Sukkah Building 101

For technical information regarding use of

this document, press ctrl and click here
 Sukkah Building 101
All illustrations are taken from Peirush Chai unless noted otherwise
I. The Basic Construction of a Sukkah

a. The number of walls

b. The Mishna states that three walls are required for a sukkah. {}

c. The Gemara qualifies this as two walls and a portion. {}

d. The Gemara then gives the guidelines for this third piece: {}

1. If the two walls are perpendicular the third piece should be three
tefachim from the end.

2. If the two walls are parallel, the third piece should be four tefachim
long.

3. The Gemara then has a discussion whether a tzuras hapesach is

necessary or whether it can replace the need for these requirements
on the third wall.

a. According to Rambam {}, the conclusion of the Gemara is

that a tzuras hapesach is necessary whenever you don't
have three complete walls. {&}

b. According to one opinion in the Rosh, the tzuras hapesach

is only necessary when the two walls are perpendicular. {}

c. Ran writes that there is no need for a tzuras hapesach when

the third wall is seven tefachim. {}

d. Mordechai quotes Ra'aviah that if the short wall and the

wall on the opposite side of the opening reach the schach,
the schach itself can be counted as the kaneh al gabav and
no additional tzuras hapesach is necessary. {}

e. As a matter of practical halacha: {}

i. Shulchan Aruch rules in accordance with Rambam's

position that a tzuras hapesach is necessary in both
cases.

ii. Rama quotes the leniencies of Ran and Mordechai.

 1. Mishna Berurah writes that Magen Avraham
disagrees with Mordechai but one may rely
on Rama's psak. {}

e. Dimensions of the Sukkah

f. Minimum dimensions:

1. The Gemara states that the minimum shiur for length and width is
seven tefachim by seven tefachim. {}

2. The Mishna states that the minimum height is ten tefachim. {}

3. Maximum dimensions- The Mishna states that a sukkah whose

height is more than twenty amos is p'sulah. {}

4. A word about translating these shiurim into modern measurements.

There is a dispute between Chazon Ish and R. Avraham Chaim
Na'eh regarding the measurements of Chazal.

5. The dispute revolves around an apparent discrepancy between the

shiur of an etzba and the shiur of a beitzah:

a. The Gemara states that a revi'is (halog) is 2x2x2.7 etzba'os.

{}

b. A beitzah is 2/3 of a revi'is. If one assumes that an etzba is

2.4 cm, then a beitzah is 99.5 cc. In reality our eggs are
approximately 50cc. {}

6. Chazon Ish's opinion (Orach Chaim no. 39)- We assume (at least
l'chumra) that our eggs are half the size of the eggs in the time of
the Gemara. Therefore, since an etzba is 2.4 cm, one should
assume that the size of the beitzah is 99.5 cc.

a. When the etzba is 2.4 cm, the tefach is 9.6 cm (3.8 inches)
and the amah is 57.6 cm (22.6 inches)

b. In reality Chazon Ish was machmir for the opinion that a

beitzah really is 50 cc, so l'chumra he would not allow use
the larger shiurim and require everything to be cut in half.
Also, Chazon Ish recommended using an etzba of 2.5 cm as
a matter of chumra.

7. R. Avraham Chaim Na'eh's opinion (Sefer Shiurei Torah)

 a. The etzbah is 2.0 cm, not 2.4cm

b. The beitzah then measures 57.6cc

c. Our eggs, when measured with the shell are approximately

57.7cc.

d. Therefore, there is no discrepancy

e. When the etzba is 2.0 cm, the tefach is 8cm (3.14 inches)
and the amah is 48cm (18.9 inches).

g. The requirements for the schach

h. Tzilasa merubah- The Mishna {} states that if the sunlight is greater than the
shade, the sukkah is p'sulah. {}

i. Gaps in the schach

1. The Gemara states that a gap of three tefachim in the schach

renders the Sukkah pesulah. {}

a. Tosafos {} notes that this only applies if the gap extends

across the entire sukkah. {}

b. Tosaofs further note that what the gap does is bisect the
sukkah so that the two walls on the two sides of the gap are
not part of the same sukkah. Therefore, depending on
where the gap is, it is possible that either side of the gap
may be a valid sukkah whether the gap is on the side {} or
whether it is in the middle. {}

c. Other requirements for schach will be discussed in the

other sections.

