Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

according to Torah law?

However, as explained ,throughout the chapter, the Sages have required us to hear many more.

See Rosh Hashanah 33b.

Teru’ah is also mentioned in relation to sounding the trumpets (Numbers, Chapter 10), but that is not relevant in this immediate context.

twice: Leviticus 23:24 and Numbers 29:1.

once: Leviticus 25:9.

Leviticus 25:9 states: רפוש ,תרבעהו and Numbers 29: 1 states: רפוש .וריבעת In both cases, the verb means “cause to pass.” From that expression, Rosh Hashanah, ibid., derives that a long note should be sounded before the .העורת.
Based on the above, the text Galia Masechta (Orach Chayim 3) explains that the essential element of the mitzvah is the teru’ah, since that is the sound specifically required by the Torah. The teki’ot are required only as a supplementary factor.

Rosh Hashanah, ibid. notes that the verses which describe the sounding of the shofar on both occasions share a common word. Hence, an analogy חוש( )הריזג is established between them. Therefore ...

Thus, on each occasion, the same three series of blasts must be sounded.

The long, simple blast preceding the teru’ah.

A blast which is interrupted into shorter sounds, as described in Halachot 2-4.

The long, simple blast following the teru’ah.

two other identical series of blasts.

Rosh Hashanah 34a explains that our custom of blowing the shofar was instituted by Rabbi Abahu in Caesaria approximately one hundred years after the destruction of the second Temple. In this halachah, the Rambam explains the reason for Rabbi Abahu’s action.
The Rambam’s statements are accepted by Rabbenu Asher, Rabbenu Nissim, and most other authorities. Nevertheless, it is significant that Rav Hai Gaon, one of the major authorities who preceded the Rambam, offers a different explanation for Rabbi Abahu’s actions.
Rav Hai Gaon maintains that it is impossible that a doubt existed among the Jewish people concerning such an important manner as sounding the shofar. Since the shofar was sounded each year, surely the tradition could have been maintained. Hence, he explains that all the different manners of sounding the shofar were acceptable and that Rabbi Abahu’s contribution was the establishment of a un1torm custom that included all the different practices common among the Jewish people. By mentioning the “many years” and “exiles,” the Rambam addresses himself to the question raised by Rav Hai Gaon.

thus, it would be short, staccato sounds like sobs

The word teru’ah is translated into Aramaic as yevavah (moan), as in Judges 5:28: “Sisra’s mother gazed out the window and moaned through the lattice.”

does a teru’ah resemble ...

i.e., longer sounds

Since before a person cries, he sighs (Rosh Hashanah 33b ).

as explained in detail in the following halachah.
The commentaries have emphasized the homiletic aspects of these halachot. On Rosh Hashanah, a Jew must concentrate on the coronation of God as King of the world. He may feel internal distress when he meditates on how his daily behavior does not reflect the proper relation between a subject and his king. Ultimately, this may motivate him to sigh and even to cry.

mentioned in the previous halachah

Short, staccato sounds like sobs. Since a teru’ah is considered to be a single blast, the entire series of sounds must be completed without the person who blows pausing to catch his breath. This concept also applies with regard to the shevarim (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 190:4).

mentioned in the previous halachah

The Maggid Mishneh writes that one may add to the number of shevarim as long as one does not take a breath between them. However, the Magen Avraham (590:2) writes that it is Ashkenazic custom not to sound more than three shevarim.

Like sighs, these sounds are neither short like teru’ot, nor prolonged like teki’ot, but rather of intermediate length, as described in the following halachah.

to fulfill the mitzvah as commanded by the Torah.

as explained in Halachah 10.

in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru’ah resembles both sighing and crying.

in order to have heard the three series of blasts required by Halachah 1.
Although the pattern of shofar bl9wing described by the Rambam has become universally accepted among the Jewish people, it is unclear when this practice was first instituted. One of the fundamental texts of the period directly following the conclusion of the Talmud, the Sh’eltot of Rav Achai Gaon (note 171), mentions a different practice.
Three series of blasts from each pattern are not blown directly after each othet. Rather, after sounding three series of teki’ah, shevarim, teru’ah, teki’ah, three series of teki’ah, shevarim, teki’ah, and then three series of teki’ah, teru’ah, teki’ah is sounded.

in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru’ah resembles sighing. It must be noted that from the passage on Rosh HaShanah 34a it seems that Rabbi Abahu instituted the series of three teru’ot before the series of three shevarim.

to fulfill the obligation explained in Halachah 1.

in accordance with the opinion that maintains that a teru’ah resembles crying.

as explained above.

18 teki’ot, six shevarim, and six teru’ot.

as mentioned in the previous halachah.
Though all three sounds would be included in the series of teki’ah, shevarim, teru’ah, teki’ah, it would be insufficient for such a series alone to be sounded. According to the opinions that maintain that a teru’ah is either sobbing or crying alone, there would be another sound interrupting between either the teki’ah which precedes or that which follows the teru’ah (Rosh Hashanah 34a).

These statements are the source of much controversy among the Rabbis. The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 33b) states: “The required length of the teki’ah is three teru’ot; a teru’ah is three sobs.”
The Talmud questions:
Behold, the baraita has taught: “the required length of a teki’ah is that of a
teru’ah!”
Abbaye replied: “The author of the Mishnah considered the length of all
the teki’ot in comparison to the length of all the teru’ot. The author of the
baraita considered the length of each blast. There is no difference of opinion
between them.”
In his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam interprets the above to mean: “The required length of all six teki’ot is equivalent to the required length of all three teru’ot,” thus establishing each teru’ah as twice the length of a teki’ah. Hence, according to the Rambam, the length of the teki’ot are dependent on the length of the teru’ot.
Rabbenu Nissim objects to the Rambam’s interpretation, explaining that the word ,תרבעהו the verb mentioned in the commandment to blow the shofar, implies a long blast, and hence the measure mentioned by the Rambam would not be appropriate.
Similarly, the Ra’avad does not accept the Rambam’s interpretation, and explains that the Mishnah establishes an independent measure for the length of a teki’ah—three teru’ot—with each teru’ah being equal to three short sobs. Thus, the measure of a teki’ah is equivalent to nine short sounds. The Ramban and the Rashba also subscribe to this view.
Rashi. and most Ashkenazic authorities accept the simple meaning of the Mishnah and explain that a teki’ah is equal to the length of a teru’ah. However, as explained in the previous halachot, there are three different interpretations of the definition of a teru’ah. Thus, the required length for the teki’ah varies accordingly.
Regarding halachah l’ma’aseh, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 590:3) mentions the views of Rashi and the Ra’avad, but not that of the Rambam.

I.e., the length of the three shevarim should resemble one series of teru’ot.

With the intention that it be considered to be the final blast of the first series and the initial blast of the following series.

although it is of sufficient length

This represents a rephrasing of the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 4:9 and Rosh Hashanah 28a.

This decision runs contrary to the statements of the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 3:3), which does not accept a teki’ah blown with such an intention at all.

This law is quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 590:6). However, the Ashkenazic authorities maintain that deference should be paid to the opinion mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud.

Rosh Hashanah 34a-b quotes Rabbi Yochanan: “If a person heard the nine shofar blasts even over a span of nine hours, he fulfills his obligation.”

It is undesirable to delay the shofar blasts or to interrupt between them by talking or performing any other activity. Nevertheless, if an interruption was made between blasts, as long as one concentrates one’s attention on each shofar blast, they are considered to be a single halachic unit.

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 588:2) quotes this law. However, the Magen Avraham (588:2) compares this situation to the laws of Kri’at Shema (see Ramah, Orach Chayim 65:1) and explains that if one is prevented from hearing the shofar by forces beyond one’s control, it is considered to be an interruption and one must begin the last series of blasts anew.

a teki’ah, the series of shevarim, teru’ot or the combination of the two, and then a teki’ah, as stated in Halachah 1.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that with this phrase, the Rambam implies that even though a delay does not constitute an interruption, any shofar blast which is not in the proper order invalidates the entire series. Most other authorities (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 590:12) explain that this applies only if one sounds the shofar with an improper blast, intending to fulfill one’s obligation. Otherwise, no significance at all is attached to the shofar blast and it is not considered an interruption.

At the same time, six blew teki’ot and three, teru’ot, so that the person could have heard the required number of shofar blasts

Rabbenu Manoach gives two reasons for this decision:
a) because of the cacophony of sounds, the listener is unable to properly distinguish any one;
b) As stated in the previous halachah, one must hear the shofar blasts in the proper order, a teki’ah preceding and following a teru’ah; that requirement is not fulfilled in this instance.
Rashi, in his commentary on Rosh Hashanah 34b, disagrees with the Rambam’s decision, explaining that Rosh Hashanah 27a states that even though two people blow the shofar simultaneously, since the mitzvah is dear to the hearer, he will concentrate sufficiently to differentiate between the sounds. Furthermore, the Tosefta 2: 12 states specifically that one does fulfill one’s obligation in this manner.
Tosafot disagrees with Rashi, mentioning the second reason stated by Rabbenu Manoach. It appears that the Rambam goes further and discounts Rashi’s opinion entirely. According to Tosafot, the listener will have heard at least the first teki’ah, while the Rambam explicitly states “he has not fulfilled his obligation for a single blast.” (See Lechem Mishneh.)
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 588:3 quotes the Rambam’s decision as halachah. The Ramah quotes the law from Rosh Hashanah 27a, allowing a person to fulfill his obligation even though l1e heard two people blowing the shofar at the same time, provided he heard the blasts in the proper order.

The fact that different people sounded the shofar does not prevent the fulfillment of the mitzvah.

There is a certain redundancy with this statement, because the same principle was mentioned in the previous halachah. Nonetheless, the Rambam included it to emphasize that the passage of time is not considered an interruption even when the shofar is being blown by different people (Rabbenu Manoach).

as explained in Halachah 1.

Based on this principle, a person who does not know how to blow either the shevarim or the teru’ot should not sound the teki’ot, for he will accomplish nothing by doing so (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 33b). Nevertheless, if a person knows how to sound both teki’ot and shevarim, he should sound three series of such blasts even if he does not know how to sound a teru’ah. Since it is possible that the mitzvah may be fulfilled by these series (as explained in Halachot 2 and 3), at the very least they should be sounded (Rabbenu Nissim, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 593:2).

i.e., the nine blasts mentioned in Halachah 1

Rosh Hashanah 16b explains that the Sages instituted the blowing of the shofar in the midst of the prayer service in order to confuse Satan, lest he lodge accusations against the Jews in the midst of their prayers. The Sages explain (ibid., 32b) that it would have been appropriate to institute the shofar blowing in the morning service. However, the Romans desired to stamp out the performance of the mitzvot and sent guards to make sure that the mitzvah was not fulfilled. After midday, the guards left, and then, in the musaf service, the shofar would be sounded.
Originally, the Sages’ decree involved determining the place of the service when the mitzvah required by the Torah would be fulfilled and this halachah must be interpreted in that context. However, as explained in Halachot 11 and 12, it became universally accepted Jewish custom to blow the shofar before the musaf prayers to fulfill the Torah’s commandment, and thus “confuse the Satan” even before the beginning of our prayers, and then to sound the shofar again in the midst of those prayers to fulfill the Rabbinic decree. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 592:7.

Literally, “patriarchs”; the first blessing of the Amidah, which praises God as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

Literally, “mighty acts”; the second blessing of the Amidah, which begins: “You are mighty,” and recounts different expressions of God’s power.

