roofing to provide shade. The validity of using this area for Sukkos is questionable on three fronts as, 1) Perhaps it is defined as an old Sukkah which requires a 1×1 Tefach square of new Sechach to be placed, or 2) Perhaps it is defined as a Sukkah used throughout the year for dwelling purposes which requires all the beams to be lifted up and replaced. 3) Perhaps the pergola beams themselves are invalid being that they are attached to the roofing, and hence must be removed and have Kosher Sechach placed in their stead.
The law of the screwed in pergola beams: If the beams of the pergola are nailed or screwed into the roofing, then these beams are invalid for Sechach unless they are unscrewed and then re-rested onto the frame before Sukkos without re-screwing them.
The law of loose pergola beams: If the beams are not nailed or screwed in, and they are very narrow to the point that they are not normally used as roofing material, and are certainly less than 24 centimeters wide, then they are valid for Sechach if it was placed on the pergola also for the sake of the Mitzvah of Sukkah, and the pergola was not used for dwelling purposes. If the pergola was used also for dwelling purposes, then all the beams must be lifted and replaced to be validated, as stated in the Halacha above. If the pergola was made only for shade and not also for the Mitzvah, then a 1×1 Tefach space would need to be renewed prior to Sukkos, as stated above.
The law if the pergola contains both screwed and loose beams: If the pergola is made up of both nailed in or screwed in beams and loose beams, then the loose beams are valid if placed also for the sake of the Mitzvah, and not used for dwelling purposes during the year, while the nailed or screwed beams are invalid. If there are more loose beams than screwed beams on the Sukkah, then then Sukkah is valid. If one removes the loose beams and places Sechach over the frame of screwed beams, some Poskim rule that even the screwed beams become validated as a result.
The law if the pergola contains only a mere screwed in frame: If the pergola is made up of a frame of screwed beams, with empty space between the beams of the frame, then although the frame beams are invalid for Sechach, placing Kosher Sechach over the frame validates the Sukkah, if the Kosher Sechach gives off more shade than the pergola screwed beam frames. If the pergola frame beams are less than three Tefachim wide, then one may even eat under them.
How to initially build a pergola with intent to use also on Sukkos: A pergola can be built in the following way to be valid also for Sukkos: Build a frame with less than three Tefachim wide [24 centimeters] beams, making sure to leave more empty space than the space taken up by the frame. Then make short narrow beams which slide into pockets made within the frame. These beams remain valid for Sechach being that they are not screwed in, so long as they are initially rested on the frame for the sake of the Mitzvah of Sukkah. Thus, make sure that the carpenter builds the pergola in a way that there is greater space between each set of beams than the width of the beams themselves.
 Admur 636:1-3
 Admur 626:1; Michbaer 635:1; Rav Chisda Sukkah 8b
This ruling follows the explanation in the previous chapter [625:1] with regards to the purpose behind the clouds of glory “that it was done for shade”. This explains why a) Admur mentions the term shade in the previous Halacha despite it not being found in the Tur and Michaber. B) Why Admur began this chapter with the current Halacha despite the fact that it is not mentioned in this chapter by the Tur/Michaber. As according to Admur the main aspect of a Sukkah is that it is made only for shade and thus when this is lacking it is not simply lacking a detail within Sukkah, but rather it itself is not a Sukkah at all. [Shaar Hamoadim]
 Admur ibid; Taz and M”A 635:1
 Admur ibid; M”A 635:1; Taz 636:3
 Admur ibid; Taz ibid; Ravayah 611; Hagahos Maimanis 5 Tes
 Admur ibid; M”A 626:1; Taz 629:18
 Admur 636:3 “As even the actual roof of a Sukkah is validated to be used as Sechach through doing this action, as explained in 631:12”
 Admur 636:3; Michaber 636:2; Sukkah 8b as explained in Rashi
 Admur ibid; M”A 631:1
 Admur ibid; Rashi ibid; M”B 636:9
 The reason: Although the Sukkah/Sechach was made for the sake of shade, it is nevertheless invalid as since he lives in it throughout the entire year and performs majority of his actions there, including eating and sleeping, it does not appear that he is now dwelling in it for the sake of the Mitzvah. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rashi Sukkah ibid] This applies even if the Sukkah was originally built for the sake of the Mitzvah. [Bikureiy Yaakov 635:1] Vetzaruch Iyun as to the difference of reasons mentiond by Admur in 626:1 and 636:3 for the invalidation of a Sukkah used as a dwelling. In 6262:1 it is invalidated due to it being called a house and not a Sukkah while in 636:3 it is invalid due to that it is not recognizable that it serves as a Mitzvah of Sukkah during the time of Sukkos. See also M”A 635:1 who explicitly differentiates between if it was built for living, storage or privacy, versus if it was built for shade but he happens to live there the entire year; This is based on Rashi in Sukkah 8. See also P”M 635 A”A 1 and Machatzis Hashekel ibid who explains that the invalidation of 626:1 is Biblical, while the invalidation of 636:3 is Rabbinical! Vetzaruch Iyun as to what is the difference between them if they are both used for dwelling. Although perhaps one can suggest that a) in 626:1 the person intends on building it also for living purposes while in 636:3 it refers to a Sukkah built for mere shade, and he then later designated it for his living, or b) in 626:1 it refers to that the person intends on using it for living purposes, while in 636:3 it refers to that he only goes there for shade while he works, and lives elsewhere, although happens to also eat and sleep there during his workday. See P”M ibid who indeed relates to this question and explains that he only lives there consequently of him working there and that it is not his main house as it can be assumed that he also has a house for living for the entire year. Vetzaruch Iyun!]
