This article is an excerpt from our Sefer

   Buy now here or on Amazon.com

Chapter 2: The laws of the Sechach

Introduction-The Sechach is considered the main part of the Sukkah:[1]

The Sechach, as opposed to the walls, is considered the main part of the Sukkah. [Thus, although a Kosher Sukkah must also maintain valid walls, nonetheless, it is secondary to the Sechach and serves it.]

1. The intended use of the Sechach:

For shade:[2] Just as the clouds of glory were there to give us shade from the sun, similarly the Sukkah is only valid when made in order to only give shade. If it was made to serve for also other purposes, such as storage and the like, then it is not considered a Sukkah but rather a house and is inherently invalid.[3]

Must the Sechach be placed for the sake of the Mitzvah?[4] It is not necessary for the Sechach to be placed on the Sukkah for the sake of the Mitzvah, so long as it is placed for the sake of shade. Thus, even if those included in the Roshei Teivos [initials] of Ganbach-Rakvash made a Sukkah for the sake of shade and not for the sake of the Mitzvah, the Sukkah remains valid.[5] [Nevertheless, Lechatchila, one is not have a person listed in Ganbach-Rakvash place the Sechach on the Sukkah, as explained in Chapter 1 Halacha 3B regarding women and children.[6] If the Sechach was placed prior to thirty days before Sukkos, then part of the Sechach must be renewed before Sukkos, as explained in Chapter 1 Halacha 12 regarding an old Sukkah.[7] Furthermore, some Poskim[8] rule that even if the Sukkah was built within 30 days before Sukkos by the above people, it should have part of it renewed according to the qualifications brought in Chapter 1 Halacha 12D.[9] Nonetheless, this is a mere Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar and does not invalidate it from the letter of the law.[10]]

Validating an old Sukkah or Sukkah used for storage, for the Mitzvah: See Chapter 1 Halacha 10!

 

The word Ganbach stands for the following people:[11]   

• Goyim/Gentiles
• Women
• Animals
• Kuti

The word Rakvash stands for the following:

• Reim; Shepherds
• Kayatzim [Guard of produce piled within a field for drying purposes.]
• Barganim [Guards of a city]
• Shomreiy Hasadeh [guards of a field]

2. Minimum amount of Sechach-How much shade must the Sechach provide in the Sukkah?

*Important note: The discussion in this Halacha is with regards to the minimum amount of Kosher Sechach, versus empty space, that a Sukkah requires within its dimension, and at the very least within the minimum required dimension of 7×7 Tefachim. If, however, the Sechach does not have its minimum required dimension of 7×7 Tefachim [such as it contains empty space or non-Kosher Sechach on its roof or is a teepee shaped Sukkah] then it is possibly invalid regardless of its whether it provides majority shade, as explained in Halacha 6-see there!

A. The general law:[12]

 [There must be enough Sechach placed on the Sukkah for it to provide more shade than sunlight in the Sukkah.] Thus, even if the Sechach is very thin [i.e. is lightly dispersed throughout the roof of the Sukkah in a way that there are many areas with air that allow sunlight to penetrate], nevertheless it remains valid so long as there is more Sechach than air and thus in total account of all the dispersed Sechach it provides more shade than sunlight. However, this is on condition that there is no area in the Sukkah which contains three Tefachim [23 cm.] of air [without Sechach, in which case at times it can invalidate the Sukkah, or the area directly under the empty space, and at times invalidate the entire Sukkah, as explained in Halacha 3].

Definition of providing more shade than sunlight:[13] The definition of majority shade is that there is more area covered by Sechach than there is empty space. This can be determined by either looking up at the Sechach and seeing more Sechach than sunlight/air, or by looking down on the floor of the Sukkah [by midday when the sun is directly above the Sukkah] and seeing more shade than sunlight on the floor of the Sukkah.

Equal amount of empty space and Sechach:[14] If there is an equal amount of empty space and Sechach then the Sukkah is invalid, as there must be more Sechach than empty space for it to be valid.[15] If, however, one sees an equal amount of sunlight and shade on the ground of the Sukkah, then the Sukkah is valid.[16]

The Chassidic meaning behind the requirement of majority shade:[17] The Sukkah draws down an Or Makif to the Jew dwelling inside. Now, an Or Makif is a very high level of G-dliness [level of Yashis Choshech Sisro] which can only be transmitted in a concealed fashion, hence the requirement for the Sukkah to retain majority shade.

B. A Sukkah that contains areas of Sechach with more shade than sunlight and areas of Sechach with more sunlight than shade:[18]

If a Sukkah contains areas of Sechach that give off more sunlight than shade, then so long as that in total there is more shade than sunlight within the Sukkah when measured as a whole, then the entire Sukkah is Kosher, including the area of Sechach that has minority shade.[19] This, however, only applies if the minority area of Sechach with majority sunlight is not a size of 7 by 7 Tefachim [54.8 x 54.8 cm[20]]. If, however, the minority area of Sechach with majority sunlight is a dimension of 7 by 7 Tefachim, then [although the majority of the Sechach which contains majority shade remains valid if in total there is still more shade than sunlight, or if there isn’t but the area with majority shade is also 7×7 Tefachim[21], nonetheless] one may not sit [and eat] under the area with majority sunlight.[22] [Furthermore, if this area of minority shade is adjacent to one of the walls, according to some Poskim[23] it invalidates that wall and can possibly invalidate the entire Sukkah if it will thereby be left with less than three Kosher walls. Thus, one is to avoid having any 7×7 area of the Sukkah contain minority Sechach, and one is especially to beware of this by the sides of the Sukkah, which can possibly invalidate the entire Sukkah.[24] This dimension of 7×7 Tefachim is a minimum for each direction, and hence if either the length or width of the area of Sechach with minority shade is less than 7 Tefachim, it remains valid even to eat under, even if the other direction contains much more than 7 Tefachim of minority shade. Thus, if the minority shade area is 10 Tefachim long and 6 Tefachim wide, it remains valid to even eat under.[25]]

Example: Thus, for example, if within the first two thirds of the Sechach there is more shade than sunlight, as its air and empty space between the Sechach is very minute, while within the last third of the Sechach there is more sunlight than shade, then we add all the shade and sunlight areas together throughout the entire Sechach, and if in total there is more shade than sunlight, even slightly, then it is valid. In such a case, it is permitted to sit [and eat] even under the minority area of the Sechach that contains majority sunlight, so long as this minority area is not 7×7 Tefachim in dimension, as explained above.

Summary: If in total there is more shade than sunlight, then if the area with majority sunlight is not a size of 7 by 7 Tefachim [56×56 cm], then the entire Sukkah is Kosher, including the area that has minority shade. However, if the majority sunlight area is 7 by 7 Tefachim [56×56 cm], then although the majority shaded area is valid, one may not sit under the area with majority sunlight.  Q&A If the majority sunlight area spreads from wall to wall in a three walled Sukkah is the entire Sukkah invalid due to lacking three walls?[26] Some Poskim[27] leave this matter in question and hence one should not eat in such a Sukkah. If the area with majority shade is 20 by 6 Tefachim wide and there is majority shade in total in the Sukkah may one eat under that area?[28] Yes as only when there is 7 Tefachim in each direction is it not nullified to the majority shade area.

C. A Sukkah that contains more shade due to non-Kosher Sechach:

A Sukkah must contain majority shade over sunlight as the result of Kosher Sechach, as explained in A. If it contains majority shade over sunlight only due to non-Kosher Sechach then we view the non-Kosher Sechach as if it is empty space, and the Sukkah is thus deemed invalid due to it having more sunlight than shade. This, however, only applies if the Kosher and non-Kosher Sechach are mixed together throughout the Sukkah. If, however, there are areas in the Sukkah that contain Kosher Sechach and areas that contain non-Kosher Sechach, then so long as the Kosher Sechach maintains a 7×7 Tefachim dimension, and it provides majority shade in that areas, then it is permitted to eat in that area of the Sukkah even if in total the Sukkah contains more surrounding areas of non-Kosher Sechach than it does of Kosher Sechach [similar to that which was explained in B regarding empty space]. If, however, the non-Kosher Sechach extends from wall to wall and is more than 4 Amos, then it invalidates that wall, and can possibly invalidate the 7×7 Kosher area if it is now left without three valid walls, such as by a three walled Sukkah. See Halacha 11B for the full details of this matter!  

 

3. A Sukkah that contains areas that are not covered; neither with Sechach nor other material [i.e. is open to the sky]?[29]

When a Sukkah contains areas on its roof that do not contain Sechach, it enters the question of whether a) the area under the empty space remains considered as part of the Sukkah to permit eating and sleeping under it, and b) if the empty space makes the Sukkah be considered split between the two sides of the empty space, and potentially invalidate the Sukkah if it will thereby remain without three Kosher walls or without a minimum of 7×7 Tefach dimension in one area. Practically, this matter is dependent on the size of the space without Sechach, and on the area in the Sukkah that it is found in. Thus, whenever one’s Sukkah contains significant areas without Sechach, aside for contemplating whether one may eat or sleep under those areas, he must in addition contemplate if his Sukkah even remains Kosher. The following are the detailed law:

* Regarding the law of eating under invalid Sechach, and cases that invalid Sechach invalidate the Sukkah, see Halacha 11!

 

A. Eating and sleeping under the empty space:[30]

One may not [eat[31] or] sleep under an area of empty space that does not contain Sechach [or other material, and is thus open to the sky] even if it is less than three Tefachim [as it is Biblically invalid[32]].[33] However, this [invalidation to eat or sleep under it] only applies if the empty space crosses from one end of the Sukkah to the other[34], or if the empty space is large enough for one to enter his head and [or[35]] majority of his body through it. Otherwise, it remains permitted to [eat and sleep under this empty space] as there exists no Sukkah that does not have holes of empty space.[36]

The exact dimension of empty space that one may not eat/sleep under: [It is unclear from the above as to exactly how much space is needed to become invalid to eat or sleep under it, as certainly the majority of one’s head and body cannot fit in a less than three Tefach space, unless they roll on their side and it extends throughout the length of their body, and therefore some Poskim[37] rule that it is a great stringency to invalidate eating and sleeping under less than three Tefachim of space unless one indeed fits majority of his head/body under the space. Certainly, however, if the empty space is 3×3 Tefach then it is invalid to eat or sleep there.[38] Likewise, certainly, if the empty space is not more than one by one Tefach then it is valid to eat and sleep under it.[39] This applies even if it stretches from one end of the Sukkah to another.[40] Nonetheless, some are stringent to place some Sechach horizontally over the empty space if it goes from one end of the Sukkah to the other even if it is less than one Tefach of empty space.[41] If it is more than 1×1 Tefach, then some Poskim[42] rule that perhaps such space is invalid to eat or sleep under, and therefore, initially one should be careful to avoid having even 1×1 Tefachim of empty space in the Sechach of his Sukkah. Nonetheless, if such empty space was left, then it remains permitted to eat and sleep under it so long as majority of one’s head/body are under the Sechach.[43]]

 

The following in B will now discuss scenarios in which an empty space may not only pose an invalidation for eating or sleeping under it but may even potentially invalidate the Sukkah all together.  

B. When empty space invalidates the Sukkah:

Three Tefach of empty space that goes from wall to wall: If a space of three[44] Tefach is left uncovered without Sechach or any other material and is thus open to the sky, then it invalidates the Sukkah. This applies whether the Sukkah is large or small [i.e. exactly 7×7 Tefachim], and applies whether the empty space is by the side of the Sukkah [adjacent to one of the walls] or in middle of the Sukkah.[45] However, this [invalidation of the entire Sukkah] only applies if the three Tefachim of empty space crosses from one end of the Sukkah to the other [i.e. from wall to wall, or makes the Sukkah contain less than 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, as explained next], and ends up splitting the Sukkah in half and causes there not to remain a 7×7 Tefachim dimension with [three] valid walls in any one area.[46] [For example, if a three walled Sukkah contains a three Tefach uncovered area adjacent to one of its walls throughout its entire length of the Sukkah, then this adjacent wall becomes invalidated, and thereby invalidates the entire Sukkah being that it now remains with only 2 Kosher walls. Likewise, if the empty space of three Tefachim passes through the middle of a three walled Sukkah from one end to the other, thus splitting each side of the Sukkah to now only contain 1 and ½ walls, then it is invalid.[47] Likewise, if the empty space of three Tefachim passes through a 7×7 Sukkah then it is invalid even if it is four walled.] However, if the Shiur Sukkah [of 7×7 Tefachim] does remain in one area [with three Kosher walls, such as if it was a four walled Sukkah of 10×10 Tefach and the empty space of three Tefach is adjacent to one of the four walls], then that area remains valid.[48] [Likewise, if by a three walled Sukkah, the three Tefach of empty space passes between the two parallel walls from one end to the other at a distance from the third wall, and there is a 7×7 Tefach area between this space and the third wall, then the Sukkah remains valid.[49]]

Three by three Tefach of empty space that does not go from wall to wall:[50] If a Sukkah contains a three [by three[51]] Tefach of empty space that does not go from wall to wall, then [although one may not eat or sleep under the empty space, and it does not join for the minimum Shiur of 7×7 Tefach, nevertheless] it does not split the Sukkah in half and all its walls remain valid, and thus if in total the Sukkah contains 7×7 of areas covered with Sechach, then it is valid even if it does not contain a single area of 7×7 of Sechach around the parameters of the empty space [although, all together there is 7×7 Tefachim of Sechach]. [Thus, if in the center of one’s 10×10 Tefach Sukkah there is an empty space of 3×3 Tefachim, all areas of Sechach that surround the 3×3 center of empty space remain valid even though each side of the empty space only contains 10×3.5 Tefachim from its wall until the empty space, being that when the Sechach on both sides of the empty space are added together they contain 10×7 Tefachim, which is the valid measurement of a Sukkah. Accordingly, it is permitted to place a glass sunroof in place of Sechach, on the area of the Sechach which directly corresponds to the table.[52] However, some Poskim[53] argue on the above and rule that the areas surrounding the empty space do not join each other to make up the minimum 7×7 Tefachim required dimension of Sechach, and hence all areas of the Sukkah that do not contain a 7×7 Tefach dimension beyond the empty space are invalid. Thus, one is initially to be stringent and not have empty space even in the center of his Sukkah that does not go from wall to wall if it leaves areas in the Sukkah without a 7×7 Tefach dimension.] In all cases, one may not eat or sleep under this area if the empty space crosses from one end of the Sukkah to the other, or if the empty space is large enough for one to enter his head and majority of his body through it, as explained above in A! [All the above is by a Sukkah larger than 10×10 Tefachim, which will maintain a 7×7 Tefach dimension of Kosher Sechach even after the three-by-three Tefachim of empty space is deducted from its dimension. If, however, the Sukkah is less than 10 x 10 Tefachim and contains a 3×3 Tefach of empty space, then the entire Sukkah is invalid, as it does not maintain the minimum Shiur of 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach.]

Empty space is less than 3 by 3 Tefach:[54] If a space of less than three [by three[55]] Tefach is left uncovered without Sechach or any other material and is thus open to the sky, then it does not invalidate the Sukkah, and furthermore, it even joins to complete [the minimum required size of a Sukkah, which is 7×7 Tefachim].[56] [Thus, if a 7×7 Tefach Sukkah contains 2.9 Tefachim of empty space down its middle from one wall to the other, the Sukkah remains valid so long as it in total contains majority shade, even though its does not contain 7×7 Tefachim of actual Kosher Sechach.] Nonetheless, one may not eat or sleep under this area if the empty space crosses from one end of the Sukkah to the other, or if the empty space is large enough for one to enter his head and majority of his body through it, as explained above in A!

Empty space is less than 3 Tefach but is adjacent to invalid Sechach:[57] Furthermore, even if there is less than four Tefachim of invalid Sechach adjacent to the less than three Tefachim of empty space, then by a large Sukkah [which is more than 7×7 Tefachim] they do not join for making a total of more than three Tefachim of empty space which splits the Sukkah in half.[58] Accordingly, if there is three Tefachim of empty space which is splitting the Sukkah in half [and one has no more valid Sechach available], one can place invalid Sechach in the empty space to diminish the empty space to less than three Tefachim and prevent it from splitting the Sukkah in half. However, by a small Sukkah of 7×7 Tefachim[59], the less than three Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach and less than three Tefachim of empty space which are adjacent to each other join together to split and invalidate the Sukkah if in total they combine for three Tefachim, and it thus becomes invalid [even if the Sukkah still contains majority shade and has four walls].[60] [Thus, if in a 7 x 7 Tefachim Sukkah there was 1.5 Tefachim of both invalid Sechach and empty space next to each other, and four Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, the Sukkah is invalid being that the Sukkah does not contain a valid space of 7×7 Tefachim, as the three Tefachim of empty space and invalid Sechach do not join the 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach for the required dimension of 7×7 Tefachim.[61] However, if the Sukkah contains more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then in certain cases the Sukkah may remain Kosher, while in others it becomes invalid.[62]] Nonetheless, even by a large Sukkah, one may not eat or sleep under this area of empty space if the empty space crosses from one end of the Sukkah to the other, or if the empty space is large enough for one to enter his head and majority of his body through it, as explained above in A![63] However, one may eat under the area of invalid Sechach.[64]

Summary: One may not eat under an area that does not contain Sechach if majority of his head/body is under the area. Furthermore, if the uncovered area stretches from wall to wall, then if it is three Tefach wide, the Sukkah is considered split in half and is possibly invalid if it will lack three walls due to this. If the uncovered area is adjacent to the walls then if it is three Tefach wide, the adjacent wall is invalidated. This can possibly invalidate the entire Sukkah if the Kosher Sechach will not remain with 3 Kosher walls.   If the empty space is slanted, does one measure it in its slanted state or in a flat form?[65] It is measured in its flat state. Thus, depending on the angle of the slant, it is possible for there to be more than three Tefachim of empty space which measures less than three Tefachim when measured flat. In such a case it is viewed as less than three Tefachim of empty space and does not invalidate a Sukkah, and possibly is even permitted to be eaten under.   If the empty space of less than three Tefachim is by the side of the Sukkah, does it join the Kosher Sechach?[66] If there is less than three Tefachim of empty space inside the Sukkah, then if it runs along a wall of the Sukkah, then it joins the Sechach, and one may even eat under the empty space. If, however, the empty space is by a three walled Sukkah and runs along the side that does not have a wall, then some Poskim rule that it is invalid, even though there is less than three Tefachim of empty space within the actual Sukkah.

If on Shabbos or Yom Tov the Sechach blew off due to wind, may it be replaced? See Chapter 1 Halacha 2 in Q&A!

4. Maximum amount of Sechach-Is there a maximum amount of Sechach that may be placed on the Sukkah?[67]

Allowing the stars to be seen: Initially, the Sechach must be thin and light enough for the large stars to be visible through the Sechach at night.[68] However, Bedieved, even if the Sechach was as thick as the roof of a house to the point that no rays of the sun penetrate the Sechach and can be seen from it, nevertheless the Sukkah remains valid so long as rain is able to penetrate through the Sechach as will be explained next.[69] [The Chabad custom is to place a lot of Sechach on the Sukkah[70] and to make a hole in the Sechach to allow one to see the stars.[71]]

Allowing rain to penetrate:[72] If the Sechach was so thick to the point that even rain is unable to penetrate it [even when it is a very strong downfall of rain[73]], then it is invalid.[74]

Q&A How much of the Sechach must be able to be penetrated by rain and allow star viewing?[75] Some Poskim[76] rule that so long as the stars are visible from one area within the Sukkah it is initially valid. [Practically, this is the Chabad custom.[77]] However, if rain cannot penetrate in an area of four Tefachim then that area is considered invalid Sechach for all purposes. Other Poskim[78], however, rule that so long as there is a 7×7 area that allows penetration of rain, the entire Sukkah is Kosher.   Is rain protective Sechach made in a way that it drains the water to outside the Sukkah valid for use?[79] This matter is debated amongst the Poskim. Some Poskim[80] rule that it is valid, as practically it contains areas of space from which the stars can be seen, and mosquitos and wind can penetrate, and is hence not similar to the roof of a house. Accordingly, one is encouraged to buy such Sechach in areas that it rains in order to be able to live in the Sukkah even during rain. Other Poskim[81], however, rule that such Sechach is invalid as practically it does not allow rain to penetrate and is hence similar to a home. Practically, it is not to be used.[82]

The Chassidic meaning behind allowing the stars to be seen:[83] The Sukkah represents the drawing of an Oar Makif down below to the Jew dwelling inside. The purpose of this Oar Makif is to be drawn internally into the Jew. This is represented by the stars which represent a glimmer of the Makif light.

 

5. Uneven Sechach-Sechach of different heights:[84]

Less than three Tefachim between the higher and lower Sechach [Figure A]:[85] If the Sechach was uneven, with some of it being going slightly upwards and some of it going slightly downwards, then it nevertheless remains valid. [For example, if a Sukkah is made with two frames to support the Sechach, an upper and lower frame, and between every beam of Sechach on the lower frame there is empty space, and above that empty space is a beam of Sechach which is supported by the upper frame. See figure A.] This applies even if this lack of symmetry of the Sechach causes there to be more sunlight than shade in the Sukkah when the sun shines at it from an angle.[86] This, however, only applies if there is not three Tefachim of space [23.5 cm.[87]] between the upper and lower Sechach.[88] If, however, there are three Tefachim between the upper and lower Sechach then at times they do not join each other, and the Sukkah is invalid, as explained next. The measurements followed in this law are a tradition of Moshe from Sinai.[89]

More than three Tefachim between the higher and lower Sechach [Figure B-D]:[90] If there are three Tefachim between the upper and lower Sechach then they do not join each other, and it is not considered Sechach at all.[91] [Meaning, that we do not view the two Sechach’s to be part of the same Sukkah, and hence in the above example where the upper and lower Sechach switch off every other beam, like in a zigzag, then the entire Sukkah is invalid, as it does not contain enough valid Sechach on either level individually. See figure A. However, if the higher Sechach simply hovers over the lower Sechach, such as there are two layers of Sechach that hover over the Sukkah, then at times we view the upper and lower Sechach as a single Sechach which join for the purpose of providing majority shade to the Sukkah, as will be explained in Halacha 19. Now, if the higher and lower Sechach were on separate sides of the Sukkah with all the lower Sechach being on the right side and all the lower Sechach on the left side, it would possibly be viewed as two Sukkahs with each required to have its own dimension of 7×7 Tefachim and three Kosher walls, otherwise both sides are possibly invalid.[92] See Figure D] If, however, the upper Sechach has the dimension of a roof which is a 1×1 Tefach dimension or more[93], and it hovers directly over the empty space between it and the lower Sechach in a way that if it were to be lowered down exactly to the space under it and be even to the lower Sechach then it would fit between the space and no part of the upper Sechach would actually touch the lower Sechach[94], and the space between the two beams of the lower Sechach is equal or more than the width of the upper Sechach[95], then it is valid even if there is more than 3 Tefachim between them.[96] [See Figure B] However, if the space between the two beams of the lower Sechach is less than the width of the upper Sechach, or if the upper Sechach is not directly parallel to the space under it and would thus touch the lower Sechach if it were lowered to its level, then if there is a three Tefach distance between the higher and lower Sechach, then the two Sechach’s are not viewed as attached [and is possibly invalid as explained above, depending on the arrangement of the upper and lower Sechach in the Sukkah and if an area of 7×7 Tefachim with three walls will remain].[97] [See Figure C-D] The measurements followed in this law are a tradition of Moshe from Sinai.[98]

Summary: If there is Sechach of different levels of height in the Sukkah, then they are only considered to be attached and as part of the same Sukkah if they are less than a three Tefachim height distance from each other [Figure A] or are more than three Tefachim height distanced from each other, but the upper Sechach fits directly within the space under it, adjacent to the lower Sechach, without touching the lower Sechach. [Figure B]

Figure A: Kosher [No three Tefachim between upper and lower level Sechach

Figure B: Kosher, as although there is three Tefachim between upper and lower level Sechach, it fits directly within the space between the two lower Sechach’s, [or adjacent to the lower Sechach in the right figure]

Figure C: Not Kosher As there is three Tefachim between upper and lower level Sechach, and it does not fit directly within the space between the two lower Sechach’s

Figure D: Possibly invalid

6. The minimum dimensions of the Sechach [i.e. width and length]-A Teepee shaped Sukkah, portable Sukkah, and car sunroof Sukkah:[99]

Earlier, in Chapter 1 Halacha 6B, we spoke of the minimum dimension of 7×7 Tefachim that is required for the inside of a Sukkah to contain for it to be valid. In this Halacha we will discuss the minimum dimensions of the roof of the Sukkah and its Kosher Sechach and if it too must maintain the minimum dimension of 7×7 Tefachim, or if it is valid even if it is less than 7×7 Tefachim, so long as the inside of the Sukkah contains a 7×7 Tefachim space. It is possible for there to be less than 7×7 Tefachim of Sechach despite the Sukkah containing a 7×7 Tefachim dimension in any of the following scenarios:

1. The Sukkah is made in the form of a Teepee. Portable camp shower structures usually fit this description and hence the question is asked if placing Sechach on their top validates them despite their top not having a 7×7 Tefach dimension. [See Figure A-C]
2. The top of the Sukkah contains invalid Sechach, leaving a less than 7×7 dimension of valid Sechach on top of it. Portable camp shower structures usually fit this description and hence the question is asked if placing Sechach on their top validates them despite their top not having a 7×7 Tefach dimension of Kosher Sechach. [See Figure D]
3. The top of the Sukkah contains empty space without Sechach, leaving a less than 7×7 dimension of valid Sechach on top of it.

*Important note: The discussion in this Halacha is with regards to the minimum required dimension of the roof and its Kosher Sechach even in a case that this Sechach will provide majority shade to the Sukkah. If, however, the Sukkah does not provide majority shade [such as it contains more empty space than Kosher Sechach on its roof] then it is invalid regardless of its dimension, unless the area of Sechach with majority shade is a 7×7 dimension and contains three Kosher walls, as explained in Halacha 2

 

A. The law by a teepee shaped Sukkah with less than a 7×7 Tefach dimension on its top:[100]

The Sukkah must maintain a minimum dimension of 7×7 Tefachim throughout its height of ten Tefachim from the ground. [However, past the height of ten Tefachim from the ground it is not necessary for it to maintain a 7×7 Tefachim dimension. Thus, technically, there is no requirement for there to be a 7×7 dimensions of Kosher Sechach on top of the Sukkah, so long as there is a 7×7 dimension of space inside the Sukkah for a height of ten Tefachim.] Accordingly, a teepee shaped Sukkah is Kosher even though its roof does not contain a space of 7×7 Tefachim, so long as there is a space of 7×7 Tefachim within a ten Tefachim height of the Sukkah when measuring from the ground.[101] Nonetheless, even by a teepee shaped Sukkah, there must be a minimum of a Tefach square of Sechach on its roof [Figure A], or it must be lifted a Tefach from the ground [Figure B].[102] If, however, it’s slanted walls are not lifted a Tefach from the ground and it does not contain a Tefach of roof on top, then it is invalid. [Figure C] In addition, in all cases, its walls must be made of material which is Kosher for Sechach being that the walls serve as part of the Kosher Sechach.[103] [From this ruling it can be implied that while there is no requirement to have a 7×7 Tefach dimension on the top area of the Sukkah where the Sechach rests, nonetheless there is a requirement for there to be a total area of 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach when including also the Sechach material made walls of the teepee Sukkah. However, to have a roofing of less than 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach and have straight walls, or teepee walls not made of Kosher Sechach, then it would be invalid. In B, however, it is made clear that this is not fully accurate, and in truth there is no requirement to have 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, under certain conditions.]

Teepee shaped Sechach [Figure B]:[104] From the above law it is understood that it is permitted to make a slanted Sechach roofing for one’s Sukkah, and it does not have to lie flat, so long as it contains 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach.

 

B. The law by a Sukkah that contains a 7×7 Tefachim roof but contains less than 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach [containing empty space or non-Kosher Sechach to make up the remainder of the roof of the Sukkah]:[105]

[In the previous Halacha in A, we discussed a scenario of a teepee sukkah where it is not necessary for a Sukkah to contain a 7×7 Tefachim dimension of a roof, for it to remain valid. Nonetheless, it was implied from there that there nevertheless remains a requirement for there to be a total area of 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach when including also the Sechach material made walls of the teepee Sukkah. This would imply that in the above case a sukkah would be invalid if it contains anything less than 7 x 7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach. However, in this Halacha, it is made clear that this is not fully accurate, and in truth there is no requirement to have 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, under certain conditions, as will now be explained.]

The law: It is possible for a Sukkah to remain Kosher so long as it has a minimum of more than 4×4 dimension of Kosher Sechach, and this Kosher Sechach provides majority shade for the Sukkah. For example, if the total dimension of the roof of the sukkah is 7 x 7 Tefachim, then if it contains over 4 x 4 Tefachim dimension of Kosher Sechach, then the sukkah is valid even if the remaining less than 3×3 Tefach is made up of empty space or non-Kosher Sechach material.[106] If, however, it contains 3×3 Tefach of empty space or non-Kosher Sechach material on the roof next to the 4×4 area of Kosher Sechach, then it is invalid.[107] In such a case it is invalid even if it contains 6.9 by 6.9 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach.[108] [From here it can be established that by a non-teepee shaped Sukkah, there must be a roof of 7×7 Tefachim dimension for the Sukkah to be Kosher, although from amongst that space, it is not required for that entire space to be made up of Kosher Sechach, and rather so long as it contains less than 3 Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach in that space, or empty space in that space, it is valid.[109]]

Summary: A Sukkah must contain a 7×7 Tefachim dimension by its roof in order to be valid, with exception to a teepee shaped Sukkah, in which case if it’s walls are made of material that are valid for Sechach then they count as part of its 7×7 Tefachim dimension to validate it. Nonetheless, it is not required for the sukkah to contain 7×7 Tefachim of actual kosher Sechach, and so long as it has more than 4×4 Tefachim of kosher Sechach and does not contain 3×3 Tefachim or more of empty space or non-kosher Sechach, then it is valid. If, however, it contains 3×3 Tefachim of non-kosher Sechach or empty space, then it is not valid unless it contains 7×7 Tefachim of kosher Sechach. Likewise, if in total on the roof it does not contain a dimension of 7×7 Tefachim when one combines both the kosher and non-kosher Sechach then it is invalid.   Making a portable Sukkah out of a portable camp shower or tent: From Halacha A we can learn the law regarding a portable travel Sukkah which is made like a tent, that it is not required to contain 7×7 Tefach dimension by its top, so long as it has this dimension for a height of ten Tefachim from the ground. However, it is only valid in such a case if the wall material of the portable Sukkah is made of material that is Kosher for Sechach, which is usually not the case, and it is hence invalid. Thus, one cannot turn a portable shower travel unit into a Sukkah by placing Sechach on its opening if the roof area is less than 7×7 Tefachim. If, however, the roof area is 7×7 Tefachim or more, and the window opens to a space of more than 4×4 Tefachim for the Kosher Sechach to be placed, and there isn’t 3×3 dimension of non-Kosher Sechach material[110], then it is valid, as explained in Halacha B. Turning one’s car into a Sukkah by placing Sechach on the sunroof: From the above ruling we can understand the law regarding if one can turn his car into a Sukkah by opening the sunroof and placing Sechach on top of it. Most sunroofs of cars [excluding convertibles] do not have a dimension of 7×7 Tefachim, with it usually being less than 7 Tefachim in one direction, and also do have more than 3×3 Tefachim[111] [and even more than 4×4 Tefachim[112]] of car roof on the front and back of the sunroof. Thus, it is invalid to make a Sukkah out of a car by placing Sechach on the sunroof window when open.

7. The material that is Kosher for Sechach:[113]

A. The general ruling-The three conditions:[114]

One may only use as Sechach items which grow from the ground, are currently detached from the ground, and do not receive impurity. However, if 1) the item does not grow from the ground then it is invalid even if it does not contract impurity. For example, hides of animals that have not been tanned and thus do not contract impurity[115], as well as earth[116] or types of metals[117] that have not been turned into vessels and thus do not contract impurity, nonetheless are invalid to be used for Sechach. 2) The same applies for items which are fit[118] to contract impurity, that they are invalid even if they grow from the ground. For example, all types of foods even if they have not yet been made susceptible to impurity [i.e. have not been wet with water], nonetheless are invalid to be used for Sechach.[119] Likewise, all types of vessels are invalid to be used for Sechach even if they are made of wood, being that they have the ability to hold [i.e. Beis Kibul], and are thus able to contract impurity.[120] [Meaning, that even if the item is still pure and has never contracted impurity, the mere fact that it potentially has ability to contract impurity if it were to get into contact with an impure item, already invalidates it.[121]] 3) Likewise, all items that are attached to the ground are invalid to use as Sechach.[122]

The Biblical source for the above invalidations:[123] The above validations are derived from the verse[124] “A festival of Sukkos you shall make for yourselves with the gathering of your grain stalks and your vineyards.” This verse is coming to tell us that the Sechach of the Sukkah is to be made from the waste materials of the grains and vineyards, such as twigs, or stalks and small branches of vine[125] which are gathered from the grains and vineyards. Now, [it is not limited to these exact items but rather] all items of the like which contain similar properties to them are also valid. Thus, practically only items which grow from the ground, [and are detached from the ground[126]] and do not receive impurity are valid to be used for [the Sechach of] the Sukkah and not any other item.[127]

Summary: The following criteria is required for a material to be valid Sechach 1. The material grows from the ground. 2. The material is currently detached from the ground 3. The material has not been formed into an item which can receive impurity.

Q&A on Shemita During Shemita, may one cut Sechach from a tree to use for his Sukkah?[128] Yes. However, it is best to do so in an irregular method than that used for trimming trees. Does Sechach have Kedushas Shevi’is?[129] No.

 

B. List of earth products that can contract impurity and are hence invalid:

Any item that is potentially able to contract impurity is invalid for Sechach.

Fruits and Vegetables:[130] All types of foods even if they have not yet been made susceptible to impurity [i.e. have not been wet with water], nonetheless are invalid to be used for Sechach. [Thus, all fruits and vegetables are invalid for Sechach being that they potentially can contract impurity after coming in contact with liquids].[131]

A broken vessel:[132] All items which were once susceptible to contract impurity for even a mere moment, remain under Rabbinical invalidation to be used as Sechach, even if they have now been reversed to a state that they can no longer contract impurity. For example, [an earth] produce which was once able to contract impurity due to it being transformed into a vessel, remains Rabbinically invalid even if it has broken and its broken pieces [are no longer fit for use as a vessel, and] are no longer of a measurement that can contract impurity. The same applies regarding mats [made of earth materials] which have shredded and no longer retain a 3 x 3 finger width dimension [i.e. 6 x 6 cm], in which case they can no longer contract impurity, nevertheless remain invalid to be used as Sechach. Likewise, the [wooden] handle of a vessel which broke off the vessel is invalid to be used as Sechach, as even though it is now purified from being able to contract any impurity, nevertheless since when it was attached to the vessel it was able to contract impurity, it is therefore Rabbinically invalid.[133] If one transgressed and used this material as Sechach for his Sukkah, then it is invalid [even Bedieved] and is considered as if he had used Sechach material that is Biblically invalid. [See Q&A and list brought below regarding breaking pieces off a chair and the like; using pieces of a large vessel; using pieces of an item which only Rabbinically contracts impurity; and using pieces of other forms of invalid Sechach.] 

Earth produce that had a hole made in it:[134] [Any earth produce which has a hole made into it in a way that it can hold items in that hole, is able to contract impurity and is thus [Biblically] invalid. This applies even if the whole is made to receive an inserted part that will remain in it forever, such as the wood of an arrow and its metal tip, as will now be explained.] Thus, the wood of an arrow is invalid to be used as Sechach if they are made in a way that they contain a hole inside of them into which the metal part of the arrow is then entered into. However, those arrows which are made in a way that the wood part contains no hole but is simply inserted into a hole within the metal arrow, then they do not contract impurity and remain valid to be use as Sechach so long as they have never yet been attached to their arrow part.

Earth produce that naturally grew with a hole in it:[135] [Earth produce which grew with a natural hole, such as] a bamboo stick which contains a natural hollowness, do not contract impurity and therefore are valid to be used as Sechach.[136]

A wooden pipe:[137] It is permitted to use a wooden pipe for Sechach.[138]

Earth produce which has been processed to a different form- Cotton and Cannabis:[139] [Any earth material which has been processed into a changed form is Rabbinically invalid.[140] Thus,] pieces of flax from wood which have not been processed and softened and combed are valid to be use as Sechach being that they are recognizable as being wood. However, they have been softened within instrument and they are rabbinically invalid to be used as Sechach, being that their form has changed and are considered as if they are no longer produce of the ground. This applies even if the flax has not been combed. The same applies regarding cotton or cannabis which has been spun that they may no longer be used as Sechach.[141]

Ropes:[142] In general, ropes do not contract impurity as they do not have any cavity which can hold an item. Nonetheless, certain ropes are [Rabbinically] invalid to be used being that they have been processed to a point that they have lost their original appearance and therefore consider is if they are no longer a product of the ground. Accordingly, ropes that are made of flax cannabis are invalid. [Based on the above, ropes which are made of materials which were spun in order to make them firm, are invalid. However, if they were not spun and the rope is rather made of strings of that material which have retained their original form of growth, then they are valid, as ropes do not have a hole within them to hold items and thus do not contract impurity.]

List of items and their status regarding Sechach:[143] 1. Earth:[144] Earth is Biblically invalid for Sechach.[145] 2. Glass:[146] Glass is invalid for Sechach. See Q&A for fall details of this invalidation! 3. Plastic: Plastic is invalid for Sechach. See Q&A for fall details of this invalidation! 4. Carton:[147] A carton box [commonly used for moving and storing things], which is made of processed wood, is Rabbinically invalid for Sechach.[148] 5. Paper:[149] Paper, which is made of processed wood, is Rabbinically invalid for Sechach.[150] 6. Cotton:[151] Cotton is Rabbinically invalid for Sechach.[152] 7. Bamboo mats which did not have a reliable Rabbinical supervision. [See Q&A below!] 8. Pieces of wood broken from furniture: Is invalid, unless the furniture was large enough to hold 40 Seah or is only Rabbinically able to contract impurity. [See Q&A below!] However, broken pieces of wood from items which were invalid due to reasons other than contracting impurity [i.e. planks of wood used for roof], are valid.[153] 9. Bamboo mats which are under a reliable Rabbinical supervision [See next Halacha!]   Q&A Are plants/trees that grew in a pot [i.e. Atziz] valid for Sechach?[154] Yes, plants and trees that grow in a pot are valid for Sechach, so long as they are cut and removed from their pot, just as is the law by a regular tree.   Are plants/trees that grew hydroponically valid for Sechach?[155] Yes, plants and trees that grew hydroponically are valid for Sechach, so long as they are cut and removed from their area of growth, just as is the law by a regular tree. Is glass invalid for Sechach and if so, what is its status of invalidation?[156] Glass that is produced from sand and earth is Biblically invalid for Sechach.[157] However, glass that is made from the ash of plants or other earth produce, is only Rabbinically invalid.[158] Thus, in a time of need, it may be used as Sechach.[159] Nonetheless, if it is mixed with other Biblically invalid for Sechach materials, then we follow the majority ingredient.[160] Practically, all glass today is manufactured from actual sand and is thus Biblically invalid.[161] Some Poskim[162], however, learn that since glass does not create shade, therefore it is not treated as Biblically invalid Sechach and is rather viewed as empty space. Thus, while a Sukkah covered with only glass would be Biblically invalid being that it does not have majority shade and does not allow rain to penetrate, nonetheless, if one uses glass beams to support the Sechach, it is valid, as we view the glass as if it is air. Likewise, if one were to completely cover his Sechach with a glass covering during times of rain, the Sukkah would only be Rabbinically invalid, due to the fact that the rain cannot penetrate. Practically, the Poskim[163] negate this approach and rule that glass is viewed as invalid Sechach. Eating under glass area of Sechach:[164] Seemingly, it is invalid to eat under glass material of 3×3 Tefachim, just like is the law by empty space, and is unlike invalid Sechach which only invalidates if it is 4×4 Tefachim. Is plastic invalid for Sechach and if so what is its status of invalidation?[165] Plastic material is Biblically invalid for Sechach.[166] However, some Poskim[167], however, learn that since transparent plastic does not create shade, therefore it is not treated as Biblically invalid Sechach and is rather viewed as empty space. Thus, while a Sukkah covered with only plastic would be Biblically invalid being that it does not have majority shade and does not allow rain to penetrate, nonetheless, if one uses plastic beams to support the Sechach, it is valid, as we view the plastic as if it is air. Likewise, if one were to completely cover his Sechach with a plastic covering during times of rain, the Sukkah would only be Rabbinically invalid, due to the fact that the rain cannot penetrate. Practically, the Poskim[168] negate this approach and rule that plastic is viewed as invalid Sechach. Eating under glass area of Sechach:[169] Seemingly, it is invalid to eat under transparent plastic material of 3×3 Tefachim, just like is the law by empty space, and is unlike invalid Sechach which only invalidates if it is 4×4 Tefachim.   May one break a wooden piece of furniture [chair, bed, bench, dresser, ladder, small container] to small pieces and used it as Sechach?[170] Some Poskim[171] rule that if they were broken with intent to use for Sechach, and they are broken in a way that makes them no longer be recognizable from where they came from, then they are valid as there is no longer reason to decree that one may come to use the actual vessel for Sechach. Other Poskim[172], however, rule that all pieces of wood that derive from an item that once was a vessel is invalid even if the vessel and the pieces that were removed from it are no longer recognizable as having come from a vessel. Practically, one is to be stringent. Large furniture:[173] Pieces of wood that have been broken off large pieces of furniture which can hold the volume of 40 Seah [576 liters according to the Chazon Ish] are valid to be used for Sechach.[174] Thus, planks of wood that are removed from large shipping containers which could hold 40 Seah, are valid to be used for Sechach.[175] Are pieces of wood broken off from items which do not Biblically contract impurity but do Rabbinically contract impurity, permitted to be used as Sechach?[176] Some Poskim[177] rule that this is allowed if the piece is broken off in a way that is no longer fit for any use. According to this approach, it would be permitted to break off pieces of wood from any vessel that does not contain a groove made for intent of holding items and is thus only rabbinically deemed able contract impurity. This would include a wooden table[178], all wooden boards of a closet and bookcase, flat wooden supports onto which heavy merchandise rests[179], and perhaps even a matzoh bakeries wood rod which is used to remove the Matzos.[180]   May one use pieces of Sechach which have been painted over [i.e. a painted bamboo stick, or painted plank of wood]?[181] Yes. Gold or silver plated Sechach: Some Poskim[182] rule that it may not be used if it is gold or silver plated. Other Poskim[183], however, rule that it is permitted.   May one’s Sukkah frame/Pergola contain sockets which serve as slots to slide the Sechach into?[184] Yes.[185] Thus, one can attach a large piece of wood with a space in its middle on both sides of the Sukkah and then slide the Sechach in between the two slots for support.   May wooden slots used for Sechach in a pergola be shaped in a way they slide into the pergola supports? Yes.