The third blessing of the Amidah, which includes the Kedushah prayer.

Three additional blessings are recited in the Musaf Service of Rosh Hashanah: Malchuyot (acceptance of God’s sovereignty), Zichronot (acknowledgement of God’s remembrance of the Jewish people), and Shofarot (describing the significance of the sounding of the shofar).

i.e., one series of teki’ah, teru’ah, teki’ah required by the Torah. Though this point is disputed in the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 32a relates that this opinion (quoted in the name of Rabbi Akiva) was the accepted practice in Yavneh.

the second series of teki’ah, teru’ah, teki’ah required by the Torah.

the final series of teki’ah, teru’ah, teki’ah required by the Torah.

Literally, “the service,” i.e., the blessing R’tzey, which asks God to restore the Temple service.

The blessing Modim.

the blessing Sim shalom, which begins with the priestly blessing.

The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 26b) states: “Rosh Hashanah and the Yovel are identical regarding the sounding of the shofar and the blessings.”

The blessings must also be recited in this order (Magen Avraham 593:4).

I.e., a person who cannot recite all three blessings should not recite any.

Rosh Hashanah 32a explains that the number ten alludes to the ten expressions ofpraise used by King David in Psalm 150; or, alternatively, to the ten statements of creation; or, alternatively, to the ten commandments. The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:7) explains that the ten verses of Malchuyot refer to David’s ten expressions of praise; the ten Zichronot, to the ten calls to repentance proclaimed by Isaiah; and the ten Shofarot to the ten sacrificial animals offered in the Temple on Rosh Hashanah.
One may recite additional verses if one desires (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 591 :4). Indeed, the text of the blessings generally recited for Malchuyot and Shofarot includes eleven quotes.

as explained in the commentary on the previous halachah

Since the Torah is on a higher level of holiness, its verses are mentioned first.

The commentaries question why the Book of Psalms is given prominence over the words of the prophets, when generally the prophets’ statements are considered on a higher level of holiness. Among the resolutions offered to this difficulty is that chronologically, the Psalms were written before the prophecies quoted (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 32a).
Examples of the verses are mentioned in the following halachah and commentary.

because of the dearness of the Torah. Rosh Hashanah 32b explains that this was the custom of the experienced Sages of Jerusalem.

However, one should preferably conclude with a verse from the Torah. This is our present practice.
From the statements of the Rambam and the relevant passages from the Mishnah and Talmud, it would appear that originally there was no standard text containing universally accepted verses for these blessings. Rather, certain verses were commonly accepted and would be recited by almost all those who prayed. Others were left to the preference of each individual.
(One must remember that machzorim were uncommon in this period, and most of the prayers were recited by heart. Thus, the verses chosen by an individual might often have been those which he had been able to commit to memory.)

Thus mentioning three verses in each blessing, one from each division of the Tnach

after the fact. However, at the outset it is desirable to recite all ten verses.

The commentaries have questioned the Rambam’s statements, which appear self-contradictory. In the previous clause, he stated that one must recite three verses—one from the Torah, one from the · prophets, and one from the writings—to fulfill one’s obligation, while this clause implies that the recitation of one is sufficient.
The source for the difficulty is the following quotes: The Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 32a, states:
One should not recite fewer than ten verses for Malchuyot, ten for Zichronot, and ten for Shofarot. Rabbi Yoch.anan ben Nuri says: “If one recites three—three of each—one fulfills his obligation.”
Rosh Hashanah 35a quotes Rav Chanan’el as saying in the name of Rav:
Even ifhe states: “In Your Torah, it is written ... “ [and recites one verse], nothing further is necessary.
From the Talmud, it appears that both these statements are accepted as halachah. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam interprets Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s requirement of three verses as the total for all three blessings. Thus, for each blessing, one must state “In Your Torah, it is written ... “ and recite a single appropriate verse. [This surely differs from the Rambam!s statements in his commentary on the Mishnah.]
The Ramban, Rabbenu Nissim, and others explain that Rav Chanan’el agrees with Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and thus, in addition to “In Your Torah, it is written ... ,” he also requires one to say: “ln Your holy writings, it is recorded ... ,” and: “by your prophets, it was proclaimed ... ,” mentioning an appropriate verse in each ·instance. (This opinion is quoted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 586:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 591:11.)
Alternatively, one may explain the Rambam’s position as follows: Ideally, one should recite ten verses for each blessing; after the fact, three are sufficient, as stated by Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri. When does this apply? Once one has recited at least one verse from the Torah. However, if one has not recited any verses, it is sufficient to say “In Your Torah, it is written ... “ and recite a single verse from the Torah, as Rav Chanan’el said in the name of Rav.
The flexibility regarding the number of quotes in each blessing was only granted in the previous generations. Since at present we have adopted a standard set of blessings, a person should not delete verses at will (Magen Avraham 591:6; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 591:8).

Since Rosh Hashanah is a day of judgment, we are careful not to mention any factors that might lead to negative repercussions.

It is uncertain why the Rambam mentions a verse for Zichronot before one of Malchuyot.

Rosh Hashanah 32a mentions that this prophecy concludes with the redemption of our people; since it is associated with anger and wrath, it is not fit to be mentioned on Rosh Hashanah.

Even though on Rosh Hashanah each man is judged individually, and his own personal future is determined (see Rosh Hashanah 16b; Hilchot Teshuvah 3:3), it is desirable to look beyond these individual matters and concentrate our prayers on the welfare of the Jewish people as a whole.

Rosh Hashanah 32a also mentions another verse—Genesis 21:1: “and God granted providence to Sarah”—as an example of this principle. The Talmud objects to this verse because it is of an individual nature. Though it continues to resolve that difficulty, explaining that God’s granting providence to Sarah effected the future of the entire Jewish people, the Rambam nevertheless avoided the problem by choosing the verse which is clearly of general import:

The meaning of דקפ is often “remember.” Indeed, the Targum of the cited verse in Genesis is ,ריבד the Aramaic for “remembered.” Furthermore, the Talmud mentions that Rabbi Yosse allowed verses using the verb ,דקפ and although Rabbi Yehudah objected, in differences of opinion between the two, Rabbi Yosse’s position is generally favored. Nevertheless, since there are many verses that use the verb ,רכז there is no difficulty in establishing a practice that will be accepted by all opinions (Beit Yosef 591 ).

Despite this decision, only the latter verse is included in the text of the blessings we recite on Rosh Hashanah.

These verses all express the oneness of God and how His oneness pervades all existence; thus they emphasize how “He is unique and one, with none that compare to Him. His Kingship permeating all dominion.” (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 591:11).

Shemot Rabbah 48:4 states that this verse refers to Moses. Though the Rambam accepts the principle that Moses served the people as a king (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6: 11 ), he does not necessarily view this verse as the source for that concept.
The verses which have been accepted in the standard text for these blessings are as follows:
MALCHUYOT
Torah
And you shall know today and draw it close to your heart that God is the Lord in the heavens above and the earth below. There is nothing else (Deuteronomy 4:39).
God will rule forever and ever (Exodus 15:18).
He does not look at iniquity in Jacob or see wrongdoing in Israel; God, his Lord, is with him and the desire of the King is in him (Numbers 23:21)
And there was a King in Jeshurun and the heads of the people assembled, together with all the tribes of Israel (Deuteronomy 33:5).
Psalms
For sovereignty is God’s and He rules over the nations (22:29).
God is King. He has clothed Himself with grandeur; the Lord has girded Himself with strength. He has established the world firmly so that it will not falter (93:l). Lift up your heads, O gates; be upraised, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter. Who is the glorious King? God, strong and mighty, God, mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O gates; be upraised, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter. Who is the glorious King? The God of hosts. He is the glorious King for eternity (24:7-10).
Prophets
Thus said God, King and Redeemer of Israel, the God of hosts, “1 am the first and I am the last. Aside from Me, there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6).
Deliverers will ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau and the kingship will be God’s (Ovadiah 1:21).
God will be King over the entire earth. On that day, God will be One, and His name, One (Zechariah 14:9).
Concluding Verse
Hear Israel, God is our Lord, God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4).
ZICHRONOT
Torah
And God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters were calmed (Genesis 8:1).
God heard their outcry. And God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with lsaac, and with Jacob (Exodus 2:24).
1 will remember My covenant with Jacob, also my covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land (Leviticus 26:42).
Psalms
He has made a remembrance of His wonders, gracious and merciful is God (lil:4).
He provides sustenance to those who fear Him. He will remember His covenant forever (111:5).
For them, He remembered His covenant and He relented in accordance with His abundant kindness (106:45).
Prophets
Go and call out in the ears of Jerusalem, saying: “Thus said God, ‘For you, 1 remember the devotion of your youth, the love of your bridal days, as you went after Me in the desert, in a uncultivated land’ (Jeremiah 2:2).
1 will remember My covenant with you [made] in the days of your youth, and 1 will fulfill it for you as an everlasting covenant (Ezekiel 16:60).
Is Ephraim not My beloved son? 1s he not a precious child? For whenever 1 speak of him, 1 recall him even more. The inner parts of my being stir for him. 1 will surely have compassion on him,”·says God (Jeremiah 31:19).
Concluding Verse
For them, 1 will remember the covenant with their ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations to be their Lord. 1 am God (Leviticus 26:45).
SHOFAROT
Torah
And it was on the third day, at dawn. There was thunder and lightning and a heavy cloud on the mountain. The sound of the shofar was very .strong and all the people in the camp trembled (Exodus 19:16).
And the sound of the shofar proceeded, becoming stronger. Moses spoke and God answered Him out loud (Exodus 19:19).
And all the people saw the voices and the flames, the sound of the shofar and the mountain smoking. The people saw and recoiled and stood off from afar (Exodus 20:15).
Psalms
The Lord ascends through teru’ah, God through the sound of the shofar (47:6). Sound off with trumpets and the call of the shofar before the King, God (98:6). Blow the shofar on the new moon, on the appointed time of our sacred day. For it is a statute for Israel; an ordinance of the Lord od Israel (81:4-5) Praise God. Praise the Almighty in His holiness. Praise Him in the firmament of His strength. Praise Him for His mighty acts. Praise Him according to His abundant greatness. Praise Him with the call of the shofar. Praise Him with harp and lyre. Praise Him with timbrel and dance. Praise Him with stringed instruments and flute. Praise Him with loud cymbals. Praise Him with resounding cymbals. Let every being with a soul praise God. Halleluyah (150).
Prophets
All those who inhabit the world, who dwell on earth: When the banner is raised on the mountain, you will see. When the shofar is sounded, you will hear (Isaiah 18:3).
And it shall be on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded, and those who were lost in the land of Asshur and those who were banished in the land of Egypt shall come and bow down to God on the holy mountain in Jerusalem (Isaiah 27: 13).
And God will appear over them and His arrow shall go forth like lightning. God, the Lord, will souhd the shofar’ and proceed in a southerly storm-wind (Zechariah 9:14-15).
Concluding Verse
And on the days of yo1,1r rejoicing; on your holidays, and on your Rosh Chodesh days, you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings, and they shall be a remembrance for you before your Lord. 1 am God, your Lord (Numbers 10:10).

