Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Four

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).