List of items and their status

C. A wood ladder:[186]

It is questionable whether a ladder is deemed [a type of vessel that is] able to contract impurity.[187] Practically one [is to be stringent and] not use a ladder for Sechach.[188]

Using it to support the Sechach: Initially, one is to beware not to rest the ladder over the walls of the Sukkah, by its top, to use as a frame to hold up the Sechach.[189] Likewise, one is to beware not to rest it on top of the Sechach for the purpose of weighing it down and prevent the Sechach from flying with the wind.[190]

D. The stems [Yados] of a fruit – May one use branches that contain fruit as Sechach:[191]

The law while they are attached to their fruit and cut off the tree for the sake of eating the fruit:[192] All stems of foods, such as the straw of the stalks of grain, and the vines of grapes, and the broom shaped leaves attached to dates [i.e. palm leaves], all contract impurity while they are attached to their food [if there were removed from the ground/tree with intent of eating the fruit, as will be explained below].[193] Each food has a specific measurement of its stem which is deemed able to contract impurity, and if the stem is longer than this measurement that only the area of the stem which is near the food up until its designated  measurement receives impurity.[194] Thus, if one covers his Sukkah with Sechach that contains stalks of grains, and vines that contain grapes and palm branches that contain dates, then these items need to have long enough stems that the area that extends past the fruit and invalid area of stem which is next to the fruit is greater in the area of the fruit and invalid stem, otherwise the Sechach is invalid.[195] Nonetheless, this invalidation of the stem area that is adjacent to the fruit is only applicable if the branch/stalk has been harvested for the sake of eating the fruit, as will be explained next.[196]

The law while they are attached to their fruit and removed for the sake of Sechach:[197] If the branch/stalk which contains the fruit was harvested [i.e. cut from the ground or tree] not for the sake of eating the fruit but rather to use as Sechach, then the stem does not contract impurity at all [even in the area that is adjacent to the fruit].[198]

Summary: The stems of fruits and vegetables are able to contract impurity while attached to the fruit, if they were cut off the ground or tree with intent to eat the fruit. Each fruit and vegetable have a specific measurement of its stem which is deemed able to contract impurity. Above that measurement, the stem is deemed as a mere branch and does not contract impurity. If one cut the branches with intent to use for Sechach then the stems of the fruit [yados] do not contract any impurity and are thus valid.

E. Cutting the branch off the tree before resting it on the Sukkah as Sechach:[199]

• If the branch of a tree is resting over one’s Sukkah roofing, may one simply cut it off and have it used as Sechach?

As stated above in A, all items that are attached to the ground are invalid to use as Sechach. If one used produce that is attached to the ground as Sechach and then cut it off the ground [after it was already placed on the Sukkah as Sechach], then it is invalid.[200] [For example, if one stretched a branch which is currently attached to a tree onto his Sukkah to use as Sechach and then cut off the branch from the tree in order to fulfill the condition that it not be attached to the ground, then it is invalid.] Rather, his only option in such a case is to shake all of the invalid Sechach that was cut off from the tree. This means that he is the slightly lift it up and then return and rested on the Sukkah.[201] [It is not necessary to lift up the Sechach three Tefachim, or even one Tefach, and any amount suffices.[202] One must lift up each individual piece of Sechach in order to validate it.[203] Some Poskim[204] 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[205] 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 especially by a Biblical invalidation.[206]]

Summary: The Sechach must initially be placed on the roofing at a time that it is currently valid to be used and thus if the branch was placed on the Sukkah when it was still attached to the ground, it is invalid. One may however lift the branch after it is cut and then replace it as valid Sechach.

F. Items which give off bad odors:[207]

The Sages initially forbade using herbs that give off foul odors for Sechach.[208] Nevertheless, if one transgressed and used herbs which give bad odor as Sechach, the Sukkah is nevertheless valid, and it is even initially permitted to eat in this Sukkah.[209] 

G. May branches with leaves be used for Sechach?

It is permitted to use branches with leaves as Sechach, and both the wood of the branches and its leaves count as part of the Sechach. However, if it is common for the leaves to fall within the seven days of Sukkos, then the following law applies regarding if one may use them for Sechach.

Not to use as Branches with leaves that fall on their own:[210] The Sages initially forbade using for Sechach branches that contain leaves which constantly fall off on their own even when there isn’t wind.[211] [However, if they only fall as a result of wind, then it is valid to use them, as it is possible to dwell in the Sukkah during times that are not windy.[212]] Nevertheless, if one transgressed and used branches with leaves that constantly fall off as Sechach, the Sukkah is nevertheless valid and it is even initially permitted to eat in this Sukkah.[213] [This validation however only applies so long as the Sukkah still contains majority shade, as once enough leaves have fallen to cause there to no longer be majority shade the Sukkah is invalid. Furthermore, all the leaves that will fall within seven days, even to begin with do not count as part of the valid Sechach, and thus one must have majority shade without counting the leaves that will fall within seven days, as explained next.]

Do leaves that will fall count as part of the Sechach?[214] One who used for Sechach branches that contain fruit [which are invalid for Sechach], and that contain leaves which are quick to dry within seven days [even in normal weather[215]] and have their leaves fall off and leave empty space, then [from the first day of Sukkos] the leaves are considered as if they have already fallen off even though they have yet to dry [and fall]. Therefore, [not only do they not join the minimum amount of Sechach and majority shade required for the Sukkah to be valid, but furthermore] we view it as empty space to invalidate the Sukkah [by a three walled Sukkah] even if it has a dimension of three by three Tefachim on the side, as is the law with all empty space, as explained in chapter 632 [see Halacha 3B].[216] [This invalidation applies even to Kosher Sechach that contains leaves that will fall during the festival, and is not limited to the specific case above which discusses invalid leaves due to their fruit.[217] Thus, when one uses branches that contain leaves which will fall off during Sukkos, he must place enough Sechach on the Sukkah that there will be majority shade even if one were to consider those leaves that will fall off as if they are not present and that there is empty space in their place. However, this only applies if the leaves will naturally fall off on their own irrelevant of the weather. If, however, they will only fall off if the weather is very hot and dry, then they are not invalid, and actually join the required majority shade of the Sukkah, until they actually fall off.[218]]

Sechach that contains bugs insects and worms:[219] Just as one is not initially allowed to use for Sechach which gives off bad odor or has its leaves constantly fall, so too one is not allowed to use material that contains insects and bugs that fall into the food.

H. May bundles of wood be used as Sechach?[220]

Bundles of straw and bundles of wood are not permitted to be used for Sechach so long as they are still bound.[221] This, however, only applies to bundles that contain no less than 25 canes of wood. However, bundles that contain less than 25 canes of wood are permitted to be used as Sechach.[222] Likewise, this only applies to bundles that are brought in from the field and are common to remain in their bundled state, however, bundles that are made for the sake of selling it to the marketplace by number, and are immediately opened by the purchaser upon the purchasing it, are permitted to be used as Sechach.[223] Likewise, this invalidation only applies if the bundle is tied tight enough and well enough that if it were to be dragged it would still remain tied.[224]

The law Bedieved if one placed invalid bundles as Sechach:[225] If one transgressed and used invalid bundles as Sechach, then if he placed it there with intent to use as Sechach, then he is to simply untie the bundle and it is valid.[226] However, if he placed the bundle there for the sake of drying it and when the festival arrived he changed his mind used as Sechach, then it is Biblically invalid, and cannot be validated simply through untying it.[227] Rather, one must do a new action to its placement on the Sukkah as Sechach, which is to slightly lift it up and then return and rest it there for the sake of shade. In addition, one must undo the bundle.[228]

Summary: Bundles of wood which contain 25 pieces or more that are commonly placed on rooftops for drying purposes are Rabbinically invalid for Sechach even if placed on top of the Sukkah for the sake of Sechach. However, if the bundle is opened and spread across the Sechach roofing then it is valid. Bundles of wood which contain less than 25 pieces are valid to be used as Sechach. Likewise, even if they contain 25 pieces or more, if they are not common to be left tied and are simply tied to be brought to the marketplace, then they are valid to be used as Sechach even when tied. Likewise, even if they contain 25 pieces and are commonly left tied it is only invalid if it is tied strongly enough that it can be dragged in its tied state.

In short-Tied bundles of Sechach are only invalid if the following conditions are fulfilled: The bundle contains 25 pieces or more It is common to dry the bundle in the state It is tied strongly enough that it can be dragged in this state.   Q&A May one leave a rolled bamboo Sechach mat over his Sukkah for Sechach? Seemingly yes, as it is not common to leave it in this position for drying purposes and hence is not relevant to the decree of invalidation.

           

I. May one use wood boards as Sechach?[229]

Flat wooden vessels wide enough to hold items:[230] All flat wooden vessels which are slightly wide [even less than 4 Tefachim[231]] and are fit [and designated[232]] to support items on top of it, such as a table or oven rake and bread shovel [i.e. peel], are Rabbinically invalid to be used for Sechach.[233] These planks of wood may not even be placed on top of the Sechach to weigh it down [so it does not fly with the wind]. This invalidation applies even if the planks of wood have now been broken into smaller pieces.[234]

Boards of 4 Tefachim:[235] Wood boards which are four Tefach wide [32 cm.] are forbidden to be used as Sechach.[236] This applies even if one places the four Tefach board with its wide heart facing upwards, and thus its width over the Sukkah is less than four Tefachim, nevertheless it is invalid.[237]

Boards of less than 4 Tefachim:[238] [From the letter of the law] it is permitted to use boards that are less than four Tefachim wide as Sechach. This applies even if the boards are smoothed down and similar to a vessel, and even if they are fit for sitting on, and even if they are fit to be used to rest fruits and loaves of bread on top of them being that they are slightly wide, but are not designated for this purpose.[239] [If, however, they are designated to be used for these purposes then they are considered like as a vessel, and are invalid, as explained above regarding flat wood vessels.]  However, in today’s times that houses are roofed with wood boards of [even] less than three Tefachim [24 cm] width, then one is to invalidate a Sukkah that is roofed and so is been accepted even amongst those who are careful in its most with Sechach of even boards that are less than three Tefachim wide.[240] However, boards which are very narrow, to the point that it is not common to use such narrow boards for a roofing of a house, are permitted to be used as Sechach [even if they are wide enough to hold fruits and bread, so long as they are not designated for these purposes].[241] Nevertheless, when such boards are used, one must beware to verify that the Sechach roofing is made in an amateur and loose fashion in a way that allows rain to penetrate the Sukkah, as explained in 631:5. For this reason, the widespread custom of the world is not to use even the [permitted] very narrow boards as Sechach due to worry that one may mistakenly come to set it there in a permanent/professional way that the rain will not be able to penetrate it.[242] [However, in the recent generations  many are accustomed to use also wooden boards as Sechach, and so has been accepted even amongst those who are careful in Mitzvos especially amongst Jerusalem Jewry.[243] Practically, while the Poskim[244] have defended this custom and those who do so have upon whom to rely[245] especially if the boards are less than a Tefach wide[246] and even more so if it is less than 5 cm wide[247], nonetheless, it is best not to use these boards as Sechach and rather to use the branches of trees.[248] Those who do use these boards as Sechach must beware not to place them together too tightly in order so rain can penetrate.[249] Even those who are stringent, if their only currently available Sukkah is made with these wood boards then they may eat there, as explained next.]

In a time of need:[250] In a time of need that one does not have any other Sechach available, one may use wood boards as Sechach even if they are four Tefachim wide, if there is no other option available. The same applies with all other Sechach that is invalid simply due to a Rabbinical decree. [However, if it was deemed Rabbinically able to contract impurity, such as wooden boards that have been designated for a use and thus turned into a vessel, then it is invalid to be used in all cases.[251]]

Summary: It is forbidden to use wood surfaces that were made into a vessel for Sechach. Furthermore, the custom is not to use any wood boards for Sechach, even though they are simple boards which were not turned into a vessel, irrelevant of how narrow they are [although those who do so today have upon whom to rely]. If there is no other Sechach available, then they are valid to be used so long as they are not commonly used in one’s city for the roofing of homes and are less than 32 cm wide, and rain is able to penetrate the Sukkah. However, if the only boards available are 32 cm wide then even such boards may be used. All boards that are valid Bedieved may even initially be used in a time of need. Q&A May one use tree branches that are wider than 4 Tefachim?[252] Yes. The above restriction against using more than four Tefach wide boards is specifically against boards being that it is similar to the roofing of a home. However wooden branches of the tree are always valid irrelevant of their size. Thus, there is no issue at all with using palm branches or banana tree branches as Sechach.   May one use bamboo as Sechach? Yes, and so is the custom.[253] However, some Poskim[254] question its validity being that it is often used for roofs.   May one use wood boards that are made of sandwich wood as Sechach?[255] No, it should not be used. Are wood boards that are permanently nailed into the frame of the Sukkah Kosher for Sechach if they are of the right minimum size? If there are beams of wood nailed or screwed into a roofing, then some Poskim[256] rule that these beams are invalid for Sechach unless they are unscrewed and then re-rested onto the frame before Sukkos without re-screwing them.

 

J. If no other Sechach material is available may one use material which is only Rabbinically invalid?[257]

In a time of need that one does not have any other Sechach available, one may use Sechach that is invalid simply due to a Rabbinical decree. [However, if it was deemed Rabbinically able to contract impurity, then it is invalid to be used in all cases.[258]]

8. Bamboo/Wooden Mats-May wooden mats be used for Sechach? Must it have a Rabbinical supervision:[259]

Throughout the world, especially in Third World countries, mats are manufactured for a variety of purposes, including for the sake of using as a roofing for huts and temporary homes, and for the sake of sleeping on them like a bed, or for the sake of storing fruits and other items. Some of these functions, such as the latter two functions, can possibly deem the mat fit receive impurity and therefore be invalidated for use as Sechach. The question is thus raised regarding whether a Rabbinical supervision is needed in order to verify that the mats are produced solely for purposes that do not deem them susceptible to contract impurity and thereby invalidate them. An additional issue relevant to using mats for Sechach is the material that’s been used to bind the pieces together. As we will explain in Halacha 9, it is initially forbidden for one to use Sechach supports that are made of material that are not kosher for Sechach, thus requiring that the sewing material used for binding the mats is made of material that is kosher for Sechach. Practically, while half a century ago mats under Rabbinical supervision did not exist, today they have become the standard practice, with a variety of rabbinical supervisions and mat companies available which produce Kosher Sechach. The role of the Kashrus supervision is to make sure that the mats are produced specifically for use as Sechach and to also make sure that the sewing material is made of material that is valid for Sechach. The following is a general background on the former subject regarding if the mats are made for a purpose that causes them to contract impurity.

A. The issue of them being invalid due to contracting impurity:

Mats which are formed from produce that grows from the ground, such as bamboo, or canes, or twigs, are at times considered fit to contract impurity and are therefore invalid to be used for Sechach and at times are not and thereby remain valid for Sechach. The mere fact that they have been bound together into a mat does not intrinsically invalidate them. The following is the law:

The law-Purchasing secondhand wooden mats which are small or smooth:[260] Sleeping mats, which can be identified as mats that are made small to the exact size fit for a person to lie down on it and not more, or that are made very smooth which indicates its purpose to be used as a mattress for sleeping, are considered fit to contract impurity[261] [unless purchased directly from the manufacturer or merchant, as will be explained] and are therefore invalid to be used for Sechach.[262] This applies even if they have never actually become impure.[263] All mats which meet the above specifications [of small size or smoothness] are assumed to be sleeping mats and are therefore invalid for Sechach, even if one does not know for certain [for what purpose it was originally made or purchased for].[264] If, however, it was specifically manufactured [or originally purchased by the seller from the manufacturer] for the sake of using it as Sechach[265], then it is valid [even though it contains the same properties as a mat made for lying down on, meaning that it is small and smooth, so long as one does not know for certain that was previously designated for lying on by the current owner[266]].[267] Likewise, all the above disqualification of small mats only applies in a city which does not have a clear custom of what they choose to use these small mats for [with some using it for sleeping and some for roofing]. However, in a city that the custom of the majority of its inhabitants is to use the small mats for [non-permanent[268]] roofing purposes, then it is permitted to use any of the mats in the city as Sechach even if one has not actually verified its intended use, unless one knows for certain that the mats have been made for lying purposes [or that the previous owner designated it for lying on[269]].[270] However, in a city that the custom of the majority of its inhabitants is to use the small mats for sleeping purposes, then it is forbidden to use any of the small mats in the city as Sechach, even if one knows for certain that the mats have been made for roofing purposes, due to Maaras Ayin.[271]

The law-Purchasing secondhand wooden mats which are large:[272] A large mat, which is defined as a mat that is larger than the size needed for one to lie on, is valid to be used as Sechach if it does not contain a rim around it [and one has not verified for certain that it was made or purchased, or designated by the previous owner for the sake of lying on[273]], as one can assume that it was manufactured [or purchased] for this purpose to be used as a roofing. The mat remains valid to be used as Sechach even if an impure person [i.e. Zav] lied on it.[274] If, however, the mat does contain a rim surrounding it (from all four directions) in a way that it is useful for holding things, than it is invalid to be used as Sechach.[275] (In such a case, it remains invalid to be used as Sechach even if one later removes the rim, just as we rule to invalidate using broken pieces of a vessel as Sechach as has already been explained.[276]) Likewise, all the above qualification of large mats only applies in a city which does not have a clear custom of what they choose to use these large mats for [with some using it for sleeping and some for roofing]. However, in a city that the custom of the majority of its inhabitants is to use the large mats for sleeping purposes, as is the custom in these provinces, then it is forbidden to use any of the large mats in the city as Sechach even if one has not actually verified its intended use.[277] Furthermore, even if one knows for certain that the mats have been made for roofing purposes, they should not be used in the city as Sechach due to Maaras Ayin.[278] [Practically, it is no longer the widespread custom today to use these maps for sleeping purposes.[279]]

Purchasing mats from a  seller or manufacturer:[280] If one buys a mat from a craftsman for the sake of using it as Sechach, then it is valid [even if it is a small and smooth mat which is evidently manufactured for the purpose of lying on, nonetheless it does not contract impurity and remains valid as in these matters we follow the opinion of the buyer and not the seller].[281] It is valid even if the mat contains a rim in which case the mat can technically be used to hold items.[282] [Nonetheless, this only applies if there is no known custom in this city for the majority of the city residents to use it for lying purposes, otherwise it is invalid to be used in that city due to Maaras Ayin, as explained above.[283] However, even in such a case, it may still be used in other cities where there is no Maaras Ayin applicable.[284] Thus, according to this clarification, the only time that there would be a problem to use wood mats as Sechach is if he purchased them secondhand from another individual, or from an individual who made them for his own use and is now selling it, in which case we need to determine the intent that that individual made it for or bought it for, based on the above details of differentiation of size and community custom. However, when purchasing it straight from the manufacturer or reseller then it is always considered valid to be used for Sechach. Thus, it is unclear as to the reason for why several Kashrus organizations demand that the manufacturers of their Sechach mats make it in a way that it does not resemble other wooden mats which are used for a vessel purpose, as in truth there is no issue with it resembling it being that they are buying it straight from the manufacturer. Likewise, the fact that the majority of that city’s inhabitants may use it for a vessel purpose is irrelevant being that they’re being sold elsewhere in areas where people only use it for the purpose of Sechach. Thus, there is no problem in purchasing these mats from Third World countries that still use them for the permanent roofs of their huts, as they will be used in modernized areas.[285] Seemingly, however, the Hashgacha companies desire that their Sechach mats be manufactured in a way that they are valid in use everywhere in the world, and therefore ask the manufacturers to make it in a different way. Furthermore, they desire it to be valid according to all opinions, as there are opinions[286] who argue on the above and rule even when purchased or ordered directly from the manufacturer we follow the custom of the city to determine whether it can receive impurity, and not just to determine if there is Maaras Ayin to use it locally. Likewise, perhaps they desire to be stringent like the Rashba [explained next] and hence have it specially manufactured for Sechach. Whatever the case, the issues to be discussed in B-C must also be cleared from this mat in order for it to be allowed to be used as Sechach, and therefore practically even when purchasing from the manufacture a rabbinical supervision is necessary.]

B. The issue of them appearing like a permanent roof:

Using wooden mats as Sechach in a city that uses them for their permanent roof:[287] In those areas in which it is accustomed to use the wooden mats for the roofing of their homes than these wooden mats may not be used as Sechach. This applies even if they were manufactured for the purpose of Sechach and hence do not contract impurity.[288]

The opinion of the Rashba and its negation:[289] Some Poskim[290] [i.e. Rashba] rule that pieces of Sechach which is attached to each other for a measurement of more than four Tefachim becomes invalid due to it appearing similar to a permanent ceiling tile. Accordingly, some Poskim[291] rule based on this that bamboo mats should not be used as Sechach. Other Poskim[292] however negate this ruling and state that no such invalidation exists, and Sechach mats remain valid even though the pieces of Sechach are attached to each other. Practically, the widespread custom is to be lenient and permit using Sechach mats even though that they are tied together.

C. The issue of them being tied with invalid Sechach material:[293]

The Sages decreed the Sechach may only be supported on material which is Kosher for Sechach. This applies both against placing the Sechach on items that are invalid for Sechach, as well as against placing these items on top of the Sechach in order to weigh them, as will be explained at length in Halacha 9. Accordingly, the Sechach mats must be tied together using rope material that is Kosher for Sechach, such as the more expensive hemp strings [see Q&A regarding cotton strings], and one may not use regular metal or synthetic rope [as is usually don in its manufacturing] which are invalid for Sechach for this purpose. It is primarily due to this reason that the Sechach mats require a Rabbinical supervision. [However, some Poskim[294] rule that the issue with using invalid Sechach material as strings to bind the pieces of the mat is only applicable if it’s necessary to weigh down the Sechach so it does not fly away with a common wind. Thus, if the individual Sechach pieces are heavy enough to weigh down on the Sukkah and withstand a common wind even without being tied, then they remain valid even if tied together using material invalid for Sechach.[295] Likewise, if one weighs the Sechach down by placing wooden boards over it then it is valid even if tied using invalid Sechach material.[296]]

Summary of validation criteria for Sechach mats: Mats which are formed from produce that grows from the ground, such as bamboo, or canes, or twigs, are valid to be used for Sechach if the following conditions are fulfilled: One is purchasing it straight from the manufacturer or reseller. Based on this, a Hashgacha company may have their Sechach mats manufactured anywhere in the world, even in countries that use it for roofing purposes or sleeping purposes. However, being that it is possible to understand that there are opinions who negate getting mats from a manufacturer in an area where the mats are used for a vessel purpose, therefore they are seemingly accustomed to ha I it manufactured in a specific way to avoid any question. One is purchasing it secondhand, but one has verified that these mats are manufactured or purchased and used in this city for the sake of using them as a temporary roofing and not for the sake of lying on them or using them to hold fruits if they have a rim, or any other vessel purpose. Regarding how to verify this matter when purchasing it secondhand, one follows the accustomed use of this item by the majority of the inhabitants of that area. If there is no set custom for this item then one is to follow its size, meaning that if it is small then it is assumed to have been made for sleeping on and is thus invalid, while if it is large, it is valid unless it has rims around it on all sides. Whenever purchasing secondhand, if one knows for certain that it was previously used for a vessel purpose than it is invalid. The mat may only be used in one’s city, if it is not used by majority of the inhabitants of the area where ones Sukkah is located for permanent roofing purposes or for lying on, or for other vessel purposes. The wooden pieces are bound together with material that is valid for Sechach.   Q&A Practically, must the commonly sold Sechach bamboo mats contain a reliable Rabbinical supervision and what is a law if one purchases one without a supervision? Ideally, Sechach mats should have a Rabbinical supervision in order to clear it of the issues mentioned above and make sure that it fulfills the validation criteria. However, however, if one already purchased Sechach mats which do not contain a Rabbinical certification, or if that is all that is available in one’s area, then it may even be initially used if the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. One can assume that the mats are not secondhand and have been purchased directly from the manufacturer. In such a case, it is valid to be used even without a Hashgacha irrelevant as to which country in the world it came from and as to what purposes they used it for in that country. 2. One verifies that the strings used to bind the woods are made of material that are valid for Sechach. Are mats which are made for the sake of wrapping merchandise considered a vessel to contract impurity?[297] Yes. May rope made from cotton be used to tie the Sechach mats together?[298] Although cotton is a Rabbinically invalid Sechach material, some Poskim[299] are lenient to permit using cotton ropes to tie the Sechach mats together.[300] Practically, it is best to use materials which are valid for Sechach even initially.[301] If the only available Sechach, is wood mats which can be bought straight from the manufacturer or their merchant, but have been tied together with invalid Sechach material, such as metal strings, may it be used? Yes. In such a case one should support the mats onto the Sukkah using Kosher Sechach materials, such as by placing wooden boards over it to weigh it down which in essence deems the metal strings as irrelevant.[302]

 

9. The materials valid to be used as supports of the Sechach [i.e. Mamad]:[303]

• Must the items which support the Sechach [the “Mamad”], either for the Sechach to rest on or to weigh it down from flying away with the wind, be themselves kosher for Sechach?

The prohibition to use invalid for Sechach material as a support for one’s Sechach:[304] One is initially required to beware not to support the Sechach with any item that is able to contract impurity [and is thus invalid for Sechach] such as a chair or bench[305] [as it receives Tumas Midras[306]], due to a decree that one may come to use such material as actual Sechach.[307] [This applies whether the material is able to contract impurity from a Biblical level or only from a Rabbinical level.[308]] This restriction against using such material applies whether one desires to use it to weigh down the Sechach from flying away with the wind[309], or to use it as a frame to rest the Sechach on top of the Sukkah.[310] This restriction applies likewise towards all other material that are invalid to be used as Sechach, that they likewise may not initially be used to support the Sechach.[311] Thus, one may not support the Sechach on branches of a tree while the branches are still attached to the tree.[312] [Likewise, items that did not grow from the ground and are thus invalid to be used for Sechach, such as metal poles and pipes, or metal roof frames[313], and the like, are invalid supports even though they do not contract impurity.[314] However, an exception to this rule is that the Sechach may be placed on something which one would never come to use as Sechach, such as stone, as will be explained below.]

The law Bedieved if the Sechach was rested on invalid support beams:[315] The entire above law is only regarding the initial requirement, however, Bedieved if one already supported the Sechach using material that receives impurity [or other material that is invalid for Sechach] then nevertheless [the Sukkah remains valid], and it is permitted to dwell in such a Sukkah even initially [in order to fulfill the Mitzvah]. [Thus, if there is no Kosher for Sechach material available to be used as support, then one may even initially use material that is not valid for Sechach to support the Sechach.[316]]

The law of Maamad Demaamad-Must the support of the support be of materials valid for Sechach?[317] The sages only decreed against using invalid for Sechach material as a support when the Sechach itself is resting on the item that receives impurity. However, if the Sechach is resting on top of wooden beams or pegs [which are themselves valid for Sechach] and these wooden beams or pegs are resting on something which receives impurity [or other item that is invalid for Sechach], then this is free of any Halachic issue and may be done even initially.[318] [One may thus make the walls of the Sukkah from materials invalid for Sechach and rest on the walls support beams which are valid for Sechach,  and have the Sechach rest on them.]

Nailing in the supports of the Sechach:[319] [Based on the above, that no decree was made against using invalid Sechach to support the support of the Sechach], it is thereby also initially permitted to attach the supports of the Sukkah on which the Sechach is resting on, to the walls of the Sukkah using iron nails, or through tying them down with pieces of clothing which receive impurity [and are therefore invalid for Sechach].[320] [Thus, there is no issue to do as many are accustomed to place a wood board on top of the Sechach, parallel to the board under it, and then tie the boards together with plastic ties, squeezing the Sechach in between and making it immovable with the wind. However, it would remain forbidden to nail or tie the Sechach itself directly to the support.]

The law by stone and other material that no one would mistake to use as Sechach:[321] It is even initially permitted to rest the Sechach itself on the walls of the Sukkah even if the walls are made of material that is invalid for Sechach, such as a stone wall.[322] [Thus, it is permitted to rest the Sechach on cement walls.[323]]

Summary: One is initially required to beware not to directly support the Sechach with any item that is invalid for Sechach. Thus, one may not weigh down the Sechach from flying away with invalid for Sechach material, and may not rest the Sechach on such material, unless it is made of stone. Bedieved, if one already supported the Sechach using such material then it is permitted to even initially dwell in such a Sukkah. One may even initially use materials invalid for Sechach to support the supports of the Sechach and may thus tie down or nail in the wooden boards used as the frame to rest the Sechach on.   Q&A Are Sechach materials which are only Rabbinically forbidden, likewise forbidden to be used as a support of the Sechach? Materials which are Biblically valid to be used as Sechach but have been Rabbinically deemed invalid, than if the invalidation is due to them being deemed Rabbinically able to contract impurity, then it may not be used as a support for the Sechach.[324] If, however, the material is Rabbinically invalid due to other reasons, such as being similar to the roofing of a home, then some Poskim[325] rule that it is valid to be used as a support, while other Poskim[326] rule that is best to be stringent even with material that is only Rabbinically invalid to not use it as a support of the Sechach. May one rest the Sechach on the walls of the Sechach if it is made up of wood boards that are larger than four Tefachim wide? This matter is subject to the debate brought in the previous Q&A, with some opinions ruling it as valid and others questioning its validity and concluding that is proper to be stringent. May regular rope or plastic ties be used to tie down the Sechach to the Sukkah?[327] It may not be used initially due to the same reason that one may not initially hold down the Sechach using an item that is invalid for Sechach.   May rope made from cotton or cannabis be used to tie the Sechach down?[328] If the rope has been woven, then this matter is subject to the debate brought earlier regarding using as a support item, that only Rabbinically invalid. If, however, the rope is not woven, then it may be used. If one has a metal Sukkah frame, does it suffice to place boards of wood alongside the metal frame in order to rest the Sechach on the wood and not on the metal?[329] Those who use metal Sukkah frames are accustomed to place wooden boards alongside the metal frame to support the Sechach in order so it is not directly supported by the metal which is invalid for Sechach.[330] Some Poskim[331], however, argue that the above does not suffice to avoid the initial prohibition.[332] Therefore, they argue that it is proper to place the wooden boards not alongside the metal frame, on top of them, but rather in the opposite direction. Meaning that if the metal frames go across the length of the Sukkah, then the wooden beam should go across the width of the Sukkah. May one place items which are invalid for Sechach, over the Sechach to support if from flying away? The decree of the Sages against using for supports items that are invalid for Sechach applies as well to items placed on the Sechach for purpose of weighing it down, as explained above. Thus, initially one may not use nails, or rope which is invalid for Sechach, to nail or tie down the Sechach to the Sukkah.   May one tie and weigh down the Sechach with materials that are invalid if one is doing so just to prevent it from flying away with an abnormal wind?[333] Some write that it is permitted even initially to use even invalid material to weigh down and tie down Sechach that will not fly away with a regular wind, and he is simply doing so in order, so it does not fly away with an abnormal wind. [Practically, one should only do so if no other materials are available.[334]]   List of items which may not be used to support the Sechach: – Metal poles – Plastic rope and plastic straps May one rest a metal screen on the top part of the Sukkah and then rest the Sechach on top of it, or vice versa, to rest a metal screen on top of the Sechach to prevent it from flying?[335] This is initially forbidden to be done due to that one may not initially support the Sechach using items that are invalid for Sechach.[336] Nonetheless, if one already went ahead and did so, it remains valid.[337] If there are no valid supports available may an invalid support be used?[338] Yes.   May one’s Pergola contain sockets which serve as slots to slide the Sechach into? Yes. See Chapter 1 Halacha 12E in Q&A!

                                                                       

10. Tying down your Sechach so it does not fly away with the wind:

The necessity for doing so:[339] Often throughout the holiday of Sukkos, changes of weather which come with gusts of wind can topple down Sukkos and deem them invalid. In this respect, even if the walls of the Sukkah remain intact it is possible for it to become invalid if it’s Sechach has been blown away, or became rolled or folded away from the walls for a distance of three Tefachim [i.e. 24 centimeters], consequently causing it’s walls to become Halachically unconnected to the Sukkah, and hence invalidate the Sukkah due to it lacking it’s minimum of 2 1/2 walls.[340] For example, if a Sukkah only contains 3 walls and the entire Sechach blew away from one of the walls to the point that it is now more than 24 centimeters distance from it to the wall, then that wall becomes completely invalid and consequentially causes the Sukkah to become invalid being that it now only has two walls. Now, while during the weekdays of Chol Hamoed one can simply replace the Sechach near the wall and hence revalidate the Sukkah, on Shabbos and Yom Tov it is forbidden to do so due to the Muktzah prohibition as well as the building prohibition of Ohel.[341] Thus, to prevent this from happening, upon constructing the Sukkah and placing the Sechach on it, one must fortify it in a way that it will not be moved by the wind and become invalid. This especially applies prior to Yom Tov and Shabbos Chol Hamoed.

How to secure and tie down the Sechach: One of the major Halachic issues that we face when it comes to fortifying the Sechach against the wind is how it can be done in a Halachically valid method, as it is initially forbidden to use any material that is invalid for Sechach as a support for the Sechach, or as a tool to fasten it [as explained in length in the previous Halacha].[342] Hence, while in normal construction, nails would be used to fasten down the roofing, this is not allowed to be done by the Sukkah.[343] Likewise, one may not place such materials on top of the Sechach for the sake of weighing it down.[344] Likewise, one may not use typical synthetic rope, or plastic cable ties to tie down the Sechach to the wall.[345] These restrictions extremely limit our ability of securing the Sechach to the walls of the Sukkah. Nonetheless, the following Halachic options are available and are to be followed.

1. Fasten your support beams to the walls/frame of the Sukkah: Fasten the narrow wooden boards used to support your Sechach from under, either through nailing them into your wall, or tying them to your Sukkah frame. Any material may be used for this purpose, and it is advisable to use plastic cable ties to fasten the boards to the frame. [This option of using the plastic cable ties follows the majority opinion in Poskim, and widespread custom of Jewry, that only the supports must be made of valid material for Sechach, but not the supports of the supports.[346] Those who follow the stringent opinion, to make sure that even the supports of the supports are made a valid for Sechach material, are to use Kosher for Sechach material rope, as explained next.]
2. Placing wooden boards on top of your Sechach:[347] In addition to your narrow wooden boards that are used to support your Sechach from under, place narrow wooden boards on top of your Sechach, in order to weigh it down. [Unlike a common misconception of some, there is absolutely no Halachic issue involved in weighing down your Sechach using narrow wooden boards just as they are used to support the Sechach from under, being that they themselves are technically valid for Sechach.[348]]
3. Using Kosher for Sechach rope material: Purchase rope material that is valid for Sechach, such as unprocessed hemp rope and the like which is used to sew the Sechach mats together. Use this rope to tie down the Sechach to the wooden boards that are used to support the Sechach. [This option is valid according to all opinions, although should only be used as a last resort due to its possible ineffectiveness.]
4. Sandwiching your Sechach between the boards: The following is the best and most secure option of all the above. In addition to the wooden boards that are used to support the Sechach from under, place wooden boards on top of your Sechach, directly parallel to the boards under. Then take rope of any material, or plastic cable zip ties [i.e. police plastic handcuffs] and tie the two boards to each other, thus sandwiching the Sechach in between the two boards and securing it that it will not move with the wind. Do this by each end of the two boards. [This option of using the plastic cable ties follows the majority opinion in Poskim, and widespread custom of Jewry, that only the supports must be made of valid material for Sechach, but not the supports of the supports.[349] Those who follow the stringent opinion, to make sure that even the supports of the supports are made a valid for Sechach material, are to use Kosher for Sechach material rope, as explained above.]

Q&A The law Bedieved if nails or other non-Kosher for Sechach materials were used to fasten or weigh down the Sechach:[350] The Sukkah remains valid, and it is permitted to dwell in such a Sukkah even initially in order to fulfill the Mitzvah.

11. A Sukkah that contains areas with invalid Sechach:[351]

When a Sukkah has areas of invalid Sechach on its top, it enters the question of whether a) the area under the invalid Sechach is considered as part of the Sukkah to permit eating and sleeping under it, and b) if the invalid Sechach makes the Sukkah be considered split between the two sides of the invalid Sechach, and potentially invalidates the Sukkah if it will thereby remain without three Kosher walls or without a minimum of 7×7 Tefach dimension in one area. Practically, this matter is dependent on the size of the space of invalid Sechach, and on the area in the Sukkah that it is found in. Thus, whenever one’s Sukkah contains significant areas of invalid Sechach, aside for contemplating whether one may eat or sleep under those areas, he must in addition contemplate if his Sukkah even remains Kosher. The following are the detailed laws:

* Regarding the law of eating under empty space that is within the Sukkah [i.e. under the sky], and cases that empty space invalidate the Sukkah, see Halacha 3!

A. Eating and sleeping under invalid Sechach?[352]

If the invalid Sechach is four Tefachim wide and passes from one end of the Sukkah to another:[353] If the invalid Sechach is four Tefach [31.32[354]] wide or more and passes from one end of the Sukkah to another, then it is forbidden to sleep or eat under the invalid Sechach. [This applies even if the Sechach is only Rabbinically invalid.[355]] Furthermore, at times it is considered as if the Sukkah is split in half and hence if the Sukkah has only three walls, it is possible that the entire Sukkah is invalid as will be explained in B and C. Likewise, if as a result the Sukkah will not contain 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, it is invalid, as explained in there.

If the invalid Sechach is less than four Tefachim wide but passes from one end of the Sukkah to another:[356] If the Sechach is less than four Tefachim wide, then the entire Sukkah is Kosher, and one may even eat under the non-Kosher Sechach. [However, some Poskim[357] rule that if the non-Kosher Sechach is even three Tefachim wide [23.5 cm.[358]] then one may not eat under it.[359] Practically, one is initially to be stringent not to eat under invalid Sechach if it is three or more Tefachim wide, even though it is less than four Tefachim.[360] If the Sechach is less than even three Tefachim wide, then according to all opinions one may eat under the non-Kosher Sechach.[361]] If the Sechach is 3×3 Tefachim wide or more, and as a result the Sukkah will not contain 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then the entire Sukkah is invalid, as explained in B.

If the invalid Sechach does not pass from one end to other:[362] If there is an area of invalid Sechach of 4×4 Tefachim wide [31.32 x 31.32 cm] then one may not eat or sleep under that area, even if it does not pass from one end of the Sukkah to the other. Furthermore, it is proper to be stringent if it is 3×3 Tefachim wide to not eat or sleep under it, as stated above. If the area is less than 3×3 Tefachim wide, then it is valid to eat and sleep under it according to all.

 

B. When invalid Sechach invalidates the Sukkah:

If the invalid Sechach is four Tefachim wide and passes from one end of the Sukkah to the other:[363] If the invalid Sechach is four[364] Tefachim [31.32[365]] wide or more, and passes from one end of the Sukkah to the other, then it is forbidden to eat under the invalid Sechach, as stated above in A. Furthermore, if the row of invalid Sechach is positioned in middle of the Sukkah [i.e. not running parallel adjacent to a wall] then if it is four Tefachim wide, it is considered as if the entire Sukkah is split in half, and hence if the Sukkah has only three walls, it is possible that the entire Sukkah is invalid, depending on where it creates the split. [This applies even if the Sechach is only Rabbinically invalid.[366]] The law is as follows:[367] If the row of invalid Sechach goes from one end of the Sukkah that contains a wall to the other end that does not have a wall [See figure C-D], then the entire Sukkah is invalid, as each side is viewed to have less than three walls. If, however, the invalid Sechach goes from one end of the Sukkah that has a wall to the other end of the Sukkah that has a wall [See Figure E-F], then the side of the Sukkah that contains the third wall remains valid if it has a dimension of 7×7 of Kosher Sechach, while the other side remains invalid.[368] If the side of the sukkah that contains the third wall does not contain a 7×7 dimension, then the entire Sukkah is invalid. If the invalid Sechach which goes from one end of the Sukkah to the other is adjacent to one of the walls, then it follows the rule of Dofen Akuma, and remains possibly valid even if it is more than four Tefachim wide as will be explained in C. If the Sukkah contains four walls, then the Sukkah always remains valid so long as there is a space of 7×7 of Kosher Sechach by each side of the split created by the non-Kosher Sechach. [See figure A-B]

If the invalid Sechach is less than four Tefachim wide but passes from one end of the Sukkah to the other:[369] If the Sechach is less than four Tefachim wide, then it does not split the sukkah in half and hence does not invalidate the Sukkah even if it goes from one side of the Sukkah to the other, and even if the Sukkah only contains three walls, so long as it contains 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, as will be explained next. Nonetheless, if the invalid Sechach is three Tefachim wide then one is to be stringent not to eat or sleep under it, as explained in Halacha A.

If the invalid Sechach does not pass from one end of the Sukkah to the other:[370] If the invalid Sechach does not pass from one end of the Sukkah to the other, then it does not split the Sukkah in half, and hence does not invalidate the Sukkah even if it contains more than 4×4 Tefachim of invalid Sechach, and the Sukkah only contains three walls, so long as it contains 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach [as explained next]. Nonetheless, if the invalid Sechach is four by four Tefachim wide, then one may not eat or sleep under it, and practically one is to be stringent if it is even 3×3 Tefachim wide, as explained in Halacha A.

The law by a small Sukkah-The requirement to remain with 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach [Figure G]:[371] All the above cases of validation in a case that there is 3×3 Tefachim or more of invalid Sechach is by a Sukkah larger than 10×10 Tefachim, which will maintain a 7×7 Tefach dimension of Kosher Sechach even after the three-by-three Tefachim of invalid Sechach is deducted from its dimension. If, however, the Sukkah is less than 10×10 Tefachim and contains a 3×3 Tefach of invalid Sechach, then the entire Sukkah is invalid, as it does not maintain the minimum Shiur of 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach.[372] [See Halacha 6B for the full details of this matter!] Thus, if a Sukkah contains an area of three [by three[373]] of non-Kosher Sechach that does not go from wall to wall, then although [one may not eat or sleep under the empty space, and it does not join for the minimum Shiur of 7×7 Tefach, nevertheless] it does not split the Sukkah in half and all its walls remain valid, although it only remains valid if in total the Sukkah contains 7×7 of areas covered with Sechach.

The law by a small Sukkah-How to measure the 7×7 required dimension:[374] It is considered to have a 7×7 dimension, and remains valid, even if the invalid Sechach causes there to be no single area of 7×7 of Kosher Sechach, so long as all together there is 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechah. Thus, if in the center of one’s 10×10 Tefach Sukkah there is invalid Sechach of 3×3 Tefachim, all areas of Sechach that surround the 3×3 center of invalid Sechach remain valid even though each side of the invalid Sechach only contains 10 x 3.5 Tefachim from its wall until the invalid Sechach, being that when the Sechach on both sides of the invalid Sechach are added together they contain 10×7 Tefachim, which is the valid measurement of a Sukkah. [Accordingly, it is permitted to place a glass sunroof in place of Sechach, on the area of the Sechach which directly corresponds to the table.[375] However, some Poskim[376] argue on the above and rule that the areas surrounding the invalid Sechach do not join each other to make up the minimum 7×7 Tefachim required dimension of Sechach, and hence all areas of the Sukkah that do not contain a 7×7 Tefach dimension beyond the invalid Sechach are invalid. Thus, one is initially to be stringent and not have invalid Sechach even in the center of his Sukkah that does not go from wall to wall if it leaves areas in the Sukkah without a 7×7 Tefach dimension.]