As mentioned in Halachah 7 and the commentary, the Sages had originally ordained that a person hear the shofar blasts required by the Torah in the midst of the musaf service. However, as evident from Rosh Hashanah 16a-b, even in Talmudic times the custom mentioned by the Rambam was already the general practice.

The laws pertaining to an individual are mentioned at the conclusion of Halachah 12.

Hilchot Tefillah 13:10 states:
The common custom is to read on the first day: “And God showed providence to Sarah ... , and on the second day: “And God presented a trial to Abraham ... “
As stated in that halachah, the haftarah is recited after the Torah reading is concluded.

Though at present, Ashkenazic custom is to blow the shofar in the presence ofthe Torah scrolls, the Rambam’s son, Rav Avraham, supports his father’s decision in the Ma’aseh Rokeach, explaining that it is not proper to make any interruptions between the shofar blowings which precede musaf and those within the prayer service.

At present, Ashkenazic custom is to blow the shofar in the presence of the Torah scrolls, while standing.

Rabbenu Manoach questions the need for the person blowing the shofar to stand. He offers two possible explanations:
a) as a mark of deference to the community;
b) in respect for the blessing recited, as implied by Nehemiah 8:4.
The Hagahot Maimoniot quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (the location of the source in the Jerusalem Talmud is a matter of question) as drawing an analogy חוש( )הרזג between the blowing of the shofar and the counting of the Omer. Hence, just as the Omer must be counted while standing, the shofar should be sounded in a similar position.

as required before the fulfillment of any positive commandment (Hilchot Berachot 11: 1,2,8).

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah is hearing, not blowing, the shofar. Nevertheless, the Sh’eltot suggests concluding the blessing “to blow the shofar” and the Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol advises the text “concerning the blowing of the shofar.”

as is necessary before the fulfillment of any mitzvah performed infrequently (Hilchot Berachot 11 :9).

as explained in Halachah 3.

“The chazan always recites Kaddish before and after every prayer service (Rambam, Seder Tefillot kol Shanah).”

and remain standing during the repetition of the the Amidah as well. Therefore, the shofar blasts sounded during these prayers are referred to as teki’ot m’umad (the shofar blasts sounded while stanaing).

in a hushed tone.
The Tur relates that there were varying customs regarding the recitation of the musaf service in a hushed tone. In certain communities, it had been customary for the congregation to recite the musaf prayers as on other festivals without reciting Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot. Only the chazan would recite the latter. However, even in the Tur’s time, the prevailing custom was that even the congregation recited these three blessings.
The Sh’lah records the custom of sounding the shofar for Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot while the congregation recites the Amidah. However, this custom is not accepted in all communities.

The rationale for this practice and the different customs associated with these shofar blasts are discussed in Halachah 12 and its commentary.
In the text of prayers with which the Rambam concludes Sefer Ha’ahavah, he also mentions the recitation of the prayer Hayom Harat Olam.

the thirty shofar blasts mentioned in Halachah 3.

i.e., Malchuyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot

Rav Hai Gaon also mentions this practice. The Kolbo explains that it is appropriate, since “when a person begins a mitzvah, we tell him to complete it” (Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1:8). Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham 592:7 writes that in many communities, it has become customary to divide the honor of shofar blowing between two individuals.

i.e., the person blowing the shofar. Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher write that not only he, but the entire congregation should refrain from speaking. The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this view, yet it is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 592:3.

Permission is granted to speak about matters required for the prayers or for blowing the shofar (Ramah).

for since they are both part of one mitzvah, it is improper. to interrupt between them.

Because of the doubt mentioned in Halachah 3, it would be proper for us to blow three series of blasts—i.e., teki’ah, shevarim, teru’ah, teki’ah; teki’ah, shevarim, teki’ah; and teki’ah, teru’ah, teki’ah—at the conclusion of each blessing.

Because of the doubt mentioned in Halachah 3, it would be proper for us to blow three series of blasts—i.e., teki’ah, shevarim, teru’ah, teki’ah; teki’ah, shevarim, teki’ah; and teki’ah, teru’ah, teki’ah—at the conclusion of each blessing.

the shofar blasts sounded before musaf.

the congregation

regarding the proper manner of blowing the shofar, as explained in Halachah 3.

these shofar blasts

as explained in Halachah 10

and fulfilled the requirement of the Sages mentioned in Halachah 7.
In practice, a number of different customs are followed regarding this matter. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 592:1) suggests following the pattern described by the Rambam, but sounding each series three times, rather than once. The Ramah writes that Ashkenazic custom is to sound one series—teki’ah, shevarim, teru’ah, teki’ah—after each blessing. However, the Sh’lah suggests blowing three series of blasts—i.e., teki’ah, shevarim, teru’ah, teki’ah; teki’ah, shevarim, teki’ah; and teki’ah, teru’ah, teki’ah—at the conclusion of each blessing.

as specifically stated in Halachot 7 and 10.

Some authorities object to the permission granted by the Rambam for an individual to interrupt his recitation of the the Amidah in order to hear the sounding of the shofar. However, the Rambam’s opinion is based on his interpretation of Rosh Hashanah 34b. (See Ma’aseh Rokeach.)

Malchiyot, Zichronot, and Shofarot.

Therefore, if it is impossible for a person to hear the shofar blown, he should still attempt to recite or hear the blessings.

Thus, if it is impossible for a person to hear the blessings, he should still attempt to hear the shofar being blown.

recited in the musaf service on Rosh Hashanah

as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah

as is the prayer service in its entirety

i.e., surely if one could be sure of fulftlling the Torah commandment, one should do so at the expense of the fulfillment of the Rabbinic commandment. However, even if, as in the case described, there is a doubt whether one can fulfill the Torah commandment, one should take that risk, rather than forego the opportunity entirely, even if doing so will cause one to negate the fulfillment of the Rabbinic commandment.

I.e., the height of its inner space, without including the height of the s’chach (Eruvin 3b)

anything less is not considered to be a dwelling fit for human habitation (See Sukkah 4a.) Sukkah 4b-5a derives the concept as follows: The ark and the kaporet covering it were ten handbreadths high. This constituted a line of demarcation between the place where the Shechinah was manifest and the area below it. Thus, we see that a height of ten handbreadths is sufficient for an independerit area.
Rabbenu Manoach establishes a closer relationship between the above concept and a sukkah, noting that Exodus 25:20 describes how the wings of the cherubs “shall shield the kaporet,” using,the verb ,םיככם which has the same root as the word s’chach. The beginning of the height of the cherub’s “shield,” ten cubits, is the minimum of the height for our s’ chach.

A handbreadth is 8 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 9.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish. A cubit is 48 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 57.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.

The minimum size necessary to contain a person’s head, the majority of his body [6 handbreadths by six handbreadths], and a small table, [a handbreadth by a handbreadth] (Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 2:8). If the sukkah is not seven handbreadths in either length or width, it is invalid, even if its area equals 49 square handbreadths. If it is round in shape, it must be sufficiently large to encompass a square seven by seven (see Halachah 7). This size is required because if either of the dimensions were less, it would not be considered a dwelling fit for human habitation (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 634:1-2; Magen Avraham; Taz).

The commentaries point to Sukkah 27b: “All Israel is fit to sit in one sukkah,” as the source for this statement. A sukkah large enough to contain “all Israel” must possess a sizable area.

A mil is approximately a kilometer in contemporary measure.

does not meet the above requirements and

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 633:2-5) mentions a number of techniques by which a sukkah of this size can be made kosher, by decreasing the height of its inner space.

Though Sukkah 6b mentions Rabbi Shimeon’s opinion, which requires four walls, all authorities accept the more lenient view. The Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 1:1) explains that their difference of opinion is based on the exegesis of Isaiah 4:6:
There will be a sukkah that will serve as a shadow from the heat during the day, a place of refuge, and a cover from storm and from rain.
The Sages maintain that the ·verse refers to three different activities, and hence require three walls. Rabbi Shimeon counts “a cover from storm and from rain” as two different activities, and hence requires four walls.

i.e., walls of at least seven handbreadths long, so that the minimum requirements for the sukkah’s area mentioned in the previous halachah can be met

Rabbenu Manoach notes that a gamma has the same shape as the Hebrew letter dalet (see accompanying drawing) and asks why the Sages did not use that letter to refer to the intended shape. He explains that the very letters of the Hebrew alphabet are endowed with holiness. Hence, the Sages did not want to use them as an example to refer to a mundane matter.

Sukkah 16b teaches that whenever there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between two entities, the principle of l’vud applies, which means the gap is considered to be closed and the two parts connected. Thus, the third wall is considered to be four handbreadths long, hence spanning more than half of the length required for the third wall. Therefore, it is acceptable (Rabbenu Nissim).

See the accompanying diagram.
The Rabbis have posed an abstract question: 1s the minimum requirement for a sukkah three walls (including one which is incomplete), or must a sukkah have four walls, however, the Torah was lenient enough to consider a sukkah of this nature as comparable to one of four walls.
The Marcheshet brings support for the latter view, quoting Sukkah 7b, which states that since the third wall only a handbreadth in size is considered to be a wall with regard to the laws of sukkah, it is also considered to be a wall with regard to the laws regarding a private domain on the Sabbath. In the latter instance, four walls are necessary.

to complete this third wall. This is necessary ...

the sukkah

However, if the three walls are complete—i.e., at least seven handbreadths in length—as in the accompanying diagram, no “likeness of an entrance” is required.
The Bayit Chadash (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 430) explains that the requirement of a “likeness of an entrance” is a Rabbinic ordinance, and, according to Torah law, a sukkah is acceptable as long as the third wall is a handbreadth as required.

16:19

The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 630:2) states that if the two rods reach the s’chach, a third rod is unnecessary. (See Mishnah Berurah 630:12.)

as depicted on page 67.

each being seven handbreadths or more long

as depicted in the accompanying diagram.
Since the two walls are not connected, the third wall which “connects” them must be longer (Sukkah 7a).

so that it will be considered l’vud.

The third wall is considered to be seven cubits long itself—the four cubits of actual length and the three cubits between it and the wall that are added to it, because of the principle of l’vud (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1: 1 ).

between the wall of four handbreadths and the wall further removed from it.
This opinion is not universally accepted; and some authorities do not require a “likeness of an entrance” for such a sukkah. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 630:3) quotes the Rambam’s opinion as halachah.
The Ramah mentions that the “likeness of an entrance” is required only when the third wall needs the principle of l’vud for it to be considered seven handbreadths long. However, if the wall is actually seven handbreadths or more long, nothing more is necessary.

The sukkah has two walls, joined to each other at a right angle. The third wall is also joined to the other at a right angle; however, its length exceeds that of the wall opposite it, and thus, the fourth side of the sukkah, which remains open, slants at an angle.

sitting under the extension is considered to be the same as sitting under the portion enclosed by three walls. (See
Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:7.)

at least seven handbreadths high

See accompanying diagram.

Sukkah 16a records a difference of opinion between the Sages whether a “hanging partition”—i.e., a partition that is not connected to the earth—is kosher. The halachah_does not accept such a partition, because animals can crawl under it. (See Shabbat 97a.) Nevertheless ...

three handbreadths

Because of the principle of l’vud, it is considered as if they actually reach the ground.

See the accompanying diagram.

they are considered to be a viable partition. Therefore ...