II. Imaginary walls and connections

a. The Gemara states that laws of mechitzos are derived from Halacha L'Moshe
MiSinai. {}

b. The two concepts that we will focus on are gud asik and lavud as these are the
most common.

c. Gud Asik Mechitztah- The walls rise automatically

d. The Gemara cites a machlokes about placing four poles on a roof and placing
schach above the poles. {} The Gemara then queries whether the case is where the
poles are on the edge of the roof {} and the question is whether we employ the
concept of gud asik or whether the case is where the poles are in the middle of the
roof {} but everyone agrees that it is valid when it is on the edge of the roof.

1. Rambam is lenient when it is on the edge of the roof. {}

2. Rosh rules that in both cases the sukkah is invalid. {}

3. Shulchan Aruch sides with Rosh's opinion but mentions Rambam's

opinion as a yesh omrim. {}

4. Does the fact that Shulchan Aruch rejects the concept of gud asik
mean that the walls must extend all the way up to the schach?

5. Shulchan Aruch rules that walls do not have to extend all the way
to the schach. You only need a wall of ten tefachim. {}

6. If we don't accept the concept of gud asik, how do we allow a wall

that doesn't extend until the schach?

7. The Steipler has two ways to deal with this question: [Click here to
access.]

a. In reality, we reject the concept of gud asik. However, the

laws of sukkah do not require walls that extend to the
schach (physically or imaginary). The laws only require
that the area of the schach has mechitzos under it. A
mechitza is sufficient with ten tefachim.

b. We accept the concept of gud asik and the problem with the
poles on the roof is that a sukkah requires actual walls. If
there are no walls at all, it is not considered a sukkah,
despite the concept of gud asik. When there are actual
walls of ten tefachim, those walls extend to the schach to
complete the sukkah.

c. One practical difference he provides is in a case where the

walls do not extend to the schach and the schach itself is
not directly over the wall but is within 3 tefachim. {}

i. If the walls must reach the schach but you can

employ gud asik, in this case it is questionable
 whether you can combine lavud together with gud
asik.

ii. If you don't need the walls to reach the schach, you
are not using gud asik at all and therefore it is not a
problem to use lavud to extend the schach to the
edge of the sukkah so that it is as if it is over the
wall.

iii. Shulchan Aruch is lenient in this case. {}

e. Lavud

f. There is a general concept that you can create a wall with gaps as long as the gaps
are less than three tefachim apart.

g. The Gemara seems to apply this to the walls of the sukkah as well. {}

h. Tosafos ask: Why is necessary to have a wall of four tefachim in the case of the
two parallel walls (discussed in the first section). Why not place two small boards
within three tefachim of each other? {&}

1. Tosafos first attempt to answer that there is a difference between a

four walled area where one can use lavud and a three walled area
where you can't. Tosafos reject this answer.

2. Tosafos conclude that the answer is based on a comment of the

Mishna, Eruvin that a mechitzah that does not enclose both
vertically and horizontally is not considered a valid mechitza. {}

a. Maharasha explains that the requirement for a horizontal

and vertical wall is the subject of a dispute and we follow
the opinion that you can have horizontal walls of lavud but
not vertical walls. Therefore, you can't construct the third
wall out of two pieces. {}

b. Magen Avraham rejects Maharsha's explanation and

understands that the second answer of Tosafos really serves
to rehabilitate the first answer and accept the premise that
lavud only works when there are four walls and not three.
{}

i. Magen Avraham's position is accepted by Mishna

Berurah. {}
III. Trees, Awnings and Screens over the Sukkah

a. Trees- The Gemara states that in order to deal with a tree that is hanging over the
sukkah, you should pull the leaves down so that they are mixed with the schach
and if the majority is schach, the sukkah is valid. {}

b. Tosafos- We are dealing with a case where the tree is necessary to provide enough
shade to validate the schach. If the schach has enough shade on its own, the tree
is not a problem. {}

1. Ostensibly, the case is where the tree does not produce a majority
of shade by itself. Otherwise, why can't you build a sukkah inside
a house with enough schach to provide shade on its own?