Invalid Sechach is less than 4 Tefach but is adjacent to empty areas without Sechach:[377] Even if there is less than four Tefachim of invalid Sechach adjacent to the less than three Tefachim of empty space, then by a large Sukkah [which is more than 7×7 Tefachim] they do not join for making a total of more than three Tefachim of empty space which splits the Sukkah in half.[378] Accordingly, if there is three Tefachim of empty space which is splitting the Sukkah in half [and one has no more valid Sechach available], one can place invalid Sechach in the empty space to diminish the empty space to less than three Tefachim and prevent it from splitting the Sukkah in half. However, by a small Sukkah of 7×7 Tefachim[379], the less than three Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach and less than three Tefachim of empty space join together to split and invalidate the Sukkah if in total they combine for three Tefachim, and it thus becomes invalid [even if the Sukkah still contains majority shade and has four walls].[380] [Thus, if in a 7×7 Tefachim Sukkah there was 1.5 Tefachim of both invalid Sechach and empty space next to each other, and four Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, the Sukkah is invalid being that the Sukkah does not contain a valid space of 7×7 Tefachim, as the three Tefachim of empty space and invalid Sechach do not join the 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach for the required dimension of 7×7 Tefachim.[381] However, if the Sukkah contains more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then in certain cases the Sukkah may remain Kosher, while in others it becomes invalid.[382]] Nonetheless, even by a large Sukkah, one may not eat or sleep under this area of empty space if the empty space crosses from one end of the Sukkah to the other, or if the empty space is large enough for one to enter his head and majority of his body through it, as explained above in A![383] However, one may eat under the area of invalid Sechach.[384]

Empty space in between invalid Sechach:[385] If in middle of the Sukkah there are two sets of two Tefachim of invalid Sechach next to each other with empty space in between the two sets, then [if they go from one end of the Sukkah to the other] it is questionable whether they join together to invalidate the Sukkah.[386]

Valid Sechach does not cover majority of the Sukkah: See Halacha D!

C. Dofen Akum [Figure H-J]: If the invalid Sechach is adjacent and parallel to the walls of the Sukkah does it invalidate the wall?[387]

Less than four Amos wide: If the invalid Sechach is adjacent to the walls of the Sukkah, then if it is less than four Tefachim wide one may even eat under it, although practically one is to be stringent if it is 3 Tefach wide, as explained in Halacha A. If the invalid Sechach is more than four Tefachim wide but less than four Amos [188. cm[388]] wide, then although one may not eat or sleep under the invalid Sechach, nonetheless, we apply the rule of Dofen Akuma and the invalid Sechach does not invalidate the adjacent wall and hence the Sukkah remains Kosher even if it only contains a total of three walls, so long as it retains a total of 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach.[389] This law of Dofen Akuma applies from all directions of the Sukkah, and hence it is possible to have less than four cubits of Sechach surrounding the Kosher Sechach from all four directions and the Sukkah still remain valid.[390] [See figure J] [It is disputed amongst Poskim[391] whether the rule of Dofen Akum applies even if the wall of the Sukkah does not reach to the height of the invalid Sechach, and we thus must also apply the rule of Gud Asik. Practically, if the wall reaches within three Tefachim of the invalid Sechach then we apply the rule of Gud Asik and Dofen Akuma, and it remains valid.[392] If the valid Sechach is not directly adjacent to the invalid Sechach and there is empty space in between, then so long as the valid Sechach is within three Tefachim of the invalid Sechach, the Sukkah remains Kosher, as we apply both the rule of Dofen Akuma and Lavud.[393]]

More than four Amos wide: If the invalid Sechach is more than four Amos wide, then we do not apply the rule of Dofen Akuma and the wall that is adjacent to the invalid Sechach is considered non-existent and can invalidate the entire Sukkah if the Kosher Sechach will now not remain with three Kosher walls, as explained above in B. [See figure J]

Summary: One may not eat or sleep under an area that contains invalid Sechach if it is four by four Tefachim wide, and one should initially be stringent not to do so if it is three by three Tefachim wide. Furthermore, if the invalid Sechach stretches from wall to wall, then if it is four Tefachim wide and is in middle of the Sukkah [i.e. does not run along a wall], the Sukkah is considered split in half and is possibly invalid if it will lack three walls due to this. If the invalid Sechach is adjacent to the walls then if it is four Amos wide, the adjacent wall is invalidated. This can possibly invalidate the entire Sukkah if the Kosher Sechach will not remain with 3 Kosher walls.   Q&A If the invalid Sechach is slanted, does one measure it in its slanted state or in a flat form?[394] It is measured in its flat state. Thus, depending on the angle of the slant, it is possible for there to be more than four Tefachim of invalid Sechach which measures less than four Tefachim when measured flat. In such a case it is viewed as less than four Tefachim of invalid Sechach and does not invalidate a Sukkah, and possibly is even permitted to be eaten under. If the invalid Sechach stretches partially out of the Sukkah walls, does one measure only the invalid Sechach that is within the Sukkah, or the entire invalid Sechach, including that which extends past the Sukkah?[395] If there is three Tefach or more of invalid Sechach inside the Sukkah, then this matter is debated amongst the Poskim.[396] However, if there is less than three Tefachim of invalid Sechach inside the Sukkah, then it does not join, and one may even eat under it.[397]

If on Shabbos or Yom Tov the Sechach blew off due to wind, may it be replaced? See Chapter 1 Halacha 2 in Q&A!

D. How much total valid Sechach must the Sukkah Have-Valid and invalid Sechach sitting in between each other throughout the Sukkah:[398]

In the event that one has valid and invalid Sechach sitting side-by-side next to each other in a way that that they are not mixed together at all, then if the invalid Sechach is not four[399] Tefachim wide in one area[400] [and hence is unable to split the Sukkah and invalidate it], then it is not necessary for there to be majority kosher Sechach and so long as at least half of the Sukkah is covered by valid Sechach, the sukkah is Kosher even though the other half is covered by invalid Sechach.[401] This applies even if the valid Sechach is thin to the point that it allows stars to be seen through it [but nonetheless provides majority shade], while the invalid Sechach is thick and does not allow stars be seen through. Thus, for example, if the invalid Sechach is metal rods and the valid Sechach is thin tree material and they are sitting next to each other side-by-side with one metal rod in between every two rows of kosher Sechach, nonetheless it remains biblically valid so long as there is 50% of kosher Sechach on the Sukkah, even though there is also 50% of medal rods on the Sukkah.[402] The above law only applies in this case that the valid and invalid Sechach are sitting side-by-side and not mixed with each other. If, however, they are mixed together then if one does not have majority Kosher Sechach, then it is invalid, as will be explained in Halacha 12.[403]

12. The status of a Sukkah that contains Kosher and non-Kosher Sechach intermingled with each other, or with the Kosher Sechach sitting on top of the non-Kosher Sechach:[404]

*Regarding the law if non-Kosher Sechach is sitting on top of the Kosher Sechach without being mixed in with it, or if it is hovering above it, see Halacha 13.[405]

In the event that one has Kosher and non-Kosher Sechach mixed together such as if there are pieces of plasticware intermingled with the Sechach, or there is a branch of a tree resting on top of a Sukkah which is mixed with the Kosher Sechach or has Kosher Sechach resting on top of non-kosher Sechach[406], then in certain cases the Sukkah remains Kosher, while in others it becomes invalid.

The rule is as follows:

When certain conditions are fulfilled, we consider the non-Kosher Sechach as if it is nullified to the Kosher Sechach and the Sukkah remains Kosher even though its Kosher Sechach is intermingled with its non-Kosher Sechach or the Kosher Sechach is resting on top of it.[407] This leniency applies even if the invalid Sechach is recognizable from amongst the kosher Sechach due to it not being mixed well and therefore the non-kosher Sechach is able to be removed, nonetheless it is considered nullified.[408] The following are all the conditions that must be fulfilled for the invalid Sechach to be viewed as nullified:

1. Kosher Sechach is majority:[409] If there is a lot more Kosher Sechach than the non-Kosher Sechach which is mixed with it, then [if the other two conditions are fulfilled] the non-kosher Sechach is viewed as nullified to the kosher Sechach and hence does not invalidate it. [If, however, there’s more non-kosher Sechach then kosher Sechach, then the non-kosher Sechach is not nullified and seemingly the entire Sukkah is invalid being that we consider the non-kosher Sechach to nullify an equal amount of Kosher Sechach, as explained in three. [410]] This however only applies in this case that the valid and invalid Sechach are mixed together. If, however, the valid and invalid Sechach are sitting side-by-side and not mixed with each other, then so long as at least half of the Sukkah is covered by valid Sechach, the sukkah is Kosher even though half of it is covered by invalid Sechach, and thus one does not have majority kosher Sechach over the Sukkah, as explained in Halacha 11D.[411]
2. There is enough Kosher Sechach to give majority of shade on its own: If there is enough Kosher Sechach to give majority shade to the Sukkah without needing to join the non-Kosher Sechach which is mixed with it, then [if the other two conditions are fulfilled] the non-kosher Sechach is viewed as nullified to the kosher Sechach and hence does not invalidate it.[412] If, however, the Kosher Sechach is minute to the point that if one were to remove the non-kosher Sechach from the Sukkah then it would not give majority shade, then the entire Sukkah is invalid.[413]
3. The non-Kosher Sechach cannot give majority of shade on its own:[414] The non-kosher Sechach is only viewed as nullified to the kosher Sechach which it is mixed with if there isn’t an abundance of non-kosher Sechach to the point that it can give majority of shade on its own, such as if it is thin and weak to the point that it allows more sunlight than shade to pass-through it. If, however, it gives more shade than sunlight then it is not nullified Kosher therefore it actually invalidates an equal amount of Kosher Sechach that it is mixed with.[415] Accordingly, if the Sukkah will no longer contain majority shade after invalidating an equal amount of the kosher Sechach, then the Sukkah is invalid. If, however, there is so much Kosher Sechach to the point that even if one were to remove all the non-Kosher Sechach and an equal amount of Kosher Sechach then the Kosher Sechach would still give majority shade, then it is valid.

The law in a case that the mixture of Kosher and invalid Sechach are both from the same species:[416] The requirement for the fulfillment of the above conditions applies in all cases that there is non-kosher Sechach mixed with kosher Sechach even if they are of the same species such as if there are two branches of the same tree resting on the Sukkah mixed together, with one branch having been cut off and the second branch being still attached to the tree and therefore invalid.[417] However, there are opinions[418] who argue on all this and say that in a case that the Kosher and Non-Kosher Sechach which are mixed together are of the same species and thus the invalid Sechach is not recognizable at all, such as an attached tree branch which is resting on the Sechach of a Sukkah which itself is made of cut branches of that tree, then if there is more kosher Sechach than non-kosher Sechach and there is not enough non-kosher Sechach for it to give majority of shade on its own, then we view the non-kosher Sechach as nullified to the kosher Sechach to the point that it itself can now be joined in with the kosher Sechach to produce majority shade. Thus, if the kosher Sechach does not provide majority shade on its own then so long as it does so together with the non-kosher Sechach then the Sukkah remains valid Sukkah.[419] Furthermore, one may even initially mix the non-kosher Sechach with the kosher Sechach for this purpose.[420] This leniency, however, only applies if the non-kosher Sechach cannot give majority of shade on its own. If, however, the non-kosher Sechach does give majority of shade on its own, then it is not nullified to the Kosher Sechach to the point that it joins it for giving majority shade, and thus if the Kosher Sechach does not give majority shade on its own, then the Sukkah is invalid. However, if the Kosher Sechach gives majority shade on its own, then even if the non-Kosher Sechach can also provide majority of shade on its own, nevertheless, it does not invalidate any of the Kosher Sechach.[421] Practically, the main Halachic opinion is like the former opinion that the non-Kosher Sechach never joins the Kosher Sechach to provide majority shade. Nevertheless, by a time of need, such as there is no other Sukkah available, and it is not possible to remove the mixed non-Kosher Sechach, then one may rely on this latter opinion in order so one not nullify himself from fulfilling the Mitzvah of Sukkah.[422] 

How to validate a Sukkah that had its Kosher Sechach placed over non-Kosher Sechach: See Halacha 17!

Summary: In the event that one has Kosher and non-Kosher Sechach mixed together, or if the Kosher Sechach is resting on top of the non-Kosher Sechach, then the Sukkah remains Kosher so long as the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. The Kosher Sechach is majority. 2. There is enough Kosher Sechach to give majority of shade on its own. 3. The non-Kosher Sechach cannot give majority of shade on its own.

13. Building the Sukkah under the sky-The law if Non-Kosher Sechach [Tree or ledge] is hovering over one’s Sukkah:[423]

* This Halacha refers specifically to invalid Sechach materials which hover over one’s Sukkah Regarding the law if Kosher Sechach hovers over one’s Sukkah, such as the Sechach of an upper story Sukkah, see Halacha 19!

A. Introduction-The need for a Sukkah to be built directly under the sky:[424]

Just like by the clouds of glory it was the actual clouds which gave us shade from the sun, similarly a Sukkah is only valid when it is the Kosher Sechach that provides the shade.[425] Accordingly, the Sukkah must be built under the sky, similar to the clouds of glory and if it is built inside of a house [i.e. under the roof of the house] then it is invalid. The reason for this is because in such a case the shade provided by the Sechach of the sukkah is meaningless as even without it there would have been shade due to the roof of the home. Now, the same would apply regarding one who built his Sukkah under a tree, or under any other material that is invalid for Sechach as explained in chapter 629:1, that the sukkah is invalid being that the shade it provides is unnecessary being that the upper shade hovers over it.[426] Now, this invalidation applies whether the Sukkah was initially built under the material that is invalid for Sechach, or whether it was first built under the sky and only afterwards did the non-kosher for Sechach material begin to hover over it, nonetheless in both cases it is invalid as of the end of the day the shade provided by the Sukkah is unnecessary.[427] This invalidation applies even if the Sukkah contains enough Sechach to give majority shade without needing to join the invalid Sechach that hovers over it and hence even if the invalid Sechach were to removed there would still be majority shade in the Sukkah.[428] [For this reason, one is to verify and remove any interference that rest between the Sechach and the sky, such as a tree which hovers over the Sukkah.]

B. The amount of hovering non-kosher Sechach needed to invalidate the Sukkah-The law if a tree hovers over the Sukkah:[429]

*The detailed laws here apply specifically when invalid for Sechach material hovers over one’s Sukkah, or rests on top of it without being mixed together. If, however, it is mixed together with the Sechach, or the Sechach is resting on top of it, then different laws apply, as explained in Halacha 12.[430]

If an item which is not Kosher for Sechach, such as the branches of a tree, hovers over one’s Sukkah, then some Poskim[431] rule that if there is so much non-Kosher Sechach which hovers over the kosher Sukkah to the point that if all the Kosher Sechach directly under the hovering non-kosher Sechach were to be removed then the Sukkah would not contain more sunlight than shade, then it is invalid. Thus, [according to this opinion] we view all the Kosher Sechach under the non-kosher Sechach as non-existent.[432] This invalidation of the kosher Sechach directly under the non-kosher Sechach applies even if the non-kosher Sechach is of such a minute amount that it does not provide majority shade, meaning that if one were to remove the kosher Sechach from the Sukkah then the Sukkah would not have majority shade, nonetheless it is invalid.[433] However, if there would still remain a majority of shade over sunlight in the Sukkah even if  one were to remove all the kosher Sechach which is directly under the non-Kosher Sechach, then the Sukkah remains valid, as it nevertheless contains the necessary amount of shade.[434] [This, however, only applies if the Sukkah is not considered split in half due to the area of Sechach that is invalidated by the hovering. If, however, it does split the Sukkah in half, such as if the invalid hovering runs from one side of the Sukkah to the other within the middle of the Sukkah, then if the Sukkah does not contain three valid walls with a space of 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then the entire sukkah is invalid.[435]] However, there are opinions[436] who argue on all this and say that we do not view the Kosher Sechach directly under the non-kosher Sechach as non-existent, and rather the Sukkah remains Kosher, even if there is so much non-Kosher Sechach which hovers over the Sukkah that it alone can give majority shade[437], as long as the Kosher Sechach alone is also capable of producing majority shade in the Sukkah. However, if the Kosher Sechach alone cannot give majority shade and it only does so together with the non-Kosher Sechach, then it is invalid. Practically, the main Halachic opinion is like the former opinion that the non-Kosher Sechach invalidates all of the Kosher Sechach that is directly under it. Nevertheless, by a time of need, such as there is no other Sukkah available, and it is not possible to remove the mixed non-Kosher Sechach, then one may rely on this latter opinion in order so one not nullify himself from fulfilling the Mitzvah of Sukkah.[438] 

C. Building a Sukkah under roof frames:

See Halacha 14!

D. How to validate a Sukkah that was already built under a roof:

See Halacha 16!

E. Covering the Sechach of a Sukkah for the sake of the Sukkah, such as to prevent rain or sun or wind from penetrating:[439]

*Regarding placing it under the Sukkah, see Halacha 20E that the same debate and ruling applies.

If one spread a sheet over the Sechach of the Sukkah in order to protect the Sukkah from the [rain[440] or wind[441], or] sun [such as if although the Sukkah provides majority shade, it does allow some sunlight to come through which one desires to completely block through spreading a sheet over the Sechach[442]] then it is disputed as to whether the Sukkah remains valid. Some Poskim[443] rule that the Sukkah is invalid.[444] Other Poskim[445], however, rule that if the sheet is within four Tefachim of the Sechach, and one places it there simply to add more shade from the sun within the Sukkah, then the Sukkah remains Kosher [even if the sheet can provide majority shade on its own[446], and it is even permitted to eat under it[447]].[448] If, however, the sheet is a distance of four Tefachim from the Sechach, or was placed there in order to prevent the leaves from drying up and falling and thus invalidate the Sechach, then the Sukkah is invalid. Nonetheless, [even according to this latter opinion[449]], one should not initially do so [even during times that one is not eating in the Sukkah[450]] unless it is evident to all that he is placing the sheet there in order to protect himself from the sun, or if the sheet is wet and it appears that one is spreading it in order to dry it.[451] [Practically, one is to be stringent like the first opinion and never place a sheet over the Sechach.[452] However, in a time of need, such as if many leaves are falling onto one’s food, or it is raining hard, or is very windy, then one may be lenient to spread a sheet over the Sechach and eat it in without a blessing[453], if lack of doing so will prevent one from eating in the Sukkah.[454] However, in the event that placing the sheet over the Sechach will appear to the onlooker as if there is no Sechach in the Sukkah, then some Poskim[455] rule that it is forbidden to do so even in the above case.[456]]

Placing a sheet over the Sechach on Shabbos:[457] It is permitted to spread a sheet over the Sechach on Shabbos or Yom Tov if lack of doing so will make one unable to eat at all in the Sukkah due to the wind that will extinguish the candles on the night of Shabbos.[458] However, if it is unclear if one will be unable to eat in the Sukkah if he does not spread the sheet over the Sukkah, then even during the weekday it is forbidden to spread it over the Sechach, due to the reason explained above.[459]

Summary [includes Q&A] It is forbidden to build a Sukkah under a hovering [of any amount] such as a tree. If one did so, then the laws is as follows: If there is Non-Kosher Sechach [i.e. a tree or ledge] hovering over one’s Sukkah, then the hovered area is considered to not be covered by any Sechach, and [thus if the hovered area is 4×4 Tefachim wide then it is forbidden to eat or sleep under it. Furthermore,] if due to viewing this space as missing Sechach, the Sukkah would have more sunlight than shade, then the entire Sukkah is invalid. Although in a case of need, it is better to eat in such a Sukkah rather than nullify the Mitzvah. Placing sheet over Sechach for protection: If a sheet was placed over the Sechach to catch leaves or rain or prevent wind, it is disputed as to whether it is permitted to eat or sleep in the Sukkah under the sheet. Practically, in a time of need it is better to place a sheet under the Sechach and prevent rain, leaves, wind, from entering the Sukkah if lack of doing so will require one to eat enter his house.   Q&A on minute amount of hovering that does not invalidate Must one initially build the Sukkah completely under the sky, without having any non-kosher Sechach hovering over it, even if it is not enough to invalidate it?[460] Initially, one is to build the entire Sukkah under the sky and not have any non-Kosher for Sechach items hover over any part of the Sukkah, even if it will not invalidate it as a result, such as it is a very small amount.   May one eat directly under the area being hovered by non-kosher Sechach in a case that the Sukkah remains valid?[461] If the non-Kosher Sechach contains a dimension that is less than 4×4 Tefachim [i.e. 32 cm], it is permitted to eat under it. If it contains a dimension of 4×4 Tefachim, it is forbidden to eat under it, and he must eat under another area of the Sukkah.   Q&A relating to the lenient opinion Should a blessing be recited when eating in a Sukkah that is only valid according to the second opinion, such as in a time of need?[462] No. According to the second, lenient, opinion, would the Sukkah be valid even if it is built inside of a house, under the roof of the home? Seemingly, according to the understanding of Admur in the second opinion, it should be valid even in such a case if the Sukkah contains enough kosher Sechach to give majority shade even if the roof of the home were not to be there. Accordingly, in a time of need that one is completely unable to build a Sukkah outside of his home he should at the very least build one inside of his home and eat in it without a blessing. However, according to all the other opinions, even according to the second lenient opinion it would be invalid in such case, as they understand that it is invalid according to all opinions when the hovering item is able to give majority shade of its own.   Q&A on cases of invalidation Does the stringency of Lavud apply when there are a number of items hovering over one’s Sukkah which are invalid for Sechach and are within three Tefachim of each other, such as a ceiling frame?[463] Ø  Example: See Q&A below regarding laundry lines that hover over one sukkah. See Halacha 14 regarding a Sukkah that is built under a ceiling frame. It is disputed amongst the Poskim whether the rule of Lavud only applies for the sake of being lenient in the laws of sukkah or applies even for the sake of being stringent. Some Poskim[464] rule that the rule of Lavud only applies to being lenient and not to be stringent. Other Poskim[465], however, rule that the rule of Lavud applies even to be stringent. Some of these Poskim[466], however, explain that the stringency applies to considering the two parts that are to the two sides of the empty space as if they are adjacent to each other, however not as if the empty space is closed. According to this understanding, one can explain that there is really no debate in actual Halacha, and it is simply a debate in semantics as to whether we consider the approximation of the items as the term Lavud or not. However, from other Poskim[467] it is clear that this matter is under debate. Practically, one is to be stringent in this matter to apply the rule of Lavud even to be stringent[468], however, only if the two parts that hover near the empty space would make up four Tefachim if they were to be adjacent.[469] Accordingly, one should not believe Sukkah under an invalid for Sechach ceiling frame which is made with its beams within three Tefachim of each other.[470] According to all, we only apply the concept of Lavud Lehachmir if there is no Kosher Sechach which intervenes between the two beams of invalid Sechach, however, if there is Kosher Sechach which is placed in between the beams of invalid Sechach, then we do not apply the rule of Lavud.[471] Likewise, if Kosher Sechach is placed on top of the invalid beams we do not apply the rule of Lavud.[472]   Does the stringency of Lavud apply when there are branches of a tree hanging over one’s Sukkah?[473] Ø  Example: There are many branches of a tree hanging over one’s Sukkah and each branch is within three Tefachim of another branch. Do we apply the rule of Lavud and measure the invalid Sechach of the branches as if they are all connected and thus invalidate all that space of Sechach that is directly under it and possibly invalidate a Sukkah? Seemingly, in such a case we do not apply the rule of Lavud to be stringent to invalidate the Sukkah. Nonetheless, one should be extremely careful not to enter himself into the situation to begin with, and hence follow the advice of the Poskim to never make a Sukkah under a tree even if it is only a small amount of branches that are hovering over it. If the Non-Kosher Sechach which hovers over the Sukkah is over 20 Amos high, does it invalidate the Sukkah?[474] Ø  Example: There is a very tall tree with many branches and leaves that it is hovering over the Sukkah from a height of over 20 Amos to the point that if one were to remove all the Sechach directly parallel to the branches then the Sukkah would be invalid. Do we invalidate the Sukkah in such a case? Some Poskim[475] rule that non-kosher Sechach which hovers over a Sukkah has ability to invalidate it even if it is above 20 Amos high. Other Poskim[476], however, rule that when the hovering item is above 20 Amos from the ground then it no longer invalidates the Sechach that is under it. Does a tall item which stands higher than, but to the side, of the Sukkah invalidate it if shades the Sukkah from the sun?[477] Ø  Example: If one built a Sukkah behind a very tall wall, or building, or tree which has ability to provide the Sukkah full shade from the sun even if there were no Sechach on the Sukkah, does the Sukkah remain valid? Also, would be the law in a case that one’s Sukkah is built in the square patio in the center of a building, in which case the Sukkah is surrounded by four very tall walls that reaches above the Sechach and provides full shade for the Sukkah irrelevant of the Sechach? So long as the Sechach is directly under the sky, then the Sukkah remains Kosher even if it contains other sources of shade. Thus, it remains Kosher even if it is positioned next to a wall, or tree, or building, which is much taller than one’s Sukkah and gives it shade to the point that even if the Sechach were to be removed there would still be shade in the Sukkah. If there is a tree to the side of the Sukkah which has branches that hover over the Sukkah when it is blown with the wind, does it invalidate the Sechach under it when it is windy?[478] No.[479] A branch of a tree can only invalidate the Sechach under it if it hovers over it in a stationary position and not simply as a result of being moved with wind. Nonetheless, it is initially proper to cut off such branches. If a hot air balloon or plain, or helicopter hovers over one’s Sukkah, does it invalidate the Sechach under it?[480] In such a case, the Sukkah is invalid according to those Poskim who invalidate the Kosher Sechach even if the hovering is above 20 Amos from the ground.[481] However, according to those Poskim who are lenient to validate a hovering that is above 20 Amos from the ground, as explained above, then in this case as well it would be permitted. If there is snow over ones Sechach, does it invalidate the Sechach under it?[482] Some Poskim[483] rule that snow and ice does not invalidate the Sechach that is under it and thus the Sukkah remains valid.[484] Other Poskim[485], however, rule that the snow invalidates the Sechach that is directly under it [and thus if due to this there is more sunlight than shade in the Sukkah, then the entire Sukkah is invalid]. The Chabad custom follows this stringent opinion, and so is to be followed even on Shemini Atzeres.[486] One is to thus remove the snow before eating in the Sukkah. On Shabbos [and Yom Tov] one should hint to a gentile to do so for him.[487] If laundry lines or electric wires hover over ones Sukkah, do they invalidate the Sechach?[488] Not within three Tefachim of each other: If the individual lines/wires are not within three Tefachim [24 cm] of each other, then they do not invalidate the Sechach. If they are within three Tefachim of each other: If the individual lines/wires are within three Tefachim [24 cm] of each other, then some Poskim[489] rule that according to the stringency of Lavud Lehachmir[490], then one is to consider the entire parameters of the laundry lines as if it is invalid Sechach which invalidates all the Sechach that is directly under the Sukkah.[491] [In such a case, if the perimeter creates an area of 4×4 Tefachim then it is forbidden to eat or sleep under that area, and if as a result of excluding that area from the Sukkah then the Sukkah will not remain with majority sunlight over shade, or would be considered split in half without three Kosher walls and 7 x 7 of valid Sechach, then the entire Sukkah is invalid.[492]] Other Poskim[493], however, limit this stringency of Lavud Lehachmir to a case when all the hovering items would take up 4 Tefach [32 cm] if they were to be placed adjacent to each other, which is not the case by lines, and thus in the above scenario it would be permitted according to all to eat and sleep under the area of the Sechach that is under the laundry lines, and certainly it would not be able to invalidate the Sukkah. If there is laundry over the lines: Having laundry over the lines does not further invalidate the Sukkah [beyond the discussion of Lavud] so long as the laundry is hanging down vertically, as opposed to spread horizontally over the lines. When hanging vertically it is allowed even if the clothing blow with the wind and thus at times spread horizontally over the Sukkah.[494] If, however, the cloths were spread horizontally, or due to wind got stuck on another line and are now spread horizontally, then that area invalidates the Sechach under it.[495]

14. Building a Sukkah under roof or ceiling frames:[496]

• Example: May one build a Sukkah in a room that has had its roofing removed but has its ceiling frame remain intact. Do the remaining ceiling frames invalidate the sukkah that is built under it?

If the frames had their roofing removed from them and the frames are made of material kosher for Sechach:[497] It is permitted for one to build a Sukkah inside of a home if one removed the roofing from it for the sake of making the Sukkah.[498] This applies even if the ceiling frames[499] remain intact and have not been taken down, so long as they are made of material that are kosher for Sechach, such as beams of wood. In such a case, the beams are viewed as Kosher for Sechach, and it is thus even permitted to eat and sleep under the wooden beams of the ceiling frame [even if some are adjacent to each other and take up more than 4 Tefachim, and even if we were to apply the rule of Lavud Lehachmir].[500]

If the frames never had roofing to begin with or is made of material that is invalid for Sechach:[501] In the event that one never removed the ceiling panels from the frame of the home for the sake of making a Sukkah as the roofing of the room was never completed to begin with, and thus never had any material placed on its frames that needed to be removed, then the frames are viewed as invalid for Sechach even if they are made of wood or other kosher for Sechach material, and if one builds a Sukkah under it then it follows all the laws of invalid Sechach that hovers over valid Sechach, of which we rule that it invalidates all of the Sechach that is directly under it, and if as a result there will no longer be majority shade in the Sukkah then the entire Sukkah is invalid, as explained in Halacha 20.[502] [If, however, there remains a majority of Kosher Sechach even after subtracting the invalidated area, the Sukkah remains Kosher.[503] If the ceiling frame is made of material that is invalid for Sechach, such as metal, then even if one removes the ceiling frames from it, it follows all the laws of invalid Sechach that hovers over valid Sechach, of which we rule that it invalidates all of the Sechach that is directly under it, as explained in Halacha 13.[504] If the invalid for Sechach ceiling frames are within three Tefachim of each other, then see Q&A below that we conclude that one is to be stringent to apply Lavud Lehachmir and treat the entire Sukkah as if it is covered by invalid Sechach. With regards to whether one may eat in the areas of the Sukkah that are directly under the actual invalid frames, this is dependent on whether they are 3×3 Tefach large, as explained in Halacha 11A.]

Summary: If the roof frame is made of material kosher for Sechach, and the frames contain roofing panels which were removed for the sake of making the Sukkah, then one may make the Sukkah under this frame, without worry. If the roofing is made of material invalid for Sechach, or never had frames to begin with which then had to be removed, then it is considered as if one is building a Sukkah under invalid Sechach. Q&A If the beams of invalid for Sechach ceiling frames are within three Tefachim of each other, is it valid to make the Sukkah under it?[505] Initially, this may not be done even if one would maintain majority shade even after diminishing the amount of Sechach that corresponds to the invalid beams that hover over it.[506] Thus, the above allowance of Admur to validate the Sukkah if one still maintains majority shade after diminishing the area of the invalid beams should only be followed if the beams are not within three Tefachim of each other. See Halacha 13 in Q&A for further details of this matter!

15. Building a Sukkah [i.e. resting Sechach] on top of roof frames:

*Regarding the laws of resting one’s Sechach on a pergola frame, see Chapter 1 Halacha 12 in Q&A!

The law if the frames are not kosher for Sechach:[507] A Sukkah remains Kosher even if one rests his Sechach on roof frames [that are invalid for Sechach[508], such as if the frames are made of metal or are made of wood but never had ceiling tiles removed from them[509], as explained in the previous Halacha, or are too wide, as explained in Halacha 7I, or are nailed in as explained in Halacha 7I in the Q&A], as explained in Halacha 12. This applies even if the roof frames which are invalid for Sechach are within three handbreadths of each other, nevertheless we do not say the concept of Lavud in such a case, and hence the Sukkah remains Kosher.[510] [Likewise, we do not say that the invalid beams that support the Sechach invalidate an equal amount of Kosher Sechach that is resting on them, and rather all the Sechach that is on them remains Kosher to provide majority shade while the invalid beams are viewed as nullified, as explained in Halacha 12.[511]] However, the Sukkah only remains Kosher if its Kosher Sechach can provide majority shade on its own without the roof beams which are considered non-kosher Sechach and hence cannot join it for providing majority shade, as explained in Halacha 12. [Furthermore, initially one is to only use supports which are valid for Sechach to support the Sechach, as explained in length in Halacha 9. Likewise, with regards to whether one may eat under the actual ceiling supports which are invalid for Sechach, and regarding cases that the invalid beams can split the Sukkah in half and invalidate it, see Halacha 11 for the full details of this matter.]

How to validate wood roof frames to make them become Kosher Sechach: If the roof frames are made of wood and are less than four Tefachim wide[512] and are made in a way that they hold roof tiles that can be removed from between the frame, then removing the roof tiles suffices to validate the beams of the frame as Kosher Sechach, as explained in Halacha 14. If the entire roof is made of beams of wood that are less than four Tefachim wide which sit adjacent to each other, then one is to remove one beam of wood from between every two beams and place Kosher Sechach in between them [or on top of them] and in this way the beams are validated for Sechach, as explained in Halacha 16.[513]

The law if the frames have been validated for Sechach:[514] In the event that one has validated the roof beams in the above methods, and are made of wood and are less than four Tefachim wide, then these beams join the rest of the Sechach which rests on them to provide the minimum requirement of majority shade, and it goes without saying that it is permitted to eat under them.

Q&A When placing Kosher Sechach over a roof frame that is made of wood that never had any roof panels removed from it, do the boards of the pergola become Kosher for Sechach as a result of placing the Kosher Sechach over them?[515] No. Roof beams that are made for the sake of dwelling under them can only become Kosher for Sechach if one removes the roof panels from the frame for the purpose of building the Sukkah. If, however, one did not remove any roof tiles from the frame for the purpose of building the Sukkah, then the frame remains invalid for Sechach even if one places Kosher Sechach over the frames. Nevertheless, if the frames are not 3×3 Tefach then it is permitted to eat under them. What is the law if the Kosher Sechach is placed on top of the beams of a roof frame which is invalid for Sechach and is not placed in between them, do we apply the law of Lavud Lehachmir in such a case?[516] No. If one places Sechach on top of the roof frame, it has the same law as Sechach which is placed in between the pergola. Thus, even if the Pergola is invalid for Sechach and is within three Tefach of each other, nevertheless the Sukkah is valid, and we do not apply the rule of Lavud.

16. How to validate a wooden beam roof of a home to be used as a Sukkah:[517]

The roof of a home is invalid to be used as a Sukkah in its current state even if it is made of boards of wood that are less than four Tefachim wide being that they were not placed there for the sake of shade but rather for the sake of a dwelling, as explained in length in chapter 1 Halacha 12B! Nonetheless, it is possible to validate in the following way: If the individual beams are less than four Tefachim wide[518] then one is to remove one beam of wood from between every two beams and place Kosher Sechach in between them [or on top of them] and in this way all the beams of the entire roof [are considered as if they were placed there for the sake of the Sukkah[519] even though they have not all been lifted and replaced and they] become validated for Sechach.[520] [Nonetheless, being that today we are stringent to not use wooden beams as Sechach even if they are less than four Tefachim[521], therefore, one should only rely on the above in a time of need.[522] If the wooden ceiling of beams contains cement ceiling material on top of it, then it can still be validated by first removing the ceiling material from on top of the wood boards, and then validate it in the above-mentioned method.[523]]

Summary: A roof which is entirely made of beams of wood that are less than four Tefachim which sit adjacent to each other, without any cement ceiling material placed on top of it, in a time of need is able to become validated as a Sukkah through removing one beam of wood from between every two beams and placing Kosher Sechach in between them.

17. How to validate a Sukkah that had its Kosher Sechach placed over non-Kosher Sechach:[524]

If one placed non-Kosher Sechach [i.e. a plastic rain tarp] on top of his Sukkah prior to placing on to it any Kosher Sechach, and then afterwards he went ahead and placed the Kosher Sechach on top of the non-Kosher Sechach [without removing it beforehand] and then removed the non-Kosher Sechach from the Sukkah [from under the Kosher Sechach], then even though that the Sukkah now remains with only with the Kosher Sechach over it which provides majority shade, nonetheless the Sukkah is invalid.[525] The same applies if one made the walls of his Sukkah under [a section of] the roof of his home, and then placed Kosher Sechach on top of his roof, and then removed the roof from under the Sechach which was resting on it, in such a case the Sukkah is invalid. [Therefore, when placing the Sechach over the Sukkah one is required to make sure that there is nothing intervening between it and the Sukkah. If one did not do so, then after the non-Kosher Sechach is removed, the Kosher Sechach must also be removed and then replaced.]

Summary: If one placed Kosher Sechach over non-Kosher Sechach and then removed the non-Kosher Sechach from under the Kosher Sechach, the Sukkah is invalid.   Q&A How does one invalidate a Sukkah if one placed the Sechach on top of invalid Sechach? After removing the invalid Sechach, one is to then also remove the valid Sechach and simply replace it back onto the Sukkah. It is to be lifted following the same laws and details explained in chapter 1 Halacha 12B, see there!   Does it suffice to simply remove the invalid Sechach if the valid Sechach did not rest directly on the invalid Sechach but rather hovered above it?[526] Ø  Example: Prior to putting on the Sechach, one spread a tarp halfway up the height of the Sukkah attaching it to each of its four walls, in order to protect the floor of the Sukkah from getting dirty and wet in the rain. One then went ahead and put the Sechach on top, and now desires to remove the tarp in order to dwell in the Sukkah. Is the Sukkah Kosher? Some Poskim[527] rule that if the Kosher Sechach hovers a height of 10 Tefachim above the layer of invalid Sechach, then it is validated through simply removing the invalid Sechach from the Sukkah. [However, seemingly this only applies if the invalid Sechach is strong enough to hold a person, as in such a case we consider the invalid Sechach as the floor of the Sukkah, however, if it is unable to hold the person, such as in the above example given with a plastic tarp, then it would be invalid according to this opinion, and in addition to removing the tarp would be required to remove and then replace the Sechach.] However, other Poskim[528] rule that so long as it hovers one Tefach from above the invalid Sechach, then it is validated through simply removing the invalid Sechach from it.

18. Sukkah awnings and retractable roofs-How to validate a Sukkah that was built under a roof, and the law by a retractable roof and sukkah awning:[529]

• Example 1: One’s home contains an area with a retractable roof, otherwise known as a skylight or roof window, and prior to removing or opening the roof one went ahead and built the Sukkah already together with its Sechach. To validate the Sukkah, does it suffice to simply open the roof, or must one replace the Sechach being that it was originally built an invalid way, similar to the previous case in Halacha 17?
• Example 2: One built and opened his Sukkah awning, which is there to cover the Sukkah during times of rain, prior to placing the Sechach on the Sukkah and then went ahead and put the Sechach on the Sukkah while the awning was still open. To validate the Sukkah, does it suffice to simply open the awning, or must one replace the Sechach being that it was originally built an invalid way, similar to the previous case in Halacha 17?

Validating the Sukkah by removing the roof:[530] If one built a Sukkah under a roof [i.e. the roof of his house], and covered the Sukkah with Kosher Sechach prior to removing the roof, then although the Sukkah is currently invalid due to the roof that is over it, if he removes the roof from on top of the Sukkah, then the Sukkah becomes valid.[531] [Accordingly, it is permitted for one to build a Sukkah inside his house and then remove the ceiling tiles that hover over the Sukkah and make the Sukkah open to the sky.[532] It is not necessary in such a case to re-lift and then replace the Sechach over the Sukkah in order to validate it and simply opening up the roof suffices.]

The requirement to completely detach the roof and remove it from its hinges:[533] The above method of validation of a Sukkah that was initially built under a roof only applies if one does a complete action to the roof that is invalidating it, such as to completely detach the roof from on top of the Sukkah. If, however, one did not do a complete action to the roof that is invalidating it, such as if he did not completely remove the roof from its area of installment, then it is invalid.[534] For example, a retractable roof that is built with hinges, similar to a door that can be opened and closed at will to protect from the rain, then it does not suffice to simply open the roof door and leave it on its hinges in a way that it can still be opened and closed constantly, and rather the entire roof door must be removed from the roof, detaching it from its hinges. [Accordingly, if a Sukkah was built under a retractable roof or awning, it does not suffice to simply open the roof or close the awning to validate the Sukkah, and rather one is required to completely detach the awning and retractable roof from on top of the Sukkah, and he may then replace it. Alternatively, to avoid needing to remove the roof door from its hinges one can simply replace the Sechach onto the Sukkah by slightly lifting up all the Sechach one beam at a time and placing it back down, while the roofing is open, as in such a case it is considered as if he has now placed the Sechach in a valid way, as will be explained next.[535]]

If the roof was open [i.e. awning was rolled up] when the Sechach was put over the Sukkah:[536] The above requirement to actually detach the retractable roof and door [or awning] from its hinges is only required if at the time that one built his Sukkah under it, the roof was closed [i.e. the awning was open over the Sukkah] However, if the roof awning was open when one placed the Sechach on the Sukkah and the Sechach was thus under the sky and valid, then even if one later closes the roof [or opens the awning], he does not need to completely detach the retractable roof and awning from the Sukkah in order to validate it once again, and rather simply opening the roof [and rolling up the awning] validates it.[537] [According to the above clarification, prior to placing the Sechach onto the Sukkah one is to always make sure to first open the retractable roofing in order to not be required to afterwards completely detach the awning and roofing from above the Sukkah.[538]]

Opening and closing the retractable roofing or awning of a Sukkah during Sukkos:[539] So long as the Sukkah was initially built in a valid method as explained above[540], then it is permitted upon leaving the Sukkah both before and during Sukkos, to close the roof or open the awning over the Sukkah, without restriction, and then once again open the roof and role up the awning when one desires to dwell in the Sukkah.[541] Nonetheless, one must be careful not to sit in the Sukkah during Sukkos for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvah at the time that the roof is closed [or the awning is spread open over the Sukkah], as in such a case the Sukkah is invalid and one does not fulfill his obligation with this dwelling in the Sukkah.