We say גּוּד אַסִּיק מְחִיצְתָּא—“Pull up and raise the partition;” i.e., it is considered as if the partition has been extended upward and reaches the s’chach. See Sukkah 4b.

the walls

i.e., the s’chach, so that the s’chach covers them.
Furthermore, the walls may even be slightly removed from the s’chach. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 630:9.)

the s’chach

for then the distance is too great for the s’ chach to be considered the roof of these walls. In such an instance, not only is sitting under the open portion of no halachic import, the entire sukkah “is invalid. Nevertheless, a sukkah in which the distance is ...

because of the principle of l’vud. This concept . also applies when the walls are as high as the s’chach. Even though the walls extend beyond the s’chach the sukkah is kosher. Nevertheless, one should not sit under the open portion.

and thus, it is viewed as connected to the earth because of the principle of l’vud.

and thus, it is viewed as connected to the s’chach because of the principle of l’vud.

Sukkah l6b explains that even though we must rely on the principle of l’vud twice, the sukkah is still kosher.

This halachah does not deal with the problem of the branches and leaves of the trees interfering with the s’chach. That issue is dealt with in Chapter 5; Halachah 12. Rabbenu Manoach and others have also raised questions whether the s’chach should be supported by the trees. (See the commentary on the following halachah.)

the following two conditions are met

by nature

even if the wind is strong enough to uproot them, it should not cause them to sway back and forth

this-translation of the word רימא is taken from Isaiah 17:6.

weaving them together so that the wall would be a solid continuum (Sukkah 24b)

the hay and straw fillers

However, a sukkah’s inability to stand before a hurricane wind does not invalidate it.

in contrast to sea winds, which are more powerful (Sukkah 23a)

This law also has implications with regard to the Sabbath laws. (See Hilchot Shabbat 16:15, 24.)
Though a sukkah need be only a temporary dwelling, if it is constantly swaying back and forth in the wind it is not considered to be fit for human habitation at all. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 630:10) mentions the question of using sheets and other textiles as walls for the sukkah. However, most authorities permit the use of prefabricated sukkot with plastic or canvas walls, provided strong fabric is used for the walls and they are tied to the frame along their full height and length.

although the wagon moves and is not fixed in one place (Rashi, Sukkah 22b)

Sukkah 23a relates:
A person who constructs his sukkah on the deck of a ship: Rabban Gamliel deems it invalid; Rabbi Akiva deems it kosher.
Once Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva were traveling on a ship. Rabbi Akiva arose and constructed a sukkah on the ship’s deck. The next moming, the wind came and blew it over. Rabban Gamliel asked Rabbi Akiva: “Akiva, where is your Sukkah?”
As apparent from the narrative, such a sukkah need not be strong enough to withstand sea winds. However, even according to Rabbi Akiva, it must be strong enough to withstand normal land winds, as explained in the previous halachah.

i.e., on the first day of Sukkot in Eretz Yisrael and on the first and second days in the diaspora.

Sukkah 23a explains that Rabbi Yehudah objected to the use of such a sukkah, explaining that since it was not fit to be used on all seven days of the holiday (because of the prohibition against using it on the first day), it should not be used at all.
Our halachah follows Rabbi Meir’s opinion. He accepts Rabbi Yehudah’s motivating principle, but explains that in the case at hand, there is no inherent difficulty with using such a sukkah throughout the holiday. The only reason it is not used on the first day is an external factor—a Rabbinic decree—which should not affect the halachic status of the sukkah itself.

Surely, this prohibition also applies on the Sabbath.
From the Rambam’s words, it appears that the restriction applies when the floor of the sukkah is actually in the tree. ln contrast, Rashi (Shabbat 154b), Tosafot, Sukkah 22b and the Maggid Mishneh explain that even if the sukkah is on the ground and only the s’ chach is supported by the tree, it is forbidden to use such a sukkah on the festival, lest one place utensils on the s’chach, and thus make use of the tree.
The Magen Avraham (628:6) quotes this opinion, but states that at present it is no longer customary to place articles on the s’chach. Therefore, it is permitted to use such a sukkah. His opinion is quoted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 628:7, and the Mishnah Berurah 628:17, with one qualification. At the outset, it is desirable not to use an article as support for s’chach unless it is, itself, fit to be used as s’chach. Hence, since the trees themselves are not fit to be used as s’chach, they should not be used as its supports.

We cannot climb a tree lest we uproot [it]. We cannot ride an animal, lest we break off a branch to lead it.

The Rambam quotes this general principle from the Mishnah, Sukkah 23a. The Mishnah adds examples to express the concept more clearly:
Two [ walls] that were the result of human activity and one [ wall] from the tree, or two [walls] from the tree and one [wall] that is a result of human activity.

because a dwelling even of a temporary nature must have a roof.

Rashi (Sukkah 19b) explains that this is a reference to a hunter’s hut. See Diagram A;

See Diagtam B.

the sukkah

between the two walls, as depicted in Diagram C. As long as it has a roof at least a handbreadth wide, the remainder of the roof may be slanted.

So that handbreadth is considered to be a wall, as depicted in the diagram.

for the fact that the roof is slanted does not disqualify the sukkah.
The Kessef Mishneh, Rabbenu Manoach, and others explain that though leniency is taken and such a sukkah is allowed, it rnust still possess all the dirnensions required of a kosher sukkah rnentioned in Halachah 1 of this chapter. Accordingly, at least six handbreadths of the slanted roof rnust itself be kosher for use as s’chach, and it rnust be rnore than 16 handbreadths long, so that it will be of the required height. When the Sukkah rneets these qualifications, one is perrnitted to eat and sleep within it. (See also Rarnah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:10.)

Sukkah 7b records an opinion which disqualifies such a sukkah because it is not fit for use as a perrnanent dwelling. Nevertheless, the halachah does not follow this view.
On this basis, we can understand the placernent of this law. On the surface, it would be rnore appropriate to state this law as part of Halachah 1, which describes the dirnensions of a sukkah. However, the Rarnbarn structured the order of his halachot according to their rnotivating principles. Thus the first clause of the halachah describes the construction of a sukkah whose shape causes it to be deemed unacceptable even as a temporary dwelling. In contrast, this clause describes a sukkah whose shape is abnormal, but acceptable for temporary purposes.

A structure frequently employed in Roman architecture, and which was quite common in Jewish homes as well. A roof is placed between two walls, and within this roof a hollow place is left to allow sunlight to enter. Pillars are placed at each of the corners of the hole. The question is whether such a structure can serve as a sukkah if one placed s’chach over the hole.

At times these pillars were ornamented with artistic projections. See the diagrams below.

Because of the projections, the opening of the ceiling is considered to be a third wall extending over the. entire width of the exedrah and reaching the ground (Sukkah 18b) Thus, greater leniency is granted in this instance than in Halachah 3 of this chapter, where a partition four handbreadths in width is required.
Needless to say, as evident from Halachah 5:14, the walls of the exedrah cannot be more than four cubits removed from the s’chach.

of the Sukkah

See diagram B.

of the Sukkah

Because of the projections, the opening of the ceiling is considered to be the third wall reaching the ground.

the sukkah constructed in the exedrah

as explained in the previous halachah

which is described in Halachah 3.

Hence, the principle that the opening of the roof is considered to be a third wall, reaching to the ground, is not applied in this instance.

Hilchot Shabbat 17:2 states:
How is one permitted [to carry articles] in a closed alleyway?
One constructs a lechi (vertical pole) [at the entrance] to the fourth side or one
lays a beam (korah) across [the span of the fourth side].
Rabbenu Manoach explains that although the alleyway is closed on three sides, were it not for the special provisions mentioned in this halachah, it would not be acceptable, because in this instance the s’ chach is placed more than four cubits away from the end of the alleyway. Hence, generally, as explained in Chapter 5, Halachah 14, such a sukkah would not be acceptable.

Hilchot Shabbat 17:27 states:
When a total of eight pasim [partitions] are constructed around a well, two
connected to each other at each of its corners, they are considered to be walls.
Thus, even though on each side the open portion exceeds the closed, since
the four corners are closed, it is permitted to fill up water from the well and
to water an animal.
What is the height of each of these pasim? Ten handbreadths; their length must
be at least six handbreadths and between each pas, there should be ... no more
than thirteen and one third cubits.
Thus, there are no complete walls to this structure, and without the special provision granted by this halachah, it would not be acceptable.
Sukkah 7b explains that each of these situations- possesses an advantage over the other: The alley possesses an advantage in that it has two complete walls. In contrast, the well possesses an advantage in that it has partitions of some sort on each of its four sides. Hence, it is necessary to state both these laws, and neither could be derived from the other.

The Tzafenat Paneach explains this as applying only to the days which precede the Sabbath. However, once the sukkah is acceptable on the Sabbath, it is also deemed kosher for the remaining days of the festival. (This view is not accepted by other authorities.)

On the Sabbath, one is allowed to carry only within an enclosed domain. Since the situations mentioned in this halachah are not actual enclosures and achieve that status only because of a Rabbinic ordinance, the application of these principles is confined to the Sabbath itself. Thus, on the Sabbath ...

and the sukkah is considered to be enclosed by three walls as required. However, throughout the remainder of the holiday, when the Rabbinic ordinances are not in effect, they are not considered to be enclosed structures. Hence, they are not acceptable as a sukkah.
The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 630:7) quotes these laws as halachah. (Also see the Ramah’s notes.)

See the accompanying diagram.

Because of the principle of Gud Asik (“Pull up and raise the partition”—explained previously in note on Halacha 4)

Any open portion less than three handbreadths in length is considered to be closed, based on the principle of l›vud (Hilchot Shabbat 16:17). The Magen Avraham 630: 1 explains that regarding the laws of sukkah, this principle arplies only when one constructs four walls. However, if the sukkah has only three walls, the principle of l›vud cannot be applied, to consider spaces less than three handbreadths in length to be closed.

Sukkah 7a states:
[The laws governing] a wall of a sukkah resemble [those governing] the wall [ of
an enclosure] on the Sabbath ... There is an additional [stringency to the laws]
of the Sabbath that does not apply to a sukkah. On the Sabbath, [a wall] is
permitted only when the enclosed portion is greater than the open portion. This
does not apply to a sukkah.
The Rambam describes the laws governing a wall on the Sabbath as follows (Hilchot Shabbat 16:16):
Every wall whose open portion exceeds its enclosed portion is not considered
to be a wall. However, if the open portion is equal to the closed portion, it is
permitted, provided that none of the open portions exceeds ten cubits.
Based on the above, the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh explain that just as concerning the laws of the Sabbath, the closed portion of a wall must exceed its open portion, so, too, concerning two of the walls of the sukkah. The leniency allowing a wall of the sukkah to be counted as a wall even though the open portion exceeds the closed portion applies only concerning the third wall. Just as other leniencies (see Halachot 2 and 3) are granted concerning the third wall, this leniency is also allowed.
Others explain that the intent is that even when the open portion of all four walls exceeds the closed portion, the sukkah is kosher, while on the Sabbath such an enclosure is not acceptable. This interpretation of the Talmud’s statements is advanced by Rabbenu Asher and is quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 630:5.