2. However, Tosafos use this principle to permit spreading a cloth

across the top of the sukkah. {}

3. Bach notes that Tur rules that Tosafos only permit a sukkah under
the tree if the tree is majority open, yet Tur permits spreading the
cloth. Bach answers that the cloth is permissible because its
purpose is to decorate the sukkah and therefore, it is batel to the
schach. {}

a. This answer doesn't really fit into the text of Tosafos who
seem to tie the two questions together.

b. Ran (and Avi HaEzri)- Even if the schach provides

sufficient shade to be valid on its own, the tree presents a
problem. Therefore, the sukkah is only valid if the tree
provides so little shade such that if you were to remove all
of the schach that is under the tree, you would still have
tzilasa merubah. Otherwise, the sukkah is invalid. {}

4. Ran adds that even in a case where the sukkah is valid because the
shade from the tree doesn't invalidate majority of the schach, we
still treat the schach that is under the tree as schach pasul which
invalidates the sukkah if there are four tefachim across the sukkah.
{}

5. Shulchan Aruch quotes both opinions as yesh omrim. {}

6. Biur Halacha notes that whenever you have two yesh omrim, the
halacha is like the second one (in this case it is the opinion of Ran/
Avi HaEzri) and therefore one should be machmir. However, if it
 is a pressing situation and there is no other sukkah available, one
may rely on the first opinion. {}

c. Awnings and roofs

d. Dofen Akuma- The Mishna states that if the inner part of a roof collapses, you can
make a sukkah out of the house as long as the edges of the roof that remain are
less than four amos. {&}

e. The Gemara refers to this principle as dofen akuma. {}

f. How does dofen akumah work?

1. Ran- we view it as if the wall is bent. Therefore: {}

a. One cannot sit under the roof.

b. The schach wall must extend all the way to the schach.

2. Tur allows dofen akumah even when the wall does not extend to
the schach. Tur agrees that one may not sit under that section. {}

a. Beis Yosef suggests that Tur does not view dofen akumah
as the wall bending but rather that the roof serves as an
extension of the schach (albeit schach pasul). {}

3. Magen Avraham quotes the opinion of Ran that when using dofen
akumah, the walls must reach the schach. {}

a. R. Akiva Eger questions Magen Avraham's psak. Ran's

opinion seems to be based on his own opinion that you
can't combine two aspects of Halacha l'Moshe MiSinai.
Here you are trying to combine gud asik and dofen
akumah. However, (as we noted earlier) Shulchan Aruch
doesn't consider this a case of gud asik and therefore,
Magen Avraham's psak is difficult. {}

b. R. Meir Eisenstat- We should show deference to Ran's

opinion. Therefore, if you build a sukkah under an awning,
you should make sure that the schach is level with the
awning. {}

i. This ruling is cited in Biur Halacha. {}

 ii. This is a common occurrence in Israel where the
mirpeset is usually built so that the mirpeset on top
comes into the airspace of the one below.

iii. Sitting under the awning- As noted earlier

according to all opinions one cannot sit under the
awning.

g. Is it permissible to build a sukkah under a screened patio enclosure?

h. It should be noted that a standard mesh screen is rated to have 66% openness.
This will keep the flies out but will not keep out the sun. There are certain
screens that are designed to keep sunlight out and may only have 30% openness.
We will discuss the standard mesh screen because as we will see, the screens that
are designed to keep sunlight out are much more problematic.

i. Ostensibly the question of using a screen should be contingent on the machlokes

between Tosafos and Ran:

1. According to Tosafos, as long as the schach provides enough shade

by itself, the presence of schach pasul above it does not invalidate
the sukkah as long as the schach pasul is chamasa merubah.