Opening and closing the roofing or awning of a Sukkah on Shabbos and Yom Tov:[542] It is permitted on Shabbos or Yom Tov to [mechanically] open and close a retractable roof or awning that is on top of the Sukkah, if it is attached to hinges and opened and closed similar to a door, and doing so does not transgress any building or destroying prohibition.[543] [However, by a Sukkah that is built outside of a home, with a retractable roof or awning, this allowance to open and close the roof and awning only applies if the retractable roof and awning rest directly on top of the Sechach, or at least within 8 cm from it. If, however, there is a Tefach between the roofing and the Sechach then it is forbidden to open or close it on Shabbos or Yom Tov due to the Ohel prohibition.[544]]

Summary: If one built a Sukkah under a roof, then if he completely removes the roof from on top of the Sukkah, then the Sukkah becomes valid. By a retractable roof that is built with hinges, the entire roof door must be removed from the roof, detaching it from its hinges, if the Sukkah was built while the roof was closed, and hence initially, it should always be built while the roof is open. It is permitted during Sukkos to close and open the roof over the Sukkah, and one may even do so mechanically on Shabbos and Yom Tov if the retractable roof and awning rest within 8 cm from the Sechach.   Q&A on Sukkah awnings May one create a roofing over the Sechach of the Sukkah which opens like a door and stands upwards vertically over the Sukkah?[545] If the open roofing rests vertically in alignment with the walls of the Sukkah then it is valid even if it provides shade to the Sukkah irrelevant of the Sechach.[546] [However, one must validate that the door literally stands vertical and does not tilt over the Sechach, in which case it would invalidate the Sechach that it hovers over.[547]] If, however, it opens towards the middle of the Sukkah, such as if it is made with two roof doors that open towards the middle of the Sukkah and rests vertically on a being that is in the middle of the Sukkah, then some Poskim[548] rule that it is questionable whether the Sukkah is valid even when the doors are open. However, other Poskim[549] conclude that the Sukkah remains valid, so long as the doors stand vertical and do not tilt over the Sechach.   What is one to do if he placed the Sechach under the awning while the awning was closed and forgot to completely detach it from before Yom Tov?[550] Some Poskim[551] allow one to eat in the Sukkah with a blessing, by simply opening the awning, despite not having removed as it or shaken the Sechach [which is not allowed to be done on Yom Tov]. [Practically, according to Admur, one is not to say a blessing in such a case.[552]] What is one to do if the awning is attached to the Sukkah with screws and nails which must be removed in order to uncover from the Sechach, and one forgot to do so before Yom Tov?[553] It requires further analysis if it is permitted to ask a gentile to unscrew the awning in such a case. However, prior to nightfall one may be lenient to ask a gentile to do so even if it is already after sunset.[554] If one placed the Sechach under an open awning, must the awning also be open during the entrance of Sukkos?[555] This is not required from the letter of the law, although some Poskim[556] suggest that it is proper to do so in order so the Sukkah be valid when the holiness of the holiday penetrates. At times that one is not eating in the Sukkah, should the awning be left opened, or does it not make any difference?[557] Although it is not required from the letter of the law, it is proper to leave the awning opened even at times that one is not found in the Sukkah, with exception to when it rains in which it is proper to close it to prevent wetting ones Sechach.[558] Is there any reason for why one should try to have a retractable Sukkah awning?[559] It is a Mitzvah to have a retractable Sukkah awning over ones Sukkah in order to prevent the Sechach from getting wet in times of rain[560], as well as so he be able to stay in the Sukkah even when raining outside. If one closed the awning due to rain, is there any meaning behind remaining in the Sukkah?[561] By a wood, plastic, or glass awning within 10 Tefach of the Sechach, which does not have a metal frame:[562] Although there is no requirement to remain in the Sukkah, it is proper to remain in the Sukkah, as it is presently only Rabbinically invalid due to the awning, however Biblically it remains valid. By a metal awning, or an awning above 10 tefach from the Sechach, or any awning with a metal frame: Then the Sukkah is even Biblically invalid and there is thus no Mitzvah at all fulfilled by remaining there in the rain.[563] Nevertheless, some[564] have written that it is proper to remain in the Sukkah even in such a case being that it is a place of holiness. If it is raining on Yom Tov, may one place a rain cover over the Sechach?[565] See Halacha 13E! If rainwater has gathered over one’s awning or Sechach covering, may it be removed if it will subsequently cause the water to fall onto earth or grass and the like?[566] If the ground is already anyways very wet due to the rain, then one may be lenient to remove the covering, having the water fall on the ground. If, however, it is not very wet then it is forbidden to be done due to a possible planting prohibition.

 

19. A two story Sukkah:[567]

If one built a Sukkah on top of another Sukkah, in which the Sechach of the bottom Sukkah serves as the floor of the top Sukkah, then if the Sechach of the upper Sukkah is valid according to Halacha, and there is ten Tefachim[568] between the two Sechachs of the upper and lower Sukkah, and one is able to support pillows and blankets [and a person eating and sleeping[569]] on the floor of the upper Sukkah which is the Sechach of the lower Sukkah, without it falling [even if it shakes[570]], then the top Sukkah is valid while the bottom Sukkah is invalid.[571] However, if the Sechach which serves as the floor of the upper Sukkah cannot support pillows and blankets [and a person sleeping and eating there] even with difficulty, then the lower Sukkah is valid and the upper Sukkah is invalid.[572] If the Sechach of the top Sukkah is invalid, such as if its Sechach does not give off majority shade[573], or if there isn’t ten Tefachim [80cm.] from the Sechach of the bottom Sukkah until the Sechach of the top Sukkah, then the lower Sukkah is valid and the upper Sukkah is invalid.[574] [Likewise, some Poskim[575] rule that if the upper Sukkah does not contain valid walls, then lower Sukkah is valid and the upper Sukkah is invalid. However, other Poskim[576] rule that the lower Sukkah is invalid even in such a case. In such a case that the upper Sukkah is invalid, then the Sechach of the upper Sukkah helps join the Sechach of the lower Sukkah to provide majority shade and hence the lower Sukkah is valid even if the Sechach of the lower Sukkah does not provide majority shade of its own and only provides majority shade with the combination of the Sechach of the upper Sukkah.[577] If, however, the top Sukkah reaches twenty Amos high then although it itself does not invalidate any of the Sechach directly under it, nevertheless it itself cannot be used to join the majority of shade that is required, as explained next. If the Sechach of the lower Sukkah does not provide majority shade while the Sechach of the upper Sukkah does provide majority shade, then if the Sechach of the upper Sukkah is within 20 Amos from the ground, then the entire Sukkah is kosher both the lower and higher.[578]]

If the Sechach of the upper Sukkah is higher than twenty Amos from the ground: If the Sechach of the upper Sukkah reaches much higher than 20 Amos from the floor of the lower Sukkah, then if the Sechach of the lower Sukkah provides majority shade without needing to join the Sechach of the upper Sukkah, then it is valid in all cases even if the Sechach of the upper Sukkah also provides majority shade.[579] However, if the Sechach of the lower Sukkah does not contain majority shade without it joining the Sechach of the upper Sukkah, then if the Sechach of the upper Sukkah is higher than 20 Amos from the floor of the lower Sukkah, then lower Sukkah is invalid.[580]

Summary: A second layer of Sechach which hovers over the Sechach of one’s Sukkah only invalidates one’s Sukkah if the following conditions are met: 1. The upper Sechach is within 20 Amos from the ground. 2. The upper Sechach is higher than 10 Tefachim from the lower Sechach. 3. The lower Sechach is strong enough to hold a person resting on pillows and blankets. 4. The upper Sechach is abundant enough to provide majority shade. 5. According to some opinions the upper Sechach must also contain walls that are valid for a Sukkah. Q&A May one have a Sukkah made with two layers of Sechach one over the other? If the two layers of Sechach are ten or more Tefachim [80cm.] apart, and the lower Sechach is sturdy enough to support pillows and blankets and a person lying on them, then some Poskim[581] view it as a two-story Sukkah and the Sukkah is thus invalid. Other Poskim[582], however, rule that so long as the upper layer of Sechach does not contain walls valid for a Sukkah, then the Sukkah is valid. According to all, if there is less than 10 Tefachim between the two layers of Sechach, the Sukkah is valid. May one eat in a Sukkah which has the Sechach of an upper Sukkah protruding over it?[583]   If the bottom Sechach is firm enough to hold a person lying on pillows and blankets: This matter follows the same dispute as above that some Poskim[584] hold that it does not invalidate the Sechach directly under it being that this protruding Sechach has no walls. Other Poskim[585], however, rule that the lower Sukkah is invalid. If it only partially protrudes into the space of the lower Sukkah, then according to this latter opinion, one must view all the Sechach directly under the upper Sechach as if it is invalid. Practically, one is to be stringent and avoid this situation.[586] If the bottom Sechach cannot hold a person lying on a pillow: Then the lower Sukkah is completely valid according to all.

20. A hovering within a Sukkah between ones head and the Sechach:[587]

A. The invalidation for there to be a tent between one’s head and the Sechach:[588]

 [Just as one is required to place the Sechach directly under the sky, so too[589]] one is required to dwell under the actual space under the Sechach and may not have a tent which is Halachically defined as an Ohel, intervene between him and the Sechach, as one is required to sit within the shade of the Sukkah and not within the shade of a tent.[590] [Accordingly, it is forbidden for one to have a hovering that is Halachically defined as a tent between one’s head and the Sechach of the Sukkah, and if it is present then it is forbidden to eat and drink under it if it has a dimension of 4×4 Tefachim.[591] This prohibition applies even if it is within four Tefachim of the Sechach, and even if it is within a Tefach of the Sechach[592], with exception to those cases explained in C-D.[593] If, however, the hovering is not Halachically defined as a tent, then it is implied that it is even initially permitted to eat and sleep under it.[594] What thus remains to be understood is the definition of a tent, as will be explained next.]

Q&A Does an invalidating hovering between one’s head and the Sechach have the ability to invalidate the Sukkah, or is it merely forbidden to eat and sleep under it and nothing further? Ø  Example: If one set up a Chuppah in the middle of the Sukkah, and the Chuppah is large enough to go from wall to wall, is it considered to split the sukkah in half, and possibly invalidate it if it only has three walls, or is it simply forbidden to eat under the chuppah, while the rest of the Sukkah that are to the sides of the chuppah remain kosher? This matter requires further analysis![595] If there was an invalidating hovering within the Sukkah, must anything be done to the Sechach after it is removed?[596] No. The Sukkah remains Kosher after it is removed and is not considered to be Taaseh Velo Min Hasuiy.

B. The definition of a tent:

Ten Tefachim from ground: A hovering is only defined as an Ohel if it has a height of 10 handbreadths [78 cm.[597]] from the ground.[598] This applies even if the tent does not contain walls but a mere hovering, nonetheless, it is forbidden to dwell under it within a Sukkah.[599] [This applies whether the hovering is flat, or slanted like a tent, so long as its hovering is defined to contain a Tefach, as explained next.[600]] Accordingly, it is forbidden to [eat[601] or] sleep under a bed [or table[602]] that is inside of the Sukkah if the bed [or table] reaches a height of ten Tefachim from the ground, and one who does so does not fulfill his obligation.[603] [However, if it does not reach ten Tefachim from the ground, then it is permitted to eat or sleep under it.[604] However, if one has a flat canopy which hovers over his bed, which is being held up by poles that are attached to his actual bed, then even if there isn’t 10 Tefachim from the top of the canopy until the ground, it is nonetheless Rabbinically forbidden to sleep under it, as explained in C. On the other hand, if one attaches a slanted canopy tent to his actual bed, then not only must there be ten Tefachim for it to be invalid, but furthermore, one who sleeps on the bed measures the 10 Tefachim from the top of the tent until the bed, and not from the top of the tent until the ground, as explained in C.]

A one Tefach roof-The law by a slanted tent: A hovering is only defined as an Ohel if its roof contains a Tefach. This means that its top area contains at least one Tefach [8 centimeters] of flat material that does not slant downwards [See Exhibit A].[605] Alternatively, even if it does not contain a Tefach of flat material on its top, if within three Tefach from its top it contains one Tefach of width of slanted material [See Exhibit B-C], then it has the legal status of a tent and is thus forbidden for one to eat or sleep under them.[606] [Thus, a slanted hovering similar to the canvas of a camping tent is only defined as an Ohel if it’s top area has at least one handbreadth of flat material, or its slanted material spreads open enough by its top that it contains one Tefach width of material within three Tefachim from the top of the tent. If, however, it does not contain a Tefach of flat material on its top and does not spread open a Tefach worth within three Tefachim from the top, then it is not defined as an Ohel.]

Four by four Tefachim:[607] A hovering, even if Halachically defined as a tent, only invalidates eating and sleeping under it if it is a dimension of 4×4 Tefachim wide.

Explanation:

The top of the tent is considered to have the Halachic status of one Tefach wide if it slants in a way that within three Tefachim of distance from its top down there is a width of one Tefach. Thus, in Exhibit B the tent is considered to have one Tefach wide. However, in Exhibit C it is not considered to have a one Tefach top.

 

C. A canopy hovering over one’s bed:[608]

Slanted canopy-No Tefach on top of canopy:[609] One who sleeps under a canopy that is spread over his bed [inside of the Sukkah], then if the canopy is slanted in a way that it does not contain one Tefach of width on its top, neither as a flat Tefach, nor as a slanted Tefach within three Tefachim from the top [as explained above in A], then it is permitted to [eat and] sleep under it even if it is higher than 10 Tefachim from the ground. [Some Poskim[610] rule that this applies even if the polls which hold up the canopy are attached and extend from the actual bed. However, other Poskim[611] are stringent and rule that if the poles are attached to the bed, then it is invalid if the canopy is above ten Tefachim from the bed, even though it does not contain a Tefach on top. Practically, one is to be stringent like this opinion.[612]]

Slanted canopy not attached to actual bed-Tefach on top:[613] If, however, the slanted canopy does contain a Tefach wide of material by its top, and there is a height of 10 Tefach from the top of the canopy until the ground [if the canopy is attached to poles that rest on the ground, as explained in the end of this Halacha], then it is forbidden to [eat or] sleep in the bed under it even if there isn’t 10 Tefachim from the top of the canopy until the bed that he is sleeping on, and if he sleeps on the bed he does not fulfill his obligation.[614] Thus, if the canopy is draped over a bar that hangs above the bed [and is supported by poles on the ground], and the bar is 10 Tefachim from the ground, then if the bar is one Tefach wide, then it is considered a tent and it is forbidden to sleep [or eat] under it within the Sukkah.[615] Likewise, even if the bar is not a Tefach wide, if when it slants downwards by both sides of the bar it spreads open a Tefach worth and there isn’t three Tefachim of distance from this spreading open of the Tefach until the bar, then it is forbidden to [eat or] sleep under it even in an area that is not opposite the Tefach.[616] [If, however, there isn’t a height of 10 Tefach from the top of the canopy until the ground, then it is valid to eat and sleep under it even if the canopy is flat, as explained next.]

Flat canopy-Attached to bed versus external:[617] If a flat canopy hovers over ones bed in the Sukkah, such as if one spread a sheet over four poles that are attached to and extend from the four corners of one’s bed [i.e. similar to a Chuppah], then it is Rabbinically forbidden to sleep under it even if the polls do not reach a height of 10 Tefachim from the ground. Nonetheless, since the canopy contains a flat Tefach of hovering which is the sheet that is spread over it from above, therefore the sages prohibited it. [If, however, the four poles that are holding up the hovering are not actually attached to the bed and do not extend from it, but is rather an exterior structure, then it is only invalid if it reaches 10 Tefachim above the ground.[618]]

Slanted canopy attached to bed:[619] If, however the hovering is slanted, such if there are only two poles attached to the bed and extending from it, one by each end of the bed, and there is a horizontal poll that rests on these two poles onto which the sheet is then draped [like a tent], then if the sheet does not reach 10 Tefachim from the bed, and it does not contain a Tefach of flat hovering on its top, then it is permitted to sleep under it. [This applies even if it contains a slanted hovering of a Tefach within three Tefachim from its top.[620] If, however, the hovering does contain a flat Tefach on its top, then it is forbidden to sleep under it even if it is less than ten Tefachim from the ground.[621] Likewise, according to some opinions, if the canopy is higher than 10 Tefachim from the bed, then it is forbidden to sleep under it even if the slanted hovering does not contain even a slanted Ohel Tefach, as explained in the beginning of this Halacha, see there.] If, however, the polls rest on the ground and are not attached to the bed, then we measure the 10 Tefachim from the ground and therefore only if there isn’t 10 Tefachim from the top of the hovering to the ground, is it permitted to sleep under it.[622] If, however, it does contain 10 Tefachim of height, then it is forbidden to sleep under it, as explained above.[623]

How to measure the ten Tefachim height-from the ground or from the bed:[624] If the poles that support the canopy are attached to the actual bed and not to the ground, then one measures the 10 Tefachim from the top of the canopy until the bed, and not from the top of the canopy until the ground. In the event that there isn’t 10 Tefachim from the top of the canopy until the bed, then it is not defined as a tent and it is permitted to sleep under it [unless it is a flat canopy, as explained above]. If, however, the poles that support the canopy are attached to the floor and not to the bed, then one measures the 10 Tefachim from the top of the canopy until the floor, and not from the top of the canopy until the bed. In the event that there is 10 Tefachim from the top of the canopy until the floor even though there isn’t 10 Tefachim from the top of the canopy until the bed, then it is defined as a tent, and it is forbidden to sleep under it. The way to define whether the canopy is attached to the bed or to the floor is by moving the bed and seeing if the canopy moves with it. If the canopy moves with the bed when the bed is moved, then it is a sign that it is attached to the bed. If, however, the canopy remains stationary even when one moves the bed, then it is a sign that is attached the floor and not to the bed.

Placing a canopy over the bed to protect from insects:[625] In a case that insects are disturbing one’s sleep, it is better that he remains in the Sukkah and sleep in a bed that is enclosed with a canopy that protects him from the insects, then to sleep inside of his home. This applies even if the canopy is over 10 Tefachim high [from the ground and bed] and contains a flat roofing of at least one Tefach.[626]

Summary: It is forbidden for one to have a hovering that is defined as a tent/Ohel between one’s head and the Sechach of the Sukkah [if it is 4×4 Tefachim wide]. A hovering is only defined as an Ohel if it has a height of 10 handbreadths [78 cm.] from the ground and its roof contains a flat Tefach by its top area or a slanted Tefach within three Tefachim from its top it. However, if it does not reach ten Tefachim from the ground or does not contain a Tefach hovering even within three Tefachim from its top it, [or is not 4×4 Tefachim wide] then it is permitted to eat or sleep under it. Thus, since a typical bed [and even table] does not contain a height of 80 cm from the ground therefore one may eat and sleep under it. Slanted canopy hovering over bed: One who sleeps under an external slanted tent like canopy that is positioned over his bed, then if it does not contain one Tefach of width on its top, neither as a flat Tefach, nor as a slanted Tefach within three Tefachim from the top, then it is permitted to [eat and] sleep under it even if it is higher than 10 Tefachim from the ground. If, however, the polls which hold up the canopy are attached and extend from the actual bed, then one is to be stringent not to eat or sleep under it if it is 10 Tefachim from the bed. If the slanted canopy does contain a Tefach wide of material within three Tefachim of its top, then if it is an external structure that simply hovers over the bed, then it is forbidden to eat or sleep under it if it is 10 Tefachim above ground. If the canopy is attached to the bed, then if it has a height of 10 Tefachim from the bed then it is invalid, and if it has one Tefach of flat hovering then it is invalid even if it is less than 10 Tefachim from the bed. Flat canopy hovering over bed: One who sleeps under an external flat tent like canopy that is positioned over his bed, then if it is not higher than 10 Tefachim from the ground, then it is permitted to [eat and] sleep under it. If, however, the polls which hold up the canopy are attached and extend from the actual bed, then it is forbidden to eat or sleep under it even if it within 10 Tefachim from the ground.   Q&A May one eat or sleep under the table or bed in the Sukkah?[627] So long as the table or bed does not reach a height of ten Tefach [78 cm.] then it is permitted to even initially sleep or eat under it.[628] [Nevertheless, some write that it is best to sleep and eat directly under the Sechach then under a hovering, even if less than 10 Tefach high, as explained next.[629]] May one even initially eat and sleep under a hovering that is not defined as a tent according to Halacha? Ø  May one even initially sleep under a table or bed that is not 10 Tefachim from the ground? The simple implication from all of the Poskim[630] is that it is even initially permitted to do so, and thus since a typical bed and even table does not contain a height of 80 cm from the ground therefore one may even initially eat and sleep under it.[631] Nonetheless, some write that it is initially improper to do so, and should only be done in a time of need.[632]   May one sleep on the lower bed of a bunk bed that is within a Sukkah?[633] If there is a distance of 10 Tefachim between the mattress of the lower bed[634] until the bottom of the higher bed, then according to all opinions, it is [Biblically[635]] forbidden to sleep on the lower bed. If, however, there isn’t ten Tefachim between the two beds, and certainly if is a very low bunk bed which contains a total height of less than 10 Tefachim from the ground until the upper bunk bed, then it is disputed amongst Poskim whether one may sleep on the lower bed which is hovered over by the upper bed. Some Poskim[636] rule that it is similar to an attached bed canopy and is thus Rabbinically forbidden to eat and sleep on the lower bed.[637] Other Poskim[638], however, rule that it is permitted to eat and sleep on the lower bed, as it is not similar to the case of a bed canopy.[639] This applies even if there is a person sleeping on the upper bed.[640] May one eat or sleep under an umbrella?[641] It is permitted to eat or sleep under an umbrella that is not 10 Tefachim from the ground. Furthermore, some Poskim[642] rule that it is permitted to eat or sleep under an umbrella even if it is 10 Tefachim from the ground, being that a temporary handheld tent is not defined as a tent at all. Accordingly, during times of rain [on Chol Hamoed] it is better to stay in the Sukkah under an umbrella then to leave the Sukkah altogether, however a blessing is not to be recited. [However, on Shabbos and Yom Tov it is forbidden to open an umbrella.]

D. Placing a decorative sheet and other decorations under one’s Sechach:[643]

Within four Tefachim from the Sechach: It is permitted for one to spread decorative sheets and ornaments [and all other decorations including fruits and vegetables and beautiful vessels[644]] on the walls of one’s Sukkah or under the Sechach, within four Tefachim from the Sechach [31.32[645] cm.], for the sake of beautification in order to beautify the Sukkah. This applies even though the material is considered to receive impurity and is therefore invalid for Sechach.[646] This applies even if the sheet is four Tefachim wide, nevertheless it does not nullify the Sukkah as is the normal rule regarding invalid Sukkah.[647] Furthermore, it is even permitted for one to dwell [i.e. eat and sleep] directly under it even if it is a height of 10 Tefachim from above the ground, and it is not considered to be an intervening tent between the person and the Sechach.[648] This allowance however, only applies to sukkah decorations, however one who spreads under the Sechach items that are not there to decorate the Sukkah, then their law will be explained in E.

If it is a distance of four Tefachim from the Sechach:[649] The above allowance only applies if the decorative sheet is within four Tefachim from the Sechach. If, however, the decorative sheet is a distance of four Tefachim [32 cm.] from the Sechach, then it is not considered to be nullified to the Sechach, and it invalidates the Sukkah just as is the law of any invalid Sechach, as explained in chapter 632 [Halacha 11], and hence if the decorative sheet contains four by four Tefachim then it is forbidden to dwell under it.[650] [Some Poskim[651], however, rule that this only applies if the decoration is dense enough to provide majority shade, otherwise it remains valid to eat under it. Most Poskim[652], however, rule that this applies even if the decoration does not provide majority shade, and so is the simple understanding of Admur.]

The law if the decoration is less than 4 x 4 Tefachim:[653] Although we rule that if invalid Sechach does not contain 4 x 4 Tefachim then it is even initially permitted to dwell under it, nevertheless, one is to initially beware not to distance the sukkah decorations four Tefachim from the Sechach, even if they are less than four Tefachim wide [such as fruits and the like[654]].[655]  See Chapter 1 Halacha 14B for the full details of this matter!

Summary: Decorative sheets, as well as all decorations, that are found within four Tefachim from the Sechach are permitted to be eaten and slept under irrelevant of their size. Accordingly, all decorations irrelevant of size are to be placed within four Tefachim from the Sechach. If the decoration hangs a distance of four Tefachim from the Sechach then it is forbidden to eat or sleep under it if it is 4×4 Tefachim wide. Q&A May one eat under a protruding decoration which was placed on one’s wall?[656] If the decoration is within 4 Tefach from the Sechach then it is nullified to the Sechach, and one may thus eat under it. If, however, it is below 4 Tefach from the Sechach then it is forbidden to eat under it. If the decoration is within 4 Tefach from the Sechach but rolls down past the 4 Tefach then it is questionable whether it is considered an interval or not, and practically it should be avoided. May one place decorations within four Tefach from the Sechach if they reach below 4 Tefach from ones Sechach?[657] This is to be avoided due to it being questionable whether or not this decoration is nullified to the Sechach and hence perhaps it is an interval between the person and the Sechach.[658] However there are Poskim[659] which are lenient in this matter so long as the top of the decoration is within four Tefach from the Sechach. Must one hang a candelabra and the electric lights within four Tefachim from the Sechach?[660] One is to initially hang it within four Tefachim from the Sechach, unless there is danger of a fire igniting as a result of the proximity, in which case he is to distance it as much as necessary. Furthermore, one was even initially lenient in this has upon whom to rely.

E. A non-decorative hovering placed for the sake of dwelling in the Sukkah-Having a sheet spread in order to catch leaves, or rain:[661]

*Regarding placing it over the Sukkah, see Halacha 13E that the same debate and ruling applies.

If one spread a sheet under the Sechach of the Sukkah in order to catch the falling leaves [or rain[662] or wind[663],] so they don’t fall on his table[664] [and food[665]], then it is disputed as to whether the Sukkah remains valid. Some Poskim[666], rule that the Sukkah is invalid.[667] Other Poskim[668], however, rule that if the sheet is within four Tefachim of the Sechach, and one places it there simply to prevent the leaves [or rain] from falling on his table, then the Sukkah remains Kosher [even if the sheet can provide majority shade on its own[669], and it is even permitted to eat under it[670]].[671] If, however, the sheet is a distance of four Tefachim from the Sechach, or was placed there in order to prevent the leaves from drying up and falling and thus invalidate the Sechach[672], then the Sukkah is invalid. Nonetheless, [even according to this latter opinion[673]], one should not initially do so [even during times that one is not eating in the Sukkah[674]] unless it is evident to all that he is placing the sheet there in order to protect himself from the sun, or if the sheet is wet and it appears that one is spreading it in order to dry it.[675] [Practically, one is to be stringent like the first opinion and never place a sheet under the Sechach for non-decorative purposes.[676] However, in a time of need, such as if many leaves are falling onto one’s food, or it is raining hard, or is very windy, then one may be lenient to spread a sheet under the Sechach within four Tefachim from it and eat in it without a blessing[677], if lack of doing so will prevent one from eating in the Sukkah.[678] This applies even in the event that  placing the sheet under the Sechach will appear to the onlooker as if there is no Sechach in the Sukkah.[679]]

Placing a sheet under the Sechach on Shabbos and Yom Tov:[680] It is forbidden to spread the sheet under the Sechach on Shabbos or Yom Tov to prevent wind [or rain, due to the Ohel prohibition[681]]. This applies even if because of not doing so one will be unable to eat at all in the Sukkah due to the wind that will extinguish the candles on the night of Shabbos.[682] [This applies even if one places the sheet right under the Sechach without any space in between.[683]] However, if it is unclear if one will be unable to eat in the Sukkah if he does not spread the sheet over the Sukkah, then even during the weekday it is forbidden to spread it under the Sechach, due to the reason explained above in Halacha A-C.[684]

Summary: If a sheet was placed under the Sechach to catch leaves or rain or prevent wind, it is disputed as to whether it is permitted to eat or sleep in the Sukkah under the sheet. Practically, in a time of need it is better to place a sheet under the Sechach and prevent rain, leaves, wind, from entering the Sukkah if lack of doing so will require one to eat enter his house.   Q&A In times of rain, is it proper to eat under an open rain umbrella in his Sukkah?[685] During Chol Hamoed which is not Shabbos, it is preferable to eat under a rain umbrella then to eat outside of the Sukkah, as it is not clear that the umbrella is considered a legal tent which intervenes between the person and the Sechach. Nevertheless, due to the doubt no blessing is to be said when eating under the umbrella. See Halacha C in Q&A! If one closed the awning due to rain, is there any meaning behind remaining in the Sukkah? See Halacha 18 in Q&A!

21. Taaseh Velo Min Haasuiy-Actively building the Sukkah and Sechach:

The concept of Taaseh Velo Min Haasuiy is recorded in several areas in the above Halachas. See Chapter 1 Halacha 8 regarding one who set up the Sechach before the walls. Chapter 1 Halacha 12B and D regarding its relation to an old Sukkah, and how the Sukkah must be renewed prior to Sukkos. See Chapter 2 Halacha 7E regarding the invalidation of cutting a branch from a tree if it is already lying on the Sukkah. See Halacha 17 regarding the invalidation of removing non-kosher Sechach from under Kosher Sechach. See Halacha 18 regarding the validation of removing non-kosher Sechach from over Kosher Sechach.

 

22. An old Sukkah:

See Chapter 1 Halacha 12!

________________________________________________

[1] Admur 626:16

[2] Admur 626:1; Michaber 635:1; Rav Chisda Sukkah 8b; See also Admur 636:3 [Vetzaruch Iyun as to the difference of reasons mentioned 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!]

[3] 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 to is 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]

[4] Admur 636:1; Michaber 635:1; Sukkah 8b

[5] Such a Sukkah is valid even if entirely made by these people including the Sechach. Even though the first four people do not build their Sukkah for the purpose of the Mitzvah but rather for shade and the second four [Rakbash] do not make the Sukkah for permanent dwelling, nevertheless it is valid.

[6] Bikureiy Yaakov 635:2; See Admur 14:2

[7] Taz 636:3

The reason: As if even a Sukkah built by a Jew before 30 days before Sukkos must be renewed, then certainly a Sukkah built by Ganbach/Rakvash for shade purposes must be renewed. [Taz ibid]

[8] Taz 636:3; Aruch Hashulchan 636:2; Omitted from all previous Poskim

[9] The reason: As the entire reason for why it does not require a renewal when made within 30 days is because we assume it was made for the sake of the Mitzvah and not for the sake of shade. However, when the above people of Ganbach/Rakvash make Sukkos, it is done for shade even within 30 days before Sukkos, and hence should require renewal. [Taz ibid as explained in Levushei Serud 636; See also Aruch Hashulchan 636:1]

[10] Taz 636:3 in name of Ran; M”A 636:1; 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; Aruch Hashulchan 636:2

Opinion of Admur: Seemingly, according to Admur, from the letter of the law we should require a renewal by such a such a Sukkah otherwise it is invalid, just as is implied to be his opinion regarding a Sukkah Yeshanah. Vetzaruch Iyun, as in any event the entire idea that a Sukkas Ganbach requires renewal even within 30 days is of the Taz ibid, who agrees that it is never a requirement even before 30 days. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[11] Sukkah 8b

[12] Admur 631:1; Michaber 631:4; Rambam 5:19; Mishneh Sukkah 2a and 22a

[13] See Admur 631:2-3; Michaber 631:1; Sukkah 22b

[14] Admur 631:2-3; Michaber 631:1; Sukkah 22b

The contradiction: See Likkutei Sichos 32 p. 143-145 where the Rebbe addresses a contradiction on the below two laws, as on the one hand, from the first Halacha it is implied that so long as there is not more sunlight than shade on the floor of the Sukkah, then it is valid. On the other hand, from the second Halacha it is implied that there must be more shade than sunlight for it to be valid. The Rebbe explains that in truth there are two laws regarding the Sechach: a) That it provides at least an equal amount of shade to sunlight, which is measured only on the floor of the Sukkah. And b) That there is more Sechach than empty space. Having more Sechach than empty space makes it be considered complete Sechach, while simply not having more sunlight than shade simply negates its invalidation but does not make it complete Sechach. See there!

[15] Admur 631:2; Michaber ibid; Sukkah ibid as explained by Rashi; Rambam Sukkah 5:19; Hagahos Maimanis ibid; Rosh 2:3; Ran ibid; Maggid Mishneh ibid

The reason: As when the sunlight penetrates the empty space in the Sechach of the Sukkah and spreads onto the floor of the Sukkah there is more sunlight than shade. This is because sunlight spreads more on the floor of the Sukkah than the available space given by the airspace between the Sechach [i.e. if on the roof there is 50% air and 50% Sechach, on the floor there will be 51% sunlight and 49% shade]. It is thus found that on the floor of the Sukkah there is more sunlight than shade and it is hence invalid. [Admur ibid; Gemara ibid as explained in Rashi] This indicates that the Sechach above is giving less shade than the air is giving sunlight and it is hence invalid.

[16] Admur 631:3; Michaber ibid; Sukkah ibid; Rif

The reason: The reason why the Sukkah is valid when there is an equal amount of shade and sunlight below on the ground is because this indicates that above by the Sechach there is less empty space than Sechach, and that above there is more shade than sunlight and this is considered complete Sechach. [Admur ibid: Rashi ibid; Rif ibid; Levush 631:1; See Likkutei Sichos ibid regarding the meaning of “complete Sechach”]

[17] Likkutei Torah Vayikra 1st Mamar

[18] Admur 631:4; Michaber 331:2; Sukkah 19a; Rosh 1:35

[19] Admur ibid; Taz 631:1; Levush 631:2; Rosh ibid

The reason that even the area with minority shade is valid: As this area is nullified to the majority of the Sechach which contains majority shade. [Admur ibid]

The law if in total there is more sunlight then shade: If in total there is more sunlight than shade, then it is implied that the Sukkah is invalid. However, seemingly this only applies if the area with majority shade is not 7×7 Tefachim, as if it is, and it contains three Kosher walls, then it is considered its own Kosher Sukkah and does not need the minority shade area to be added to it. [See Chazon Ish 150:17; Piskeiy Teshuvos 631 footnote 2]

[20] See Shiureiy Torah p. 249 that an Ama Dochekes is 47 cm. [as opposed to 48 for a regular Ama], and accordingly a Tefach Dochakos is 7.83 cm [i.e. 1/48 of a cm times 8, deducted from 8 cen.] and by the Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 one should measure with the stringent approach of an Ama Sochakos, and the same would apply here Lechumra to measure the seven Tefachim as Dochakos. See also M”B 633:2 and Shaar Hatziyon 633:2 that by Sukkah we follow the stringent approach in the dimensions, either Dochakos or Sochakos, and by the 7×7 dimension we follow Sochakos; See also Midos Vishureiy Torah pp. 48-57 regarding Ama Sochakos and Dochakos

Other opinions-Chazon Ish: According to the Chazon Ish, the measurement is 65.94 cm following the 9.42 measurement of Tefach Dochakos. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[21] See Chazon Ish 150:17; Piskeiy Teshuvos 631 footnote 2

[22] Admur ibid; Rama 631:2 in name of Yeish Machmirim; Ran Sukkah ibid; Taz ibid

The reason: The reason for this is because 7×7 Tefachim is the size of a Kosher Sukkah, and it is therefore considered a significant space which is not nullified or secondary to the part of the Sukkah that contains majority shade. [Admur ibid]

[23] The law if the Sukkah only has three walls, and the area with minority shade is adjacent to a wall throughout its length, or runs through the middle of the Sukkah, between the two parallel walls: In such a case, it is questionable whether the minority shade area cuts off the adjacent wall, hence invalidating the Sukkah. [M”B 631:4 in name of P”M] It is questionable whether we apply the rule of Dofen Akuma in such a case. Some Poskim rule that we treat such Sechach as empty space, and hence the law of Dofen Akuma does not apply and the Sukkah becomes invalid. [Bikureiy Yaakov 631:2] Other Poskim, however, rule that it is treated as invalid Sechach, and hence the rule of Dofen Akuma applies and the Sukkah remains Kosher. [Tosefes Bikurim on Bikureiy Yakaov ibid] Practically, one is to be stringent. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:1] See also Q&A!

[24] Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:1

[25] Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:1

[26] Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:1

[27] M”B 631:4; Bikureiy Yaakov 631:1; See Halacha above and in footnotes

[28] Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:1

[29] Michaber 632:2

[30] See Michaber and Rama 632:2; Kaf Hachaim 632:16; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:12; Nitei Gavriel 14

[31] Biur Halacha 632:2 “Viein”

[32] Biur Halacha 632:2 “Viein”

[33] Michaber ibid; Aruch Hashulchan 632:5

Other opinions: See Radbaz 4:1317 (246) brought in brackets in this paragraph

[34] Must the empty space that passes from one end to another have a minimum width? The Poskim question this statement of the Rama which implies that if the empty space goes from one end of the Sukkah to another then it is invalid even if it takes up a tiny sliver of space, less than even a Tefach. This would virtually invalidate all Sechach made of boards, or bamboo, or Sechach mats that are very popular for Sukkos, as there is inevitably lines of space that reach from one end of the Sukkah to the other between the pieces of wood/bamboo etc. Thus, the Poskim conclude that one must state that even when the space stretches from one end of the Sukkah to the other it only invalidates eating or sleeping under it if it is large enough for one to fit [majority of] his head/body in it, otherwise it is valid, and hence the Rama is saying that that space which is less than 3 Tefach is only invalid if it goes from wall to wall and can fit a head/body through it, or even if it does not go from wall to wall, but can fit a head/body through it, and hence the main aspect of invalidation remains only if one can fit his head/body under the space. [See Salmas Chaim 243-245; Chazon Ish 144:5; Yabia Omer 4:49 that so is proven from the Rishonim the Michtam, Hashlama and Ritva; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid] However, some Poskim conclude that in truth if the empty space passes throughout the Sukkah then it invalidates the area under it even if one cannot fit his head/body under it, being that it is very recognizable, and hence they suggest that whenever such a space has been created, such as by bamboo Sechach, then one should arrange both a horizontal and vertical layer of Sechach to prevent such lines of space from being created. [See Aruch Hashulchan 632:5; Moadim Uzmanim 6:71; Tzitz Eliezer 15:28; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 60; Nitei Gavriel ibid footnote 5-6]

[35] Some Poskim rule that if the empty space is enough to enter the head, or majority of the body in it, then it is invalid. [M”B 632:12 in name of Ran] The reason for this is because it is not possible for the majority of ones head and body to enter a space of less than 24 cm. square [as proven from the minimum Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 Tefachim, of which we say a person needs a minimum of 6×6 Tefachim of space to sit inside-See Sukkah 7za; Emek Shemaasah 3], and hence one must conclude that it refers to or ones head, or ones body. [Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid] Furthermore, some Poskim prohibit the space if even majority of his head or body can fit inside. [Chazon Ish 144:5]

[36] Rama ibid

[37] See Radbaz 4:1317 (246)

[38] See P”M 632 A”A 4; If the empty space is 3×3 Tefach, then it is not considered part of the Sukkah and is as if one is eating half in and half out of the Sukkah and is hence invalid

[39] Sheiris Yisrael 1:28; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[40] Sheiris Yisrael ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; Nitei Gavriel 14:2

The reason: As even when the empty space stretches from one end of the Sukkah to the other, certainly we still require it to be large enough to be able to fit the head/body of a person. [See Salmas Chaim 243-245; Chazon Ish 144:5; Yabia Omer 4:49 that so is proven from the Rishonim the Michtam, Hashlama and Ritva]

Other opinions: See next and previous footnotes!

[41] See Aruch Hashulchan 632:5; Moadim Uzmanim 6:71; Tzitz Eliezer 15:28; Piskeiy Teshivos ibid footnote 60; Nitei Gavriel ibid footnote 5-6

[42] Poskim in previous footnote

[43] As rules Radbaz ibid; See also Salmas Chaim ibid; Nitei Gavriel ibid footnote 5

[44] The reason: The reason for why by empty space the dimension of invalidation is three Tefachim, while by invalid Sechach it is four Tefachim is because by empty space the split that it causes to the Sukkah is more readily apparent. [Taz 632:4; M”B 632:10]

[45] Michaber ibid

[46] Rama ibid

[47] M”A 632:4 in name of Tur; Tur 632 p. 513; M”B 632:13

[48] Rama ibid

[49] M”A 632:4 in name of Tur; Tur 632 p. 513; M”B 632:13

[50] Rama 632:2 as explained in M”A 632:4 in name of Tur, and that so rules the Tosfos, Rosh, Rabbeinu Yerucham and Levush; M”B 632:16

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the areas surrounding the empty space do not join for the 7×7 dimension. [Bikureiy Yaakov 632:7, brought in M”B ibid]

[51] P”M 632 A”A 4; If the empty space is less than 3×3 Tefach, such as if it is 3×2 Tefach, then it even joins for the minimum Shiur of the Sukkah, as explained next.

[52] See Bikureiy Yaakov 632:7 who implies that this is only forbidden in his opinion, while according to the M”A ibid it would be permitted. Vetzaruch Iyun why this is not forbidden according to all due to the table being outside of the Sukkah.

[53] Bikureiy Yaakov 632:7, brought in M”B ibid

[54] Michaber 632:2

[55] P”M 632 A”A 4; If the empty space is less than 3×3 Tefach, such as if it is 3×2 Tefach, then it even joins for the minimum Shiur of the Sukkah, as explained next.