Hilchot Shabbat (ibid.) states:
If the open portion is constructed in the form of an entrance, even if it is more
than ten cubits long it does not negate the wall, provided the open portion does
not exceed the closed portion.
However, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 362:10, 630:5) follows the opinion of Tosafot and other authorities, who are willing to accept a wall as kosher even though it has a wide opening, provided it is constructed in the form of an entrance.
The Sefer Hashlamah presents a third view, accepting an open portion more than ten cubits long in the form of an entrance as part of the wall of a sukkah, but not concerning the laws of the Sabbath.
The Ramah concludes his discussion of this halachah by stating that since these laws are somewhat complicated, it has become customary to build whole walls without any open portions. If one has only a minimum amount of wood, it is preferable to build three complete walls, rather than to construct four walls leaving open spaces.

the space between the ground and the s’chach.

as stated in Halachah 1. lndeed, the question may be raised: Why did the Rambam state these two halachot so far removed from each other?

the sukkah’s inner space

For these are merely temporary additions that will later be removed.

The Maggid Mishneh interprets “permanent” literally. However, the Mishnah Berurah 633: 11 explains that according to one opinion, the definition of “permanence” is for the duration of the Sukkot holiday. (See also Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 358:2.)

Most people would not consider leaving these articles in the sukkah permanently. Accordingly, a particular individual’s desire to do so is not taken into consideration, and the space is not considered to be reduced (Sukkah 4a).

However, if one laid straw on the floor of the sukkah without having such an intention, the space is not considered to be reduced (ibid.). ln his commentary on Ohalot 15:6, the Rambam writes: “In general, one will have in mind to remove straw.”
The Mishnah Berurah 633:13 emphasizes that one should not reduce the space of the sukkah on the first day of the festival because of the holiday prohibitions. (See also Rabbenu Manoach.)

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 633:4) quotes these decisions as halachah and adds that one must verbally express the desire to make the earth or straw part of the sukkah. The Mishnah Berurah (ibid.) states that many later authorities considered an unspoken intention as sufficient.

and, therefore, unacceptable

this is the minimum measure required by the Mishnah (Sukkah 1:1) for s›chach to be kosher.

i.e., were the upper portion of the s’ chach to be removed, the branches which hang down would create sufficient shade

I.e., the s’chach is considered to begin at the low branches and to have been piled high.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 663:2) quotes this law as halachah.

i.e. platform, inside the sukkah

And there are fewer than twenty cubits between the surface of the bench and the s’chach.

as in Halachah l above. See Diagram A.

Rashi (Sukkah 4a) maintains that not only the area above the bench, but the entire sukkah is kosher, as evident from the last clause of Halachah 3. Though Rabbenu Nissim and other authorities maintain that only the area above the bench may be used as a sukkah, the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 633:5) accepts Rashi’s view.

Because the area around the bench is surrounded by only two walls.

because of the principle explained in the latter clause. In this instance as well, there is a disagreement between the Rabbis whether the entire sukkah is kosher or only the area above the bench. The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 633:6) follows the view that only the area above the bench is acceptable for use as a sukkah. See Diagram B.

that wall is too far removed from the bench to be considered to be a wall around it. Hence,

the sukkah in its totality, even the area above the bench ...

for in this instance, the sukkah must have four walls.

between the bench and the walls ofthe sukkah ...

I.e., the area from the bench to the wall is considered to be an extension of the wall. Thus, this halachah is the converse of the principle of דֹּפֶן עֲקוּמָה (Dofen Akumah—literally, a crooked wall) mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 14.

as required in Halacb.ah 1, the area above the bench is considered as having four walls and kosher s’chach.

ten handbreadths or more high, because otherwise, the pillar could never be considered to be a significant domain (Maggid Mishneh).

removed four cubits or more from the walls. (Otherwise, it would be considered to be kosher because of the principles mentioned above.)

seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths

Sukkah 4b explains that Abbaye desires to consider such a sukkah to be kosher, based on the principle of גוד אסיק מחיצתא mentioned in Halachah 11—i.e., the walls of the pillar would be considered as extending upward until the s’chach. Ravva answered him that, in this instance, that principle cannot be applied ...

See the Chiddushim of Rav Chayim Soloveichik, Halachah 11.

the minimum height required by Halachah l.

a pit at least seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths (Rabbenu Manoach, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 633:10) with ...

between it and the s’chach.

One might assume that as long as there are less than four cubits between the edge of the pit and the sukkah, the sukkah would be kosher, because of the principle mentioned in the previous halachah; i.e., the ground of the sukkah would be considered to be an extension of the wall. Nevertheless, Sukkah 4a differentiates between the two cases. ln the si~uation described in the previous halachah, the wall was of the proper size; the only question was its proximity to the sukkah. In this instance, there is no halachically acceptable wall to begin with.

The Mishnah Berurah 633:29 quotes authorities who maintain that only the area within the pit is kosher, and one does not fulfill the mitzvah of eating or sleeping in the sukkah by performing these activities in the portion covered by the s’ chach outside the pit.

14:7, which explains the principle of l’vud mentioned above.

The Mishnah (Sukkah 12b) mentions many substances which are not acceptable as s’chach (as mentioned in the following chapter), and concludes “all are fit to be used as walls.”

The Ramah ( Orach Chayim 630: l) explains that one c;hould take care not to use substances that have an unpleasant odor or substances that will shrivel during the holiday, and thus cause the walls to be less than the required measure.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 630:11) states that an animal used for this purpose must be tied so that it will not run away.

The Tzafnat Paneach raises the question whether the person serving as the wall can also fulfill the mitzvah of eating in such a sukkah. He quotes a number of passages from which one might infer that he may.

The latter term refers to the first day of Sukkot—and in the Diaspora, the second day—and the day of Shemini Atzeret, when the laws prohibiting work and the Rabbinic ordinances extending those restrictions must be observed.

The Ra’avad and the Maggid Mishneh explain that this refers only to the third wall of the sukkah. If a sukkah has three kosher walls, a person may employ a colleague to serve as the

Although it is forbidden to create an enclosure on the Sabbath, since the person serving as the barrier is unaware of what he is doing, no transgression is involved.

with the exception of the Sabbath; i.e., there is no essential difficulty with the use of such a sukkah, the., only problem is the Rabbinic prohibition mentioned above.

Since a sukkah is kosher when it possesses only three walls, the addition of the fourth wall is not halachically significant.

It is permitted to create a utensil from human beings, because one does not normally create an enclosure in such a manner. In contrast, an enclosure is frequently made from utensils (Rabbenu Manoach).

Some of the requirements mentioned by the Rambam were established by Torah law, while others are Rabbinic ordinances, as explained below.

i.e., is an agricultural product and is neither found naturally—e.g., metals—nor produced from animals nor manufactured synthetically;

and is not still connected to its source of nurture;

This excludes articles used as food and those that have been fashioned into utensils.

As implied by the following halachah, this and the following clause are Rabbinic decrees. S’chach with an unpleasant odor will not create an inviting holiday environment. Indeed, substances with an unpleasant odor should not be used for the sukkah’s walls either.

For a person will not be pleased to have portions of the s’chach falling into his food. The Mishnah Berurah 629:39 states that the prohibition applies to elements that fall off naturally. However, if they fall off only when subjected to wind, there is no difficulty in using them.

for these requirements stem from the Torah itself. The particular aspects of these requirements are described in this and the following halachot.

Sukkah 13a gives the shrub known as hollow as an example of such a substance.

Sukkah 12b gives the plant known as wormwood as an example of such a substance.

For these are only Rabbinic requirements.

Sukkah 13a

the minimum height for a sukkah prescribed in Chapter 3, Halachah..

Sukkah 4a describes this as “a disgusting dwelling, unfit for human habitation.”

The Rambam’s phraseology leaves room for the interpretation that this is a suggestion, but not an absolute requirement. (See Rabbenu Manoach.) Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 633:9) states that such a sukkah is unacceptable for use.

even if they have not been made into utensils, but are still in a raw state in which they are unfit to contract ritual impurity;

Even if they are still in a raw state in which they are unfit to contract ritual impurity.

The laws governing the use of such plants as s’chach after they have been hung over the sukkah and then detached from the ground are discussed in Halachah 12.

In particular, this refers to wooden utensils that have a receptacle or are wide and other articles are frequently placed upon them—e.g., a table. However, wooden utensils that do not fall into these categories are not subject to contracting ritual impurity, and, hence, may be used for s’chach. An example of such utensil is a ladder. The Rambam (Hilchot Keilim 4:1) declares that a ladder is not subject to contracting ritual impurity. Hence, according to his opinion, there is no difficulty with using it as s’chach.
(lt must be emphasized that other authorities question the Rambam’s decision on a ladder and maintain that a ladder may be subject to contracting ritual impurity. Hence, it is preferable not to use it as s’chach. See the Shulchan Aruch and Ramah, Orach Chayim 629:7.)

However, mats that were made for use as s’chach or for shade may be used as s’chach. Halachah 6 discusses the laws which apply when a mat was made without any specific intention.

e.g., utensils with holes of sufficient size to render them no longer subject to contracting ritual impurity. (See Hilchot Keilim, Chapter 6.)

e.g., garments that have worn out and are less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths in size and, hence, are no longer subject to contracting ritual impurity (Sukkah 16a; Hilchot Keilim 22:21).

This is a Rabbinic decree on the basis of the following rationale ...

previously,

I.e., when a utensil is broken and no longer fit to be used for its initial purpose, it is no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. At times, however, a utensil may be only partially broken and a question exist whether it is susceptible to ritual impurity or not.

This refers only to foods for humans. Food which is eaten primarily by animals is not subject to contracting ritual impurity (Hilchot Tum’at Ochlin 1:1) and hence may be used as s’chach (Taz 629:12).

There is a slight imprecision in the Rambam’s statements. Produce is not subject to contracting ritual impurity until it comes into contact with liquid. (See Leviticus 11:38; Hilchot Tum’at Ochlin 1:1-2.) Nevertheless, foods are not fit to be used as s’chach even though they have never come into contact with water (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:1; Mishnah Berurah 629:28).

I.e., the difficulty being that although the branches are proper s’chach, the fruit is unfit to be used for that purpose.

i.e. branches and leaves

i.e.fruit

Rabbenu Manoach explains that these decisions are based on the principle that according to Torah law, mixtures are categorized according to the majority לטנ(. )ברב
On the basis of Sukkah 13b-14a, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:10) explains that sometimes the stems of the fruit are considered part of the fruit, and on other occasions part of the branches. The Magen Avraham 629:12 explains that generally, a ste1h is not considered to be longer than three handbreadths. However, there are certain instances (e.g., grains) when a longer measure is considered. Hence, it is proper to be stringent in this regard. (See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:15-16.)
The apparent contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 13 is discussed in the commentary on that halachah.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that this refers to vegetables that are used as animal food, and hence were not excluded by the previous clau~ of this halachah. Rabbenu Manoach and the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 629: 12) explain that this refers to vegetables that are eaten by humans. Sukkah 13b appears to support the latter interpretation, stating:
The vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation on Pesach ... [can] invalidate a sukkah, [because they are considered] to be vacant space.

i.e., the vegetables will dry up and wither during the Sukkot festival, leaving the sukkah with more vacant space than shade (Kessef Mishneh).

According to the Maggid Mishneh’s interpretation, the explanation of the law is straightforward. It teaches us that rather than consider the vegetables to be non-kosher s’chach, we consider their space to be vacant. The latter interpretation requires a slightly more intricate explanation. The vegetables are not considered to be non-kosher s’chach, which would invalidate the sukkah if they take up four handbreadths, as explained in Halachah 14. Rather, their space is considered to be empty. Hence, a space of three handbreadths is sufficient to invalidate the sukkah, as explained in Halachah 20.