2. According to Ran, even if the schach pasul is chamasa merubah it

presents a problem.

3. It is arguable that even Ran will agree that the screens are valid:

4. The screens are not complete walls, rather strips of schach pasul.

5. Most Rishonim assume that we don't use lavud to be machmir.

a. This position is adopted by Mishna Berurah. {}

b. Rashba is the one Rishon who assumes that we say lavud

l'hachmir. {}

i. One can suggest that even Rashba will agree in this

situation that we don't say lavud l'hachmir because
Magen Avraham also assumes we say lavud
l'hachmir, but only to constitute a wall, not to make
schach pasul the requisite shiur of four tefachim. {}

c. R. Ya'akov Etlinger discusses a case of placing schach on

top of support braces for a retractable roof. He notes that
 the problem is that if the braces are within three tefachim of
each other it is a problem because the braces all come
together through lavud and you now have an imaginary
ceiling covering the sukkah. {}

i. This is almost the exact same case as the screens.

d. Mishna Berurah writes that if one wants to fulfill all

opinions, he should make sure that the braces are more than
three tefachim apart. {}

e. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach discusses a case of the

neighbor's laundry wires on top of the sukkah. He
concludes that R. Etlinger's position is only a chumra. {}

f. R. Shamai Gross discusses the screens specifically and

concludes that one may be lenient. {}

IV. Ma'amid

a. The sugya- The Mishna (ostensibly) cites a dispute regarding leaning the sukkah
on the legs of a bed. Chachamim allow it and R. Yehuda rules that if it can't stand
on its own it's a problem. The Gemara presents two reasons for R. Yehuda's
opinion: {}

b. R. Yehuda requires a more permanent structure.

c. You can't support the schach with something that is not worthy itself of being
schach. This is the opinion that is concerned for ma'amid.

1. Rashi explains that since it supports the schach we should treat it

like schach. {}

2. Ran explains that the concern is that you may come to use it for
schach. {}

3. There is a machlokes how to rule on the issue of whether there is a

concern of ma'amid:

4. Rosh- we follow R. Yehuda's reason, but not because of ma'amid

but because you need a permanent structure. {}

5. Ran- We follow the opinion that you can't support the sukkah with
something that it not worthy of becoming schach. {}
6. Terumas HaDeshen- It is permissible to nail down the support
beams of the schach because we follow the opinion that ma'amid is
not a problem. {}

7. Shulchan Aruch's opinion:

a. Shulchan Aruch codifies Terumas HaDeshen's ruling. {}

b. Shulchan Aruch writes that there is a safek whether you can

support the schach by placing wooden ladders on top of the
sukkah. {}

c. Magen Avraham asks: what is the problem with placing

ladders on top of the sukkah? He gives two answers: {}

i. The ladders constitute schach pasul and would

invalidate the sukkah.

ii. The ladders support the schach and although we are

not concerned about ma'amid invalidating the
sukkah, we do not allow it l'chatchilah.

d. Mishna Berurah writes that l'chatchilah one should not

support the schach with something that is not valid schach,
but b'dieved, or if there is no other way to support the
sukkah, it is a valid sukkah. {}

e. The Chazon Ish's Chumra

8. Rosh questions the whole concept of ma'amid because we know

that you can build a sukkah with walls that are not fit for schach.
{}

9. Ramban (not addressing Rosh's question)- The wall is just serving

as a ma'aseh karka and therefore doesn't present a problem of
ma'amid.