[56] The reason: As we apply the rule of Lavud and it hence joins the remainder of the Sukkah. [Biur Halacha 632:2 “Bepachus”]

[57] Michaber 632:3, as explained in M”B 632:17-18

The law if the Sukkah has 6 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach:

[58] The reason: As by a Sukkah which is more than 7×7 Tefachim invalid Sechach and empty space have different measurements regarding their invalidation, with invalid Sechach being invalid with 4 Tefachim and empty space being invalid with 3 Tefachim, and hence they don’t join. [M”B 632:17]

[59] Michaber ibid

Other opinion: Some Poskim rule that a Sukkah is defined as small if it is less than 10 Tefachim by 10 Tefachim, as in such a case there will not be a Sukkah of 7×7 Tefachim left if we deduct from it the three Tefachim space of invalid Sechach. [Bikureiy Yaakov 632:8 based on M”A 632:4]

[60] The reason: As by a Sukkah which is 7×7 Tefachim invalid Sechach and empty space have the same measurements regarding their invalidation, with both being invalid with 3 Tefachim, and hence they join. [M”B 632:17]

The law if the invalid Sechach and empty space are not adjacent to each other: Then they do not join, and hence if there is at least 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then the Sukkah is valid. [Chazon Ish 144:4; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:7]

[61] See Michaber 632:1 that one must have a minimum of more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach for the non-Kosher Sechach to join, by a 7×7 Sukkah

[62] If there is 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then certainly it remains Kosher. Furthermore, even if it contains less than 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, but has more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then if there is less than three Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach next to the Kosher Sechach, and it is enough to make up a 7×7 space together with the Kosher Sechach [i.e. 5 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach and two Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach], then it is valid even though the invalid Sechach is adjacent to empty space to make up more than three Tefachim altogether. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:6, however, see there footnote 32 that it is implied from the Shiltei Giborim that the invalid Sechach and empty space nonetheless join to invalidate the wall next to it, and hence if it is adjacent to the wall of a three wall Sukkah, then the Sukkah is invalid. Nonetheless, he concludes there that it remains valid and does not invalidate the third wall.] If, however, the Kosher Sechach is adjacent to empty space of less than three Tefachim, which is then adjacent to less than three Tefachim of invalid Sechach, then it is debated as to whether the Sukkah is Kosher even if it contains more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach [but less than 7×7 Tefachim], as perhaps when there is space in between the Kosher and non-Kosher Sechach, then the empty space and non-Kosher Sechach do not join the minimum dimension of 7×7 Tefachim required for the Sukkah to remain Kosher, if there is in total three Tefachim of both empty space and non-Kosher Sechach. [See Chemed Moshe 632:2; Hagahos Chochmas Shlomo 632; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid] Furthermore, even if the invalid Sechach is adjacent to the valid Sechach, if it alone cannot make up the 7×7 dimension together with the valid Sechach [i.e. 5 x 5 Tefachim of valid Sechach and 1 Tefach of invalid Sechach and two Tefachim of empty space], it is possibly invalid, as perhaps we view the invalid Sechach and empty space as a total of three Tefachim which cannot join the valid Sechach for the 7×7 dimension. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 32 who leaves this as a Tzaruch Iyun according to the M”A 632:3. However, according to the Elya Raba, certainly this is valid if in total there is less than four Tefachim of invalid Sechach and space] See Sefer Hasukkah Hashaleim Miluim 89:38

[63] M”B 632:17

[64] M”B ibid; However, see Chazon Ish 144:4 that one may not eat under a four Tefach space that does not contain Kosher Sechach; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:13

[65] See regarding invalid Sechach: M”A 632:2; Bikureiy Yaakov 632:4; Elya Raba 632:1; M”B 632:5; Biur Halacha 632:9; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:10 rules that the same applies regarding empty space

[66] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:11

[67] Admur 631:5

[68] Admur ibid; Michaber 631:3; Rambam Sukkah 5:21; Rosh 2:3; Yerushalmi 2:3; M”A 631:1

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is permitted to make the Sechach even very thick, as even if stars cannot be seen through it one can see the rays of the sun from many areas. [Darkei Moshe 631 in name of Maharil, brought in M”B 631:5]

[69] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Mishneh Sukkah 22a and Beis Hillel 22b; Bach 631; Taz 631:2

[70] Sefer Haminhagim p. 65; Hisvadyus 1990 1:164 that so was the custom of the Rebbe Rayatz and the Rebbe Rashab; Lishmoa Ozen p. 20-21 in name of Rav Issaac Homlir that so was the custom of the Alter Rebbe in Liozna; So was also the custom of the Rebbe Rashab [Lubavitch VechaYaaleha p. 31]; This was likewise the custom of the Rebbe. [Otzer Minhagei Chabad p. 366]; See Hamelech Bemisibo 2:192; Likkutei Sichos 9:231

[71] Hisvadyus 1990 1:164

[72] Admur ibid; M”A 631:2; Bach 631 and 635; Levush 631; Tur 631 in name of Rabbeinu Tam; Hagahos Maimanis 5:6 Tes; Mordechai Remez 732; Mateh Moshe 904; Elya Raba 631:4; Chayeh Adam 146:18; M”B 631:6; See Beis Yosef 631 and 635

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the Sechach remains valid even if it is very thick and rain cannot penetrate it, and that in a time of need one may rely on this opinion. [Implication of Michaber ibid, brought in Birkeiy Yosef 631:2, brought in Shaareiy Teshuvah 631:1; Mamar Mordechai 631:1; Bach 631 in name of Tur; Shivlei Haleket; M”B 631:6]

[73] M”B 631:6

[74] The reason: The reason for this is because if the Sechach prevents penetration of rain it is not considered a Sukkah, as a Sukkah is defined as a form of roofing that protects only from shade and not from other matters. However, if it is also able to protect from rain then it is not considered a Sukkah but rather is similar to a house. [Admur ibid; See also M”B 631:6]

[75] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:2

[76] Peri Megadim, brought in M”B 631:5

[77] See Hisvadyus 1990 1:164

[78] Kenad Renana O.C. 67; Pischa Zuta 631:7; Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:2

[79] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:17

[80] Shraga Hameir 6:111; Ruling of Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievsky and other Rabbanim of today, brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos 629 footnote 81; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:310

[81] Kaneh Bosem 2:26 and that so agreed the Minchas Yitzchak; Lehoros Nasan 5:43

[82] Shevet Halevi 7:60; Kinyan Torah 5:66

[83] Likkutei Torah Vayikra 1st Mamar

[84] Admur 631:6-7

[85] Admur 631:6; Michaber 631:5; Mishneh Sukkah 22a

[86] Admur ibid; Rama ibid

The reason: As since if the sun were to stand in middle of the sky on top of the heads of all people, it would have more shade than sunlight, therefore it should not be invalidated simply due to sunlightthat comes from an angle. [Admur ibid; Tosafos Sukkah ibid; Tur ibid]

[87] See Shiureiy Torah p. 249 that an Ama Dochakos is 47 cm. [as opposed to 48 for a regular Ama], and accordingly a Tefach Dochakos is 7.83 cm [i.e. 1/48 of a cm times 8, deducted from 8 cnetimeters] and by the Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 one should measure with the stringent approach of an Ama Sochakos, and the same would apply here Lechumra to measure the three Tefachim as Dochakos. See also M”B 633:2 and Shaar Hatziyon 633:2 that by Sukkah we follow the stringent approach in the dimensions, either Dochakos or Sochakos, and by the 7×7 dimension we follow Sochakos, and the same would apply here by three Tefachim; See also Midos Vishureiy Torah pp. 48-57 regarding Ama Sochakos and Dochakos; Piskeiy Teshuvos 633:1 writes that its 23.4 according to Grach Nah, when taking into account the Dochakos according to Chazon Ish, as he explains there in footnote 2

Other opinions-Chazon Ish: According to the Chazon Ish, the measurement is 28.26 cm following the 9.42 measurement of Tefach Dochakos. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[88] Admur 631:7; Michaber ibid; Abayey Sukkah ibid

The reason: As any area which is less than three Tefachim apart is considered attached due to the rule of Lavud, and they therefore join each other to be considered like a single Sechach. [Admur ibid; Tosafos Sukkah ibid]

[89] Admur 631:7

[90] Admur 631:7

[91] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Abayey Sukkah ibid

The reason: As any area which is less than three Tefachim apart is considered attached due to the rule of Lavud, and they therefore join each other to be considered like a single Sechach. If, however, there are three Tefachim between the upper and lower Sechach then they do not join eachother, and it is not considered Sechach at all. [Admur ibid; Tosafos Sukkah ibid]

[92] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:3 and footnote 7 who discusses this matter and whether we can still apply the rule of Dofen Akuma.

[93] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid “Tefach or more”; Rava Sukkah ibid; Rashi ibid

Must each individual piece of Sechach have a Tefach by Tefach: Some Poskim rule that each individual piece of Sechach in the upper level must have a 1×1 Tefach dimension for us to view it as if it descends below, and it does not help for it to simply have a Tefach by Tefach altogether. [M”B 631:8 in name of Ran; Kaf Hachaim 631:15]

[94] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rambam Sukkah 5:21

Explanation: Some Poskim explain this to mean that the lower Sechach has space between each of its beams of Sechach and the upper Sechach is parallel to this empty space and if it were to descend it would close up this empty space between the two beams of lower Sechach. [Kesef Mishneh on Rambam ibid; Shulchan Gavoa 631:8; M”B 531:9; Kaf Hachaim 631:29]  However, according to Admur ibid who writes that it is valid even if there is more space between the two beams of the lower Sechach than the width of the upper Seach which is hovering over it, then it nevertheless remains valid, and it is only if there is less space that it would be invalid.

[95] Admur ibid; Based on Rama ibid; Ran Sukkah 10b; Lechem Mishneh on Rambam ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the space between the two lower beams, is more than the space of the higher beam, then it is invalid. [Kesef Mishneh on Rambam ibid; Shulchan Gavoa 631:8; M”B 531:9; Kaf Hachaim 631:29] See previous footnote!

[96] The reason: As we view the upper Sechach as if it descended below and is resting in the area of space under it [and it is hence considered as if there is no height difference between it and the lower Sechach, and it hence remains valid]. [Admur ibid; Michaber and Rambam ibid; Rava Sukkah ibid] This concept is called Chavut Rami. [Kaf Hachaim 631:16]

[97] Admur ibid

The reason: As in such a case we do not view the upper Sechach as if it has descended below and is resting in the area of space under it [and hence we must invalidate it due to its three Tefach distance and lack of Lavud,]. [Admur ibid]

[98] Admur 631:7; See Admur 612:1; Yuma 80a; Sukkah 5b

[99] See Michaber 632:1; Rama 631:10; Tur 631; Beis Yosef 631 and 632; M”A 632:3; Elya Raba 632:3; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:6

Background: See Ran, brought in Beis Yosef 631, that the Sechach wall of the teepee must be 17 Tefachim tall, ten for the height of the wall, and seven for the Sechach, hence implying that it must have seven [x7?] Tefachim worth of Sechach. However, see Beis Yosef in explanation of Rav Hamaggid on Rambam Sukkah 4:7 that according to some opinions [which the Rav Hamagid leans to agree with] there is never a need to have a 7×7 space of Sechach, and so long as it has a Tefach of Kosher Sechach it is valid if it contains a space of 7×7 Tefachim on the ground, and does not contain 3 Tefachim of invalid Sechach, or empty space, on top, such as by a teepee Sukkah. Practically, while the Rav Hamagid himself is stringent, and so seems to be the opinion of the Beis Yosef, in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch no one makes mention of a requirement for there to be 17 Tefachim of slanted wall made from Kosher Sechach. Nonetheless, the Rama ibid rules like the Ran that the slanted walls must be made of material that is Kosher for Sechach being that the walls are the Sechach, and the M”B 631:34 and Kaf Hachaim 631:55 rule that this applies even if it has a flat Tefach of Kosher Sechach. Thus, we see that the Poskim did accept the opinion of the Ran in regard to that a Tefach of Sechach does not suffice and one must include also the walls as Sechach. Vetzaruch Iyun according to this why also the condition of having 17 Tefachim of wall was not mentioned, although perhaps the Rama holds that the walls can serve both as Sechach and walls, Vetzaruch Iyun! Whatever the case, everyone agrees that a Sukkah of 7×7 remains Kosher so long as it contains more than 4×4 of Kosher Sechach [See Michaber 632:1] and hence we can conclude that so long as a Sukkah contains 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach it is valid even according to the Ran, and that he does not require a space of 7×7 of Kosher Sechach. However, in truth this is seemingly only correct according to the understanding of Elya Raba 632:3 who rules that so long as there is more than 4×4 of Kosher Sechach, then it is valid [under the Kosher Sechach] even if there is more than 3×3 of non-Kosher Sechach. However, according to the M”A 632:3 who rules that it is only valid if in addition to having more than 4×4 of Kosher Sechach it also has less than 3×3 of non-Kosher Sechach, as only then is it nullified to the Kosher Sechach [Taz 632:3; M”B 632:10], then we see that a Sukkah is invalid so long as it does not contain 7×7 of Kosher Sechach, or an exact measurement of 7×7 roofing which contains less than 3×3 of non-Kosher Sechach, in which case we view it as nullified to the Kosher Sechach. Practically, we rule like the the M”A ibid. [P”M 632 A”A 3; Siddur Beis Shoeiva 632:11; M”B 632:8; Kaf Hachaim 632:12]  Vetzaruch Iyun why the Poskim don’t add the opinion of the Maggid Mishneh as recorded in the Beis Yosef ibid to prove like the Elya Raba that there is no requirement to have 7×7 Tefachim of Sechach, and that even one Tefach can suffice. Perhaps, however, the reason is because although a single Tefach of Kosher Sechach suffices, one is not allowed to have more non-Kosher Sechach than Kosher Sechach on the roof, or have 3 Tefachim or more of non-Kosher Sechach. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[100] Rama 631:10; Tur 631

[101] Michaber and Rama 631:10; See Background in previous footnotes!

[102] Michaber 631:10

The law if it contains a Tefach of slanted roof within three Tefachim: Some Poskim rule that it is valid and is considered similar to one flat Tefach, just as we rule in 315 regarding an Ohel on Shabbos. [M”A 631:9; Elya Raba 631:9; See Admur 315:15] However, other Poskim argue on this. [See Kaf Hachaim 631:47]

[103] Rama ibid; See Ran, brought in Beis Yosef 631

How much slanted wall Sechach must one have? See Ran, brought in Beis Yosef 631, that the Sechach wall of the teepee must be 17 Tefachim tall, ten for the height of the wall, and seven for the Sechach, hence implying that it must have seven [x7?] Tefachim worth of Sechach. However, see Beis Yosef in explanation of Rav Hamaggid on Rambam Sukkah 4:7 that according to some opinions [which the Rav Hamaggid leans to agree with] there is never a need to have a 7×7 space of Sechach, and so long as it has a Tefach of Kosher Sechach it is valid if it contains a space of 7×7 Tefachim on the ground for a height of ten Tefachim, and does not contain 3 Tefachim of invalid Sechach, or empty space, on top, such as by a teepee Sukkah. Practically, while the Rav Hamaggid himself is stringent, and so seems to be the opinion of the Beis Yosef, in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch no one makes mention of a requirement for there to be 17 Tefachim of slanted wall made from Kosher Sechach. Nonetheless, the Rama ibid rules like the Ran that the slanted walls must be made of material that is Kosher for Sechach being that the walls are the Sechach, and the M”B 631:34 and Kaf Hachaim 631:55 rule that this applies even if it has a flat Tefach of Kosher Sechach. Thus, we see that the Poskim did accept the opinion of the Ran in regard to that a Tefach of Sechach does not suffice and one must include also the walls as Sechach. Vetzaruch Iyun according to this why also the condition of having 17 Tefachim of wall was not mentioned, although perhaps the Rama holds that the walls can serve both as Sechach and walls, Vetzaruch Iyun! Whatever the case, it would be logical to assume that one is required to have at least 7 Tefachim of Kosher wall materials on each side of the teepee.

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a single Tefach of Kosher Sechach on the teepee roof of the Sukkah suffices [and there is no need to have the walls be made of Kosher Sechach to join for a 7×7 dimension of Sechach], so long as it contains a space of 7×7 Tefachim on the ground, for a height of ten Tefachim. [Beis Yosef in explanation of Rav Hamaggid on Rambam Sukkah 4:7 that so is true according to some opinions which the Rav Hamaggid leans to agree with]

[104] See Michaber ibid that the slanted wall can be lifted a Tefach from the ground to be valid with its Kosher Sechach

[105] See Michaber 632:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:6 and 9

[106] Michaber 632:1

The reason: The reason for why the Sukkah is Kosher in such a case is because the less than 3 Tefachim of empty space, or invalid Sechach, becomes nullified to the more than 4 x 4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, and ends up being considered like actual Kosher Sechach, to make up for the minimum 7 x 7 Tefachim dimension that is required. This is similar to a non-kosher food which became mixed in  majority of  kosher food in which case we rule that the non-kosher food becomes nullified and becomes actually Kosher [Levush 632:1, brought and vehemently negated in Taz 632:3] According to this reasoning, it’s understood that indeed a 7 x 7 dimension of Kosher Sechach is required, and it is simply that the non-kosher Sechach  joins to make up this dimension. [See Bikureiy Yaakov 632:6 that so is also evident from the ruling of the M”A 632:3, brought in M”B 632:8, who rules that even if by a 9.5 x 9.5 Tefachim dimension of a sukkah it is only valid if there is less than 3 x 3 Tefachim of empty space or non-kosher Sechach, which proves that in his opinion it does not suffice to simply have a 4 x 4 dimension of Kosher Sechach, and rather one must have the non-kosher Sechach, or empty space join for the minimum measurement of 7 x 7.] However, other Poskim completely negate this approach and simply state that since there isn’t a 3 x 3 Tefach dimension of invalid Sechach, or empty space therefore it is considered like nonexistent. [Taz ibid; See P”M 632 M”Z 3] According to this approach it seems that there is no requirement for there to be a 7 x 7 dimension of Kosher Sechach and rather so long as one has a 4 x 4 dimension of Kosher Sechach, and does not have more than a 3 x 3 Tefach dimension of empty space or non-Kosher Sechach, then it is valid.

[107] Michaber ibid that by a 7×7 Tefach Sukkah the Sukkah remains Kosher so long as one has more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach and the remaining [less than three Tefachim] is of non-Kosher Sechach; See Admur 631:10

The law if the three Tefachim of invalid Sechach or empty space is scattered around the Sukkah: Then they do not join, and hence if there is at least 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then the Sukkah is valid even if there is a total of three Tefachim of empty space or invalid Sechach in the Sukkah, so long as there is no one area with three Tefachim of empty space or invalid Sechach. [Chazon Ish 144:4; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:7; Implication of Admur 631:10]

[108] M”A 632:3; P”M 632 A”A 3; Siddur Beis Shoeiva 632:11; M”B 632:8; Kaf Hachaim 632:12

The reason: As in such a case it contains less than 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach which is the minimum dimension required for a Sukkah. [M”A ibid; Poskim ibid] Now, although earlier we established that one only requires slightly more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, this only applies in a case that the non-Kosher Sechach or empty space is nullified to the Kosher Sechach, or is considered non-existent, which is only applicable if it contains less than a 3×3 Tefach dimension. [See Bikureiy Yaakov 632:6]

Other opinions: Some Poskim question the above ruling of the M”A ibid and state that so long as the 9.5 by 9.5 Tefach Sukkah contains more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, the Sukkah is valid and one may eat and sleep under the Kosher Sechach even if the remainder of the ceiling is non-Kosher Sechach and is greater than 3×3 Tefachim, as it is no different than the validation of a 7×7 Tefach Sukkah with slightly more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach. [Elya Raba 632:3; Bikureiy Yaakov 632:6; Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 632; Chazon Ish 144:3; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:6] According to this approach, it is understood that there is no need for one to have 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, and that so long as one has more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach and has more Kosher Sechach then sunlight or non-Kosher Sechach, then it is valid. However, see Bikureiy Yaakov 632:6 who explains that even according to this opinion one needs part of the non-Kosher Sechach to join the Kosher Sechach for a total of a 7×7 dimension, and it is just that they rule that even more than 3×3 Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach can join the Kosher Sechach to make up this dimension. However, this only applies if the non-Kosher Sechach is less than 4×4 Tefachim, as otherwise it is considered its own area of significance and cannot join the Kosher Sechach to make up its 7×7 dimension and is hence invalid. [Bikureiy Yaakov ibid; Chazon Ish 144:3; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:6]

The law if there is a total of three Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach and empty space combined: If there is 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then certainly it remains Kosher. Furthermore, even if it contains less than 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, but has more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then if there is less than three Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach next to the Kosher Sechach, and it is enough to make up a 7×7 space together with the Kosher Sechach [i.e. 5 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach and two Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach], then it is valid even though the invalid Sechach is adjacent to empty space to make up more than three Tefachim altogether. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:6, however, see there footnote 32 that it is implied from the Shiltei Giborim that the invalid Sechach and empty space nonetheless join to invalidate the wall next to it, and hence if it is adjacent to the wall of a three wall Sukkah, then the Sukkah is invalid. Nonetheless, he concludes there that it remains valid and does not invalidate the third wall.] If, however, the Kosher Sechach is adjacent to empty space of less than three Tefachim, which is then adjacent to less than three Tefachim of invalid Sechach, then it is debated as to whether the Sukkah is Kosher even if it contains more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach [but less than 7×7 Tefachim], as perhaps when there is space in between the Kosher and non-Kosher Sechach, then the empty space and non-Kosher Sechach do not join the minimum dimension of 7×7 Tefachim required for the Sukkah to remain Kosher, if there is in total three Tefachim of both empty space and non-Kosher Sechach. [See Chemed Moshe 632:2; Hagahos Chochmas Shlomo 632; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid] Furthermore, even if the invalid Sechach is adjacent to the valid Sechach, if it alone cannot make up the 7×7 dimension together with the valid Sechach [i.e. 5 x 5 Tefachim of valid Sechach and 1 Tefach of invalid Sechach and two Tefachim of empty space], it is possibly invalid, as perhaps we view the invalid Sechach and empty space as a total of three Tefachim which cannot join the valid Sechach for the 7×7 dimension. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 32 who leaves this as a Tzaruch Iyun according to the M”A 632:3. However, according to the Elya Raba, certainly this is valid if in total there is less than four Tefachim of invalid Sechach and space] See Sefer Hasukkah Hashaleim Miluim 89:38

[109] This does not contradict the ruling by a Tzarif, in which we ruled that having a Tefach roof suffices, as there the slanted walls count as part of the 7×7 required roof and Sechach.

[110] This follows the opinion of the M”A ibid, however, according to the Elya Raba, it would be valid even if the invalid material is stretched more than 3×3 Tefachim, so long as it’s less than 4×4 Tefachim.

[111] This follows the opinion of the M”A ibid, however, according to the Elya Raba, it would be valid even if the invalid material is stretched more than 3×3 Tefachim, so long as there is a 4×4 area of Sechach on the sunroof, which is the standard case for almost all sunroofs of vehicles.

[112] In which case it would be invalid even according to the Elya Raba ibid

[113] See Shulchan Aruch chapter 629; Mishneh Sukkah 11a

[114] Admur 629:1; Michaber 629:1; Mishneh ibid

[115] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rashi Sukkah ibid

[116] Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Ran Sukkah ibid

[117] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rambam Sukkah 5:2

[118] Admur ibid; Taz 629:2; M”A 629:11

[119] Admur ibid; Michaber 629:9; Rambam Sukkah 5:3; Rosh Sukkah 1: 27; Sukkah 13b

[120] Admur ibid; Rambam Sukkah 5:2

[121] Admur ibid and 629:7; Taz ibid’ M”A ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is only invalid if it has actually contracted impurity. [Opinion in Maharil p. 363, brought and negated in Taz ibid]

[122] Admur 629:20; Michaber 629:13; Mishneh Sukkah 11a

The reason: The reason for this invalidation is because it is not similar to the waste that is found in the granary and winery which is already uprooted from the ground. [Admur ibid; Rashi Sukkah ibid; Levush 629:1]

[123] Admur ibid; Rebbe Yochanon Sukkah 12a

[124] Devarim 16:13

[125] Lit. Kanin. It is unclear what this refers to. In Taz 629:1 it states Ashkolos Reikani which means branches of the vine, as rights Rashi in Sukkah ibid.

[126] Admur 629:20; Vetzaruch Iyun as for what reason Admur did not mention this detail within the reasoning explained in 629:1 and only later in 629:20 did he go back and explain that it must also be detached in order to be similar to the grains and vineyards.

[127] The reason: The reason for why we do not learn from this verse that the walls of a Sukkah as well must be made of these forms of materials is because the main aspect of a Sukkah is its Sechach and thus when the verse states “Sukkah” it is referring to its Sechach and not to its walls. [Taz; M”B 630]

[128] Rambam 1:15-21; 2:2-8; Shabbos Haaretz 1:18-5

[129] Rambam 5:21; 7:14

[130] Admur 629:1; Michaber 629:9; Rambam Sukkah 5:3; Rosh Sukkah 1: 27; Sukkah 13b

[131] Now although all items can potentially contract impurity after transforming them into a vessel, nevertheless we do invalidate them due to this potential as the item in its current state can never contract impurity and must rather be transformed. This is in contrast to fruits and vegetables of which can contract impurity in their current state through simply being prepared through contact with liquids. [Milaket]

[132] Admur 629:2; Michaber 629:2; Rambam Sukkah 5:2; Sukkah 16a; See also Shabbos 26b; Rambam Keilim 22:1

[133] Admur ibid; M”A 629:2; Bach 629

The reason: Since all these items were one-time able to contract impurity therefore the sages agreed upon them that they should never be used as Sechach. [Admur ibid]

[134] Admur 629:3; Michaber 629:3; Sukkah 15b

[135] Admur 629:4; M”A 629:2; Shut Harosh 24:12

[136] The reason: Although this item contains a hole [i.e. Beis Kibbul] nonetheless it does not contract impurity being that this hole was not made for the sake of holding items. [Admur ibid]

[137] Admur 629:4; M”A ibid; Rosh ibid; Mikvaos 4:3

[138] The reason: Although this item contains a hole [i.e. Beis Kibbul] nonetheless it does not contract impurity being that this hole was not made for the sake of holding items [but rather for items to pass through it]. [Admur ibid]

[139] Admur 629:5; Michaber 629:4; Sukkah 12b

[140] The reason for this is because: They no longer appear like they are produce which grew from the ground.

[141] Admur ibid; M”A 629:3; M”B 629:12

[142] Admur 629:6; Michaber 629:5; Rambam Sukkah 5:4; Yerushalmi 1:6

[143] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2-5

[144] M”B 629:4

[145] The reason: As earth does not grow from the ground. [Poskim ibid]

[146] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2

[147] Bikurei Yaakov 629:1; Mikraeiy Kodesh 1:20; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2

[148] The reason: As their original form is no longer recognizable and they thus do not appear as if they grew from the ground. [Bikurei Yaakov 629:1]

[149] Bikurei Yaakov 629:1; Mikraeiy Kodesh 1:20; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2

[150] The reason: As their original form is no longer recognizable and they thus do not appear as if they grew from the ground. [Bikurei Yaakov 629:1]

[151] Admur 629:5; Kaf Hachaim 629:22

[152] The reason: As their original form is no longer recognizable and they thus do not appear as if they grew from the ground. [Kaf Hachaim 629:22]

[153] Avnei Nezer 473

[154] Iglei Tal Dash 4:8-2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:1

[155] Mechzeh Eliyahu O.C. 25:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:1

[156] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2

[157] Mur Uketzia 629; Mikraeiy Kodesh Sukkos 1:22; Shevet Halevi 4:57

The reason: Being that sand is like earth and does not grow from the ground. [Poskim ibid]

[158] Peri Megadim 629 M.Z. 1 regarding glass and Mikraeiy Kodesh Sukkos 1:22 that he refers to glass made from earth

The reason: As although the material has grown on the ground, it has changed form and is hence Rabbinically invalid. [P”M ibid]

[159] Peri Megadim 629 M.Z. 1

[160] Peri Megadim 629 M.Z. 1

[161] Poskim ibid

[162] Emek Shemaasa in Miluim; Orchos Rabbeinu 2:218; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 6

[163] Shevet Halevi 4:57; Kinyan Torah 2:210

[164] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 6; See Taz 632:4 and M”B 632:10 that the reason for why by empty space the dimension of invalidation is three Tefachim, while by invalid Sechach it is four Tefachim is because by empty space the split that it causes to the Sukkah is more readily apparent, and this likewise applies by glass.

[165] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2

[166] Mikraeiy Kodesh Sukkos 1:22; Shevet Halevi 4:57; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2

[167] Emek Shemaasa in Miluim; Orchos Rabbeinu 2:218; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 6

[168] Shevet Halevi 4:57; Kinyan Torah 2:210

[169] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 6; See Taz 632:4 and M”B 632:10 that the reason for why by empty space the dimension of invalidation is three Tefachim, while by invalid Sechach it is four Tefachim is because by empty space the split that it causes to the Sukkah is more readily apparent, and this likewise applies by glass.

[170] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2-3

[171] Aruch Hashulchan 629:5; Minchas Shlomo of Rav SZ”A 22; Tzitz Eliezer 13:6 based on Rambam Sukkah 5:2

[172] Mikraei Kodesh Sukkos 1:14; Shevet Halevi 3:95; Lehoros Nasan 7:44

[173] Aruch Hashulchan 629:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:2

[174] The reason: The reason for this is because if a piece of furniture holds more than 40 Seah then it cannot contract impurity. [Poskim ibid]

[175] Kehilas Yaakov Sukkah 19 and that so ruled the Chazon Ish

[176] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:4

[177] M”B 629:8 [See however M”B 629:25]; See Minchas Yitzchak 1:82; Minchas Shlomo 22; Vetzaruch Iyun regarding opinion in Admur.

[178] Shevet Halevi 3:95 based on Mishneh Lemelech on Rambam Keilim 4:1

[179] Sefer Hasukkah Hashaleim Miluim Chapter 8 27

[180] See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 15 for a debate on this matter; See Shraga Hameir 6:90; Nitei Gavriel Sukkos Chapter 17 footnote 15

[181] Halef Lecha Shlomo 364; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:5

[182] Mahariy Halevi 2:5; Orchos Chaim Spinka 629

[183] Mechzeh Avraham 132; Hasukkah Hashaleim Miluim 8:70 in name of Chazon Ish; Kinyan Torah 1:128

[184] Avnei Nezer 472; Torah Leshma 174; Halef Lecha Shlomo 365; Nitei Gavriel 17:3; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:10 [see there, pictures 3-4 in back of book.

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is forbidden to used Sechach that rests in slats of the frame being that the frame is deemed due to these salts as being Mikabel Tuma. [Imrei Yosher 1:43]

[185] The reason: As the slots were made for the sake of the Sechach and is hence not Mikabel Tuma. Likewise, the Sechach does not rest strongly in the sockets and is hence not similar to the case of a ladder. [Avnei Nezer ibid]

[186] Admur 629:11

[187] Admur ibid; Michaber 629:7; Rashba 1:196; Terumos Hadeshen 90

The reason for the doubt: On the one hand, the ladder does not contain a groove which is fit to hold items [i.e. Beis Kibbul, and thus should be deemed as a vessel that cannot contract impurity being] similar to a flat wooden board which does not contract impurity. On the other hand, however, perhaps the side cavities of the ladder into which the steps are inserted render it similar to a “Beis Kibbul” made to hold items [which makes it a vessel that can contract impurity]. [Admur ibid] See M”B 629:23; Kaf Hachaim 629:49 regarding ladders that do not contain a groove at all.

[188] Admur ibid; Taz 629:9; M”A 629:4; Rashba 1:195

[189] Admur ibid; Michaber 629:7; Terumos Hadeshen 90 in opinion of Rashba 1:195

[190] Admur ibid; Rama 629:7; Maharil Sukkah p. 263; M”A 629:9 in end

The reason: This is due to a decree that one may come to use it as actual Sechach. [Admur ibid]

[191] Admur 629:15-17

[192] Admur 629:15; Rambam Tumas Ochlin 1:1 and 5; Mishneh Uktzin 1:1 and Sukkah 13b

The law when they are no longer attached to their fruit: Seemingly, the entire discussion above of a possible invalidation of the stem only applies when it is still attached to the fruit. Once it is cut off from the fruit then it may be used as Sechach without restriction. [Implication of Admur 629:15 “all contract impurity while they are attached to their food”; however from Admur 629:17 who emphasizes that the action to revoke its receiving impurity status must be done at the time of the harvesting it is implied that once it’s able to contract impurity and it is past time of its harvest then this can no longer be revoked, similar to how he rules in 629:2 that once an item receives impurity it is invalid forever even if it later breaks and ceases to receive impurity. Vetzaruch Iyun!]

[193] The reason: As the verse states [Vayikra 11:38] “Tamei Hu Lachem/It shall be impurity you” and the sages expounded on the word “Lachem” that all of the apparatus which serves and is needed for the food that you eat, such as the stems, receive impurity just like the food themselves. [Admur ibid; Rambam ibid; Chulin 118a]

[194] Admur ibid; M”A 629:12

The invalid stem measurement for stocks of grain: By stalks of grain that are harvested with a machete, the stem extends for a length of three Tefachim. (However, those stalks of grain that are not commonly cut with a machete but are rather plucked by hand, then there is no measurement for their stem, and even if there very long they receive the stem impurity.) [Admur ibid; M”A 629:12; Rosh Kelal 24:14; Rambam ibid 1:20; Mishneh Uktzin 1:3]

The invalid stem measurement for date palm branches: By date palm branches the measurement of the stem that is invalid is four Tefachim. [Admur ibid; Rambam ibid 1:20; Mishneh Uktzin 1:3]

The invalid stem measurement for vines of grapes: By the vine of grapes, the measurement of the stem that is invalid is two Tefachim, which is one Tefach from the right side of the cluster that is hanging from the vine and one Tefach from the left side. [Admur ibid; Rambam ibid 1:20; Mishneh Uktzin 1:3]

[195] Admur 629:16; Michaber 629:10; Sukkah 13b; Rosh 1:27

[196] Admur 629:16; Michaber 629:10; Sukkah 13b; Rosh 1:27

The reason: As in such a case the stem is necessary accessory to help assist with holding the fruit while eating [and is hence nullified to it and likewise contracts impurity]. [Admur ibid]

[197] Admur 629:16; Michaber 629:10; Sukkah 13b; Rosh 1:27

The law that were at first harvested for the sake of their fruit and one then changed his mind: If to begin with one harvested the branch or stalk for the sake of food and afterwards changed his mind to use it for Sechach, then this change of mind alone does not suffice to remove the stems from the status of receiving impurity until he does an action at the time that he harvested them which makes it recognizable that he really desired them for Sechach and not for eating. Such as for example that he should plow them with a plow or have them be stomped on by the feet of his animals. [Admur 629|:17; Michaber 629:10; Sukkah 13b]

[198] The reason: [As in such a case the stem is not a necessary accessory to help assist with holding the fruit while eating as one has no intent to eat the fruit. Furthermore,] he does not even desire the attachment of the stem to the food being that the food invalidates his Sukkah. Therefore, the stem does not receive impurity, as to begin with the only reason why the stem would receive impurity is because it is secondary and an accessory to the food and is considered like the food itself. This is in contrast to this food which he does not need all on behalf of Sechach, which was the purpose for why he harvested it, then the stem is not considered secondary to the food and therefore [even the minimum measurement of stem adjacent to the fruit] joins the rest of the length of the stem of the stalks and vines to nullify the food majority. [Admur ibid]

[199] Admur 629:20; 626:11; Michaber 626:2; Braisa Sukkah 11b

[200] The reason: The reason for this is because the verse [Devarim 16:13] states “a festival of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves” from which we learn that it must initially be made valid for the mitzvah and not turned valid for the mitzvah from that which was invalidly made. [i.e. “Taaseh Velo Min Haasuy”] The reason for this is because the original action that was done in an invalid way is not considered an action at all, and it is thus considered as if he did not do anything. Thus, when he now comes and validates it through cutting the tree, it is not considered an action as he’s not doing any new action with the Sechach, as he is not destroying it at all. Therefore, there is no way to rectify the situation unless he does as stated above, to remove it and then replace it. [Admur ibid]

[201] The reason: The reason that doing so helps to rectify the situation is because at the time that he lifts it off from the Sukkah, he has nullified his original action which was done in a state of invalidation, and now when he afterwards returns and rests it there again it is considered that he’s doing a new action to the actual Sukkah. [Admur ibid]

[202] 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 Nidbaru 13:38; 14:41]

[203] Implication of Admur 631:12; Michaber 626:2

[204] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:214; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[205] 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

[206] See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 14

[207] Admur 629:21 “There are certain items that the sages initially prohibited one from using for Sechach”; Michaber 629:14; Sukkah 12b-13a; Rosh 1:25

[208] The reason: Although these herbs are not edible and do not receive impurity, nonetheless they are initially invalid to be used as we suspect that their bad smell may cause one to leave the Sukkah [due to annoyance]. [Admur ibid; Sukkah ibid]

[209] Admur ibid; M”A 629:14; Rambam Sukkah 5:2; Rosh ibid

[210] Admur 629:21 “There are certain items that the sages initially prohibited one from using for Sechach”; Michaber 629:14; Sukkah 12b-13a; Rosh 1:25; M”A 629:15; Bach 629

[211] The reason: They are initially invalid to be used as we suspect that the falling leaves may cause one to leave the Sukkah [due to annoyance]. [Admur ibid; Sukkah ibid]

[212] Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid; M”B 629:39; Kaf Hachaim 629:81; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:13

[213] Admur ibid; M”A 629:14; Rambam Sukkah 5:2; Rosh ibid

[214] Admur 629:19; Michaber and Rama 629:12; Sukkah 13b; Taz 629:14; M”A 629:13; Bach 629; Levush 629:12; Ran Sukkah 7a; Hagahos Maimanis 5:3

[215] P”M 629 M”Z 10 in name of Bach; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:13

[216] The reason and explanation: Meaning, that although in the above example of fruits, the fruits and their status and leaves are invalid Sechach being at the contract impurity, nonetheless, they are not Halachically viewed like invalid Sechach which only invalidates a Sukkah if it has a dimension of 4×4 Tefachim down the middle of the Sechach [of a three wall Sukkah]. The reason for this is because since these leaves will wither and fall during the festival therefore, they do not carry the status of Sechach and all [not even of invalid Sechach], and hence considered as if they don’t exist. [Admur ibid; Sukkah ibid]

[217] Magid Mishneh Rambam 5:3; P”M 629 M”Z 14; M”B 629:25; Kaf Hachaim 629:69 and 71-73; See M”B 629:33 and Kaf Hachaim 629:68 that it is actually a Kal Vachomer, and the only reason why the above case referred to invalid Sechach is to teach us in even greater novelty that even though it is already invalid due to the fact that it contracts impurity nonetheless it still contains the second invalidation of being viewed as if it doesn’t exist. Certainly then, if it is not invalid at all that it will contain this invalidation.

Is this invalidation Biblical or Rabbinical? This matter is disputed amongst the Poskim. See Kaf Hachaim 629:71

[218] P”M 629 M”Z 10 in name of Bach; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:13

[219] Bikurei Yaakov Tosefes Bikurim end of 627; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:13

[220] See Admur 629:22-25

[221] Admur 629:22; Michaber 629:15; Rambam Sukkah 5:10; Mishneh 12a

The reason: The reason for this is because on occasion a person returns back from the field at night throughout all the summer days and his bundle is on the shoulder and when he arrives home he leaves it on top of his Sukkah, which is used throughout the summer for the sake of his farm animals, in order so they dry. He places it there for drying purposes and not for the purpose of Sechach. Now, when the festival arrives and he changes his mind to use it as Sechach, it is invalid, as the Torah states “Taaseh” which teaches us that it cannot be made kosher from Sechach that was already made in an invalid way. The reason for this is because this bundle was not only not rested on top of the Sukkah for the sake of Sechach, but was not even rested there for the sake of giving shade, but rather simply in order to dry it, and therefore it does not carry the name Sechach upon it. Thus, it is found that his Sukkah was originally made in invalid way. For this reason, the sages made a decree that one may never use bundles as Sechach even if one places it on his Sukkah for the sake of the Mitzvah of the dwelling in a Sukkah on Sukkos, due to a decree against the annual bundles that are used [i.e. that one may come to place bundles on ones Sukkah roofing for drying purposes and then later leave them there as Sechach]. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Sukkah ibid; M”A 629:16; Levush 629:15]

[222] Admur 629:23; Michaber 629:15; Rosh 1:24; Rambam Sukkah 5:10; Yerushalmi Sukkah 1:6

The reason: Since the using of bundles as Sechach is only forbidden due to a Rabbinical decree therefore they only forbade bundles that are common to be placed out to dry, which refer to bundles that contain no less than 25 canes of wood. [Admur ibid]

The law if a single cane split to 25 pieces on its top: If there are 25 or more canes coming out of a single trunk and they are separated by their second top in which area they were bound, then they are permitted to be used as Sechach. The reason for this is because they are mainly one piece of wood and therefore it is not similar to bundles which are commonly placed for drying. However, if one bound together with this group of canes even one individual cane which is not attached to them in the trunk, then if in total there are 25 canes, then it is considered a bundle and may not be used for Sechach. [Admur 629:24; Michaber 629:15; Rosh 1:25; Sukkah 13a]

[223] Admur 629:25; Michaber 629:16; Rosh 1:25; Sukkah 13b

The reason: These bundles do not contain the typical Rabbinical decree against using the summer bundles being that is not common to store these bundles in a bound state and one who takes it for the sake of drying it will undo the bundle immediately. [Admur ibid]

[224] Admur 629:26; Rama 629:15; Sukkah 13b

For example, bundles that are made of willows which have the thick side and one end and the thin side on the other end and it is common to tie both ends, and once when unties the rope from the top of the bundle, then it becomes permitted to use them as Sechach, even prior to untying the other end. The reason for this is because the not on the other end is not strong enough to last if one were to drag the bundle, and any bundle that is not meant to be dragged while it is bundled is not considered a bundle at all. [Admur 629:26] However, if one tied the bundle only in its middle, then it may not be used as Sechach being that it is able to be dragged with this binding. [Admur 629:27; M”A 629:17]

[225] Admur 629:28; Michaber 629:17; Taz 629:17; Mishneh Sukkah 12a

[226] The reason: Although when these bundles were first placed onto the Sukkah, they were invalid, nonetheless, one should not invalidate the Sukkah due to Taaseh Velo Min Hasuiy Bepesul being that this invalidation is due to a mere Rabbinical decree as explained. [Admur ibid]

[227] The reason: the reason for this invalidation is because the bubbles were not rested on the Sukkah for the sake of shade and therefore simply untying them does not validate them being that their invalidation was not only due to the fact that they were tied together but rather placing it there not for the sake of shade is what caused it to become biblically invalid. [Admur ibid]

[228] The reason: As was already discussed, one may not use a bundle as Sechach due to a decree against using bundles of the summer days as explained above. [Admur ibid]

[229] Admur 629:14 and 29-33

May one use wooden boards that are invalid for Sechach to support the Sechach? See Halacha 9 in Q&A!

What is the law if one went ahead and used wood boards as Sechach? If the boards were not turned into a vessel, then even if they are 4 Tefach [32 cm.] wide seemingly they are valid Bedieved, as whenever Sechach is invalidated due to a decree it is permitted in a time of need, and the same should apply regarding after the fact. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[230] Admur 629:14; M”A 629:11; Tosafos Sukkah 5a

[231] Must they be larger than four Tefachim/32 cm to be problematic? See Admur 629:29 who invalidates four Tefachim wood boards due to it being similar to a roof, and hence in order so there isn’t a contradiction between this ruling and the ruling there one would seemingly be forced to conclude that the size of these “slightly wide” boards must be much larger than this size of four Tefachim, otherwise they would be invalid due to the reason mentioned in 629:29, and at least cannot be less than this size of four Tefachim, otherwise they would be valid based on the ruling there. However, after further deliberation it seems that on the contrary, Admur here is referring to a less than four Tefach board and it is nevertheless invalid because it has been designated for a use, and is hence deemed a vessel which at least Rabbinically can contract impurity.

[232] See Admur ibid who calls them “Peshutei Keli Eitz” which implies that they have been designated for this purpose thus defining them as a vessel, as opposed to mere boards discussed in 629:29; Likewise, see 629:31 where Admur writes that if the boards are designated for sitting on, or for any other use, then they do contract impurity and are deemed invalid for Sechach even if they are less than four Tefachim.

[233] The reason: The sages decree that such items should receive impurity being that they are similar to a hole made to hold items [i.e. Beis Kibul]. [Admur ibid]

[234] The reason: The reason for this is because since the plank of wood was susceptible to impurity for a moment therefore the sages decreed against using them even after they break and can no longer contract impurity. [Admur ibid]

[235] Admur 629:29; Michaber 629:18; Mishneh Sukkah 14a

[236] The reason: The reason for this is because majority of houses contain roofs made of these boards, [and therefore the sages decreed against using them] as they suspected that one may come to sit under the roof of a house [for the sake of the Mitzvah of Sukkah],  as they will say, “What’s the difference if I use these boards of wood for Sechach or I sit under the roof of my house which is also made of these wooden boards?” Now, the roof of the home is Biblically invalid for Sukkah due to the reason explained in chapter 626:1. [Admur ibid]

[237] Admur 629:30; Michaber 629:18; Gemara Sukkah 14b

The reason: Even if one does not rest the width of the boards on top of the Sukkah, but rather turns it over and rests it on its side which is less than four Tefachim, nonetheless it’s invalid being that it already has an invalid name upon it and is thus similar to metal skewers which are invalid for Sechach no matter which direction one turns them. [Admur ibid; Taz 629:19]

[238] Admur 629:31-32

[239] Admur 629:31; Michaber 629:18; Sukkah 14a-15a; M”A 629:21; Taz 629:20

The reason: They are nevertheless not considered fit to contract impurity in such a case being that they are not designated for sitting on, or for any other use, but are rather designated for building or destroying. [Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Taz ibid]

[240] Admur 629:32; M”A 629:22; Darkei Moshe 629:9; Hagahos Maimanis Sukkah 5:21-1

The reason:  This is due to a decree that one may come to sit under the roof of his home which is also made from these wood boards. [Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Taz ibid]

[241] Admur 629:32; M”A 629:22; Bach 629

[242] Admur 629:32; Michaber 629:18; M”A 629:22; Bach 629; Hagahos Semak 93-32; m”b 629:49

[243] See Tzitz Eliezer 15:28 that so was the custom of great Torah giants; Sefer HaSukkah Hashaleim Miluim 8:49 that so was the custom of Jerusalem Jewry dating back to the Adart, Rabbi Zonnenfeld and Rabbi Frank, and the great Poskim of our generation who accepted this Sechach as without any issue Meheudar; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:15 footnote 72

[244] Yaskil Avdi 6:20; Yabia Omer 4:49; Moadim Uzmanim Hosafos 6:71; Az Nidbaru 12:35; Tzitz Eliezer 15:28

[245] The reason: As in today’s times it is no longer customary to use such boards for house roofing, and they likewise do not prevent rain from falling in even when they are approximated together, as can be readily seen. Our wooden boards today deferred from the wooden boards of previous times as in previous times they were much wider and more tightly packed together on the roof. [See Haelef Lecha Shlomo 366; Yaskil Avdi 6:20; Yabia Omer 4:49; Tzitz Eliezer ibid based on Or Zarua 2 Sukkah 282; Moadim Uzmanim ibid; Az Nidbaru ibid]

[246] Sefer Hasukkah ibid, as less than a Tefach does not have the status of a roofing

[247] Sefer Hasukkah ibid, as the accustomed boards of previous times was 5 cm and hence boards that are less than 5 cm wide were never accustomed to be avoided.