The use of the word עץ, rendered as branches or wood, with regard to flax, has its source in Joshua 2:6, which describes how Rachav “hid them in branches of flax.”

The Rishon Letzion questions the law when the flax has been crushed but not combed, and concludes that as long as it has not been combed, it is acceptable. Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:5 does not accept this conclusion.

Though it is not considered to be a garment and, hence, is not subject to contracting ritual impurity (Maggid Mishneh; see also Shabbat 27b ), it may nevertheless not be used as s’chach...

The Ra›avad disagrees with this principle and states that even before it is woven into a garment, flax is useful to stuff pillows and covers. Hence, it is subject to contracting ritual impurity and is thus unfit to be used as s’chach.
The Maggid Mishneh points out a contradiction to the Ra’avad’s logic. The “male arrows” mentioned in the following halachah are—like flax—prepared to be used for a purpose. Nevertheless, they are considered acceptable for use as s’chach.
Rav Kapach mentions two possible extensions of the difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Ra’avad: a) paper or carton—According to the Rambam, it may not be used because it no longer resembles a plant produced from the earth. According to the Ra’avad, it might be acceptable, since it is not subject to contracting ritual impurity. b) cotton wool—It may be used for the purposes mentioned by the Ra’avad and thus, according to his opinion, would be subject to contracting ritual impurity. Nevertheless, its natural form is preserved. Hence, according to the Rambam’s opinion, it would be acceptable. (It must be noted that the Magen Avraham 629:3 and Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:5 maintain that after cotton has been combed, it is considered as though its form has been altered.)

Nor are they susceptible to ritual impurity.

The question whether the arrows are acceptable as s’chach or not revolves around their susceptibility to contracting ritual impurity.

i.e., the end of their body is sharpened and comes to a point, which is intended to be put inside a metal arrowhead.

for the arrow itself is considered a simple wooden utensil which is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. (See Hilchot Keilim 1: 10.)
The Magen Avraham 629:.2 states that this decision applies only before these arrows were placed in the arrowhead. If they have been placed in the arrowhead, even if subsequently removed they are no longer acceptable as s’chach.

i.e., the end of their body is hollowed out for the arrowhead to be inserted within

Since the end of the arrow is hollowed out for the arrowhead to be inserted, they have usage as a receptacle, and are susceptible to ritual impurity.

Hilchot Keilim 2:3 states: “A receptacle which is made to be filled is not considered a receptacle.” Thus, one might assume that these arrows would also not be considered as having a receptacle. The Pri Ha’aretz explains that since the iron arrowheads are often removed from these bodies, it is considered as though...

It must be noted that Rashi and other commentators follow the simple interpretation of Sukkah 12b (the source for this law) and disagree with the Rambam’s decision in Hilchot Keilim. They maintain that if a utensil has a receptacle, even if it will be permanently filled, it is subject to contracting ritual impurity.

The conimentaries note an apparent contradiction in the Rambam’s words. Hilchot Keilim 25:13 states that even a small mat of reeds or hemp is not subject to contracting ritual impurity, because it is uncomfortable to lie on.

Since the mat was made with that specific intention, we do not follow the general principles, but rather judge it individually.

1he Rambam’s statements are based on Sukkah 20a. It must be noted that his decisions are dependent on the version of the text of the Talmud he accepted. The Ra’avad and others interpret the word גדולה as related to the word גדיל (tassel). Thus, they explain that the Talmud is referring to a small mat. However, because it is made of thick tassels, rather than woven, it is not comfortable to lie on, and hence would most likely be used for shade. According to this opinion, any woven mat, even if it is large, is unfit to be used as s’chach. The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 629:6) quotes the Rambam’s interpretation.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim, ibid.) mentions that in places where it is customary to affix mats permanently as the roofs for homes, they may not be used for s’chach. The Rabbis instituted this decree lest people remain in their homes on Sukkot without differentiating between them and a sukkah.

i.e. a frame

Tosafot, Sukkah 20b quotes Ketubot 50b, which explains that such mats were used to collect dates.

which, as explained in Halachah 2, may not be used as s’chach even though they are not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity.

In many places throughout the Talmud, four handbreadths is established as the minimum size of an area. Hence, a board of that size is considered significant and may not be used as s’chach (Sukkah 14a).

smooth, and thus are fit to be used in their present state (Sukkah 15a; Rabberiu Manoach).

A person might think: “What is the difference between the sukkah and my house—they are both covered with boards?” This is surely a false assumption. As explained in the following halachah, since the boards of a roof were not placed there for the purpose of shade, but rather to be part of the permanent structure ofthe.house, they cannot be considered to be s’chach (Sukkah 14a; Rabbenu Manoach).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this law applies only when the sukkah already possesses its minimum size without the board. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:1.

According to the Maggid Mishneh, because it is part of the wall; according to the Kessef Mishneh, because it appears to be a separate domain.

or fulfilled any other of the activities which must be performed in the sukkah

Sukkah 14b explains th, after the Sages forbade the use of such boards, they are considered to be equivalent t iron poles.
The Magen Avraham 629:22 writes that at present it is customary not to use boarc as s’chach, even if they are less than four handbreadths wide. However, if there is no other s’chach available, one may use boards for that purpose even if the are more than four handbreadths wide.

as required by the following halachah

performed two activities:

from their place. (Though the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:9 does not mention this requirement, the Mishnah Berurah 631:4 does.)

holding the boards in position. (See the Rambam commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:7.) Through these actions, one is considered to have nullified the previous placement of the boards, and it is considered as though they have been placed there ...

Therefore

for the boards are essentially fit to be used as s’chach. The only difficulty was the intention with which they were originally placed. A change of mind without an act is not sufficient, since, as explained in the commentary, on the following halachah, we are required to “make” a sukkah and not use one which has already been made.

as explained in the previous halachah. Rabbenu Asher states that in such a situation, the sukkah is acceptable even though the boards are more than four handbreadths wide.
He explains that in the previous instance, the reason the Sages forbade using such boards was to differentiate between them and the boards of a house. In the present instance, the fact that the person took apart the roof of his house obviously implies that he realizes that it may not be used as a sukkah. Hence, there is no need for such a decree. This opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, ibid.

The Magen Avraham 631:8 explains that in this instance, even the Rambam would allow the boards that remain to be more than four handbreadths in width. The requirement of placing kosher s’chach obviously implies that the use of the boards of a roof as s’chach is unacceptable. However, many other authorities do not accept this interpretation of the Rambam’s position.

Sukkah 8b quotes a baraita which contains the latter statement and questions: “What does ‘according to law’ mean? ... That it was made for the purpose of shade.”
It appears that the Rambam uses the same expression, but with different implications. Since he explicitly states that the sukkah must be constructed for the purpose of shade, one might infer that the expression “according to law” is intended to include other concepts. Thus, it can be a reference to the requirements for a sukkah’s size and the nature of the materials used for the s’chach, as mentioned in this and the previous chapter.

The Mishnah, Sukkah 1:1, states: An old sukkah: The School of Shammai deems it unacceptable, while the School of Hillel rules it kosher.
The commentaries explain that the term “an old sukkah” refers to any sukkah that was constructed for purposes other than the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
In its discussion of this law, the Jerusalem Talmud requires that one must make an addition or change to the s’chach. Though that decision is not quoted by the Rambam, Rabbenu Asher mentions it and it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 636:1). Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham 636:1 explains that this is a desirable and proper step, but the sukkah is acceptable even though no changes have been made.

Isaiah 4:6 states: “lt shall be a sukkah for shade from the heat...” thus defining the purpose of such a structure. A sukkah constructed for the purposes of modesty is not acceptable (Rabbenu Manoach).

which are outside the entire framework of mitzvot. Sukkah 8b also mentions the sukkot made for shepherds and watchmen. Though the latter are obligated to keep the mitzvah of sukkah, they did not necessarily construct their sukkot with that intent in mind.

E.g., branches fell over a frame.

Sukkot 12a explains that there is an added factor involved in this example. Deuteronomy 16:13 states: “Make a [celebration of] the Sukkot holiday for seven days.” This refers to the construction of the sukkah and teaches that we must “make” a sukkah and not use what was already made. Therefore, despite the fact that the person hollowed out the space for the purpose of shade, the sukkah is not acceptable, because the produce was not originally placed there for that purpose.
We find a similar principle concerning tzitzit. Deuteronomy 22:12 states: “Make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garments.” On the basis of this command, Menachot 40b teaches that it is unacceptable to tie tzitzit to a three-cornered garment and then cut a fourth corner, since we are required to make tzitzit, and not use what is already made.

The Ba’al Hamaor writes that if, originally, a person were to pile produce with the intention that later he would hollow out a sukkah, the sukkah would be acceptable. However, this opinion is not accepted by other authorities.

We find the measure of one handbreadth considered to define a structure with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Accordingly, it is given significance in this context as well. (See Sukkah 16a.)

by seven handbreadths

i.e. for shade

the minimum height of a sukkah, as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

and then, the original structure was merely expanded.

Although, according to the Torah’s requirements, these would be considered proper s’chach ...

by the Sages (Sukkah 12a) ...

which is unacceptable; as explained in the previous halachah.

placed bundles of these substances on a roof with the intent that they woulc be used as s’chach and ...

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 629: 17) explains that a different rule applies if the bundles were originally placed on the roof to dry out. For them to be acceptable as s’chach, untying them alone is insufficient, and one must also shift the position of their contents.

Thus, any lesser amount of these substances are acceptable as s’chach even though they are tied together.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the reason for the addition of the adjective, noting that if the bundles contain fewer than twenty five units, they are permitted, as stated in the previous halachah. Others mention that this refers to bundles of small branches.

to be untied immediately thereafter (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:16).

Sukkah 13b relates that bundles of this nature were frequently used in Sura, and that the Sages permitted them to be used as s’chach.

The Ba’al Hamaor questions whether this principle applies only with regard to s’chach, where it is logical to assume that a more lenient position would be taken, since the entire question revolves around a Rabbinic decree, or whether it also applies in all cases where Torah law itself requires a bundle.

However, if one were to add even one branch and then tie them together, it would be considered to be a bundle (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:15).

Sukkah 13b mentions this principle when explaining why bundles of willows whose upper tie was loosened could be used as s’chach.

and the sukkah is unacceptable. This applies only when the shade the tree produces exceeds the open area. However, if there is more open space under the tree than shade, the sukkah may be kosher.
The determination of whether such a sukkah is kosher depends on a number of principles, based on the interpretation of Sukkah 9b and l la. The Rambam’s interpretation of that passage, and thus the ground rules he · establishes, differ from those accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 626:1-2).
In the following halachah, the Rambam deals with the resolution of the question when no effort has been made to correct the problem of the non-kosher ‘s’chach. As will be explained, there his interpretation is contested by other authorities. ln this halachah, the Rambam describes the rulings which govern the situatiori when an effort has been made to rectify the situation by detaching the branches from their source of-nurture. These are based on the Mishnah, Sukkah 11a, and are also accepted by other Rabbinic authorities. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 626:2.)

As mentioned in Halachot 1 and 2, branches are fit to be used for s’chach only after they have been detached from their source of nurture.