a. Simple explanation of Ramban based on Ritva- You can

place kosher schach on the wall and then the actual schach
on top of that. The walls themselves don't present a
problem because they are ma'amid d'ma'amid (a secondary
support). This is how the Vilna Gaon understand's
Ramban. {}
 b. Chazon Ish's explanation- The only time it is permissible
for something that's not worthy of schach to support the
schach is when it is the base of the sukkah. The Mishna is
discussing a case where the sukkah is built on top of the
legs of the bed. Therefore, the bed itself is the base of the
sukkah and that it why Ramban refers to it as karka olam.
Chazon Ish contends that Ritva agrees to this explanation.
{}

10. Shulchan Aruch's position

a. Magen Avraham- If Shulchan Aruch really prohibits

ma'amid l'chatchilah, why does he codify Terumas
HaDeshen's ruling that it is permissible to support the
schach with beams that are nailed in to the sukkah? Magen
Avraham answers that since the schach is not directly
supported by the nails, it is only the beams that are
supported by the nails, it is permissible even l'chatchilah.
{}

i. This is also the explanation of the Vilna Gaon. {}

ii. Mishna Berurah uses the explanation of Magen

Avraham and the Vilna Gaon to explain Shulchan
Aruch's codification of Terumas HaDeshen's ruling.
{}

b. Chazon Ish:

i. The real reason why Terumas HaDeshen allows

nailing down the beams is that he is not concerned
at all for ma'amid. Were he to be concerned for
ma'amid he would have never allowed nailing down
the beams.

ii. It doesn't make sense to consider the nails in the

beam to be ma'amid d'ma'amid because if in fact the
beams themselves are valid schach, they are part of
the schach, and the nails are really nailed into the
schach itself. If they are not valid schach, you have
a problem in that the beams themselves are
considered ma'amid. The only situation you can
have where there is ma'amid d'ma'amid is a case
 where something is supporting the entire sukkah at
its base.

iii. Therefore, we who have the minhag to be

concerned for ma'amid should not nail down the
schach in a way that if the nails were removed, the
schach would fall. If, however, the schach would
stand on its own and the nails only prevent the
beams from moving, that is not considered ma'amid.

c. The Steipler- A compromise position {}

i. The Steipler deals with Chazon Ish's question on

Magen Avraham and the Vilna Gaon: If the beams
themselves are valid schach, they are part of the
schach and one would not be able to support the
beams with nails?

ii. The Steipler answers that the beams that Terumas

HaDeshen is discussing are not the beams that are
placed on top of the sukkah. Rather they are the
vertical beams that support the walls of the sukkah.
You can use nails to fasten those beams to the walls
and then place other unfastened wooden beams on
top in order to support the schach.

iii. Practical Applications

11. Should one follow the Chazon Ish?

a. The only way to practically follow the opinion of Chazon

Ish is to contruct a wood frame for the sukkah using
wooden pegs to secure the beams. Being that this is very
difficult, almost nobody builds a "Chazon Ish sukkah"

i. If one wants to adopt Steipler's compromise, he

would have to construct a sukkah that supports itself
without any horitzontal component on top of the
sukkah.

12. Placing the schach directly on the walls

a. If the walls are not valid for schach, one should not place
the schach directly on the walls.
 b. If the walls are valid for schach (e.g. wood beams),
ostensibly one should be able to place the schach directly
on the walls according to Magen Avraham and Vilna Gaon.

13. Tying down the schach

a. Sefas Emes presents a question: Does the schach have to be

able to withstand a normal wind or is the schach valid even
if the wind may blow the schach off of the walls? [Sefas
Emes' question is regarding the status of the schach when
the wind is not blowing. Does the potential for wind to
blow it off render it invalid?] {}

b. R. Betzalel Stern assumes that one should be stringent

regarding this question. He adds further that if the schach
needs to be able to withstand wind, you can't tie down the
schach with something that is not valid for schach if the
schach can't withstand the wind without the tie. {}

i. He also notes that although the schach does not

need to able to withstand a stronger than normal
wind, if at the time that the stronger wind is
blowing, the schach is held down by something not
valid for schach, the sukkah is invalid according to
the opinion in the Gemara that ma'amid invalidates
the sukkah.