[248] This follows the simple ruling of Admur which negates boards of all sizes from being used; Orchos Rabbeinu 2:118 that the Chazon Ish negated this custom and said it is only accepted in Jerusalem; See Kinyan Torah 6:40; Kaf Hachaim 629:1 in name of Ben Ish Chaiy Haazinu that the custom is to specifically use branches of a tree as Ilan is the numerical value of Sukkah

[249] Orchos Rabbeinu ibid

[250] Admur 629:33; M”A 629:22; Shiltei Giborim Sukkah 7b

[251] P”M 629 A”A 22

[252] Shevet Hakehasi 4:167; Hasukkah Miluim 8:49; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:4

[253] Kitzur SHU”A 134:3

[254] P”M 643 in M”Z

[255] Avnei Yashpei 120; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:16

[256] The following Poskim invalidate nailed beams from being used as Sechach: Rashba 1:213; Tosafos 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; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid who writes that if one removes the pergola beams from the frame then even the frame becomes valid.

The opinion of Admur: Admur in 626:12 completely omits the ruling of the Rashba that nailed in beams are invalid, and on the contrary, implies that they are valid, as he writes regarding roof beams “even though they are attached, they are valid, as Talush Ulibasof Chibru Kosher” and so writes the M”A 629:11 and Beis Yosef 626, thus implying that even screwed in beams remain valid. However, from the fact that the M”A ibid explicitly prohibits nailed in beams despite his ruling above, seems to imply that if they are nailed in then it is different. Vetzaruch Iyun! Another area of proof that nailed in beams remain valid for Sechach is from Admur 629:13 [based on Michaber 629:8; Terumas Hadeshen 91] who rules that one may even initially nail in the support beams of the Sukkah, which implies that they do not become invalid for Sechach as a result. Another area of proof that nailed in beams remain valid is from Michaber and Tur 631:9 [and perhaps also Admur 631:12] that by one removing a roof beam from between every two roof beams, then all the beams become valid for Sechach even though the case there is discussing nailed in beams! Vetzaruch Iyun!

[257] Admur 629:33; M”A 629:22; Shiltei Giborim Sukkah 7b

[258] P”M 629 A”A 22

[259] See Admur 629:7-10; Michaber 629:6; Mishneh Sukkah 19b; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:6; See also the article of Rabbi Don Levy of OK laboratories published on the OK web site [however, as cited below, there are certain matters stated in that article that we disagree with based on the information brought in this Halacha, which paint that article as Halachically inaccurate]

[260] Admur as well as the other Poskim do not explicitly discuss purchasing the mat secondhand although so is understood from the fact that they give a special law to one who purchases it directly from the manufacturer, that the remainder of the case that they were discussing is referring to purchasing it from a regular homeowner who either made it himself for his own self use and then decided to sell it, or purchased it for himself and then decided to sell it, were one is buying it from a seller who sell used mats, which are all cases of secondhand. However, some Poskim explicitly negate the validity of using a used mat being that perhaps it was used for a vessel purpose which makes it contract impurity, and this is a biblical doubt which one must be stringent in. [Bikureiy Yaakov 629; Shaar Hatziyon 629:32; Kaf Hachaim 629:37] However, from the fact that no mention of this was made in Admur or the other Poskim it seems that it would be valid to purchase it even if it was previously used so long as it wasn’t designated by them for a vessel purpose, and regarding this matter one can follow the normal accustomed usage of the residents of the city, or its size etc. To also note from Admur 629:8 and Ran Sukkah 9b that if it was made or purchased for a non-vessel use, then it remains valid even if it was used for lying on, on occasion. Whatever the case, it is clear that if it was verified that the previous owner designated for a vessel use than it is invalid irrelevant of any other factor, is only in the case of doubt that there is a seeming debate between Admur and the above quoted Poskim.

[261] Such as by a Zav ritual impurity, that if he were to lie on this mat then it would become impure.

[262] Admur 629:7; Michaber ibid; Rav Papa Sukkah ibid

[263] Meaning that a Zav has never actually lied on this mat, nevertheless since it is fit to receive impurity if he were to potentially lie on it, therefore it is invalid.

[264] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rav Papa Sukkah ibid

[265] Such as if the person selling it to you says that that is why he made it or purchased it for

[266] See Admur 629:8 and Ran Sukkah 9b from where it is implied that even if made for a non-vessel purpose it can become invalid if designated for vessel purpose, however if one does not know for certain then it is implied from Admur that it may be purchased secondhand. However, some Poskim explicitly negate the validity of using a used mat being that perhaps it was used for a vessel purpose which makes it contract impurity, and this is a biblical doubt which one must be stringent in. [Bikureiy Yaakov 629; Shaar Hatziyon 629:32; Kaf Hachaim 629:37].

[267] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rashi Sukkah ibid

[268] See Halacha B

[269] The law if it was made for non-lying purposes, but was used by the owner for lying? See Admur 629:8 and Ran Sukkah 9b from where it is implied that even if made for a non-vessel purpose it can become invalid if designated for vessel purpose, however if one does not know for certain then it is implied from Admur that it may be purchased secondhand. However, some Poskim explicitly negate the validity of using a used mat being that perhaps it was used for a vessel purpose which makes it contract impurity, and this is a biblical doubt which one must be stringent in. [Bikureiy Yaakov 629; Shaar Hatziyon 629:32; Kaf Hachaim 629:37].

[270] Admur 629:9; Rama 629:6; Rosh 1:37; Taz 629:7; M”A 629:7; Bach 629

[271] Admur 629:9; Tur ibid; Rosh ibid; See Kaf Hachaim 629:35

The reason: As not everyone is aware that this specific mat was made for roofing purposes and they will say that it was made for lying purposes as is the accustomed use of the majority of the city’s inhabitants. [Admur ibid]

May these mats be used in another city? Seemingly, the entire invalidation of Maaras Ayin is limited to the city in which people can make this mistake, this mat will remain valid for use as Sechach even though it was manufactured in a city that uses it for a vessel purpose.[ Implication of Admur 629:7 that nonetheless the mats remain valid and the entire issue is only due to Maras Ayin; Rabbeinu Yeshaya, brought in Tur 629 and Rosh Sukkah 1:37 who even validates its use in that same city and certainly in another city, and possible implication of Rosh and Tur that they only invalidate its use in that city due To Maras Ayin; Mamar Mordechai 629:5 in opinion of Michaber who omits the ruling of Rama ibid to depend it on the cities custom; Beis Meir in name of Rambam, Ran and Michaber; See Kaf Hachaim 629:35] However, it is possible to understand from the Bach 629 that even in the case that when explicitly had the manufacturer make it for him for the sake of Sechach, it becomes intrinsically invalid due to the Maras Ayin, and hence may not be used even in another city. Vetzaruch Iyun

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we never pay attention to the custom of the city and that they may be used even in that city if they indeed were made for non-vessel purposes. [Rabbeinu Yeshaya, brought in Tur 629 and Rosh Sukkah 1:37; Mamar Mordechai 629:5 in opinion of Michaber who omits the ruling of Rama ibid to depend it on the city’s custom; Beis Meir in name of Rambam, Ran and Michaber; See Kaf Hachaim 629:35]

[272] Admur 629:8; Michaber ibid; Rav Papa Sukkah 20a in interpretation of Tana Kama in Mishneh ibid

[273] See Admur 629:8 and Ran Sukkah 9b from where it is implied that even if made for a non-vessel purpose it can become invalid if designated for vessel purpose, however if one does not know for certain then it is implied from Admur that it may be purchased secondhand. However, some Poskim explicitly negate the validity of using a used mat being that perhaps it was used for a vessel purpose which makes it contract impurity, and this is a biblical doubt which one must be stringent in. [Bikureiy Yaakov 629; Shaar Hatziyon 629:32; Kaf Hachaim 629:37].

[274] Admur ibid; Ran Sukkah 9b

The reason: It does not contract impurity even in such a case being that it is not designated for the purpose of lying. [Admur ibid]

The law if the person who bought it and is now selling it used for lying on: It seems from the above ruling that one can conclude that if the person purchased it for the sake of a roofing it remains valid even if on occasion, he uses it as a mattress. However, if he decides to designate it from now want to be uses a mattress then seemingly it contracts impurity and becomes invalid. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[275] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Sukkah 20b

The reason: As in such a case we can assume that it was manufactured also for the sake of resting fruits on it. [Admur ibid]

[276] Admur ibid, parentheses in original; Michaber ibid

[277] Admur 629:9; Rama ibid; Tur 629; Rosh 1:37; M”A 629:5

[278] Admur 629:9; Tur ibid; Rosh ibid

The reason: As not everyone is aware that this specific mat was made for roofing purposes and they will say that it was made for lying purposes as is the accustomed use of the majority of the city’s inhabitants. [Admur ibid]

May these mats be used in another city? Seemingly, the entire invalidation of Maaras Ayin is limited to the city in which people can make this mistake, this mat will remain valid for use as Sechach even though it was manufactured in a city that uses it for a vessel purpose.[ Implication of Admur 629:7 that nonetheless the mats remain valid and the entire issue is only due to Maras Ayin; Rabbeinu Yeshaya, brought in Tur 629 and Rosh Sukkah 1:37 who even validates its use in that same city and certainly in another city, and possible implication of Rosh and Tur that they only invalidate its use in that city due To Maras Ayin; Mamar Mordechai 629:5 in opinion of Michaber who omits the ruling of Rama ibid to depend it on the cities custom; Beis Meir in name of Rambam, Ran and Michaber; See Kaf Hachaim 629:35] However, it is possible to understand from the Bach 629 that even in the case that when explicitly had the manufacturer make it for him for the sake of Sechach, it becomes intrinsically invalid due to the Maras Ayin, and hence may not be used even in another city. Vetzaruch Iyun

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we never pay attention to the custom of the city and that they may be used even in that city if they indeed were made for non-vessel purposes. [Rabbeinu Yeshaya, brought in Tur 629 and Rosh Sukkah 1:37]

[279] Az Nidbaru 2:66; 12:35; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[280] Admur 629:7-8

[281] Admur 629:7; Tur 629 and Rosh Sukkah 1:37 in name of Rabbeinu Yeshaya; Taz 629:7

The reason: Being that the craftsman makes it without any specific intent, and his intent in making it is simply to sell to whoever has a need for it, each person according to their own needs. Accordingly, regarding these matters, we follow the intent that the buyer had at the time of purchase, and thus if at the time of purchase, he intended to use it as Sechach, then it remains valid. [Admur ibid]

[282] Admur ibid; M”A 629:6; Radbaz 1:97

The reason: In such a case it nonetheless remains unable to receive impurity, as the fact that it can hold items is meaningless being that it was not made for this purpose. [Admur ibid; Radbaz ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is considered invalid in such a case even if made with intent to be used as Sechach. [Levush, P”M, Mamar Mordechai, and other Poskim brought in Kaf Hachaim 629:34]

[283] Admur 629:9; Tur ibid; Rosh ibid; See Kaf Hachaim 629:35

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we never pay attention to the custom of the city and that they may be used even in that city if they indeed were made for non-vessel purposes. [Rabbeinu Yeshaya, brought in Tur 629 and Rosh Sukkah 1:37; Mamar Mordechai 629:5 in opinion of Michaber who omits the ruling of Rama ibid to depend it on the cities custom; Beis Meir in name of Rambam, Ran and Michaber; See Kaf Hachaim 629:35]

[284] Implication of Admur 629:7 that nonetheless the mats remain valid and the entire issue is only due to Maras Ayin; Rabbeinu Yeshaya, brought in Tur 629 and Rosh Sukkah 1:37 who even validates its use in that same city and certainly in another city, and possible implication of Rosh and Tur that they only invalidate its use in that city due To Maras Ayin; Mamar Mordechai 629:5 in opinion of Michaber who omits the ruling of Rama ibid to depend it on the cities custom; Beis Meir in name of Rambam, Ran and Michaber; See Kaf Hachaim 629:35

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that in cities that the custom is to use the mats for a vessel purpose, then it is considered able to contract impurity and is invalid everywhere even if made or purchased with intent to be used as Sechach. [Possible understanding of Rosh ibid in negation of Rabbeinu Yeshaya, brought in Tur 629, Beis Yosef, and Bach ibid, and Kaf Hachaim 629:34, that the invalidation of purchasing it from the manufacturer in such a city is not just due to Maaris Ayin but actually due to it being able to contract impurity; and so is understood from Bach 629 that according to the Rosh, it is completely invalid even when purchased from the manufacturer as we follow what the majority of the city purchases it for. Furthermore, it is possible to understand from the Bach that even in the case that when explicitly had the manufacturer make it for him for the sake of Sechach, it becomes intrinsically invalid due to the Maras Ayin, and hence may not be used even in another city. Vetzaruch Iyun]

[285] See Avnei Nezer 473 based on Sukkah 13b; Mikraeiy Kodesh 1:14; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:4 footnote 17; This is unlike the article written by Rabbi Don Yoel Levy, head of the Ok, who seemingly inaccurately states that mats cannot be manufactured in Kenya being that in Kenya they use it for roofing purposes. Such mats are not considered to receive impurity and are simply invalid due to them looking like a roof and therefore would seem to not have any opinion invalidate them from being used in places outside Kenya. Likewise, the long lengths that he went through to have the Chinese manufacturing firm moderate the appearance of their mats was unnecessary according to most Poskim, and perhaps according to all Poskim, as explained in the next footnote.

[286] Possible understanding of Rosh and Tur ibid in negation of Rabbeinu Yeshaya, brought in Tur 629, Beis Yosef, and Bach ibid, and Kaf Hachaim 629:34, that the invalidation of purchasing it from the manufacturer in such a city is not just due to Maaras Ayin but actually due to it being able to contract impurity; and so is understood from Bach 629 that according to the Rosh, it is completely invalid even when purchased from the manufacturer as we follow what the majority of the city purchases it for. Furthermore, it is possible to understand from the Bach that even in the case that when explicitly had the manufacturer make it for him for the sake of Sechach, it becomes intrinsically invalid due to the Maras Ayin, and hence may not be used even in another city. Vetzaruch Iyun

[287] Admur 629:10; Rama 629:6; Kol Bo 71

[288] The reason: This is due to a decree that if this were to be allowed people may come to sit under the roof of a home in that city that is made using these wooden mats, as he will say what is the difference between these mats [that are being used in the sukkah] and of these mats that are being used in the home. Now, in truth the permanent wooden mats of the roofing of a home are biblically invalid for Sechach as they have not been placed there for the sake of shade but rather for the sake of dwelling there. [Admur ibid; Taz 629:8]

[289] See Az Nidbaru 2:66; 12:35; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[290] Rashba 1:213, brought in M”A 626:6 and 632:1 and Beis Yosef 629

[291] Opinion of Rav Elyashiv, recorded in Az Nidbaru ibid; Tzitz Eliezer 10:29 invalidates it both due to the above reason and due to that todays mats are made for wrapping merchandise and thus receive impurity, and therefore may not be used even if purchased for Sechach purposes due to Maaras Ayin; Mikraeiy Kodesh 1:16

[292] Setimas Kol Haposkim who make no mention of this matter in their discussion regarding using mats for Sechach; Admur omits this opinion, and thus seemingly according to his rulings this is not viewed as an issue; Avnei Nezer 473 explains that if the rain can penetrate the mats, then even according to the Rashba it remains valid; Chelkas Yaakov 1:187; Az Nidbaru ibid explains that in today’s times no one uses the mats as a roofing and hence the decree of the Rashba no longer applies. Likewise, he explains that even according to the Rashba, if it is made for the specific intent of using for Sechach, then his decree does not apply; Shevet Halevi 6:74 explains that mats which are soft and rollable were never included in the decree of the Rashba; Sefer Hasukkah Hashaleim Pesakim of RSZ”A letter 7; Yeshuos Moshe 3:52; Kinyan Torah 1:128-129; 4:71

[293] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:6

[294] Shevet Halevi 6:74

[295] Shevet Halevi ibid

[296] Koveitz Mibeis Levi 4:21; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:6 footnote 26

[297] Aruch Hashulchan 629:13

[298] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:6

[299] Sefer Hasukkah Hashaleim Pesakim of RSZ”A letter 7; Rav Wozner in Koveitz Mibeis Levi 4:21

[300] The reason: Although cotton is invalid for Sechach, since this is only a Rabbinical invalidation due to having lost their original form, therefore it is allowed to be used to support the Sechach as we do not make a decree upon a decree. [Poskim ibid]. See however Shaar Hatziyon 629:20 that according to Rashi ropes which have been woven are Biblically invalid.

[301] Yeshuos Moshe 3:52; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[302] Koveitz Mibeis Levi 4:21; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:6 footnote 26

[303] See Admur 629:11-13; Beis Yosef and Bach on Tur 629:6 and 630:12; Kaf Hachaim 629:50 and 630:88; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:9, 11

Background: According to Biblical law, the Sechach may be placed over a support made of any material, even a material which can contract impurity. However, the Sages decreed that initially the Sechach may only be placed on something which is Kosher for Sechach, which is something that is not able to contract impurity and is not attached to the ground.

[304] Admur 629:11-13; Rama 629:7; Ran Sukkah 10a, brought in Beis Yosef ibid; Michaber 629:7 regarding a ladder leaves in question if one may place Sechach on it; Terumos Hadeshen 90 in opinion of Rashba 1:195 regarding a ladder; Teshuvos Haramban 215, brought in Beis Yosef ibid; Maharil Sukkah p. 263 Hilchos Sukkah 7; Bach 629; M”A 629:9; Chayeh Adam 146:30; Derech Hachaim Dinei Sukkah 4; Bigdei Yesha; Kitzur SHU”A 134:4; M”B 629:22 “There are some Achronim which have ruled that initially one is to beware not to support the Sechach with material that contracts impurity”; Chazon Ish 143:3; Minchas Yitzchak 4:10

The Talmudic basis for this ruling: The Talmudic basis for the above ruling to initially invalidate using invalid material as a support is from the Mishneh in Sukkah 21b regarding if one may rest Sechach on the legs of a bed in order to make a Sukkah. In the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who rules that it is invalid there is a debate in the Talmud as to the reason, and according to one of the reasons this is because the legs of the bed receive impurity. Now, it is debated amongst the Poskim as to whether we rule like this reason. [Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid]

Other opinions-Lenient: Some Poskim rule that it is permitted even initially to support the Sechach using items that are invalid for Sechach. [Levush 629, brought in M”A ibid; Shulchan Gavoa; 1^st approach suggested in M”A ibid, based on Michaber 630:13 and 631:8, and so rules also Admur in 631:10, Terumos Hadeshen 90, Rosh, Maharil Teshuvah 87, and Levush, however the M”A concludes by answering that it is only valid Bedieved while initially it should not be done, as rules Michaber here, “and so is the main explanation, unlike the Levush”; See Kaf Hachaim 629:50 and 631:32; The Mishneh Berurah ibid brings that “There are some Achronim which have ruled that the direct support are to initially be made of materials Kosher for Sechach,” thus implying that there is room to question this as an all ground common ruling.]

Other opinions-Stringent: Some Poskim rule that material which is invalid for Sechach is from the letter of the law [i.e. Biblically?]  invalid to be used as a support and not due to a mere decree, and thus it is invalid even Bedieved. [Bach 629, brought in M”A ibid; Olas Shabbos 629:5; Ateres Zekeinim; See Minchas Yitzchak 4:45] The reason for this invalidation is because everything follows the support, and hence when one uses invalid for Sechach material as a support it is considered that the entire Sechach is invalid. [Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid in explanation of Bach]

[305] Admur 629:11; Rama 629:7; Maharil Sukkah p. 263

[306] Rama ibid

[307] Admur 629:11; M”A 629:9; Ran Sukkah 10a; Chayeh Adam ibid; M”B ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that such material is invalid from the letter of the law and not due to a mere decree. [Bach 629; See Minchas Yitzchak 4:45]

[308] P”M 629 A”A 11, brought in M”B 629:25; See however Biur Halacha beginning of 630 “Kol Shemutar,” Shoneh Halachos 629:19 and Piskeiy Teshuvos 629 footnote 29; See Q&A!

[309] Admur 629:11; Rama 629:7; Maharil Sukkah p. 263; M”A 629:9 in end

The law if one desires to weigh it down from merely an abnormal wind: See Q&A!

[310] Admur 629:11; M”A 629:9 in end; Ran Sukkah 10a

[311] Admur 628:7 that initially one may not use the branches of the tree which are still attached to the tree, to support the Sechach “as initially we only use material that is Kosher for Sechach as a support for the Sechach, as explained in 629, see there for the reason.”; So is also implied from Admur 629:13 and all the Rishonim [Ritva and Ran] regarding the allowance of resting the Sechach on a stone wall “Even if they are invalid for Sechach.”; Sdei Chemed Asifas Dinim Sukkah 2:7; Imrei Yosher 1:43; Minchas Yitzchak 4:45; Pesakim Veharos of Rav SZ”A in end of Sefer Sukkah Hashaleim Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:7

Other opinions: Some Poskim, however, rule that only material which is able to contract impurity are invalid to be used as supports for Sechach, however, materials that cannot contract impurity may be used even if they do not grow from the ground and are thus invalid for Sechach. [Bikureiy Yaakov 629:11; Implication of Beir Heiytiv and Shaareiy Teshuvah in end of 626; Maharil Diskin Kesavim 50; P”M 629 A”A 11 leaves this matter in question; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:7]

Opinion of Admur regarding items that do not receive impurity but are invalid as Sechach: Admur [based on Rama ibid] mentions countless times that the prohibition is regarding using items which can contract impurity as supports, thus implying that other invalid items may be used as supports. However, from the fact that Admur explained the reason why stone walls are valid to have the Sechach rest on them is because one will not come to think that a stone roof is valid, as opposed to saying simply since they do not contract impurity seems to imply that all invalid items may not be used as supports. Furthermore, in 628:7 Admur explicitly rules that one may not rest the Sechach on a tree as initially one may only rest it on an item that is valid for Sechach! Vetzaruch Iyun where here in 629 Admur consistently emphasizes the aspect of Mikabel Tuma.

[312] Admur ibid

[313] Minchas Yitzchak 4:45; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:7

[314] See previous footnotes!

[315] Admur 629:13 [and see also Admur 626:14 and 632:11 from which it is proven that Bedieved it is valid]; M”A 629:9 based on Michaber 630:13, Rosh, Maharil and Terumas Hadeshen ibid; Implication of Michaber and Tur 630; Ginas Veradim O.C. 4:8; Birkeiy Yosef 626:3; Shaareiy Teshuvah 626:7; M”B 629:2; Kaf Hachaim 626:40

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if material which is invalid for Sechach was used as a support then the Sukkah is invalid even Bedieved. [Bach 629, brought in M”A ibid; See Minchas Yitzchak 4:45] The reason for this invalidation is because everything follows the support, and hence when one uses invalid for Sechach material as a support it is considered that the entire Sechach is invalid. [Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid in explanation of Bach]

[316] M”B 629:22

[317] Admur 629:12; Michaber 629:8; M”A 629:9 [in end]; P”M 629 A”A 9; Biur Hagr”a 629:7; Chayeh Adam; Aruch Hashulchan; M”B 629:26; Ritva Sukkah 21b; Ran 10a in name of Ramban in Milchamos, brought in Beis Yosef 630; Chelkas Yaakov 3:127 that so is the custom; Moadim Uzmanim 1:82 that so is the custom of all Israel; Even Yisrael Fisher on Rambam Sukkah 16; See Shevet Halevi 7:60 and Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:9

Opinion of the Mishneh Berurah: The Mishneh Berurah ibid rules like the Michaber, Admur and the M”A ibid that there is no need to be stringent to have the supports of the supports also be made of materials Kosher for Sechach. Furthermore, even regarding the direct support the Mishneh Berurah brings only that there are opinions which are stringent, as opposed to simply ruling like their opinion.

Opinion of the Chazon Ish: The Chazon Ish 143:3 rules [based on Ramban, Ran, and Ritva on Sukkah 21b] that the support of the support [and so too the support of the support of the support etc] is to likewise be of material which are valid for Sechach. Accordingly, the walls of the Sukkah must be made of materials which are valid to be used as Sechach, and likewise they may not be nailed down. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:9 in length for four different ways of how to facilitate a Sukkah according to the Chazon Ish] However, even according to the Chazon Ish, if the walls are made of stone, then they are nevertheless valid as support.

[318] The reason no decree was made by the support of the support: [The Sages never decreed that the support of the supports be made of materials valid for Sechach and thus any material may be used even initially.] The reason for this is because although as a result of this allowance the item which supports and strengthens the Sechach is itself supported by something that is invalid for Sechach, nonetheless this does not pose an issue as in any event the supports of every Sukkah in the world are ultimately supported by the earth which too is invalid for Sechach. [It is thus not relevant to decree against the support of the support.] [Admur ibid]

[319] Admur 629:13; Michaber 629:8; Terumas Hadeshen 91; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:9; Vetzaruch Iyun from M”A 626:6 and other Poskim that nailed in beams are considered invalid for Sechach. Perhaps, however, one can differentiate between beams that are nailed into the frame and remain that way throughout the year, versus beams that are nailed in for Sechach purposes. See Machatzis Hashekel on M”A 626:6 who mentions a similar differentiation; Vetzaruch Iyun.

[320] The reason: As since the Sechach itself is resting on the support frames that do not receive impurity and are valid for Sechach [therefore the fact that supports themselves are nailed in with invalid for Sechach material is irrelevant]. [Admur ibid; M”A 629:9]

[321] Admur 629:13; M”A 629:9; Ran Sukkah 10a, brought in Beis Yosef 629; Ritva Sukkah 21b; Ran 10a in name of Ramban in Milchamos, brought in Beis Yosef 630

Midas Chassidus: Some are accustomed based on a Midas Chassidus to rest a plank of wood on the stone walls in order to not directly use them as a support of Sechach. [M”A ibid; Beis Yosef ibid; Ran ibid]

[322] The reason: As there is no reason to decree that one may come to use stones as Sechach for his Sukkah as everyone knows that stones are invalid to be used for Sechach as if stones were to be used this would not be a Sukkah at all but rather like a permanent home. [Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Ran ibid]

[323] Chazon Ish 143:2; See Minchas Yitzchak 4:10; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:8

[324] P”M 629 A”A 11, brought in M”B 629:25; See however Biur Halacha beginning of 630 “Kol Shemutar,” Shoneh Halachos 629:19 and Piskeiy Teshuvos 629 footnote 29

[325] Ritva Sukkah 11b, brought in Beis Hashoeiva 48; Biur Hagr”a 630; Biur Halacha 630; Kaf Hachaim 629:58; Sefer Hasukkah Hashaleim Pesakim of RSZ”A letter 7; Rav Wozner in Koveitz Mibeis Levi 4:21; See P”M 629 A”A 11 who questions this matter as since the invalidation is only rabbinical due to a decree and not due to it being able to contract impurity, therefore perhaps it would be a decree upon a decree to invalidate its use as a support; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629 footnote 33

[326] Conclusion of P”M 629 A”A 11; Yeshuos Moshe 3:52; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:7

[327] Admur 629:13; M”B 629:26; Avnei Yashpei 120; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:11

[328] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:11

[329] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:7

[330] See Bikureiy Yaakov 629:9; Kaf Hachaim 626:42

[331] Mikraeiy Kodesh Sukkos 1:21

[332] The reason: As a) the wooden boards are completely unnecessary, as the Sechach wouldn’t even be supported by the metal frames if it wasn’t there; b) as the boards would be unable to support the Sechach without the metal frames c) as the boards themselves are part of the kosher Sechach and therefore it is found that all the kosher Sechach is supported by the metal frame. [Poskim ibid]

[333] See Betzel Hachochma 5:44; Piskeiy Teshuvos 629:11

[334] The Setimas Haposkim imply that it should never initially be done. Vetzaruch Iyun

[335] See Kaf Hachaim 626:40-41

[336] Beis Hashoeiva 626:16-17

[337] Ginas Veradim O.C. 4:8; Birkeiy Yosef 626:3; Shaareiy Teshuvah 626:7; Kaf Hachaim 626:40

[338] Mishneh Berurah 629:22

[339] See Admur 629:11 “Place it on top of the Sechach so the wind does not blow it away”

[340] Regarding the necessity to have three, or 2 1/2 , walls: See Michaber 630:2; Mishneh Sukkah 2a; Regarding the necessity for the Sechach to be within three Tefachim of the wall, if there is empty space between the wall and the Sechach, in order for the wall to be valid: See Michaber 630:9

[341] See Shut Magidos 109; Birkeiy Yosef 626:11; Ber Yitzchak O.C. 13; Lev Chaim 2:109; Shoel Umeishiv Revia 3:25; Pischei Olam 637:2; Bikurei Yaakov; M”B 637:1; Kaf Hachaim 637:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:10; Nitei Gavriel 18:8

[342] Admur 629:11-12; Michaber 629:7 regarding using ladder as Sechach support; Rama ibid that it may not be placed under the Sechach, or on top to weight it down, and the same applies for any material that is Mikabel Tuma; Terumas Hadeshen 90; Rashba 1:195; Ran Sukkah 10a; Maharil Sukkah p. 363; M”A 629:9; Chayeh Adam; M”B 629 “There are some Achronim which have ruled that the direct support are to initially be made of materials Kosher for Sechach”

[343] Admur 629:13; Michaber 629:8; Terumas Hadeshen 91

[344] Admur 629:11; Rama 629:7; Maharil ibid; M”A 629:9

[345] See Admur 629:13 regarding using ropes made of cloth to tie down the Sechach; However, see the previous Halacha in the Q&A that some say that it is permitted to use invalid ropes and plastic ties to secure the Sechach from an abnormal wind, and the restriction only applies by a normal wind

[346] Admur 629:12-13; Michaber 629:8; Beis Yosef 630; M”A 629:9; Ritva Sukkah 21b; Ran ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos; M”B 629:

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the support of the support is to likewise be of material which are valid for Sechach. [Chazon Ish]

[347] See Admur 629:11; Rama 629:7 that the restriction is only against using items which are Mikabel Tuma

[348] See Admur 629:31; Michaber 629:18; Sukkah 15a

[349] Admur 629:12-13; Michaber 629:8; Beis Yosef 630; M”A 629:9; Ritva Sukkah 21b; Ran ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos; M”B 629:

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the support of the support is to likewise be of material which are valid for Sechach. [Chazon Ish]

[350] Admur 629:13

[351] See Michaber 632:1; Tur 632; Sukkah 17a; Kaf Hachaim 632; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:1; 8, 9; 10; 13

[352] See Admur 631:10; Michaber 632:1; Tur 632; Sukkah 17a; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:9

[353] Michaber 632:1; Admur 631:10; See M”B 632:2-3

[354] See Shiureiy Torah p. 249 that an Ama Dochakos is 47 cm [as opposed to 48 for a regular Ama], and accordingly a Tefach Dochakos is 7.83 cm [i.e. 1/48 of a cm times 8, deducted from 8 centimeters] and by the Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 one should measure with the stringent approach of an Ama Sochakos, and the same would apply here Lechumra to measure the four Tefachim as Dochakos. See also M”B 633:2 and Shaar Hatziyon 633:2 that by Sukkah we follow the stringent approach in the dimensions, either Dochakos or Sochakos, and by the 7×7 dimension we follow Sochakos, and the same would apply here by the four Tefachim; See also Midos Vishureiy Torah pp. 48-57 regarding Ama Sochakos and Dochakos; Piskeiy Teshuvos 633:1 writes that its 31.2 according to Grach Nah, when taking into account the Dochakos according to Chazon Ish, as he explains there in footnote 2

Other opinions-Chazon Ish: According to the Chazon Ish, the measurement of four Tefachim Dochakos is 37.68 cm following the 9.42 measurement of Tefach Dochakos. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[355] Shaare Hatziyon 632:1; Kaf Hachaim 632:1

[356] Michaber 632:1 “If it is less than four than it is Kosher, and one may sleep under it”; Tur ibid; See Admur 627:6 who constantly mentions four Tefachim for the invalidation

[357] Raavad Sukkah 19, brought in Ran Sukkah 8b, brought in M”B 632:3; Bach 632; Ritva Sukkah 19; Shiltei Giborim in name of Riaz; Chayeh Adam 146:21; See Kaf Hachaim 632:4

[358] See Shiureiy Torah p. 249 that an Ama Dochakos is 47 cm. [as opposed to 48 for a regular Ama], and accordingly a Tefach Dochakos is 7.83 cm [i.e. 1/48 of a cm times 8, deducted from 8 centimeters] and by the Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 one should measure with the stringent approach of an Ama Sochakos, and the same would apply here Lechumra to measure the three Tefachim as Dochakos. See also M”B 633:2 and Shaar Hatziyon 633:2 that by Sukkah we follow the stringent approach in the dimensions, either Dochakos or Sochakos, and by the 7×7 dimension we follow Sochakos, and the same would apply here by three Tefachim; See also Midos Vishureiy Torah pp. 48-57 regarding Ama Sochakos and Dochakos; Piskeiy Teshuvos 633:1 writes that its 23.4 according to Grach Nah, when taking into account the Dochakos according to Chazon Ish, as he explains there in footnote 2  

Other opinions-Chazon Ish: According to the Chazon Ish, the measurement is 28.26 cm following the 9.42 measurement of Tefach Dochakos. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[359] Meaning, that although all agree that invalid Sechach cannot split and invalidate a Sukkah if it is not four Tefachim wide, as states the Talmud, nonetheless it is invalid to eat under it if it is three Tefachim wide. [M”B ibid]

[360] Chayeh Adam 146:21; M”B ibid; See Kaf Hachaim 632:4

[361] M”B ibid

[362] Michaber 632:1 “One may not sleep under it so long as it is four Tefachim”; P”M 632 A”A 4; See Admur 627:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:1

[363] See Michaber 632:1 “From the middle, invalid Sechach invalidates if it is four Tefachim, however less than four Tefachim is valid”; Rama 632:2 as explained in M”A 632:4 in name of Tur, and that so rules the Toasafus, Rosh, Rabbeinu Yerucham and Levush; Taz 632:1; M”B 632:2-3 and 16; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:1

[364] The reason: The reason for why by empty space the dimension of invalidation is three Tefachim, while by invalid Sechach it is four Tefachim is because by empty space the split that it causes to the Sukkah is more readily apparent. [Taz 632:4; M”B 632:10]

[365] See Shiureiy Torah p. 249 that an Ama Dochakos is 47 cm [as opposed to 48 for a regular Ama], and accordingly a Tefach Dochakos is 7.83 cm [i.e. 1/48 of a cm times 8, deducted from 8 centimeters] and by the Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 one should measure with the stringent approach of an Ama Sochakos, and the same would apply here Lechumra to measure the four Tefachim as Dochakos. See also M”B 633:2 and Shaar Hatziyon 633:2 that by Sukkah we follow the stringent approach in the dimensions, either Dochakos or Sochakos, and by the 7×7 dimension we follow Sochakos, and the same would apply here by the four Tefachim; See also Midos Vishureiy Torah pp. 48-57 regarding Ama Sochakos and Dochakos; Piskeiy Teshuvos 633:1 writes that its 31.2 according to Grach Nah, when taking into account the Dochakos according to Chazon Ish, as he explains there in footnote 2

Other opinions-Chazon Ish: According to the Chazon Ish, the measurement of four Tefachim Dochakos is 37.68 cm following the 9.42 measurement of Tefach Dochakos. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[366] Shaar Hatziyon 632:1; Kaf Hachaim 632:1

[367] Rama ibid; M”A ibid; Taz ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:1

[368] If, however, the invalid Sechach is adjacent to valid Sechach which is adjacent to the wall then if from the third wall until the end of the invalid Sechach there is less than four Amos and no empty space, then we apply the rule of Dofen Akuma, and both sides are valid. [M”B 632:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:2]

[369] Michaber 632:1; M”B 632:2-3

[370] Rama 632:2 “However, this [invalidation of the entire Sukkah] only applies if the four Tefachim of empty space crosses from one end of the Sukkah to the other [i.e. from wall to wall, or makes the Sukkah contain less than 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, as explained next], and ends up splitting the Sukkah in half and causes there not to remain a 7×7 Tefachim dimension with [three] valid walls in any one area.”

[371] Michaber 632:1; M”A 632:3; Admur 631:10; Rama 631:8; Elya Raba 632:3 and Kaf Hachaim 632:12; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:1

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the areas surrounding the empty space do not join for the 7×7 dimension. [Bikureiy Yaakov 632:7, brought in M”B ibid]

[372] Michaber 632:1 as explained by M”A 632:3 that the mention of 7×7 by Michaber [and Admur] ibid is not precise and it really means 10×10, as if the Sukkah is less than 10×10 then a 3×3 area of invalid Sechach always invalidates the Sukkah being it does not contain 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, and when the invalid Sechach is 3×3 Tefachim it cannot join it for this measurement.

[373] P”M 632 A”A 4; If the empty space is less than 3×3 Tefach, such as if it is 3×2 Tefach, then it even joins for the minimum Shiur of the Sukkah, as explained next.

[374] M”A 632:4 in name of Tur, and that so rules the Tosafos, Rosh, Rabbeinu Yerucham and Levush; M”B 632:16

[375] See Bikureiy Yaakov 632:7 who implies that this is only forbidden in his opinion, while according to the M”A ibid it would be permitted. Vetzaruch Iyun why this is not forbidden according to all due to the table being outside of the Sukkah.

[376] Bikureiy Yaakov 632:7, brought in M”B ibid

[377] Michaber 632:3, as explained in M”B 632:17-18

[378] The reason: As by a Sukkah which is more than 7×7 Tefachim invalid Sechach and empty space have different measurements regarding their invalidation, with invalid Sechach being invalid with 4 Tefachim and empty space being invalid with 3 Tefachim, and hence they don’t join. [M”B 632:17]

[379] Michaber ibid

Other opinion: Some Poskim rule that a Sukkah is defined as small if it is less than 10 Tefachim by 10 Tefachim, as in such a case there will not be a Sukkah of 7×7 Tefachim left if we deduct from it the three Tefachim space of invalid Sechach. [Bikureiy Yaakov 632:8 based on M”A 632:4]

[380] The reason: As by a Sukkah which is 7×7 Tefachim invalid Sechach and empty space have the same measurements regarding their invalidation, with both being invalid with 3 Tefachim, and hence they join. [M”B 632:17]

The law if the invalid Sechach and empty space are not adjacent to each other: Then they do not join, and hence if there is at least 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then the Sukkah is valid. [Chazon Ish 144:4; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:7]

[381] See Michaber 632:1 that one must have a minimum of more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach for the non-Kosher Sechach to join, by a 7×7 Sukkah

[382] If there is 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then certainly it remains Kosher. Furthermore, even if it contains less than 7×7 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, but has more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach, then if there is less than three Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach next to the Kosher Sechach, and it is enough to make up a 7×7 space together with the Kosher Sechach [i.e. 5 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach and two Tefachim of non-Kosher Sechach], then it is valid even though the invalid Sechach is adjacent to empty space to make up more than three Tefachim all together. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:6, however, see there footnote 32 that it is implied from the Shiltei Giborim that the invalid Sechach and empty spoace nonetheless join to invalidate the wall next to it, and hence if it is adjacent to the wall of a three wall Sukkah, then the Sukkah is invalid. Nonetheless, he concludes there that it remains valid and does not invalidate the third wall.] If, however, the Kosher Sechach is adjacent to empty space of less than three Tefachim, which is then adjacent to less than three Tefachim of invalid Sechach, then it is debated as to whether the Sukkah is Kosher even if it contains more than 4×4 Tefachim of Kosher Sechach [but less than 7×7 Tefachim], as perhaps when there is space in between the Kosher and non-Kosher Sechach, then the empty space and non-Kosher Sechach do not join the minimum dimension of 7×7 Tefachim required for the Sukkah to remain Kosher, if there is in total three Tefachim of both empty space and non-Kosher Sechach. [See Chemed Moshe 632:2; Hagahos Chochmas Shlomo 632; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid] Furthermore, even if the invalid Sechach is adjacent to the valid Sechach, if it alone cannot make up the 7×7 dimension together with the valid Sechach [i.e. 5 x 5 Tefachim of valid Sechach and 1 Tefach of invalid Sechach and two Tefachim of empty space], it is possibly invalid, as perhaps we view the invalid Sechach and empty space as a total of three Tefachim which cannot join the valid Sechach for the 7×7 dimension. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 32 who leaves this as a Tzaruch Iyun according to the M”A 632:3. However, according to the Elya Raba, certainly this is valid if in total there is less than four Tefachim of invalid Sechach and space] See Sefer Hasukkah Hashaleim Miluim 89:38

[383] M”B 632:17

[384] M”B ibid; However, see Chazon Ish 144:4 that one may not eat under a four Tefach space that does not contain Kosher Sechach; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:13

[385] Michaber 632:4

[386] The doubt: The doubt here is regarding whether we say Lavud Lehachmir to consider the invalid Sechach as if it is adjacent to each other and hence invalid if it makes up four Tefachim. However, we do not say Lavud to consider the area as closed. [M”A 632:5; P”M 632 A”A 5; Beis Hashoeiva 632:28; Tur 632; Tosafos Sukkah 17a; Rosh Sukkah 33; Rabbeinu Yerucham; Levush 632; Mikraeiy Kodesh Sukkos 1:12; Minchas Shlomo 91:19; Even Yisrael 7:65; Kinyan Torah 3:92; Rav Wozner in Koveitz Mibeis Levi 2:24; See M”B end of 632; See Kaf Hachaim 632:28; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Lavud Vol. 35 p. 835 footnote 164-165] P”M 632 A”A 5 concludes to be stringent by a Biblical prohibition and lenient by a Rabbinical

[387] See Michaber and Tur 632:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:1-5

Do we apply the rule of Dofen Akuma by the invalid Sechach of two adjacent Sukkos who share the same wall? Yes. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:2]

Do we apply the rule of Dofen Akuma if the invalid Sechach is adjacent to valid Sechach which is adjacent to the wall? Yes, if from the wall until the end of the invalid Sechach there is less than four Amos and no empty space. [M”B 632:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:2]

Do we apply the rule of Dofen Akuma if the invalid Sechach is much higher than the rest of the Sukkah, such as if a porch hovers over ones Sukkah by the back wall? Yes. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:4]

[388] See Shiureiy Torah p. 249 that an Ama is 47 Dochakos [as opposed to 48 for a regular Tefach], by the Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 one should measure with the stringent approach of an Ama Sochakos, and the same would apply here Lechumra to measure the four Amos as Dochakos. See also M”B 633:2 and Shaar Hatziyon 633:2 that by Sukkah we follow the stringent approach in the dimensions, either Dochakos or Sochakos, and by the 7×7 dimension we follow Sochakos, and the same would apply here by the 20 Amos dimension; See also Midos Vishureiy Torah pp. 48-57 regarding Ama Sochakos and Dochakos; Piskeiy Teshuvos 633:1 writes that its 187.2 according to Grach Nah, when taking into account the Dochakos according to Chazon Ish, as he explains there in footnote 2

Other opinions-Chazon Ish: According to the Chazon Ish, the measurement is 226 cm following the 9.42 measurement of Tefach Dochakos. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[389] Michaber ibid “From the side, invalid Sechach only invalidates if it is four Amos, as we say Dofen Akuma”

The reason: As due to a tradition from Moshe on Sinai, we apply the rule of Dofen Akuma which views the adjacent wall as if it is bent and stretches over until the valid Sechach, and hence the invalid Sechach is considered like part of the actual wall. [Michaber ibid]

[390] Michaber 632:2 “Therefore, if a house had its roof opened in the middle and he placed Sechach on its top, and there still remains roof material surrounding the Sechach, between the Kosher Sechach and the surrounding walls, then if it is less than four Amos it is valid.”; Sukkah 4a

[391] See M”B 632:4 and Kaf Hachaim 632:7 for a dispute on this matter; The following Poskim rule that it is invalid: M”A 632:1 in name of Bach 632:2; and Ran Sukkah 2a; Ritva Sukkah 4; Panim Meiros 1:61, brought in Beir Heiytiv 632:1 and Biur Halacha 632:1; Mamar Mordechai 632:2; The following Poskim rule that it is valid: Taz 632:1; Elya Raba 632:2; Tur 632; See Sukkah 4a which implies that we apply the rule of Dofen Akuma even when the wall does not reach the Sechach as the Talmud states that one can validate 20 cubic high Sukkah by making a ledge by the side which is within 4 cubits of the wall, and this ledge obviously does not reach the Sechach. Vetzaruch Iyun

[392] M”B ibid; See P”M 632 A”A 1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:3

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is invalid even if it reaches within three Tefachim of the invalid Sechach. [Shut Rav Akiva Eigar 12, brought in Chazon Ish 77:7]

[393] Rav Akiva Eigar 12; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:3

[394] See M”A 632:2; Bikureiy Yaakov 632:4; Elya Raba 632:1; M”B 632:5; Biur Halacha 632:9; Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:10 regaridng empty space

[395] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:5 and 8-9 in length

[396] See M”B 632:7; Shaar Hatziyon 632:11; Chazon Ish 144:2;

[397] Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:5 regarding if there is a wall that separates between the two areas of invalid Sechach. However, see Piskeiy Teshuvos 632:8 that if the invalid Sechach protrudes from a side that does not have a wall, then it is debated as to whether it is valid; See Yad Efraim 632; P”M 632 A”A 1;

[398] Admur 631:10-11; 626:8; Tur and Michaber 632:8; Mishneh and Gemara Sukkah 15a-b; Rosh 1:29; Tosafos Sukkah ibid; Ran Sukkah 9b; Rashba Chulin 29a; M”A 626:3-4; M”B 631:16-21

[399] This refers to a large Sukkah, in which case we rule that only if there is an area of 4 Tefachim of invalid Sechach that goes from wall-to-wall, is it possible for the Sukkah to be considered split and become invalid. However, by a small Sukkah which is only 7 x 7 Tefachim in dimension then it is invalid even if there is only three by three Tefachim of invalid Sechach. [Admur 631:10; Michaber 631:8 regarding large Sukkah and Rama 631:8 regarding a small Sukkah]

[400] Admur 631:10

[401] The reason: This is a tradition from Moses on Sinai that it is not necessary for there to be majority Kosher Sechach on the Sukkah and even if it’s half-and-half it is valid. [Admur 626:8; 631:10; M”A 626:3; Ran ibid]

Does one calculate the invalid Sechach that is near the wall of the Sukkah as part of this equation: The non-Kosher Sechach that is found directly adjacent to the wall of a Sukkah is not considered as part of the calculation of the total amount of invalid Sechach if the rule of Dofen Akuma can apply to that non-kosher Sechach that is adjacent to the wall, as it is considered part of the wall and not part of the Sechach. [See Or Sameiach Rambam 5:11; Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:5]

[402] Admur 631:11; See there that the kosher Sechach overlap the metal rods in order to negate any space between the metal rods and the kosher Sechach in order so there is at least 50% kosher Sechach.