Biblical or Rabbinical: Some [Ran] say it is Biblically invalid. Others [Rashi] hold it is only Rabbinically invalid. [P”M 635 brought in Shaar Hatziyon 636:13; Bikureiy Yaakov 635:1 writes that it is Rabbinically invalid and thus if one does not have another Sukkah available, one may use it with a blessing] However, see Admur ibid from whom it is implied that one is not Yotzei even Bedieved with such a Sukkah
 Bikureiy Yaakov 635:1
 Admur and Michaber and Gemara ibid regarding the exterior room of the blacksmith that it is Kosher despite the fact he uses it as his store to sell his pots, as nevertheless he does not live in it throughout the year. [Admur ibid]
 Admur ibid; M”A 636:3; M”B 636:8; based on Michaber 631:9; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:4
Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule such Sechach is completely invalid as one has intent to use it as a house, and hence it does not help to lift it up and replace it. Rather one must remove the Sechach after Sukkos of each year and then replace it before Sukkos. [Chelkas Yoeiv Tinyana 3; Michzeh Avraham 141; Machshavos Beitza 24; Piskeiy Teshuvos 636:2]
 Admur ibid “As even the actual roof of a Sukkah is validated to be used as Sechach through doing this action, as explained in 631:12”
 So is implied from Admur ibid; M”A ibid; M”B ibid; See Admur 631:12 that one must replace the Sechach between each set of beems, and replacing in one area does not suffice. See Ateres Zekeinim on Michaber 631:9
 The reason: As even the actual roof of a Sukkah is validated to be used as Sechach through doing this action, as explained in 631:12. [Admur ibid]
 See M”B 636:9 based on Levush; Implication of Admur 631:12; Michaber 626:2l; Poskim in previous footnotes regaridng “all”!
 Implication of Admur 629:28; Poskim in Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 11
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one is required to lift it three Tefachim as otherwise it is considered as if it is still resting there due to Lavud. [Az Nidnbaru 13:38; 14:41]
 Orchos Rabbeinu 2:214; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid
 Simple implication of Admur 631:12 and Michaber 626:2 “Lift up each one alone and replace it and then lift up the one next to it and replace it”; Koveitz Mibeis Levi 3 in name of Rav Wozner
 See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 14
 Admur 636:1; Michaber 636:1; Mishneh Sukkah 9a
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even if the Sukkah was built for the sake of the Mitzvah, if it was built prior to 30 days before Sukkos one must renew some of the Sechach before Sukkos, as recorded in D. [Bach 636; Birkeiy Yosef 636:2]
 Admur 636:1-2; See See Piskeiy Teshuvos 636:1
 Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber 636:1; Taz 636:2; Mishneh Sukkah ibid
 See Admur 626:1; Michaber 635:1; Rav Chisda Sukkah 8b
 See Admur 636:3
 Tishrei includes 14 days until Sukkos which is on the 15th. Thus, one needs to learn an additional 16 days in Elul to make up the 30-day period prior to the festival. Now since Elul is always a 29-day month, even in a leap year, therefore it begins from the 14th for a total of 30 days.