c. It's possible to argue (l'Halacha v'lo l'ma'aseh) that ma'amid

should not present a problem in this case based on the
comments of Sefas Emes. Sefas Emes writes that the
reason why you would be concerned about schach that can
blow in the wind is that you need a certain degree of
permanence in the sukkah. The Gemara, in discussing the
case of the sukkah on the legs of the bed implies that you
either require permanence or you can't have ma'amid. The
two opinions may not coexist.

d. R. Shmuel Vosner- Because there are a number of

mitigating factors, you can tie the schach with hemp twine
(available in any hardware store) which is only invalid for
schach m'drabanan. {}

V. What can you use for schach?

a. The basic requirements of schach:

b. The Mishna states three requirements for schach: {}

1. The schach can't be susceptible to tumah.

2. The schach must grow from the ground.

3. The schach must be detached from its original source.

4. The Gemara derives these requirements from the pasuk referring to

Sukkos as a time of gathering from your silos and your vineyards.
{} The Gemara states that this is a reference to the fact that schach
must be from the waste of the silos and vineyards. {}

c. Mats- There are a number of issues that the poskim discuss regarding schach
mats:

d. Are they mekabel tumah?

1. The Mishna states that mats that were made for the purpose of
sitting on are invalid for schach because they are mekabel tumah.
{}

2. R. Moshe Feinstein adds that anything that is woven is mekabel

tumah. {}

3. If you purchase a bamboo mat in a general store, you may

encounter both of these problems. If you purchase the mat from a
sukkah distributor, it shouldn't present a problem.

4. Maris Ayin

5. Rosh writes that even if the mat was made for the purpose of
schach and it not mekabel tumah, you can't use it in a place where
the local custom is to use the mats for sitting because of maris
ayin. {}

6. Bikkurei Ya'akov cites this comment of Rosh as a strong warning

against using mats for schach. {}

a. Bikkurei Ya'akov is quoted in Biur Halacha. He then

quotes Beis Meir that if the schach mats are designed
differently than the mats used for sitting, there is no maris
ayin issue. {}
7. The schach mats that are purchased from sukkah distributors
generally look different than the mats that people use to sit on and
therefore don't present a problem.

8. Gezerias Tikra

9. The Mishna mentions the prohibition of using wood boards for

schach. {}

a. The Gemara states that this only applies to wood boards

that are four tefachim or wider.

b. Rashi explains that the concern is that people will think that
there is no difference between a sukkah and a house. {}

10. Rashba discusses a case of a board made of small pieces of wood

that were nailed together. Rashba notes that there was a machlokes
in his time whether we treat this as one large unit and if the board
is four tefachim, you cannot use it for schach, or whether we treat
each piece of wood individually. {}

a. Chayei Adam rules that this even applies if the small pieces
are strung together. {}

b. Avnei Nezer disagrees and maintains that Rashba's opinion

is only applicable when the pieces are combined in such a
way that no rain comes through the cracks. {}

c. R. Elyashiv (in a teshuva that was printed in Az Nidberu)

seems to side with Chayei Adam and therefore prohibits
mats made out of thin wood pieces. {}

11. Does gezeiras tikra apply to materials that are not normally used
for roofs?

a. Ritva implies that the type of material is significant. {}

b. R. Meir Arik notes that in order to accept Rashba's chumra,

you must conclude that certain materials are excluded
because the Gemara discusses mats and has no issue with
gezeiras tikra on these mats. It must be that because the
mats are not normally used for roofs, one may be lenient.
{}
 c. R. Moshe Mordechai Karp- This is why R. Elyashiv allows
"schach keines" and is not concerned about gezeiras tikra.
{}

d. Ma'amid

12. There are different types of materials used to hold the mats
together. Some mats use nylon which is certainly not valid schach.
Some mats use natural non-spun fibers that are valid for schach.
Obviously, only the former would present a potential problem of
ma'amid.