[403] Admur 631:10

[404] See Admur 626:5-10; 14; Rav Papa in Sukkah 9b; Piskeiy Teshuvos 631:5; 632:6-9

[405] See Admur 626:12-14 where an explicit contrast is made between the two cases of when there is invalid Sechach above one’s Sukkah versus under one’s Sukkah. See also Levushei Serud 626:6 on M”A who explicitly makes this distinction

[406] Admur 626:5 and 8; Rama 626:1; Mordechai Remez 738; Ravayah 616

[407] The reason for the difference between the cases of when non-Kosher Sechach hovers over the Sukkah, versus when it is mixed together: When kosher and non-kosher Sechach are mixed together it is possible to view the non-Kosher Sechach as nullified to the Kosher Sechach. This is opposed to the case where there is non-kosher Sechach hovering over the Sukkah in which we always view the Sechach under the non-Kosher Sechach as non-existent, being that there the two Sechachs are not mixed together and thus there is no law of nullification, and therefore we require an equal amount of Kosher Sechach to be considered non-existent.

[408] Admur ibid; M”A 626:4; Ran Sukkah ibid

[409] Admur 626:5 and 629:16; Rashi Sukkah ibid; Ran Sukkah ibid

The reason: Although by all Torah prohibitions one is required to remove the forbidden piece if one can recognize it and is able to do so and it is not considered nullified even in a thousand, this only applies by eating prohibitions and is required so one does not come to eat the actual prohibition itself which has not been nullified due to the fact that it could be removed. However, here he is not benefiting at all from the prohibition, as even if one removes the invalid Sechach from the Sukkah it will still remain with majority shade due to the kosher Sechach in the only reason why we required to nullify the invalid Sechach to majority is in order so does not have the power to invalidate the kosher Sechach that is mixed with it. [Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Ran ibid]

[410] In conclusion it seems from Admur that whenever we cannot nullify the non- kosher Sechach then we give the Sukkah the same laws as that of one which has the Non-Kosher Sechach hovering over the Sukkah, in which we view all the kosher Sechach that is under it as non-existent.

[411] Admur 626:8; 631:10; M”A 626:3-4; Ran Sukkah 9b; Rashba Chulin 29a

[412] Admur 626:5; M”A ibid; Ran ibid

[413] Admur 626:6; M”A ibid

The reason: As the shade of the invalid Sechach cannot join the valid Sechach to complete its required measurement of majority shade being that it has not yet been nullified a complete nullification being that one is able to remove it from there. [Admur ibid]

[414] Admur 626:7; Beis Yosef; Ran ibid; Sukkah 9b

[415] The reason: The reason for this is because in such a case the shade provided by the Kosher Sechach is completely unnecessary in those areas that it is mixed with enough of an amount of non-kosher Sechach for it to provide Majority shade on its own. [Admur ibid]

[416] Admur 626:9; See Sukkah 9b; M”A 626:3-4; Tzemach Tzedek Y.D. 70-5; 165-10; Kaf Hachaim 626:7-

[417] Setimas Admur 626:5-7 and so he rules explicitly in parentheses in 626:9 “Unlike the first opinion” and M”A 626:4, in their understanding of 2^nd opinion in Tur 626 in name of Avi Haezri; Unlike understanding of Bach 626; See Shaar Hatziyon 626:7-8 and Kaf Hachaim 626:17 for all the opinions on this matter in Rishonim, M”B 626:7 who concludes to be stringent like this opinion

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that according to all opinions the non-Kosher Sechach joins the Kosher Sechach to help provide majority shade. [Rama 626:1; Bach 626; Poskim in Shaar Hatziyon 626:7 and Kaf Hachaim 626:17]

[418] Opinion in Admur 626:9; 1^st opinion in Michaber and Tur 626:1; Setimas Rama 626:1; Rashi Sukkah 9b, explained in Ravayah 213; Tosafos Sukkah 9b; Rabbeinu Tam, brought in Mordechai Remez 734

[419] The reason: Although one is perfectly able to remove the non-kosher Sechach from amongst the kosher Sechach by simply lifting off the branch from the Sukkah, nevertheless, so long as they are mixed together and not recognizable then the non-kosher Sechach is nullified to the majority kosher Sechach and now joins it to create majority shade. This is unlike the first opinion who holds the non-kosher Sechach does not join the kosher Sechach for the minimum requirement of shade. According to the lenient opinion, the non-kosher Sechach in this case actually becomes kosher Sechach through his nullification, as the Torah [Halacha Limoshe Misinai] did not require that the majority shade be fully created by Kosher Sechach but rather only that majority of it be created by the Kosher Sechach, even if minority of it is created by the non-kosher Sechach. Therefore, it is even initially permitted to mix the two together. [Admur ibid and in gloss; Ran Sukkah ibid; See Kaf Hachaim 626:10]

[420] Admur ibid in gloss; Tur and Michaber 626:1; M”B 626:5

[421] Admur ibid; See Michaber 626:1 and Kaf Hachaim 626:7 who explains that if it can give majority of shade on its own then it always invalidates the Sukkah, even according to the lenient opinion of Rashi

[422] Admur 626:10; P”M 626 A”A 4 that so is the opinion of the Michaber like his 2^nd strict opinion; Elya Raba 626:5; M”B 626:7; Kaf Hachaim 626:12 and 17 [concludes however that a blessing should not be recited]

[423] See Admur 626:2-11

[424] Admur 626:2; Michaber and Rama 626:1; Tur 626:1; Mishneh Sukkah 9b; Taz 626:1; Kaf Hachaim 626:1

[425] Admur 626

[426] Admur ibid; Rama 626:1 “One is not to make a Sukkah under a house or tree”; Michaber ibid that if tree provides majority shade, according to all the Sukkah is invalid; Tur ibid; Ravayah [Avi Ezri] 613; Rosh Sukkah 1:14; Raavan/Ramban; Ran Sukkah 4b

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the tree does not give majority shade than the sukkah is valid. [Michaber and Tur 626:1 in their lenient 1^st opinion of Rashi Sukkah 9b, brought in B in footnotes;] Furthermore, some opinions rule that it remains valid even if it provides majority shade. [Admur 626:10; Karban Nesanel 1:14 Ayin, in opinion of Rosh] Practically, we rule like the strict opinion, as explained in B.

[427] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Ravayah 613; Rosh Sukkah 1:14

[428] Admur 626:3

[429] Admur 626:3-4 and 9-10; See Tur 626:1; Mishneh Sukkah 9b

[430] See Admur 626:12-14 where an explicit contrast is made between the two cases of when there is invalid Sechach above one’s Sukkah versus under one’s Sukkah; See also Levushei Serud 626:6 on M”A who explicitly makes this distinction

[431] Stam opinion in Admur 626:3; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 626:1; Tur 626:1; Ravayah [Avi Ezri] 613; Rosh Sukkah 1:14; Raavan/Ramban; Ran Sukkah 4b

[432] The reason: As since the upper shade which stands above the lower shade is invalid it therefore nullifies the shade of the kosher Sechach which is directly under it being that it is completely unnecessary being that there is already an upper hovering which provides the shade in the area that it hovers over. Therefore, we view it as if the amount of valid Sechach which is parallel to the invalid Sechach that is above it, is missing from the Sukkah and from the rest of the valid Sechach, and it is as if this area does not contain any Sechach at all, and that it provides in that area more sunlight and shade. [Admur ibid; Tur ibid; M”B 626:6]

[433] Admur 626:3

[434] Admur 626:4; Rama 626:1; Tur 626:3; Ravayah ibid; Rosh ibid; Raavan/Ramban; Ran Sukkah 4b; Biur Halacha 626:1 “Oa Shehasechach; Kaf Hachaim 626:22

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the Sukkah is considered invalid even in such a case being that is considered as if it is built under another Sukkah. [See Taz 626:3 based on Rabbeinu Yechiel brought in Tur; See Biur Halacha 626:1 “Oa Shehasechach” and Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[435] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626 footnote 32

[436] Opinion in Admur 626:9-10; 1^st opinion in Michaber and Tur 626:1; Setimas Rama 626:1; Opinion of Rashi Sukkah 9b, in understanding of Ravayah 213 and Rosh ibid; Tosafos Sukkah 9b; Rabbeinu Tam, brought in Mordechai Remez 734

[437] Admur ibid; Karban Nesanel 1:14 Ayin, in opinion of Rosh; See Admur 628:2

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the tree gives majority shade than the sukkah is invalid according to all. [1^st opinion in Michaber ibid in his opinion of Rashi Sukkah 9b]

[438] Admur 626:10; P”M 626 A”A 4 that so is the opinion of the Michaber like his 2^nd strict opinion; Elya Raba 626:5; M”B 626:7; Kaf Hachaim 626:12 and 17 [concludes however that a blessing should not be recited]; See Rama 626:1 “One is not to make a Sukkah under a house or tree”

[439] Michaber 629:19; Mishneh Sukkah 10a; See Admur 627:7 who refers to this Halacha! See Kaf Hachaim 629:103-114

[440] M”A 629:25; M”B 629:58

[441] Admur 640:10

[442] M”B 629:51; Rashi Sukkah ibid

[443] 1^st opinion in Michaber ibid [brought in Admur 640:10]; Taz 640:4 [See Levushei Serud ibid]; Rashi Sukkkah ibid; Ran Sukkah 5b; Mordechai 1 736; Rashba 55; Ritva Sukkah ibid; Hagahos Semak; Rokeiach; Maggid Mishneh in Rambam, see Bach 629; Biur Hagr”a based on Ran and Rashba

[444] The reason: As since the sheet is placed there not for the sake of the Sukkah but rather for human protection, therefore it is not considered nullified to the Sechach. [M”B 629:52; Rashi ibid]

[445] 2^nd opinion in Michaber ibid; Tur 629:19; Rabbeinu Tam and Tosafos Sukkah 10a; Rosh Sukkah 1:16 in name of Teshuvos Hageonim in Shaareiy Teshuvah 321; Teshuvos Haramban 216, brought in beis Yosef 629; Rokeiach 219, brought in M”A 640:8, Beis Yosef 629, Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid, Shaar Hatziyon 640:38

[446] See Bach 627:12; Biur Hagr”a; Shaar Hatziyion 629:78

[447] Shaar Hatziyon 629:81

[448] The reason: As the sheet is considered nullified to the Sechach. [M”B 629:55]

[449] M”B 629:58

[450] M”A 629:24; M”B 629:57; Sukkah 10b; Kaf Hachaim 629:114

[451] Michaber ibid; Tur 629:19; M”A 640:8 in name of Rokeiach 219

Does the Maras Ayin apply even when the sheet is placed under the Sechach, inside of the Sukkah? See M”A 640:8 in name of Rokeiach 219 and P”M 640 A”A 8 and Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid and Shaar Hatziyon 640:38 who explains that according to the Rokeiach [who is one of the Poskim who hold of the lenient opinion] the Maras Ayin only applies when the sheet is placed on top of the Sechach, however, when it is placed under the Sechach then there is no Maras Ayin involved; However, see M”B in Biur Halacha 629:19 “Ela Im Kein” and Shaar Hatziyon ibid who negates this opinion in the understanding of the Tur and Michaber 629:19, from whom it is implied that the Maras Ayin is applicable even when it is placed under the Sechach, even according to the lenient opinion

Is the garment considered nullified to the Sechach when it is spread under it to dry? And spread to drive See Levushei Serud on M”A ibid that according to the lenient opinion, the garment is nullified to the Sechach even when spread there for the sake of garment, in order to dry it; However, see P”M 629 A”A 25 in name of Beis Yosef in name of Ran that when the garment is spread in order to dry it, then it is not nullified to the Sechach even according to the lenient opinion

[452] Admur 640:10 “However, if it is unclear if one will be unable to eat in the Sukkah if he does not spread the sheet over the Sukkah, then even during the weekday it is forbidden to spread it over the Sechach, due to the reason explained above.”; M”B 629:58; Biur Halacha 629:19 “Ubilvad”; Bach 629:12; Erech Hashulchan 629:3 that so is the opinion of Michaber; Beis Meir 629; Beis Shoeiva 117; Kaf Hachaim 629:108; May a sheet be placed over the Sechach for decorative purposes? Placing a decorative sheet within four Tefachim under the Sechach is permitted, as explained in Halacha 20D. VeTzaruch Iyun if placing a sheet over one’s Sechach for decorative purposes is valid, just as we rule regarding under the Sechach, as explained in Halacha 20D. From the simple implication of Michaber 629:19 it is implied that it is valid, although due to Maras Ayin, it should be Rabbinically prohibited, as explained in the Poskim above that even according to the lenient opinion we suspect for Maras Ayin, and hence when placed for decoration, seemingly this would be Maras Ayin according to all. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[453] M”A 629:25; M”B 629:58 and 640:25; Kaf Hachaim 629:114; Omitted from Admur 640:10, Vetzaruch Iyun!

[454] Admur 640:10 regarding wind [however, no mention is made regarding a blessing]; M”A 629:25 regarding rain and 640:8 regarding placing over the Sechach to prevent wind [as explained in Machatzis Hashekel ibid]; M”B 629:58 regarding placing under Sechach and M”B 640:25 regarding placing under and over the Sechach; Kaf Hachaim 629:114; 640:39

[455] M”A 640:8 based on Rokeiach; M”B 640:25; Omitted from Admur 640:10, Vetzaruch Iyun!

[456] Shaar Hatziyon 640:38 that in such a case one may rely on the Rokeiach, and M”A ibid, and other Poskim above, that the Maras Ayin only applies when it is placed on top of the Sechach and not under it

[457] Admur 640:10; M”A 640:8; M”B 640:25

[458] The reason it is not forbidden due to Ohel: It is not forbidden due to the Ohel prohibition being that it does not contain a Tefach height from between the sheet and the Sechach that is under it, and it is hence not considered an Ohel at all. [Admur ibid; M”A 640:8; Levushei Serud 640 on M” 640:8;] However, others explain that the reason that it does not contain an Ohel prohibition is because since there is no space between the sheet and the Sechach, therefore it is considered Tosefes Ohel. [Machatzis Hashekel in explanation of M”A ibid; Vetzaruch Iyun]

[459] Admur ibid; Implication of M”A ibid

[460] Bikureiy Yaakov 626:1; Kaf Hachaim 626:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:1; Implication of Rama 626:1

[461] Bach 626 in name of Ran 5a and Rav Hamaggid 5:12 in name of Achronim; P”M 626 A”A 4; M”B 626:11; Kaf Hachaim 626:20; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626 footnote 3

Opinion of Admur: Admur throughout 626 makes no mention of this ruling and seems to imply that one may always eat under Kosher Sechach that has invalid hoverings over it so long as its detraction leaves enough shade in the Sukkah. See also Admur 626:15 that makes mention of eating under the non-Kosher area of Sechach only in the case that the non-Kosher Sechach is under the Kosher Sechach, Vetzaruch Iyun!

[462] Kaf Hachaim 626:12

[463] See Kaf Hachaim 632:28; 42; 502:28; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Lavud Vol. 35 p. 835

[464] Rama Y.D. 371:4; Darkei Moshe 501:2; Tur 632; Rosh Sukkah 1:33; Sukkah 18a; Beis Yehuda p. 107, brought in Kaf Hachaim 626:42

[465] Implication of Admur 626:14 and M”A 626:6; Implication of Safek in Michaber 632:4 [as rules M”A 632:5 and as explains P”M 632 A”A 5]; Beis Yosef 502, brought in M”A 502:9; M”A 632:5; 502:9; Bach 626:5; Levush 632; 502; Perisha 502:7; Chacham Tzevi 59; Chemed Moshe 502:2; P”M 632 A”A 5 concludes to be stringent by a Biblical prohibition and lenient by a Rabbinical; Opinion in Beis Yehuda p. 107; Bikkureiy Yaakov 626:8; M”B 626:17 and Shaar Hatziyon 626:23 and 502:17; See Kaf Hachaim 502:28

Opinion of Admur: It requires further analysis regarding if Admur suspects for Levud Lehachmir and would be stringent in this case as rule the above Poskim. On the one hand, Admur makes no mention of the stringency of the Bach anywhere in the halachas discussing making a Sukkah under a tree or under non-kosher house frames [see Admur 626:12-13!]. This implies that he does not hold of this to be a worry as we only apply the rule of Levud to be lenient and not to be stringent, unlike the Bach. On the other hand, Admur 626:14 mentioned regarding the scenario of placing Sechach over the non-kosher frames that it is not a problem of levud even when within three tefachim of each other being that the Sechach is in between them. This implies that when there is no Sechach in between, then we do suspect for Lavud, as rules the Bach. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[466] M”A 632:5; P”M 632 A”A 5; M”B 632:20; Kaf Hachaim 632:28; Beis Hashoeiva 632:28; Tur 632; Tosafos Sukkah 17a; Rosh Sukkah 33; Rabbeinu Yerucham; Levush 632; Mikraeiy Kodesh Sukkos 1:12; Minchas Shlomo 91:19; Even Yisrael 7:65; Kinyan Torah 3:92; Rav Wozner in Koveitz Mibeis Levi 2:24; See M”B end of 632; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 164-165

[467] See M”A 502:9; Minchas Yitzchak 8:56 who rules that the stringency applies even in a case that the items which hover over the Sukkah do not make up the width of 4 Tefach if they were to be adjacent to each other.; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid

[468] Bikkureiy Yaakov 626:8; M”B 626:17 and Shaar Hatziyon 626:23 and 502:17 that one is to suspect for his opinion; Kaf Hachaim 626:32

[469] All Poskim in previous footnotes

[470] Poskim ibid

[471] Admur 626:14; M”A 626:6; Elya Raba 626:7; Mamar Mordechai 626:7; M”B 626:17; Kaf Hachaim 626:31; See Halacha 15

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we apply the rule of Lavud even when the Sechach is on top [and in between] the frames. [Bach 66265, brought, and negated, in M”A ibid]

[472] Implication of M”A 626:6 and Admur 626:14 that even when Sechach is on top it is Mafsik Lavud, and in between is Lav Davka [unlike implication of Bikureiy Yaakov 626:6 and Machatzis Hashekel ibid]; M”B 626:17; Emek Teshuvah 1:96; Kaf Hachaim 626:42; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:9

[473] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626 footnote 3; Hasukkah Hashaleim Miluim 12:5

Background: See M”A 526:6 and Admur 626:13-14 from which it is implied that we do rule like the Bach and apply the concept of Lavud to be stringent if there isn’t Kosher Sechach between the frames. M”B 626:17 and Shaar Hatziyon 626:23 suspects for the opinion of the Bach that we do say Lavud even to be stringent, and so concludes Minchas Yitzchak 8:56. Nonetheless, for whatever reason this is not mentioned in the Poskim regarding our case, and hence from Setimas Haposkim is implied that we do not suspect for this stringency by trees that are hovering over a Sukkah. Vetzaruch Iyun. See Poskim ibid

[474] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:1 footnote 4

[475] Beis Meir; Chelkas Yoev 27; Mikraeiy Kodesh 1:15; Kinyan Torah 4:74; See Biur Halacha 626:1 “Bechol Inyan”

[476] Magen Avraham 628:2

[477] Bikureiy Yaakov 626:2; Biur Halacha 626:1 “Tachas Hailan”; Kaf Hachaim 626:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:2

[478] Daas Torah 626; See Mikraeiy Kodesh Sukkos 1:15; Sukkah Kehilchasa 75Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:2

[479] The reason: As since the tree is moving with wind it is not defined as a tent, as a tent must remain stationary to be considered a tent according to Halacha [Mishnayos Ohalos 8:5], and only a hovering which is defined as a tent can invalidate the Sechach. [Sukkah 21b]

[480] Daas Torah brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:2

[481] The reason: Although the hovering item moves and is not a stationary hovering, nevertheless, since its movement is due to man and not wind, it retains the status of a tent.

[482] See Kaf Hachaim 626:4; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:3

[483] Ginas Veradim O.C. Kelal 4:7; Beir Heiytiv 626:1; Shaareiy Teshuvah 626; Birkeiy Yosef 626:7; Beis Hashoeiva 626:4; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[484] The reason: As snow does not receive impurity and does not intervene between an impure item.

[485] Aruch Hashulchan 629:2; Ruling of Admur, brought in Likkutei Dibburim 2:25, regarding the snowstorm of 1787 in Liozna that the Chassidim would remove the snow prior to eating

[486] Ruling of Admur, brought in Likkutei Dibburim 2:25, regarding the snowstorm of 1787 in Liozna that the Chassidim would remove the snow prior to eating.

[487] Likkutei Dibburim 2:25

[488] See Minchas Yitzchak 8:56; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:8

[489] Minchas Yitzchak 8:56

[490] See previous Q&A for a full discussion on this subject

[491] The reason: This opinion rules that one should suspect of applying Lavud Lehachmir and thus view the entire area of laundry lines as if it is closed off with non-kosher for Sechach material. Thus, the Sukkah is considered to be under a non-kosher roofing for the entire circumference of the hovering lines.

[492] See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 32

[493] Mikraeiy Kodesh Sukkos 1:12; Minchas Shlomo 91:19; Even Yisrael 7:65; Kinyan Torah 3:92; Rav Wozner in Koveitz Mibeis Levi 2:24; The following Poskim all rule this way that we do not apply Lavud Lehachmir in such a case: M”A 632:5; P”M 632 A”A 5; M”B 632:20; Kaf Hachaim 632:28; Beis Hashoeiva 632:28; Tur 632; Tosafos Sukkah 17a; Rosh Sukkah 33; Rabbeinu Yerucham; Levush 632; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 164-165

[494] Minchas Yitzchak 8:9

[495] Pashut, Rav Wozner

[496] Admur 626:12-13; See Tur 626:3

Other opinions: Some Poskim are stringent not to build a Sukkah under the frames of a roof even if one removed the roof panels from them and the frames are made of materials valid for Sechach [i.e. wood]. [Tur 626:3 in name of Yeish Machmirim; See Taz 626:4; M”B 626:17; Kaf Hachaim 626:30] Although some were lenient to do so if one places the Sechach over the frames, or vertically so they are mixed with the frame. [Tur ibid in name of Rav Yechiel; See Kaf Hachaim 626:33-34]

[497] Admur 626:12; Michaber 626:3; Baal Haittur Sukkah Shaar Harevi’i 83, brought in Tur 626:3, based on ruling of Mishneh Sukkah 15a, brought in Admur 631:12 and Michaber 631:9

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the Sukkah is invalid if the frames are within four Tefachim of each other as it is then considered as if it is built under a Sukkah. [Taz 626:3-4; See Kaf Hachaim 626:32] Practically, the Poskim negate this opinion. [Panim Meiros 1:44; Mamar Mordechai 626:4; Chemed Moshe 626:5; Beis Meir Halacha Berurah 626:2; Zera Emes 1:66; Beis Yehuda 17; Beis Hashoeiva 626:11; M”B in Shaar Hatziyon 626:23 and Biur Halacha 626:1 “Oa Shehasechach”] However, some Poskim rule that the beams invalidate the Sechach that is directly under them even if they are made of material that is valid for Sechach and one removed the ceiling panels from them. [Taz ibid; Achronim brought in M”B 626:17; Poskim in previous footnote; Kaf Hachaim 626:30 concludes to be stringent like this opinion]

[498] The law if one removed the roofing not for the sake of making the Sukkah: Tzaruch Iyun regarding what the law would be if one removed the roofing from the frames not for the sake of building a Sukkah but for other reasons and if doing so would validate the frames to be used as Sechach. On the one hand, Admur constantly conditions the removing of the ceiling panels for the sake of making a Sukkah [see 626:12 and 13]. Likewise, from the reasoning of Admur brought below it is implied that the ceiling panels must be removed for the sake of making a Sukkah under it. On the other hand, in 626:13 he describes the case of the frames being invalid for Sechach only if it did not have roofing material placed on it to begin with, which implies that if it did have ceiling panels which one simply did not remove for the sake of making a Sukkah, then it is nonetheless valid. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[499] This refers to horizontal and vertical beams of wood which one rests the roofing panels over, such as is done in wooden Sukkahs, and in ceilings with Styrofoam square panels.

[500] Admur 626 ibid; M”A 626:6; M”B 626:17 in his first opinion

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the beams are considered invalid Sechach, and thus it is forbidden to eat under them if they are four Tefachim wide. [Achronim brought in M”B 626:17; Kaf Hachaim 626:30 concludes to be stringent; See Taz ibid and Poskim in previous footnote!]

The reason that the frames are viewed as Kosher Sechach: Although the beam frames of a roofing are considered invalid Sechach being that they were not placed on the roof merely for the sake of shade, but for the sake of placing the roof panels on top of them, nevertheless, by doing the action of removing the roof panels from it for the sake of building a Sukkah for the sake of shade, then it is considered as if one has done an action with the actual beams of the frame and is as if one placed them there for the sake of making a Sukkah. The reason for this is because when the ceiling frames are made of wood beams and trees then they are essentially Kosher for Sechach being that they grow from the earth and do not receive impurity. [Admur ibid; M”A ibid in explanation of Baal Haittur; Levush 626:3; M”B 626:17] Now, although they have become attached [to the walls of the home], this is meaningless, as we rule it something which became detached from the ground and then became re-attached is kosher for Sukkah. [Admur ibid; See M”A 629:11; Terumas Hadeshen 89, brought in Beis Yosef 626] Now, since they themselves are kosher for Sechach through one doing the above action of removing the ceiling frames, and one is able to place on them more kosher Sechach and then have these besms themselves join the kosher Sechach to provide the majority shade necessary to validate the Sukkah, therefore even now when he does not place the Sechach on top of them but rather under them within the home, it remains permitted to eat and sleep even directly under them being that they are considered kosher Sechach. [Admur ibid]

The reason that the frames are not viewed as a Sukkah on top of a Sukkah: Although, in general we rule that a Sukkah is invalid if it contains other Kosher Sechach on top of it from a distance of 10 Tefachim or more, nonetheless, this only applies if the upper Sechach can provide majority shade [See Admur 628:1], and thus in our case which is discussing a ceiling frame is not viewed as a separate layer of Sechach being that it cannot provide majority shade. [See Panim Meiros 1:44; Mamar Mordechai 626:4; Chemed Moshe 626:5; Beis Meir Halacha Berurah 626:2; Zera Emes 1:66; Beis Yehuda 17; Beis Hashoeiva 626:11; M”B in Shaar Hatziyon 626:23 and Biur Halacha 626:1 “Oa Shehasechach”; Kaf Hachaim 626:32; This is unlike the ruling of the Taz 626:4 who rules if the frames are within four Tefachim of each other than the Sukkah is invalid due to the above reason.]

Does the ceiling frame join the Sechach of the Sukkah for its minimum requirement of majority shade? Seemingly no, as whenever there is more than three Tefachim of distance between two layers of Sechach and they do not to any child. [See Admur 631:6-7; Halacha 5] Thus, when Admur states in his explanation of the reason behind the above ruling, that if one were to place the Sechach on top of the frame then it would actually join its minimum requirement of majority shade, that is limited to that case in which the kosher Sechach is placed on top of the frame, while in our case it would be invalid due to the above reason. Vetzaruch Iyun from Admur 628:3 who implies that the upper Sechach joins the lower Sechach to give majority shade, and so explicitly rules Kaf Hachaim 626:30 based on Admur ibid that the frame actually joins the Sechach to provide majority shade. Although perhaps we can explain that we only consider them not to join if they are three Tefachim apart in regards to considering the different parts of the Sukkah as covered, however regarding contributing shade they both join to contribute the shade. Vetzaruch Iyun! [If there isn’t three Tefachim between the frame and the Sechach of the Sukkah then in truth the ruling of the Kaf Hachaim ibid would anyways hold true according to Admur who rules that the above frame is considered valid Sechach.]

Are the beams viewed as Kosher for Sechach even if they are nailed or screwed into the roof: The following Poskim invalidate nailed beams from being used as Sechach: Rashba 1:213; Tosafos 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; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid who writes that if one removes the pergola beams from the frame then even the frame becomes valid. However, Admur in 626:12 completely omits the ruling of the Rashba that nailed in beams are invalid, and on the contrary, implies that they are valid, as he writes regarding roof beams “even though they are attached, they are valid, as Talush Ulibasof Chibru Kosher” and so writes the M”A 629:11 and Beis Yosef 626, thus implying that even screwed in beams remain valid. However, from the fact that the M”A ibid explicitly prohibits nailed in beams despite his ruling above, seems to imply that if they are nailed in then it is different. Vetzaruch Iyun! Another area of proof that nailed in beams remain valid for Sechach is from Admur 629:13 [based on Michaber 629:8; Terumas Hadeshen 91] who rules that one may even initially nail in the support beams of the Sukkah, which implies that they do not become invalid for Sechach as a result. Another area of proof that nailed in beams remain valid is from Michaber and Tur 631:9 [and perhaps also Admur 631:12] that by one removing a roof beam from between every two roof beams, then all the beams become valid for Sechach even though the case there is discussing nailed in beams! Vetzaruch Iyun!

[500] Admur 629:32

[500] Admur 629:31-32

[501] Admur 626:13; M”A 626:6; Maharil Sukkah p. 365

[502] The reason: As since one has not done any action to the roof itself for the sake of making a Sukkah the sake of shade, therefore the wooden beams retain their state of invalid Sechach. [Admur ibid]

[503] Admur 626:4; Rama 626:1; Tur 626:3

[504] See Admur 626:13; In Admur ibid the case specifically deals with wood that is Kosher for Sechach but never had anything removed from it. Meaning it was built for non-shade purposes and one never placed a ceiling insert in it. Thus, the supports are invalid as they were never built for shade. The same law would obviously apply if the frame itself is made of nonkosher for Sechach material.

[505] Bikureiy Yaakov 626:8; Opinion in Beis Yehuda p. 107; M”B 626:17 and Shaar Hatziyon 626:23 and 502:17 that one is to suspect for his opinion; Kaf Hachaim 626:32 and 42; See M”A 526:6 and Admur 626:13-14 from which it is implied that we do rule like the Bach and apply the concept of Lavud if there isn’t Kosher Sechach between the frames. [Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol why no mention of this issue was made by Admur in 626:12-13!] M”B 626:17 suspects for the opinion of the Bach that we do say Lavud even to be stringent.

[506] The reason: If the ceiling frames are within three Tefachim of each other, then if they are invalid for Sechach as explained above, then one is to be stringent to apply the rule of Lavud Lehachmir and treat the entire Sukkah as if it is covered by invalid Sechach. See Halacha 13 in Q&A for the full details of this matter!

[507] Admur 626:14; M”A 626:6

[508] So is proven from Admur ibid and 626:15 that we are dealing with a case of invalid Sechach, as a) Admur 626:14 goes on to explain that they do not have the status of Lavud and if the case is dealing with valid Sechach, or of roof beams that become valid for Sechach through placing valid Sechach over them, then why the need to negate Lavud Lechumra if the beams themselves are valid Sechach. Likewise, in 626:15, Admur discusses whether one may eat under the beams and if the beams are valid Sechach then the discussion is irrelevant. Accordingly, we must conclude that the case is referring to roof frames that are and remain invalid for Sechach.

[509] See Q&A!

[510] Admur and M”A ibid regarding if one places the Kosher Sechach in between the non-Kosher Sechach, and see Q&A that the same applies if it is placed on top of the non-Kosher Sechach; Elya Raba 626:7; Mamar Mordechai 626:7; M”B 626:17; Kaf Hachaim 626:31;

The reason: Even if the beams of the roof frame are within three Tefachim from each other, nevertheless the Sukkah remains Kosher. We do not say the concept of Lavud in this case to claim that we view it as if all the invalid beams are joined together and is viewed as one wide beam of invalid Sechach of more than four Tefachim which invalidates the Sukkah as explained in 632:4. The reason for this is because since there is valid Sechach which is resting between the invalid beams, it serves as an interval between them so that they do not join each other, as we only apply the rule of Lavud if there is nothing that intervenes between them. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we apply the rule of Lavud even when the Sechach is on top [and in between] the frames. [Bach 66265, brought, and negated, in M”A ibid]

[511] So is implied from Admur ibid who begins this Halacha by contrasting it to the previous Halacha. Now, in the previous Halacha no mention was made of the concept of Lavud, and hence we must conclude that Admur here is coming to negate what was stated in the previous Halacha that the invalid roof frames invalidate an equal amount of Sechach, and that in this case it does not apply. This goes hand-in-hand with that which is explained in Admur 626:5-10 that when valid Sechach rests on top of invalid Sechach, the Sukkah remains Kosher so long as the valid Sechach is the majority, and gives majority shade of its own, and the invalid Sechach does not give majority shade of its own.

[512] See Halacha 7I

[513] Admur 632:12; Michaber 631:9

The law by nailed in beams: See above; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid who writes that if one removes the pergola beams from the frame then even the frame becomes valid.

[514] See Admur 626:12 “Now, since they themselves are kosher for Sechach through one doing the above action of removing the ceiling frames, and one is able to place on them more kosher Sechach and then have these beams themselves join the kosher Sechach to provide the majority shade necessary to validate the Sukkah”

[515] Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:9; So is proven from Admur 626:14 and 626:15 that the boards remain as invalid Sechach, as a) Admur 626:14 goes on to explain that they do not have the status of Lavud and if the case is dealing with valid Sechach, or of roof beams that become valid for Sechach through placing valid Sechach over them, then why the need to negate Lavud Lechumra if the beams themselves are valid Sechach. Likewise, in 626:15, Admur writes that one is to look in 631 regarding if it is permitted to eat under the frames, thus implying that the frames themselves remain invalid even if one places Kosher Sechach on them, as if the beams are valid Sechach then the discussion is irrelevant. Accordingly, we must conclude that the beams of the roof frame remain invalid for Sechach. Now although from 626:14 [which clauses the ruling in 626:13 that if one places the Sechach on top of the frames it is Kosher] it implies that the frames do join the Sechach and become Kosher just like it, in truth the novelty in that Halacha is simply that the frames do not invalidate any of the Kosher Sechach that is on top of it, [unlike in the previous case that the Sechach which is under the frames is invalid]. [See Levushei Serud 626:6] The reason for this is because the frames which are not Kosher are minority together with the Kosher Sechach and are hence nullified according to all opinions. [Shaar HaTziyon 626:25; as explained in Admur 626:5-7] The Levushei Serud ibid writes the reason is because when one places the Sechach on top of the frame it is the Sechach that is giving the shade and not the frame. In any event the frames themselves do not become Kosher Sechach and hence if the frame is 4 Tefach one cannot eat under the frame as is explained in 631.

[516] Emek Teshuvah 96; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:9; Implication of M”A 626:6 and Admur 626:14 that even when Sechach is on top it is Mafsik Lavud, and in between is Lav Davka [unlike implication of Bikureiy Yaakov 626:6 and Machatzis Hashekel ibid]; M”B 626:17;

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we apply the rule of Lavud even when the Sechach is on top [and in between] the frames. [Bach 66265, brought, and negated, in M”A ibid]

[517] Admur 631:12; Michaber 631:9; Tur 631:9; Rambam Sukkah 5:8; Mishneh Sukkah 15a; See also Admur 626:12 and Halacha 14 if the roof frames are made of wood and are less than four Tefachim wide and are made in a way that they hold roof tiles that can be removed from between the frame, then removing the roof tiles suffices to validate the beams of the frame as Kosher Sechach.

[518] Admur ibid; 2^nd opinion in Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; See M”A 631:8; M”B 631:25-26; Biur Halacha 631:9 “Shelo Yihyu”; Kaf Hachaim 631:39-41 in name of Poskim that so is the final ruling

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the beams which are in between the Sechach in such a case are validated as Kosher Sechach even if they are wider than four Tefachim. [1^st opinion in Michaber ibid; Rosh; brought in Tur ibid; See M”A 631:7] Some rule that even according to the Rambam it is valid in such a case if one removed a beam from between them . [M”A 631:8; See M”B and Biur Halacha ibid; See Kaf Hachaim ibid in name of Poskim completely negates this opinion of the M”A in the Rambam]

[519] M”B 631:23                  

[520] Admur ibid; M”B ibid; Kaf Hachaim 631:41

The law by nailed in beams and if one removed the nails: If the beams of the roof are nailed in, some Poskim rule that it suffices to simply remove the nails from the beams to validate the Sukkah. [1^st option in Michaber and Tur ibid; Rosh 1:29; Omitted from Admur ibid] However, see M”B 631:24 that according to Rashi Sukkah 15a one is required to remove all the nails and lift up and replace all the beams for it to become valid, and so concludes the Chayeh Adam 146:26 and Kaf Hachaim 631:38. Now, regarding if one removed one beam from between every two beams and replaced it with valid Sechach, and the beams that remain are nailed in, from the simple implication of the Tur and Michaber ibid [and perhaps also Admur ibid] it is implied that they become valid even though they are nailed in. This is unlike the ruling of the M”A 626:6 and other Poskim [explained in Halacha 7I in Q&A] who rule that nailed in beams are never valid for Sechach. See Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[521] See Halacha 7I!

[522] P”M 631 A”A 7; Chayeh Adam 146:17; M”B 631:26; Kaf Hachaim 631:41

[523] M”A 631:6; M”B 631:22; See Kaf Hachaim 631:34

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if it had a cement ceiling over it, then the wooden boards cannot be validated even if one removes the cement ceiling. [Bach, Maharil, Kneses Hagedola, brought and negated in M”A ibid]

[524] Admur 626:16-17; M”A 626:7; Shiltei Hagiborim 8:1; P”M 626 A”A 7; M”B 626:18 that it is invalid according to all opinions, even Rama 626:3; Kaf Hachaim 626:37

[525] The reason: The reason for this invalidation is because at the time that one made the Sukkah, which is defined as the time that one placed the Kosher Sechach over it, which is the main aspect of the Sukkah, the actual Sukkah was intrinsically invalid due to the invalid Sechach that was on top of it. [Admur 626:16] The reason for its intrinsic invalidation is because when one places the Kosher Sechach over the non-Kosher Sechach, the Kosher Sechach has an interval between it and its walls [and is thus considered to have no walls-P”M 626 A”A 7; M”B ibid] as its shade does not serve any purpose [as the shade is still being given by the non-Kosher Sechach] and thus the Sechach never receives a Sechach status [as the main purpose of a Sukkah is shade and thus if the Sechach does not serve for shade then it is worthless]. [Admur 626:17; Vetzaruch Iyun as to the meaning of the addition of the Poskim ibid that the invalidation is due to it being considered to have no walls, and not simply due to it being invalid Sechach due to its lack of providing shade. The P”M and M”B ibid make no mention of the shade aspect, and simply invalidate it due to lack of walls, however, Admur mixes the two ideas together, Vetzaruch Iyun as to his intent.] Now, afterwards when he removed the invalid Sechach he did not do any action to the actual Sukkah to make it valid and rather desired for it to become became valid on its own through removing the invalid Sechach. Now, the Torah [Devarim 16:13] states “The festival of Sukkahs make/Taaseh for you,” which comes to teach us that [one must turn the Sukkah into its valid state as a result of direct action done to it at the time of its erection and comes to] negate having an already established [invalid] Sukkah become valid through doing a side action that causes it to consequently become valid. Now, although one already did an action to the sukkah upon initially erecting it [i.e. placing the kosher Sechach on top of the invalid Sechach], nonetheless, since this original action was invalid [being that the Sukkah was already covered by invalid Sechach] therefore it is not considered an action at all. [Admur 626:16; P”M ibid; See Braisa Sukkah 11; Admur 626:2; 629:20; 10:10] This concept is known as “Taaseh Velo Min Hasuiy.” This means to say as follows: although now when one removes the invalid Sechach from under, the valid Sechach now serves to give shade, nevertheless since its giving of shade is now a result of a different action, it is invalid due to the above teaching that requires for the shade must be given through a direct action.