Though at present, the branches would be acceptable as s’chach, as explained in the commentary on Halachah 9, the Torah requires that when s’chach is originally put in place, it must be kosher. Otherwise, it is unacceptable even though steps were taken to correct the disqualifying factors. This is based on the principle that one must make a sukkah and not use one which is already made.
Nevertheless, since the prohibition against using these branches as s’chach does not relate to their essential nature, their presence may be nullified when there is a majority of kosher s’chach. This conforms to the principle of לרזפיב. ברב

the presence of the branches remains halachically significant. Hence,...

I.e., each of the branches individually (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.).

Moving the branches negates their previous placement, and afterwards they are considered to be kosher s’chach, which was put in place for the purpose of creating a sukkah.

This may refer to a substance like metal, which is unfit for use as s’chach because it does not grow in the earth, or branches of a tree which have not been detached from their source of nurture.

The presence of the substance which is not acceptable as s’chach is not nullified according to the principles of ביטול ברב, because it exists as a separate entity which can be distinguished from the kosher s’chach.
Rav Avraham, the Rambam’s son, notes the apparent contradiction between this decision and Halachah 3, which states:
[When one uses] branches from a fig tree which contain figs, ... We see if the waste is more than the food; then we may use them as s’chach.
That halachah also mentions kosher s’chach—the branches—and substances which are not acceptable as s’chach—the figs. However, if there is a greater quantity of branches, the presence of the figs is nullified. ln contrast, in this halachah, that concept is not applied.
Rav Avraham distinguishes between the two. In Halachah 3, the person does not intend to use the fruit for the purpose of shade; he merely wants to save the effort of removing it from the branches. Therefore, their presence may be nullified. In contrast, in this halachah the substances which are not acceptable as s’chach are being employed for the purpose of shade itself. Hence, their presence cannot be nullified.

As mentioned above, this decision depends on the Rambam’s interpretation of Sukkah 9b. That passage reads:
A person who constructs his sukkah under a tree is considered as though he built it within his home...
Ravva said: “The above applies only to a tree whose shade is greater than its open space. However, if its open space is greater than its shade, it is kosher. What difference does it make if its open space is greater than its shade, the substance not acceptable as s’chach will be combined with the kosher s’chach [and therefore, the sukkah will not be acceptable]?
Rav Pappa said: בשחבטן.
The Maggid Mishneh, the Ra’avad, and Rabbenu Manoach explain that the Rambam renders בשחבטן as “when he separated them.” Thus, when the two substances were combined, the Rambam’s opinion would be that the sukkah is not kosher, as explained in this clause of the halachah. When they are separate, the sukkah may be kosher according to the stipulations mentioned in the following clause of this halachah and the halachot to come.
(The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam renders בשחבטן as “when he severed them.” However, that difference in interpretation does not result in a difference in halachah.)
Rashi and others interpret בשחבטן as “when he lowered them (and mixed them together with the kosher s’chach).” Thus, according to this opinion, the sukkah is acceptable when the kosher and non-kosher s’chach are mixed together. Thus, this view is diametrically opposed to the ‘Rambam’s, who maintains that such a mixture is of no avail.
As noted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 626:1), there are two ways of understanding this interpretation of the passage. However, since both of them are not acceptable to the Rambam, their explanation will not be included here.

When there is a majority of kosher s’chach, it is judged to be an independent entity. When there is a sufficient amount of kosher s’chach, the sukkah is kosher unless the substance that is not acceptable as s’chach is placed in a manner which can disqualify the entire sukkah, as is explained in this and the following three halachot.

The principle of l’vud, by which this substance could be considered to be a continuation of the kosher s’chach, cannot apply. However, if there is less than three handbreadths of the substance that is not acceptable as s’ chach in one place, even though there are a number of such patches among the s’chach, the sukkah is kosher, as stated in Halachah 16. Furthermore, one may eat and sleep under the non-kosher s’chach (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632: 1).

the substance which is not acceptable as s’chach is placed ...

The principle of l’vud, by which this substance could be considered to be a continuation of the kosher s’chach, cannot apply. However, if there are less than three handbreadths of the substance that is not acceptable as s’chach in one place, even though there are a number of such patches among the s’chach, the sukkah is kosher as long as the majority of the s’chach is kosher, as stated in Halachah 16.

See the commentary on both the previous and following halachot.

which possesses a minimal amount of kosher s’chach, more lenient rules apply ...

across the entire span of the sukkah, dividing the sukkah in half, it is considered to be significant (Rashi, Sukkah 17a), and hence the sukkah is disqualified.
The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:2) emphasizes that even where the non-kosher s’chach is of this size, if the sukkah possesses seven cubits by seven cubits of kosher s’chach in one place, that portion may be considered to be a kosher sukkah and used during the holiday.

the division is not as noticeable. Hence,

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 632:1) states that one may eat and sleep throughout the entire sukkah. However, the Ra’avad and Rabbenu Nissim do not accept this leniency, and the Mishnah Berurah (632:3) advises following this stringency.

Four cubits or more exceeds the measure of leniency provided by the Torah.

On the basis of the principle of דֹּפֶן עֲקֻמָּה explained below.

This and the following examples are given by the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:10.

note the drawing accompanying Chapter 4, Halachah 8.

Sukkah 17a explains that one might not necessarily have been able to deduce this example from the previous one, because in that instance the walls of the house were constructed for it. In contrast, the walls of the excedrah were not constructed for its sake, but for the houses on either side.

Sukkah 17a explains that one might not necessarily have been able to deduce this example from the previous ones, because in those instances only kosher s’chach was placed over the opening of those structures. ln this instance, a substance that is not acceptable as s’chach was placed on the roof intentionally.

Rabbenu Nissim states that this law applies only when the walls reach all the way to the s’chach. Otherwise, it is impossible to consider the non-kosher s’chach to be an extension of the walls. · The Tur and the Taz quote more lenient positions and allow such a sukkah, even though the walls do not reach the s’chach.

Though the sukkah as a whole is kosher, one may not eat or sleep under the non-kosher s’chach if it is four handbreadths or more in size (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). The rationale behind this decision is that the non-kosher s’chach is considered to be part of the wall and not part of the s’chach.

The latter term refers to a law that was transferred from generation to generation reaching back to Mount Sinai. Nevertheless, there is no mention of—or even direct allusion to—it in the written Torah.

referred to in the previous two halachot and in Halachah 20

As explained above, if there are three handbreadths or more of non-kosher s’chach in one place, the principle of l’vud cannot apply. Hence, the sukkah is not kosher, because it lacks .the minimum amount of s’chach (Sukkah 17a). However, if there is less than that amoant of non-kosher s’chach, the non-kosher s’chach is included as part of the sukkah and is counted as part of its minimum size (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.).

Since it· is of sufficient size, it will be disqualified only when it is divided in half by a significant portion of non-kosher s’chach, or when it is too far, i.e., more than four cubits, removed from the walls.

so that even in a small sukkah, all the conditions mentioned in the above halachot are met, there is a further requirement before the sukkah is considered kosher.

This concept can be derived from the Mishnah (Sukkah 1:8): “If someone places iron staves or the frames of a bed as the roof of his sukkah, it is kosher, provided there is an equivalent amount of empty space”
In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam emphasizes that the word “equivalent” should be interpreted loosely, since there must be more kosher s’chach than the non-kosher s’chach.

This decision has raised questions from all authorities. Though the Rambam’s decision is based on Sukkah 15a, Eruvin 15b states that a divider whose open portion is as great as its closed portion is considered to be a divider. Indeed, the Rambam himself quotes that decision in Hilchot Shabbat 16:16. If so, why does he not follow the same principle in this instance as well?
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s decision is based on the fact that there is no way that there will not be some tiny open spaces within the kosher s’chach of a sukkah. Accordingly, even if the kosher s’chach is equal in area to the non-kosher s’chach, the tiny spaces between the kosher s’chach will tip the balance in favor of the non-kosher s’chach.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:8 quotes the Rambam’s decision as halachah, but adds as a reason (a quote from Rabbenu Tam’s text of Sukkah 15b): “for it is impossible to be exact.” This implies that were it possible to know that the kosher s’chach is exactly equal to the non-kosher s’chach, it would be acceptable. See also commentary to Halachah 19.

in a small sukkah, or four handbreadths in a large sukkah.

The Tzafnat Paneach questions the phraseology used and renders the latter phrase as “the non-kosher s’chach is considered as an open area;” i.e., as an entity by nature unfit for a sukkah and not as mere empty space. Note Halachah 20, which differentiates between the two and states that the measure of open space which disqualifies a sukkah is less than that of non-kosher s’chach.

for added shade (Sukkah 1:3)

the bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s commentary on that Mishnah.

The cloth nullifies the presence of the kosher s’chach above or below it.
(Tosafot explains that as long as the sukkah has sufficient s’chach without the cloth, the cloth will not necessarily nullify the presence of the kosher s’chach. However, the majority of the halachic authorities and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:19 do not accept this view.)
However, once the cloth is lifted away, the kosher s’chach is acceptable without any further activity. (See Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 626:3.) Thus, a roof can be constructed to protect a sukkah from rain, provided it is removed while the sukkah is being used .

For a decoration is considered to be an extension of the article it adorns.

Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes how the s’chach should be set in place before the decorations. Otherwise, they could be considered as intervening substances.

Sukkah 10a describes the decoration of a sukkah with tapestries, nuts, pomegranates, grapes, and flasks of wine, oil, and flour.

and one is permitted to eat and sleep under the decorations.

I.e., if the inner space of the sukkah is more than twenty cubits high and the sukkah is therefore not acceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 1), the presence of the decorations is not considered significant to reduce that space to the legal requirements.

Thus, the sukkah must have a full seven by seven handbreadths of open space besides them.

as mentioned frequently above, four handbreadths constitutes a significant space

they are considered to be non-kosher s’chach, and if they are of the size mentioned in Halachot 13 and 14 ...

See Chapter 5, Halachot 1 and 2.
The Taz (627:5) cautions against hanging any decorations more than four handbreadths away from the s’chach regardless of how small they are.

and of course, if it is more than

Although the sukkah should be acceptable as long as the covered portion is equal to the open portion, in this situation ...

Sukkah 22b explains that light spreads out. Accordingly, even though on the roof the portion covered by s’chach is equal to the uncovered portion, on the ground the area exposed to the sun will be greater than the shaded area. See also the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:1.

As mentioned in Halachah 9, a sukkah must be constructed for the purpose of shade. If the portion exposed to the sun is greater than the shaded portion, it obviously does not serve that purpose.

On the surface, the Rambam’s choice of phraseology is slightly inexact, because everything depends on the amount of shade on the ground.

To disqualify the sukkah, the empty space must extend across the entire span of the sukkah or create a place large enough for a person to stand in (Tosafot, Sukkah 17a; Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:2).
Furthermore, if the sukkah area is more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths in addition to the open space, the remaining covered area of the sukkah is kosher.

Any space less than three handbreadths can be considered to be part of the s’chach on the basis of the principle of l’vud.

i.e., an empty space cutting the sukkah in two

I.e., an empty space cutting the sukkah in two, or an empty space that runs from one corner of the sukkah to the other.

Non-kosher s’chach and open space are two different halachic categories. They have different measures with which they each disqualify a sukkah, and combinations of the two are not considered to be a single entity. Thus, if there is an open space three and a half handbreadths wide, one may correct the sukkah by putting one handbreadth of non-kosher s’chach in its place. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:3.)

The terms “large” and “small” are explained in Halachot 13-15.

because the sukkah has less than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths of kosher s’chach.