13. If the sukkah is designed in such a way that if the string were to be
removed, the reeds would remain in place, there is no issue with
ma'amid.

a. If one assumes that the schach can't have the potential to

blow away in a normal wind, this presents more of a
problem.

14. In order to avoid the ma'amid problem, you would need many
support beams running perpendicular to the direction of the reeds.
You would also need to place beams on top of the schach to ensure
that they wouldn't blow away (if they were detached from the
string).

e. Can you use wood beams for the actual schach?

f. As we discussed in the previous section, gezeiras tikrah only applies to boards

that are four tefachim wide. Nevertheless, the Rishonim write that the minhag is
to refrain from using boards that are less than four tefachim wide:

1. Hagahos Rabbeinu Peretz to Semak- We don't use them out of

concern that people will build schach that doesn't allow any rain
penetrate. {}

2. Hagahos Maimonios- We don't use beams because when you use

beams for schach it looks similar to a regular roof. {}

3. Orchos Chaim- We don't use anything that is normally used for

roofs because they are included in the original gezeiras tikrah. {}

4. Shulchan Aruch records the minhag of not using beams for schach.
{} The question is: What is the concern?
 5. R. Y. Shmuel Ashkenazi- The main concern is that people will set
up the beams in such a way that will prevent rain from coming in.
Even though Hagahos Maimonios is concerned about it looking
like a regular roof, the concern of it looking like a regular roof is
only because a regular roof doesn't allow rain in. Orchos Chaim's
reason is just an added chumra. {}

6. Mishna Berurah notes the reasons of Rabbeinu Peretz and Orchos

Chaim for the minhag and implies that one should follow both
reasons. {}

7. Practical Implications

8. R. Ovadia Hadaya- Nowadays, we don't use beams for the actual

roofing. It is always covered with something else. Therefore, it is
permissible to use wood beams for schach if they are less than four
tefachim wide. {}

9. R. Ovadia Yosef- Disagrees with some of R. Hadaya's analysis, but

agrees with his conclusion. He adds that one should place some
schach running perpendicular to the beams so that the air spaces
don't run across the entire sukkah. {}

10. R. Vosner notes that there are various practices regarding this
question. {}

a. The Minhag in Yerushalayim is to be lenient.

b. Chazon Ish was stringent on this issue.

VI. What types of walls are permissible?

a. The Mishna {} as explained by Rashi {}- There requirements for schach do not
apply to the walls of the sukkah. Therefore, they can be of (almost) any material.

b. Nevertheless, there is one limitation that extends to mechitzos in all areas of

Halacha. The Gemara states that a mechitza that does not withstand wind is not a
valid mechitza. {}

c. Rashi states that Gemara is referring to a wall that sways in the wind. {}

d. There is a machlokes between Mishna Berurah and Chazon Ish how to understand
this:
 1. Mishna Berurah- If the wall moves at all in the wind, it is not a
valid wall. {}

2. Chazon Ish- If the wall moves in such a way that it has the
potential of being an invalid wall (it blows so that the bottom three
tefachim are open) while the wind is blowing, the wall is invalid
even when the wind is not blowing. {}

3. This discussion is relevant practically regarding walls that are

made of cloth:

a. Shulchan Aruch writes that one should not use cloth walls
unless they are tied very well. {}

i. If they blow in the wind, one should make "lavud

walls" that won't blow in the wind. {}

ii. Mishna Berurah- even though we have a minhag not

to rely on lavud walls, in this situation, where there
are actual walls, but they blow in the wind, one may
be lenient. {}

VII. Building a Sukkah on the road

a. Aside from the pre-fab portable sukkahs, there are many creative ways to build a
sukkah while on a chol hamoed road trip. The question is: what are the
parameters of building such a sukkah?

b. There are three potential issues that should be addressed:

c. Is it permissible to build and/or dismantle a sukkah on Chol HaMoed?