[526] See Shaar Hatziyon 626:30

[527] P”M 626 A”A 7

[528] Bikureiy Yaakov 626:9 based on Michaber 635:1

[529] Admur 626:17-21

[530] Admur 626:17; Rama 626:2; Or Zarua 2 Sukkah 289; Hagahos Ashri 1:24; Orchos Chaim Sukkah 26; Maharil Sukkos p. 365

[531] The reason: Although in the previous case [Halacha 17, regarding one who rested his Sechach on top of the roof] it did not suffice to simply remove the roof from the Sukkah, due to the rule of Taaseh Velo Min Hasuiy [and rather one must also re-lift and replace the Sechach after the roof is removed], nevertheless, this is not apply in our case. The reason for this is because in the previous case that the Sechach was placed over the roof, the Sechach was intrinsically invalid as it never received a Halachic status of Sechach being that it was considered to not contain walls due to that it’s shade was meaningless and was not resting directly on the walls, and therefore it could not be validated simply through removing the roof, due to the rule of Taaseh Velo Min Hassuiy. However, in our case that the Kosher Sechach was placed directly over the walls of the Sukkah, the Sukkah [and Sechach] was intrinsically valid being that it was properly covered with Kosher Sechach that rests on its walls. The invalidation of the Sukkah in this case is simply due to something external, which is the roof of the home that is hovering on top of it. Therefore, this sukkah can be validated by simply doing a validating action to the external item that is invalidating it, which is through removing the roof that is hovering over it, even though no direct action has been done to the actual Sukkah itself to validate it. For example, if the roof was made of wooden boards that were rested on the roof for the sake of a dwelling and not for the sake of shade and therefore had the status of invalid Sechach, then now when one removes them completely from the roof, it is considered valid Sechach. Furthermore, even the remaining wooden boards receive the status of kosher Sechach as explained above in Halacha 14. Accordingly, this action of removing the roof helps to validate the Sukkah, as the only reason of invalidation is due to the roof, and one has now done a validating action to that roof. [Admur ibid; Rama ibid “It is not considered Taaseh Velo Min Hasuiy being that the invalidation is not by the Sechach itself”] In other words, the Sechach in this case had received a Sechach definition already prior to removing the roofing from over it, and thus removing the invalid roofing is not what is causing it to be defined as Sechach. [Seemingly the reason for why when placing the Sechach over the non-kosher Sechach it is not defined as Sechach, while when placed over it, it is defined as Sechach is because in the latter case the Sechach directly hovers over the Sukkah, in contrast to the former case in which it hovers over the non-kosher Sechach, and thus was never at all part of the Sukkah roofing.]

[532] Igros Kodesh 12:66

[533] Admur 626:18; M”A 626:7 in explanation of the stringent opinion of Bach 626:7 and Maharil ibid; Elya Raba 626:8; Mateh Efraim 625:29; Levushei Serud 626; Beis Hashoeiva 626:20; M”B 626:18 and Shaar Hatziyion 626:26; Kaf Hachaim 626:35

Other opinions: Some Poskim imply that one must always first remove a hinged roofing before building the Sukkah as otherwise it is Taaseh Velo Min Hasuiy, just as we rule in the previous case. [See Bach 626:7, brought in M”A 626:7 and M”B 626:18, and Shaar Hatziyon 626:26] Other Poskim imply that even by a hinged retractable roofing it suffices to simply open the retractable roofing, and there is no need to remove it from its hinges, even if it was closed at the time that the Sukkah was built. [Implication of Rama 626:3 who makes no such stipulation; Explanation of Kaf Hachaim 626:35 in Rama ibid; See M”B 626:18 and Shaar Hatziyon 626:29; Neta Shashuaim 11; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:5]

[534] The reason: The reason for this requirement is because [although the Sechach already has a Sechach definition, nevertheless] since when the Sechach was placed on the Sukkah it was invalid due to the external hovering, therefore in order to now validate it for use, a complete action must be done to the external roofing, and not just a mere action, and thus the entire roofing must be removed as opposed to being opened and then left on its hinges, which is not considered a complete action and is not an action that is done to the actual Sukkah. Now, just as opening the retractable roof does not help to validate the Sechach that is under it, so too it does not help to validate the other boards of wood that are on the roof. [Admur ibid and 626:19; See M”B in Shaar Hatziyon 626:26 that this is required to be done in order to negate Taaseh Velo Min Hasuiy, as if a mere light action is done then the Sechach remains invalid due to Taashe Velo Min Hasuiy. Vetzaruch Iyun as to how this explanation would fit with Admur.]

[535] Mateh Efraim 625:29; M”B 626:18; Kaf Hachaim 626:36

[536] Admur 626:19; 626:18 in parentheses; M”A 626:7; Elya Raba 626:8; Mateh Efraim 625:29; M”B 626:18; Kaf Hachaim 626:35

[537] The reason: The reason for this is because if the roof was fully open at the time that the Sechach was placed on the Sukkah and thus did not hover over the Sukkah, then the Sukkah was built in a fully Kosher manner, and thus since it was originally fully useable it no longer requires a complete action to be done to the roofing even if one went back and closed the roofing and once again invalidated the Sukkah throughout the time that the roofing was closed. Rather, simply re-opening the roofing suffices to revalidate the Sukkah [even though the roofing still remains attached to its hinges and can be open and closed at will]. [Admur ibid; M”A 626:7 that it is similar to placing a sheet on top of the Sechach after the Sechach was placed on the Sukkah, that removing the sheet does not consist of Taaseh Velo Min Hasuiy; M”B 626:19]

[538] Bach 626:7, brought in M”A 626:7 and M”B 626:18

[539] Admur 626:21; Rama 626:3; M”B 626:19 that this applies according to all [even according to Bach and Maharil in M”A 626:7]

Maaras Ayin: Tzaruch Iyun as to why no mention of the worry of Maras Ayin is brought regarding retractable roofs, as recorded in the Michaber 629:19 and Rokeiach 219, brought in M”A 640:8.

[540] i.e. was built under the sky when the retractable roof was open and the awning rolled up, or through completely detaching the roof and awning from its hinges after the Sukkah was built.

[541] The reason: see footnote above!

[542] Admur 626:20 “If this [roof] door [i.e. the removable roofing of the Sukkah] has hinges with which it is opened and closed, then it is like a complete opening and is permitted to open and close it on Shabbos and Yom Tov and doing so does not contain the Building or destroying prohibition.”; Rama 626:3; Darkei Moshe 626:3; M”A 626:8; See Admur 313:8

[543] Why the closing of the awning does not pose an Ohel prohibition: It requires further analysis why opening and closing the awning of the Sukkah does not contain a prohibition of Ohel, as Admur rules in 640:10 regarding spreading a sheet over the Sechach that the Ohel prohibition is only negated because there isn’t a Tefach of space between the sheet and the Sechach. The Chazon Ish 52:6 rules that the reason this scenario does not pose a prohibition of Ohel is because the hovering is attached to hinges and is it is thus considered like one is opening a folding chair. See also Shaar Hatizyon 315:35 that implies like Chazon Ish [however see Biur Halacha 315:8 “Tefach” regarding the prohibition against using an umbrella that implies like Admur]. However, this explanation is not acceptable according to Admur, as explained in Ketzos Hashulchan 120 footnote 8 based on Admur 315:13, that Admur rules that even hovering that are attached to hinges may not be opened for the sake of protection due to the Ohel prohibition. Seemingly, one must answer that the case here is discussing that there is not a Tefach of space between the awning and the Sechach and hence it is not considered an Ohel [as rules Admur in 640:10]. Vetzaruch Iyun, as the case here which is discussing building a Sukkah under the roof of a house seems to imply that there is more than a Tefach of space between the roof and the Sechach. Furthermore, if somehow this inference is incorrect, at the very least Admur should have explicitly mentioned this condition of having less than a Tefach if in truth it is only allowed if there is less than a Tefach of space. Rather, we must conclude that the reason that opening the roof window in this case does not pose an Ohel prohibition is because it is discussing a retractable opening only for the portion of the roof that hovers over the Sukkah and not for the remainder of the home of which its roof remains intact. Thus, it is permitted to open and close this retractable roof on Shabbos being that it is permitted to add a temporary Ohel to an Ohel which was already extended a Tefach before Yom Tov/Shabbos, and in this case when one closes the window, he is simply adding that hovering to the already existing roof. In conclusion, the result of the above explanation in Admur is that if one built a Sukkah outside of his home and built an awning over it, this awning may only be opened and closed on Shabbos if there is not a Tefach of space between the awning and the Sechach.

[544] See Admur 640:10 and the previous footnote

[545] See Kaf Hachaim 626:39; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:13

[546] Shaareiy Teshuvah 626:7

[547] M”B 626:21; Kaf Hachaim 626:44

[548] Panim Meiros 1:61; Shaareiy Teshuvah 626:7; Beis Hashoeiva 626:18; However, see Daas Torah 626 and Lechem Hapanim on Kitzur SHU”A 134:2 who write that he later retracted his ruling and concludes that it is valid; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:13

[549] Bikureiy Yaakov 626:10; Mahariy Levi 2:115; Mishpatecha Leyaakov O.C. 54; Mishneh Lechem p. 6b; Daas Torah 626; Lechem Hapanim on Kitzur SHU”A 134:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:13

[550] Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:5

[551] Kaf Hachaim 626:36 based on the simple implied opinion of Rama 626:3 that detaching the awning is not required and simply opening it suffices; Neta Shashuaim 11; Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:5

[552] The Kaf Hachaim ibid concludes that the detaching is a mere stringency and is not required from letter of the law and hence he concludes that one may even say a blessing. However, according to the rulings of Admur it is not a mere stringency but an actual obligation and hence certainly a blessing may not be said, and one should only eat in the sukkah if another Sukkah is not available.

[553] See P”M 626 A”A 8; Bikureiy Yaakov 626:11; M”B 626:20; Kaf Hachaim 626:43

[554] M”B ibid; Kaf Hachaim 626:43

[555] Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:5

[556] Mateh Efrayim 625:29; Kitzur SHU”A 134:8

[557] Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:5

[558] Mateh Efrayim ibid

[559] Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:5 and 7 footnote 27

[560] Mateh Efrayim 625:64; Shaareiy Teshuvah 639:6

[561] Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:7 and footnote 27

If the awning is within four Tefachim of the Sechach: If the Sukkah awning is within four Tefachim from the Sechach then seemingly it should be considered valid according to the second opinion in Michaber 629:19 [See Halacha 13E and 20E], even if it is made of metal, and therefore in a time of need such as rain one should remain inside. Vetzaruch Iyun, why no mention of this was made here.

[562] Biur Halacha beginning of 629; Peri Megadim A”A 626:9, Machatzis Hashekel 640:9; Kenaf Ranana 67; Avnei Tzedek 82; Chelkas Yoev 28; Pischa Zuta 640:7; Bikureiy Yaakov 626:12

[563] Bikureiy Yaakov ibid

[564] Munkatchur in Nemukei Orach Chaim 639

[565] Piskeiy Teshuvos 326:6; See Admur 640:10

[566] Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:6; 336:3

[567] See Admur 628:1-2; Michaber 628:1; Tur 628; Rambam Sukkah 5:22; Rosh 1:15; Mishneh Sukkah 9b-10a

[568] Admur 628:1; Michaber ibid

The reason: As ten Tefachim is the minimum measurement of height for a Sukkah, as explained in the Michaber chapter 633 Halacha 8. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the lower Sukkah is invalid if the Sechach of the upper Sukkah is within four Tefachim from the lower Sechach. [Baal Haitur, Avi Haezri, and the Razah, brought in Tur ibid]

[569] M”B 628:2; Kaf Hachaim 628:4; Piskeiy Teshvuos 628:1

[570] M”B 628:3; Rambam Pirush Hamishneh ibid 1:2

[571] The reason: As the Torah states “In Sukkos you shall dwell” in singular form, omitting the second letter “Vav”, thus teaching that one may only fulfill the Mitzvah within a single Sukkah and not with two Sechachs. [Admur ibid; Sukkah ibid]

[572] Admur 628:1; Michaber ibid

The reason: As since the upper Sukkah is not fit at all even for a temporary dwelling, as even in a time of need one is unable to use it with pillows and blankets, therefore it is not considered a Sukkah at all, and it does not invalidate the lower Sukkah due to it being a Sukkah under a Sukkah. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the lower Sukkah is valid if the floor of the upper Sukkah can only hold pillows and blankets with difficulty. [Tur ibid]

[573] Admur ibid; M”A 628:2; M”B 628:7; Kaf Hachaim 628:11

[574] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Sukkah ibid

The reason: As in such a case the top Sukkah is not considered a Sukkah at all and cannot invalidate the lower Sukkah. [Admur ibid]

[575] P”M 628 A”A 1 [unlike P”M 633 M”Z 2]; conclusion of Bikureiy Yaakov 628:1; M”B in Shaar Hatziyin 628:5; Aruch Hashulchan 628:2; Sefas Emes Sukkah 10a; Kaf Hachaim 628:9

[576] P”M 633 M”Z 2 [unlike P”M 628 A”A 1]; Piskeiy Teshuvos 628:1

[577] Implication of Admur 628:3; Tur ibid; M”B 628:9; Kaf Hachaim 628:12; Vetzaruch Iyun from Admur 631:6-7 where we explained that the upper and lower Sechach do not join if they are three Tefachim apart, although perhaps we can explain that we only consider them not to join if they are three Tefachim apart in regards to considering the different parts of the Sukkah as covered, however regarding contributing shade they both join to contribute the shade. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[578] Beis Yosef 628; Sukkah 9b; M”B 628:9; Kaf Hachaim 628:5 and 12

[579] Admur 628:2; Michaber ibid; Taz 628:2; Rabbeinu Tam Sukkah ibid; Mordechai Remez 735

The reason: Although in such a case, the Sechach of the upper Sukkah is invalid for the lower Sukkah being that it is higher than 20 Amos, and it is hence found that there is invalid Sechach hovering over the lower Sukkah, in which we already explained in chapter 626 that it invalidates an equal amount of kosher Sechach under it, nonetheless the lower Sukkah remains valid even if the upper Sechach contains majority shade. The reason for this is because it was only said that invalid Sechach invalidates the valid Sechach that is directly under if the Sechach is intrinsically invalid, such as if it is still attached to its tree, or is able to receive impurity. However, Sechach which is intrinsically valid and something external causes it to become invalid, such as that is placed above 20 Amos, then it does not invalidate the kosher Sechach that is under it being that it itself is technically fit to be used as Sechach for the lower Sukkah. [Admur ibid; Taz ibid; Bach 628; Rosh 3:14; M”B]

[580] Admur 628:3; Michaber 628:1; Rambam ibid; Sukkah 9b

The reason: As invalid Sechach cannot join valid Sechach to make up for the minimum measurement of majority shade. [Admur ibid]

[581] P”M 633 M”Z 2 [unlike P”M 628 A”A 1]; Piskeiy Teshuvos 628:1

[582] P”M 628 A”A 1 [unlike P”M 633 M”Z 2]; conclusion of Bikureiy Yaakov 628:1; M”B in Shaar Hatziyin 628:5; Aruch Hashulchan 628:2; Sefas Emes Sukkah 10a; Kaf Hachaim 628:9

[583] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 628:1

[584] P”M 628 A”A 1 [unlike P”M 633 M”Z 2]; conclusion of Bikureiy Yaakov 628:1; M”B in Shaar Hatziyin 628:5; Aruch Hashulchan 628:2; Sefas Emes Sukkah 10a; Kaf Hachaim 628:9

[585] Peri Megadim 633 M”Z 2

[586] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; Sukkah Kehilchasa p. 72 and 179

[587] See Admur 627:1-7; Michaber 627:1-4; Tur 627; Sukkah 10a-11a; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 627:1-3

[588] Admur 627:1; Rama 627:1; Tur 627:1; Taz 627:1; Baal Hamaor Sukkah 10a; Ran Sukkah ibid

Is this invalidation Biblical or Rabbinical? Some Poskim rule that this invalidation is Biblical just as is a Sukkah under a Sukkah or due to the fact that the Ohel invalidates the Sechach. [Ramban; See Bach 627:1 in opinion of Rif, Rambam, and Rosh; Kaf Hachaim 627:1] Other Poskim, however, learn that it is only Rabbinical. [Razah, brought in Bach ibid; P”M 627 M”Z 2 that so may apply even according to the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh] The practical ramification is regarding one who has no choice but to either sleep in his house or under a ten Tefach bed, in which case according to the latter approach we would say that he should sleep under the bed to fulfill at least a Biblical obligation. [Kaf Hachaim ibid] It is implied from Admur 627:4 that it is a Biblical invalidation, as he specifies the case there to only be a Rabbinical invalidation due to the fact that it is not 10 Tefachim from the bed, hence applying that regularly when the conditions of Ohel are fulfilled, it is a Biblical invalidation.

[589] Tur 627:1; See Bach 627; Kaf Hachaim 627:1; Omitted from Admur ibid

[590] Admur ibid; Razah, brought in Bach ibid; See Kaf Hachaim ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the reason behind the invalidation is because it is considered like a Sukkah under a Sukkah. [Bach in understanding of Tur ibid; Rif; Rambam; Rosh]

[591] See Admur 627:6; Taz 627:5; Michaber 632:1; Halacha 11 above

[592] M”B 627:14; Kaf Hachaim 627:19

[593] See Admur 627:7; Michaber 627:4; Tur 627:4; Beis Yosef 627:4; Rosh Sukkah 1:18; M”B 627:14; Biur Halacha 627:4 “Veim Eino”

[594] See Q&A!

[595] From Setimas Kol Haposkim it is implied that invalid Sechach only has the ability to invalidate a Sukkah if it is resting on top of the Sechach, or hovers above it. If, however, it is resting under the Sechach, then it does not invalidate the Sechach that is above it, and simply invalidates one from eating and sleeping under it. Thus, the Poskim simply state that one can’t sleep under a bed that is ten Tefachim high, and do not rule that it invalidates the Sechach of the Sukkah and from this we can deduce that a hovering never invalidates the Sechach of the Sukkah irrelevant of its height, as otherwise the Poskim should have mentioned such a novelty! Thus, in the above example, it is permitted to eat and sleep in the areas of the Sukkah that are not covered by the chuppah, as it does not split the Sukkah in half and invalidate it.; However, see Admur 627:6 regarding placing decorative sheets under the Sechach that he writes that it does not invalidate the Sukkah like normal invalid Sechach, being that it is nullified to the Sechach. This implies that items that are not decorations and are not nullified to the Sechach can invalidate the Sechach and Sukkah, just like the invalid Sechach of 632:1 which is on the Sukkah. However, in the end of that Halacha [632:6] Admur specifically notes that decorations which are below 4 Tefachim from the Sechach only invalidate the ability to sleep under it, hence seemingly excluding its ability to invade the Sechach and Sukkah, despite the fact that he just finished speaking of that invalidation in that same sentence. However, see Kaf Hachaim 627:17 who explicitly writes based on Admur ibid that if the hovering is 4×4 Tefachim then it actually invalidates the Sechach above it, and possibly the entire Sukkah, just as we explained in 632:1. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol, as if so, then all furniture which is ten Tefachim high should invalidate the Sechach!

[596] M”B 640 in Shaar Hatziyon 640:32; See Rama 626:2-3; See Halacha 17-18

[597] See Shiureiy Torah p. 249 that an Ama Dochekes is 47 cm., and accordingly a Tefach Dochekes is 7.83 cm [i.e. 1/48 of a cm times 8. deducted from 8 cen.] and by the Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 one should measure with an Ama Sochakos, and the same would apply here Lechumra. Thus, its exact Shiur is 78.3 cm; See also M”B 633:2 and Shaar Hatziyon 633:2 that by Sukkah we follow the stringent approach in the dimensions, either Dochakos or Sochakos, and by the 7×7 dimension we follow Sochakos, and the same would apply here by the ten Tefach dimension; See also Midos Vishureiy Torah pp. 48-57 regarding Ama Sochakos and Dochakos; Piskeiy Teshuvos 633:1; Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 325 who rules that by Tefachim we don’t apply the extra Dochakos or Sochakos, and this is only done by Amos

Other opinions-Chazon Ish: According to the Chazon Ish, the measurement is 94.2 cm following the 9.42 measurement of Tefach Dochekos. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[598] Admur 627:1; Michaber 627:1; Tur 627:1; Tosafos Sukkah 20b; Baal Hamor ibid; Sukkos 10b

Other opinions: According to the Yerushalmi, a hovering is defined as an Ohel even if it is within 10 Tefachim from the ground. [Yerushalmi, brought in Aruch Hashulchan 627:1; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 627 footnote 1]

[599] Admur 327:1; Rambam Sukkah 5:23; M”B 627:3; Shaar Hatziyin 627:4; Ben Ish Chaiy Hazinu 1; Kaf Hachaim 627:4

[600] Implication of Admur and Michaber 627:1; M”A 627:2 in name of Ran regarding sleeping under a bed; Tur 627:1 in his first opinion and opinion of Rosh; M”B 627:7-8; See coming footnotes regarding a bed less than 10 Tefachim from the ground where we prove that there is not even a Rabbinical prohibition against doing so and that the rabbinical stringency of invalidating flat coverings even if they are not 10 Tefachim the ground only applies in the special case of a bed canopy that is attached to the actual bed, as explained to there.

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that by flat coverings it is invalid even if it is less than 10 Tefachim from the ground, and by slanted hoverings it is permitted even if it is more than 10 Tefachim from the ground. [Tur ibid in name of Maharitz Geios]

[601] See Kaf Hachaim 627:2; M”B 672:2

[602] Ben Ish Chaiy Hazinu 1; Kaf Hachaim 627:4

[603] Admur 627:1; Michaber 627:1; Mishneh Sukkah 20b

[604] Implication of Admur and Michaber ibid which states: “One who sleeps under a bed which is 10 Tefach high has not fulfilled his obligation”.; M”A 627:2; Elya Raba 627:4; Beis Yosef 627 in name of Ran; Tur 627:1 in his first opinion and opinion of Rosh; M”B 627:8; Kaf Hachaim 627:12

Other opinions: See above in opinion of Maharitz Geios, brought in Tur ibid

Is there a Rabbinical prohibition sleep under such a bed? The Tur ibid in his first opinion, which he states to be the opinion of his father the Rosh, explicitly rules that one may sleep under the bed in such a case, thus ruling that it is completely permitted and does not contain even a rabbinical restriction. So is likewise implied from the wording of Admur ibid that if it is not 10 Tefachim high then one fulfills his obligation. However, from the ruling in Admur 627:4 regarding a flatbed canopy it is implied that there remains a Rabbinical prohibition to eat or sleep under it, being that it is a flat hovering. However, in truth this is not a question, as that rule regarding a flatbed-canopy only applies in that case that the canopy is being held on poles that extend from the actual bed, and not to any other case that simply has a flat roofing. So explicitly rules: Tur 627:3; M”A 627:2 in name of Ran; Taz 627:3; M”B 627:7 and 8; Furthermore, a bed is meant to be slept in top of and not under and thus the Sages made no decree when one sleeps under a bed less than 10 Tefach high. However, a bed canopy is meant that one sleep under it and thus the Sages decreed against doing so even if it is less than 10 Tefach from the ground. [M”A 627:2; M”B 627:8]

[605] Admur 627:2; Michaber 627:2; Tur 627:1; Rambam Sukkah 5:23; Sukkah 11a

[606] Admur 627:3 and 315:15; M”A 628:1; Bach 627; Aguda 9; M”B 627:6; Kaf Hachaim 627:8

The reason: As everything that is within 3 Tefachim is considered as attached due to the rule of Lavud, and we thus consider it as if it contains a flat Tefach of roofing, and whatever contains a flat Tefach of roofing is considered an Ohel. [Admur ibid; M”A 631:9]

[607] See Admur 627:6; Taz 627:5; Michaber 632:1; Halacha 11 above

[608] Admur 627:2-5

[609] Admur 627:2

[610] 2^nd opinion in Michaber 627:3; Rif and Rambam, brought in Taz 627:4; See M”B 627:7; Kaf Hachaim 627:11

[611] 1^st opinion in Michaber 627:3; See Beis Yosef 627 in name of Ran; Taz 627:3; M”B 627:7; Kaf Hachaim 627:11; So concludes to be Machmir: Bikureiy Yaakov 627:6; Biur Halacha 627:3 “Veyeish machshirim”; These Poskim rule that if the canopy is attached to poles that extend from the actual bed, then if it is 10 Tefachim from the bed it is forbidden to sleep under it even if it does not contain a Tefach by its top.

Opinion of Admur: Admur 627:5 does not make mention regarding the case that there is no Tefach at all by its head, and simply states the law regarding if it does not contain a flat Tefach by its head, then it needs to be ten Tefachim from the bed to be invalid. If, however, it does not contain a Tefach at all, even slanted he makes no mention of what the law would be, and it can be inferred that it would be valid. However, see Kaf Hachaim 627:14 who learns that Admur rules like the first opinion in the Michaber ibid, being that he did not differentiate and simply writes that if it does not contain a flat Tefach then it is invalid if it is ten Tefachim high from the bed, meaning in all cases, even if it does not contain even a slanted Tefach. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[612] Bikureiy Yaakov 627:6; Biur Halacha 627:3 “Veyeish machshirim”; Kaf Hachaim 627:14

[613] Admur 627:2-3

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is even initially permitted to sleep under a canopy. [Opinion brought in Admur 640:12; M”A 640:9] Practically, we do not rule this way in a case that insects are not found. [Admur and M”A ibid]

[614] Admur 627:2; Michaber 627:2; Sukkah 10b-11a

The reason: As every roofing of a Tefach which is 10 Tefachim above the ground is considered an Ohel and it is thus found that he is not sleeping in the shade of a Sukkah but in the shade of an Ohel. [Admur ibid]

[615] Admur 627:2

[616] Admur 672:3

[617] Admur 672:4; Michaber and Tur 627:3; Mishneh Sukkah 10a; Tur 627:1 in name of Maharitz Geios regarding all flat hoverings, and although he negates his opinion, the Tur 627:2 states that it is true to all opinions in the case of a bed canopy that is attached to the actual bed with four poles, that since it is a permanent structure of the bed, and is flat, then it is invalid even if it is less than 10 Tefachim from the ground.

[618] Implication of Admur 627:1 who permits sleeping under a bed less than 10 Tefachim from the ground, hence proving that not all flat hoverings have this decree [unlike the ruling of the Maharitz Geios, brought in Tur ibid]; M”A 627:2 and Taz 627:3 and Tur 627:3 and M”B 627:7 that only in this case is it invalid even if it is less than 10 Tefachim being that the hovering is attached to the bed; See Michaber and Tur 627:3 who clearly state the case to be discussing poles that extend from each corner of the actual bed, and not external poles, and so is likewise the explicit wording of Admur!

[619] Admur 627:5; Michaber and Tur 627:3; Mishneh Sukkah 10a

[620] Implication of Admur ibid who writes that so long as it does not contain a flat Tefach on its top, then it is only invalid if it is ten Tefachim from the hovering to the bed

Other opinions: Some Poskim imply that the canopy is invalid even if it is less than 10 Tefachim from the bed, if it contains a Tefach hovering within three Tefach from its top. [See 1^st opinion in Michaber 627:3 and M”B 627:7]

[621] Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber ibid; M”B 627:7

[622] The reason: As the sages did not make their decree of less than 10 Tefachim of height in the event that the hovering is slanted and does not contain a flat Tefach on top.

[623] Admur ibid; 1^st opinion in Michaber ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that by slanted hoverings of this kind that are over one’s bed it is valid even if it is more than 10 Tefachim from the ground. [2^nd opinion in Michaber 627:3; Tur ibid in name of Maharitz Geios; Rif, and Rambam, brought in Taz 627:4]

[624] Admur 628:5 and gloss there; Sukkah 10b; Elya Raba 627:5; Levushei Serud 627 on M”A 627:3; P”M 627 A”A 3; Machatzis Hashekel 627:3; Bikureiy Yaakov 627:5; M”B 627:3 and 8; Kaf Hachaim 627:7 and 13

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we always measure the 10 Tefachim from the ground even if the poles are attached to the bed. [Simple understanding of M”A 627:3 as understood by many Poskim ibid; However, see P”M ibid and Bikureiy Yaakov ibid and Machatzis Hashekel ibid and Shaar Hatziyon 627:6 for an alternative understanding of the M”A ibid]

[625] Admur 640:12; M”A 640:9, based on Sukkah 26a

[626] The reason: As although one who sleeps under such a netting does not fulfill his obligation, nevertheless if there are insects within the Sukkah that are disturbing him, then it is better for him to sleep under such a canopy them to sleep outside of the Sukkah, being that there are opinions who even initially permitted sleeping in such a canopy even when there are not insects in the area, although we do not rule this way in a case that insects are not found. [Admur ibid; M”A ibid]

[627] Piskeiy Teshuvos 627:1

[628] So is implied from 627:1 which states: “One who sleeps under a bed which is 10 Tefach high has not fulfilled his obligation”. Now although in 627:4 it is ruled regarding a bed canopy that even if it is less than 10 Tefach high it is Rabbinically forbidden to sleep under it. Nevertheless, the difference is that a bed is meant to be slept in top of and not under and thus the Sages made no decree when one sleeps under a bed less than 10 Tefach high. However, a bed canopy is meant that one sleep under it and thus the Sages decreed against doing so even if it is less than 10 Tefach from the ground. [M”B 627:8]

[629] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[630] So is implied from the wording of all the Poskim who write the above Halacha and never once limit the allowance of sleeping under a hovering that is not defined as a tent to a time of need. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos 627 footnote 1]

[631] Piskeiy Teshuvos 627:1

[632] See Sukkah Hashaleim Miluim 13:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 627 footnote 1 that perhaps this is due to that one should initially suspect for the ruling of the Yerushalmi that a hovering is invalid even if it is less than 10 Tefachim from the ground. Alternatively, it is based on the ruling of the Rama who begins this chapter with saying that one must sleep under the Sechach, thus perhaps coming to hint that initially one should always do so even if the hovering is not a Halachically invalidating. However, from the wording of Admur 627:1 it is clear that he does not learn the Rama this way.

[633] Piskeiy Teshuvos 627:3

[634] Since the higher bed is attached to lower bed, therefore we measure the ten Tefachim from the lower bed, as explained in the Halacha above. [Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid] However, some write that one measures from the ground. [See Sukkah Kehilchasa; Letter of Rav SZ:A printed in Koveitz Mibeis Levi 8:54; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 7] Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol on their ruling.

[635] See footnote in A!

[636] Kinyan Torah 5:1

[637] The reason: Above regarding a flatbed canopy we ruled that it is Rabbinically forbidden to sleep under the canopy even if the canopy does not reach 10 Tefachim from above the ground, if the canopy is held by poles that are attached to the bed. Thus, the same would apply in this case where the upper bed is attached to the lower bed and hence there is no reason to differentiate in the ruling and rabbinical decree between a bunk bed and a bed canopy.

[638] Sheivet Haleivi 7:36; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 6

[639] The reason: As in the case of a bunk bed, the upper bed is only placed there due to lack of space and not because it is intrinsically meant to be slept under. Accordingly, it is no different than the regular allowance to sleep under a bed that is less than 10 Tefachim from the ground, being that it is not common to sleep under it. However, by a bed canopy, in which the canopy is purposely placed to hover over the bed as part of the beds furniture, then the sages made their decree to prohibit sleeping under it even if it is less than 10 Tefachim from the ground. [Poskim ibid]

[640] Shevet Halevi 8:143; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; See however Aruch Laneir Sukkah 21a who is stringent and rules that a person is considered an interval, however this is omitted from all the other Poskim, and is likewise omitted by the Aruch Laneir himself in his own book of Bikureiy Yaakov and is contradicted from the Mishneh Ohalos 6:1.

[641] Piskeiy Teshuvos 627:2

[642] Pischa Zuta Sukkah 627:1 and end of 629; Shearim Hametzuyanim Behalacha 135:5; Nefesh Chayah 629; Hasukkah Hashaleim Pesakim of Rav SZ”A in end of book

[643] Admur 627:6; Michaber 627:4; 629:19; Tur 627:4; Rambam Sukkah 5:17-18; Rosh Sukkah 1:18; Sukkah 10a-b

[644] M”B 627:9; Rambam ibid; Sukkah 10a; Kaf Hachaim 627:15

[645] See Shiureiy Torah p. 249 that an Ama Dochakos is 47 cm [as opposed to 48 for a regular Ama], and accordingly a Tefach Dochakos is 7.83 cm [i.e. 1/48 of a cm times 8, deducted from 8 centimeters] and by the Shiur Sukkah of 7×7 one should measure with the stringent approach of an Ama Sochakos, and the same would apply here Lechumra to measure the four Tefachim as Dochakos. See also M”B 633:2 and Shaar Hatziyon 633:2 that by Sukkah we follow the stringent approach in the dimensions, either Dochakos or Sochakos, and by the 7×7 dimension we follow Sochakos, and the same would apply here by the four Tefachim; See also Midos Vishureiy Torah pp. 48-57 regarding Ama Sochakos and Dochakos; Piskeiy Teshuvos 633:1 writes that its 31.2 according to Grach Nah, when taking into account the Dochakos according to Chazon Ish, as he explains there in footnote 2

Other opinions-Chazon Ish: According to the Chazon Ish, the measurement of four Tefachim Dochakos is 37.68 cm following the 9.42 measurement of Tefach Dochakos. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[646] See Admur 629:1

[647] Admur ibid; M”A 627:4; Elya Raba 627:7; See Michaber 632:1

[648] Admur ibid; M”B 627:10; Kaf Hachaim 627:15

The reason: The reason that it is not considered to be an intervening tent between the person and the Sechach is because the sheet is considered nullified to the Sechach since it was placed there for the need of the Sechach, [and is within four Tefachim from it] in order to beautify it. Furthermore, so long as it was not placed there for the sake of providing shade [and is within four Tefachim from it], it does not become defined as invalid Sechach [and only when a hovering is placed for shade can it be defined as invalid Sechach]. Accordingly, it does not invalidate the Sukkah due to it being invalid Sechach and it is even permitted to dwell under it being that it is nullified to the Sechach. [Admur ibid; Tur 627:4; Bach 629; M”A 629:23; Levush 627:4 and 629:19; Rashi Sukkah ibid; Mordechai Remez 736; M”B 627:10; See also Admur 651:4]

[649] Admur 627:6; Michaber 627:4 and 629:19; Tur 627:4 in first opinion and in name of his father the Rosh; Rif; Rambam; Semag; Rav Chisda in Sukkah 10b

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that decorations are only invalid if they are a distance of 10 Tefachim from the Sechach. [Tur ibid in the name of Maharitz Geios; Rav Nachman and Shmuel in Sukkah ibid]

[650] Admur ibid; Taz 627:5

[651] Ran Sukkah 6a in name of Reah; Mateh Moshe 900; Elya Raba 627:7; 2^nd opinion in M”B 627:11; See Shaar Hatziyon 627:15; Kaf Hachaim 627:18

[652] Ran Sukkah 6a; Ritva Sukkah 10a; Rav Hamagid on Rambam Sukkah 5:18; 1^st opinion in M”B 627:11; Shaar Hatziyon 627:16; See Kaf Hachaim 627:18

[653] Admur ibid; Rama 627:4 “One is to beware to place all decoration within four Tefachim”; M”A 627:4 “Even if it is not 4×4 Tefachim”; Maharil Sukkah p. 367; Levushei Serud on M”A ibid that this is the entire novelty of the Rama; P”M 627 M”Z 5; M”B 627:15; Kaf Hachaim 627:20; See Sukkah 10a-b

The worldly custom: Despite the above ruling, the worldly custom in previous times was to hang decorations even a distance of four Tefachim from the Sechach. [Taz 627:5; Kaf Hachaim 627:18]

[654] P”M 627 M”Z 5; M”B 627:15; Kaf Hachaim 627:21

[655] The reason: Although it is explained in 632:1 [Halacha 11] that invalid Sechach does not invalidate a Sukkah unless it contains four by four Tefachim, while if it does not contain 4 x 4 Tefachim then it is even initially permitted to dwell under it, nevertheless, one is to initially beware not to distance the Sukkah decorations four Tefachim from the Sechach, even if the decorative sheet is less than four Tefachim wide,  due to a decree that one may come to do so also with a sheet that contains 4 x 4 Tefachim, in which case it is forbidden to dwell under it. [Admur ibid; Taz ibid]

[656] Implication of Admur ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos 627:4; Sheivet Hakehasiy 3:197

[657] Piskeiy Teshuvos 627:4

[658] Sefer Sukkah Hashaleim Miluim 14:3

[659] Koveitz Mibeis Levi 2 p. 24

[660] See M”B 627:15; Shaar Hatziyon 627:21; Kaf Hachaim 627:21

[661] Michaber 629:19; Mishneh Sukkah 10a

[662] M”A 629:25; M”B 629:58

[663] Admur 640:10; M”B 629:58

[664] Michaber ibid; Rashi Sukkah ibid

[665] M”B 629:58

[666] 1^st opinion in Michaber ibid [brought in Admur 640:10]; Taz 640:4 [See Levushei Serud ibid]; Rashi Sukkkah ibid; Ran Sukkah 5b; Mordechai 1 736; Rashba 55; Ritva Sukkah ibid; Hagahos Semak; Rokeiach; Maggid Mishneh in Rambam, see Bach 629; Biur Hagr”a based on Ran and Rashba

[667] The reason: As since the sheet is placed there not for the sake of the Sukkah but rather for human protection, therefore it is not considered nullified to the Sechach. [M”B 629:52; Rashi ibid]

[668] 2^nd opinion in Michaber ibid; Tur 629:19; Rabbeinu Tam and Tosafos Sukkah 10a; Rosh Sukkah 1:16 in name of Teshuvos Hageonim in Shaareiy Teshuvah 321; Teshuvos Haramban 216, brought in beis Yosef 629; Rokeiach 219, brought in M”A 640:8, Beis Yosef 629, Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid, Shaar Hatziyon 640:38

[669] See Bach 627:12; Biur Hagr”a; Shaar Hatziyion 629:78

[670] Shaar Hatziyon 629:81

[671] The reason: As the sheet is considered nullified to the Sechach. [M”B 629:55]

[672] See Michaber ibid; Tosafos Yom Tov on Mishneh ibid; Biur Halacha 629:19 “Oa Tachteha”; Kaf Hachaim 629:109

[673] M”B 629:58;

[674] M”A 629:24; M”B 629:57; Sukkah 10b; Kaf Hachaim 629:114

[675] Michaber ibid; Tur 629:19; M”A 640:8 in name of Rokeiach 219

Does the Maras Ayin apply even when the sheet is placed under the Sechach, inside of the Sukkah? See M”A 640:8 in name of Rokeiach 219 and P”M 640 A”A 8 and Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid and Shaar Hatziyon 640:38 who explains that according to the Rokeiach [who is one of the Poskim who hold of the lenient opinion] the Maras Ayin only applies when the sheet is placed on top of the Sechach, however, when it is placed under the Sechach then there is no Maras Ayin involved; However, see M”B in Biur Halacha 629:19 “Ela Im Kein” and Shaar Hatziyon ibid who negates this opinion in the understanding of the Tur and Michaber 629:19, from whom it is implied that the Maras Ayin is applicable even when it is placed under the Sechach, even according to the lenient opinion

Is the garment considered nullified to the Sechach when it is spread under it to dry? See Levushei Serud on M”A ibid that according to the lenient opinion, the garment is nullified to the Sechach even when spread there for the sake of garment, in order to dry it; However, see P”M 629 A”A 25 in name of Beis Yosef in name of Ran that when the garment is spread in order to dry it, then it is not nullified to the Sechach even according to the lenient opinion

[676] Admur 640:10 “However, if it is unclear if one will be unable to eat in the Sukkah if he does not spread the sheet over the Sukkah, then even during the weekday it is forbidden to spread it over the Sechach, due to the reason explained above.”; M”B 629:58; Biur Halacha 629:19 “Ubilvad”; Bach 629:12; Erech Hashulchan 629:3 that so is the opinion of Michaber; Beis Meir 629; Beis Shoeiva 117; Kaf Hachaim 629:108; Vetzaruch Iyun if placing a sheet over one’s Sechach for decorative purposes is valid, just as we rule regarding under the Sechach, as explained in Halacha 20D. Vetzaruch Iyun, however, from the simple implication of Michaber 629:19 it implies that it is valid!

[677] M”A 629:25; M”B 629:58 and 640:25; Kaf Hachaim 629:114; Omitted from Admur 640:10, Vetzaruch Iyun!

[678] Admur 640:10 regarding wind [however, no mention is made regarding a blessing]; M”A 629:25 regarding rain and 640:8 regarding placing over the Sechach to prevent wind [as explained in Machatzis Hashekel ibid]; M”B 629:58 regarding placing under Sechach and M”B 640:25 regarding placing under and over the Sechach; Kaf Hachaim 629:114; 640:39

[679] Shaar Hatziyon 640:38 that in such a case one may rely on the Rokeiach, and M”A ibid, and other Poskim above, that the Maras Ayin only applies when it is placed on top of the Sechach and not under it

[680] Admur 640:10; Rama 640:4; Or Zarua Shabbos 78:6; Rokeiach 219, brought in Beis Yosef 629 and M”A 640:8; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 626:6

[681] Implication of Admur ibid; M”A 640:8 in name of Rokeiach 219 “Due to Ohel”; Levushei Serud 640 on M”A 640:8; P”M 640 A”A 8; See next footnote; See Taz 640:4 who explains the reason for the prohibition is due to that it will nullify the Sechach, however see Levushei Serud ibid who clarifies that this only applies to the stringent opinion in 629:19, and according to the lenient opinion it is due to Ohel; See M”B 640:25; Kaf Hachaim 640:39

[682] The reason: As the Mitzvah of Sukkah does not push away any prohibition even if it is only a Rabbinical in nature. [Admur ibid; See Admur 628:5 and 586:22 regarding the reason behind why we do not override even a rabbinical command] Now, since it hovers over a Tefach of space that is under it, therefore it is considered an Ohel [Levushei Serud 640 on M” 640:8 and so is implied from Admur ibid who writes that the allowance to spread over the Sechach is due to that it does not hover over one Tefach of space, hence implying that whenever it does hover over 1 Tefach of space then it is a problem; Kaf Hachaim 640:41] However, some Poskim explain that the Ohel prohibition only applies in such a case if there is a space of four or even three Tefachim between the Sechach and the sheet. [P”M 640 A”A 8; See also Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid who writes that the prohibition is due to there being space between the Sechach and sheet that is under it; Bikureiy Yaakov 640:14; M”B 640:25; Shaar Hatziyin 629:84]

[683] Implication of Admur ibid; Implication of Levushei Serud 640 on M” 640:8, and so learns Shaar Hatziyon 640:35 in his opinion; Kaf Hachaim 640:41; see the previous footnote!

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is permitted to spread the sheet within three of the Sechach even on Shabbos and Yom Tov, as only when there is three Tefachim or more of space in between is it an Ohel prohibition. [M”B ibid and Shaar Hatziyon 640:34-35 based on P”M ibid, Machatzis Hashekel ibid and Bikureiy Yaakov ibid] See Kaf Hachaim 640:41 who concludes like the opinion of the Levushei Serud

[684] Admur ibid; See 1^st opinion in Michaber 629:19; See Taz 640:4 and M”B 640:25 who write the reason for not placing it under the Sechach is because it nullifies the Sechach, which applies even during the week

[685] Piskeiy Teshuvos 627:2

Bookmark