I.e., there are two portions of the sukkah, one which is mostly shaded and one which is mostly exposed to the sun.

when the sukkah is taken...

and one may eat and sleep in the part of the sukkah where the portion exposed to the sun exceeds the shaded portion (Magen Avraham 631:1). The Ramah quotes a more stringent opinion which forbids using the portion with more sun if it is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths in area.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (631:5) uses the expression לכתחילה—i.e., one should set out to construct a sukkah in this manner.

From the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 2:3, the source for this statement, it appears that the expression “large stars” means stars large enough to be seen during the day.

The latter expression is quoted from the Mishnah, Sukkah 2:2.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (631:5) uses the expression בדיעבד (after the fact), implying that it is not desirable to construct a sukkah in this manner. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berurah (631:5) quotes many Ashkenazic authorities who tend toward making the s’chach thick.
The above applies only with regard to placing the s’chach. However, afterwards, even when the s’chach is thick, a person should have no compunctions about using such a sukkah.
Though thick s’chach is kosher, the Magen Avraham 631:2 notes that if it is so thick that rain will not enter the sukkah, the sukkah is unacceptable, because then it resembles a house and not a temporary dwelling made for shade.

Sukkah 22a questions: “What is the meaning of the word מדובללת used by the Mishnah?” Shmuel (whom the halachah follows) replies: “One reed going upward and one reed going downward.”

Even though there will gaps in the s’chach and during certain times of the day, when the sun shines at an angle, the portion of the sukkah exposed to the sun will exceed the shaded portion (Ramah, Orach Chayim 631:5).

As explained previously, any distance less than three handbreadths is not significant because of the principle of l’vud.

by a handbreadth, the minimum size of a roof. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 7.)

This principle, referred to by Sukkah 22a as ימר זפובח—literally, “cast it down”—is one of the leniencies followed as a halachah received from Moses on Mount Sinai. lt allows this uneven roof to be considered to be a single straight entity. The same principle is also applied in Hilchot Shabbat 15:25 and Hilchot Tum’at Meit 16:5.

i.e., that the upper portion could be lowered into the space left open by the lower portion. However, if it would not fit exactly in between the spaces, this principle does not apply (Kessef Mishneh). The Lechem Mishneh, noting the Rambam’s decision in Hilchot Shabbat, explains that even if the lower space is wider than the upper portion, as long as they do not overlap, it is acceptable.
The Merchevat Hamishneh explains that the law differs, here from Hilchot Shabbat, because there is a principle that two halachot received from Moses on Mount Sinai cannot be used simultaneously to have a sukkah considered to be kosher.
In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 631:5), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the opinion he stated in the Kessef Mishneh. However, Shulchan Aruch HaRav (631:7) and others follow the view of the Lechem Mishneh.

Sukkah 9b explains that the verse which commands us to dwell in sukkot (Leviticus 23:42) spells the word—סכת—omitting the letter ו, which is usually used. On that basis, the Sages explained that a single structure may be used for one sukkah, but not for two. Of the two, the lower sukkah is disqualified because...

since the floor of the upper sukkah is its roof, it may not be considered to be s’chach, because it was not placed there for purposes of shade alone, nor can the lower sukkah be acceptable because of the s’chach of the upper sukkah, for the floor intervenes between them.

There is no reason that the presence of the lower sukkah should disqualify it.

the minimum height of a sukkah, as explained in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

Otherwise, the upper sukkah is not fit to dwell in. Though a sukkah is only a temporary dwelling, it must be fit to be used for all the purposes for which one uses one’s home, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 5.

i.e., even if the floor of the upper sukkah shakes when pillows and covers are placed on it (Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah. Sukkah 1:2).

and thus, is unfit to be used.

The use of this word is questionable. It implies that both sukkot, the upper and the lower one, are kosher. The Kessef Mishneh states that if the upper sukkah is not fit to dwell in, it is not kosher, and therefore recommends striking the word “even” from the text. Though the Lechem Mishneh attempts to justify the use of the term, his arguments seem forced. However, it must be noted that most manuscripts and printings of the Mishneh Torah as well as the Rambam’s and most other texts of the source for this halachah—the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:2—include this word.

For the reason that since its roof is of no functional purpose, it is not considered an intervening substance between the sukkah and the upper s’chach.

the maximum height of the sukkah, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

In the Kessef Mishneh—and also in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 628:1)—Rav Yosef Karo explains that this applies only when the s’chach of the lower sukkah is not substantial enough to allow the use of the sukkah. However, if the s’chach of the lower sukkah alone produces enough shade to permit the use of the sukkah, it is kosher even though the s’chach of the upper sukkah is more than 20 cubits high.
He continues to explain that even though the presence of non-kosher s’chach nullifies the kosher s’chach below it, that applies only when the substance used is by nature not acceptable for use as s’chach. ln this instance, the s’chach of the upper sukkah is fit to be used; the only difficulty is its position: its placement above the maximum height of the sukkah.
(Though this concept is found in Tosafot, Sukkah 9b, no allusion to it appears in the Rambam’s statements. Indeed, the simple meaning of the Rambam’s words implies the very opposite. Furthermore, in his commentary on the Mishnah [Sukkah 1:1], the Rambam explains that the reason s’chach placed higher than 20 cubits is unacceptable is that it makes the sukkah into a permanent dwelling. Thus, according to the Rambam, such s’chach can be compared to the boards of a house, which though originally kosher for use as s’chach, are disqualified because they became part of a permanent structure.)

the minimum height for a dwelling to be considered to be an · independent structure (Sukkah 20b).
In this and the following instances mentioned in this halachah, the ten handbreadths are measured from the ground to the canopy (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 627:2-3; Mishnah Berurah 627:5).

The Mishnah, Sukkah 2: 1 relates:
An incident occurred concerning Tavi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave. He would sleep under a [canopied] bed [in the sukkah]. Rabban Gamliel told the Sages: “See my slave, Tavi. He is well-learned and knows that slaves are free of the obligation of [dwelling in] the sukkah. Hence, he sleeps under a bed.”

with non-kosher s’chach

even if it has no walls (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 627:1)

placed over a bed

As mentioned frequently above, a handbreadth is the minimum measure of a roof.

or perform any other activity required to be performed in a sukkah. (Perhaps the Rambam mentions sleeping because it is an activity that may be performed only within a _ sukkah. Even a short nap should not be taken outside the sukkah. In contrast, .a snack may be eaten outside a sukkah.)

for the same reasons mentioned above.

Hence, we are forbidden to use the space below it as a sukkah.
This halachah depends on the Rambam’s interpretation of the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:-3. However, Tosafot, Sukkah 10b and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 627:3) interpret the passage differently and forbid spreading a canopy over bedposts which are permanently affixed to the four corners of a bed, even if the canopy is less than ten handbreadths above the ground.

Tosafot (ibid.) and the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) differ with this decisjon as well, and explain that if these pillars are ten handbreadths high and permanently affixed to the bed, it is forbidden to spread a sheet over them.

If the canopy is not permanently affixed to the bed, even Tosafot and the Shulchan Aruch will permit its use.

i.e., even if they are more than ten handbreadths high.

Sukkah 19a relates that Abbaye found Rav Yosef sleeping in a canopied bed in the sukkah. The latter explained that the canopy he was using was permitted because it did not have a roof.

As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, such structures are not acceptable for use as a sukkah. Hence, they also cannot disqualify a sukka:h.

Although, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 10, a person cannot fulfill the mitzvah of lulav as prescribed by the Torah with a lulav belonging to a colleague, that concept does not apply with regard to a sukkah.
Sukkah 27b explains the derivation of this concept as follows: Leviticus 23:42 states: “Every citizen of Israel shall dwell in sukkot.” The latter word is written סכת, implying one sukkah. This prompted our Sages to declare: “All Israel are fit to dwell in a single sukkah.”
In his commentary, Rashi explains that the cost of such a sukkah would not be high enough to require every individual to pay a penny’s worth. Hence, we must assume that some people would be using a borrowed sukkah, and, nevertheless, our Sages said that it was kosher.

There is a siight imprecision with the Rambam’s statements. A stolen object which the thief is obligated to return cannot be used to perform a mitzvah, because it is considered a mitzvah that came about through a sin (מצוה הבאה בעבירה) However, in the instances cited by the Rambam, the sukkah itself is never considered stolen property. Hence, the use of such a sukkah is not forbidden. However, in a number of instances (see below), the sukkah itself is considered to be stolen property and must be returned. Hence, it cannot be used to fulfill the mitzvah.

Since the sukkah is built on the land, it is considered part of the property and the above rule applies to it as well. Thus, the sukkah is still considered to be the property of its original owner and the thief is viewed as merely “borrowing” the sukkah from him, and a borrowed sukkah is permitted.

Sukkah 31a relates that a woman once came to Rav Nachman complaining that the exilarch’s servants had stolen wood from her to build his sukkah.
Rav Nachman answered that they had, nevertheless, fulfilled their obligation ...

but not the wood itself . Thus, the sukkah itself is the property of the thief. Though he is obligated to pay the owp.er for his wood, that obligation does not prevent the sukkah from being considered as his.
Hilchot Gezeilah 1:5 explains this principle by stating:.
Anyone who steals is obligated to return · the stolen property itself... If it was lost or changed, he is obligated to return
its monetary value ...
Even if one steals a beam and builds a mansion [using it], since [the beam]
has not been changed, the Torah law would require him to destroy the
entire building and return the beam to its owner.
Nevertheless, the Sages instituted a decree [to encourage] those who
repent; they ordained that all that is necessary is for him to return [the
beam’s] monetary value, and thus he will not forfeit his building.
Rabbenu Manoach asks: Since the mitzvah of sukkah is commanded by the Torah, and Torah law regards these boards as stolen, how can the Sages’ decree change their status in this context?
He explains that, as implied by the principle הפקר בית דין הפקר the Torah has granted the Sages the right to determine the status of property. Their decree can alter entirely a person’s rights to its title. Thus, in the present case, since Rabbinic law entitles the thief to use of the boards, he is permitted, according to Torah law, to use them as a Sukkah.
The Magen Avraham (637:5) writes that if the thief refuses to pay for the wood, it is considered to be the property of its original owner, and the thief does not fulfill his obligation.

This is a special leniency granted out of respect for the mitzvah of sukkah (Sukkah, ibid.). Since the thief has not made any changes in the wood itself or built a permanent structure from it, the Rabbinic decree mentioned above would not apply. Thus, during the rest of the year (and even in this case, after the Sukkot festival), the wood would have to be returned. During the festival, the Sages considered it to be the property of the thief and he is allowed to use without any constraints throughout the festival (Hilchot Gezeilah, ibid.).
Nevertheless, in his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 637:3) Rav Yosef Karo gives two examples of a stolen sukkah which one is forbidden to use a sukkah that had been constructed on a ship or one that had been constructed or a wagon. Since the thief did not build anything, the abovementioned Rabbinic decree does not apply; nor are they affixed to land, and hence the principle that landed property cannot be stolen is not relevant.

Though the Jewish inhabitants of the city would surely not object to use of public property for this purpose, the gentile inhabitants of the city would. Since they also have a share in this property, building a sukkah there is equivalent to stealing from the public (Magen Avraham 637:3).
Nevertheless, since the theft of land is involved...

for the reasons mentioned above. Note the Magen Avraham, ibid. and the Bi’ur Halachah, who discuss whether or not it is permitted to recite a blessing when using such a sukkah.