 Aruch Hashulchan 636:1
 Admur 636:1; Michaber 636:1; Tur 636; Rosh Sukkah 1:13; Tosafus Sukkah 9a; Yerushalmi Sukkah 1:2
 Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Beis Hillel in Mishneh Sukkah 9a
 Taz 636:2
 Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur 636; Rosh Sukkah 1:13; Tosafus Sukkah 9a; Yerushalmi Sukkah 1:2
 Implication of wording of Admur ibid and Michaber ibid; Beis Yosef 636, brought in M”A 636:1 and Shaar Hatziyon 636:4, that according to all Poskim it invalidates if not done; Shibulei Haleket 337 and Hatanya in name of Rav Nutraiy and Rav Yehudaiy Gaon; Elya Raba 636:2; Birkeiy Yosef 636:1; Bigdei Yesha, Beis Shoeiva 2-3; See Kaf Hachaim 636:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 636:1
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the Sukkah remains Kosher even if a renewal is not done and its requirement is a mere Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar and is not obligatory even from a Rabbinical standpoint. [M”A 636:1; Taz 636:3; Ran; Rabbeinu Yerucham; Implication of Bavli Sukkah ibid who omits any mention of a renewal being required; Implication of Poskim regarding Sukkos Ganbach and Rakvash who all omit such a requirement; Chayeh Adam 146:39; Bikureiy Yaakov 636; Nehar Shalom; Aruch Hashulchan 636:2; M”B 636:4 and Shaar Hatziyon 636:4 in name of many Achronim; See Kaf Hachaim 636:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 636:1; Yechaveh Daas 6:41]
 Piskeiy Teshuvos 636:1; Vetzaruch Iyun as to whether one may shake or lift the Sechach with a Shinuiy according to those Poskim who suffice with that, however, seemingly one may not do so due to the prohibition of Tikkun Klei or Boneh. Vetzaruch Iyun. See Piskeiy Teshuvos 636 footnote 3
 Kaf Hachaim 636:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 636:1
 Admur 636:2; Michaber 636:1; Tur 636; Yerushalmi ibid
 Admur ibid; Tur and Beis Yosef 636; Rosh in name of Baal Haittur; M”B 636:4
 So writes Admur 636:2 that it must be new Sechach
 Admur ibid; M”A 636:2
 P”M 636 A”A 2
 Implication of Admur ibid that “Even if it only has 1×1 square Tefach” that certainly it may have more; Implication of P”M ibid
 Admur 636:2; Michaber 636:1; Tur 636; Tosafos; Rosh; Yerushalmi
 Aruch Hashulchan 636:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 636:1; Mishnas Yaakov 3 [brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 1]; See M”A 636:3; M”B 636:8; Nitei Gavriel 27:1; [based on Michaber 631:9, that even regarding a sukkah made for a dwelling place this helps. Vetzaruch Iyun, as there one is required to lift up each individual piece of Sechach, while here lifting a mere 1×1 Tefach square suffices, and hence perhaps in truth lifting alone does not suffice, and one must bring new Sechach, and so is implied clearly from the wording of Admur. Vetzaruch Iyun!]
 See P”M 636 M”Z 3; Nitei Gavriel 27:1 in name of Meiri Sukkah 9a
 So is clearly implied from wording of Admur ibid “To place new Sechach”; See previous footnote
 Vetzaruch Iyun from 626 in which Admur ruled that Sechach set up under a roof is valid when the roof is removed as the Sechach always was defined as Sechach even originally when under the roofing and the roofing only effected its preparation for use. Vetzaruch Iyun as why here this should be any different being that the Sechach still shraed the Sechach definition. Perhaps however one can answer that an integral part of Sechach is that its purpose is for shade and without this intent it never gains the Sechach definition.
 Admur 636:2; Taz 636:1
 Chayeh Adam 146:39; M”B 636:7 [however, see M”B 638:9]; Kaf Hachaim 636:5; base on M”A 638:2 and Admur 638:16; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 636 footnote 4
 The reason: As once the Holiday of Sukkos of the previous year was complete, its Kedusha has left [M”A and Admur ibid] and hence requires its Sechach to be renewed. [Poskim ibid] Thus the meaning of the above wording in Michaber “If the Sukkah was made even in the beginning of the year for the Chag, itis Kosher without modification” means that it was made after Sukkos. [Shaar Hatziyon 636:9]
 P”M 662 M”Z 1; Sefer Hachaim [Kluger] 636; Pischa Zuta; Aruch Hashulchan 636:1 in negation of Chayeh Adam ibid; Mishneh Sachir 2:174; Opinion in M”B 638:9
 The reason: As the Sukkah was originally made for the Mitzvah and hence there is no reason why it should require renewal. A proof for this can be brought from the M”A and Admur ibid which only states that the Kedusha leaves the Sukkah after the passing of Sukkos, and hence requires one to live in it on Sukkos to regain its Kedusha, but do not write an even greater novelty that it requires a modification. [Sefer Hachaim ibid]
 Aside for the implication from Admur 638:16, as brought in Sefer Hachaim, so is also impleid from Admur here [636:1] which writes “If it was made for the sake of Chag, even from the beginning of the year it is valid without modification” This is in contrast to the wording of the Michaber which states “If it was made for the sake of the Chag…” which could imply the upcoming Chag. This simple change of wording of Admur [omitting the letter Hei] implies that anytime the Sukkah was made for the sake of Chag, even of years prior [and not specifically the upcoming Chag] it is valid without modification.
 Sefer Hachaim [Kluger] 636
 The reason: As so long as the Sukkah was made also for intent of the Mitzvah it does not require renewal. [ibid]
 Sefer Hachaim [Kluger] 636; Nitei Gavriel 27:11
 The reason: As so long as the Sukkah was made also for intent of the Mitzvah it does not require renewal. [ibid]
 Bikurei Yaakov 635:1
Must one remove the Sechach after Sukkos? One is not required to remove the Sechach after Sukkos and then replace it the next Sukkos, and rather it may remain under the retractable roof throughout the year
 Bikurei Yaakov 635:1; M”B 636:8; Chelkas Yoev Tinyana 3; Avraham 141; Machshavos Beitza 24; Piskeiy Teshuvos 636:2; Nitei Gavriel 27:10
 Avnei Nezer 1:473; See Rav SZ”A brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 7
 See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:9; Or Torah 5758 p. 43; Hamoadim Kehilchasam 1:205;
Explanation: According to all opinions, so long as a) you place Kosher Sechach in-between the beams of the pergola, or on top of them in a way that the Kosher Sechach hovers over the space between the beams, and b) the Kosher Sechach provides more shade than the shade of the pergola beams [such as if there is more empty space between the beams than the space that the beams themselves take up, such as if the beams are 10 centimeters wide and there is 15 centimeters of empty space between each beam], and c) the pergola beams are less than 24 centimeters wide, then the Sukkah is fully Kosher and one may even eat under the beams. If however the pergola beams provide more shade than the Kosher Sechach [such as if there is more beams than empty space between the beams, such as if the beams are 15 centimeters wide and there is 10 centimeters of empty space between each beam] then the Kashrus of such a Sukkah is dependent on several factors, such as if it was made for the sake of being used as a roof, or for the sake of giving shade throughout the year, or only for the sake of the Mitzvah of Sukkah. Even in the latter case, it is still subject to debate amongst Poskim, with some always invalidating the beams due to them being nailed or screwed into the frame, and some validating it if there was material in between the beams which was removed for the sake of placing the Kosher Sechach there, or some validating even with simply placing Kosher Sechach over it. According to all, the beams are valid if one unscrews them and rests them back onto the frame for the sake of Sechach. Likewise, according to all, the beams are invalid if there exists no material that was removed from in-between the beams, and one made the pergola for the sake of dwelling under it throughout the year, to eat and sleep there. [Admur 626:13 that only if remove roof tiles can roof beams become Kosher and 636:1 regarding Sukkah yeshana that simply placing Kosher Secha of 1×1 Tefach suffices; M”B 626:17; The following Poskim invalidate nailed beams: Rashba 1:213; Tosafus Sukkah 2a, M”A 626:6 and 627:2, Divrei David 1:37, Shaar Hatziyon 633:6; Emek Teshuvah 96; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:9 that a) Placing on top of the beams suffices to negate the issue of Lavud Lehachmir, and b) Screwed beams are invalid Sechach and thus one must have majority shade in the Sukkah from the Kosher Sechach alone]
 The following Poskim invalidate nailed beams from being used as Sechach: Rashba 1:213; Tosafus Sukkah 2a, M”A 626:6 and 627:2, Beis Yosef 629:8, Divrei David 1:37, Shaar Hatziyon 633:6; Emek Teshuvah 96; Hamoadim Kehilchasam 1:205; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:9; Sefer Hasukkah p. 290 and 321; Omitted from Admur in 626:12, thus implying that even screwed in beams remain valid, and so is likewise implied from Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid who writes that if one removes the pergola beams from the frame then even the frmae becomes valid.
 Admur 629:32
 Admur 629:31-32
 See Halacha above and previous Q&A in name of Sefer Hachaim that when placed also for the sake of the Mitzvah, it does not require even renewal
 See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid
 Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid
 See Admur 626:14 that the Kosher Sechach inbetween the non-Kosher beams negates the issue of Lavud; M”B 626:17; Emek Hateshuvah 96
 See Michaber 632:1; M”B 632:2-3
 See Moadim Kehilchasam 1:207 [however, see there that before Sukkos one is to relift 1×1 Tefach of Sechach, however according to Sefer Hachaim, ibid, so long as itw as made also for the sake of Sukkos it is valid, even this is not necessary.]