1. R. Mordechai Karmi- You cannot violate any of the laws of chol

hamoed in order to build a sukkah. Therefore, the only permissible
manner of building a sukkah would be to build something that is
very easily assembled. {} [A ma'aseh hedyot is permissible on chol
hamoed if it is for use on chol hamoed.]

2. Mishna Berurah disagrees and maintains that building a sukkah is

one of the exceptions to the rule of melacha on chol hamoed and
whatever needs to be done to build a sukkah is permissible. {}

3. R. Moshe Feinstein- The normal way of building a sukkah is

considered ma'aseh hedyot and therefore, one should not build it
 on chol hamoed in a way that would be considered ma'aseh uman.
{}

4. Shemiras Shabbos KeHilchasa- You can't dismantle a sukkah on

chol hamoed because it is not l'tzorech hamoed. {}

a. If leaving it there will cause a loss of money, it is

permissible to dismantle it to take with you.

b. It's possible to argue that if leaving it there is not proper

(because of littering or some other reason) it can be
considered tzorech hamoed.

c. Is it permissible to build a sukkah on public property or

someone else's property?

5. This is seemingly the subject of a dispute between R. Eliezer and

Chachamim:

a. R. Eliezer holds that if you build a sukkah on stolen

property or public property it is invalid. The Gemara states
that the case of discussion is where you take over someone
else's sukkah. {}

b. The Gemara implies that R. Eliezer's problem with building

a sukkah in reshus harabim is that R. Eliezer holds that you
can only fulfill the mitzvah if you own the sukkah. We
certainly don't follow that opinion.

c. Nevertheless, the Yerushalmi implies that it is not proper to

build a sukkah in the public domain. {}

i. The Yerushalmi records a story of Gamliel who

built a sukkah in the public domain. Reish Lakish
approached him and asked "who allowed you to do
this?"

ii. Or Zarua explains that even though we hold that a

sukkah in reshus harabim is valid, that is only
b'dieved. However, l'chatchila, one should not
build a sukkah in reshus harabim. {}

6. What the poskim write:

a. Shulchan Aruch codifies the opinion of Chachamim. {}

 b. Rama codifies the opinion of Or Zarua.

i. Magen Avraham writes that because l'chatchilah

you should not build a sukkah in reshus harabim,
you should not recite a beracha on such a sukkah.
{}

c. Mishna Berurah presents a number of justifications for the

practice of many individuals who build their sukkah in
reshus harabim: {}

i. If the public see this practice and don't protest, there

is implicit approval and there is no concern even
l'chatchila. The Yerushalmi was dealing with
someone who built a sukkah in the middle of the
marketplace, which ostensibly impeded the flow of
traffic.

ii. If the public domain is owned by the king and he

doesn't protest, then it is assumed to be valid even
l'chatchilah.

1. This is difficult to apply to a democratic

government.

2. Nevertheless, if it is a public area that allows

for pitching a tent, or something similar, one
can assume that it is permissible to set up a
sukkah.

3. Is it permissible to dismantle a temporary

sukkah and what happens to its kedusha?

7. The Gemara states that the sukkah has kedusha which means that
you can't benefit from the sukkah the entire Sukkos even if part of
it falls. {}

a. The Gemara distinguishes between the sukkah itself (the

walls and the schach) and the decorations. Regarding the
actual sukkah even you state explicitly that you don't want
the kedusha to take effect, it nevertheless does. Regarding
the decorations, you can have in mind that you don't want
the kedusha to take effect.
 b. Accordingly, any sukkah that is built over Sukkos will
retain its kedusha and you can't use that material for
anything else.

c. Furthermore, there is a machlokes as to whether it is

permissible to dismantle a sukkah that has kedusha. {}

8. Practically, this presents a number of potential problems:

a. If you make a makeshift sukkah using a car, you wouldn't

be able to use the car for the rest of sukkos.

b. According to the poskim that it is prohibited to dismantle a

sukkah, a portable sukkah would be useless.

9. Nevertheless, these restrictions may not apply to a sukkah that was

built on chol hamoed:

a. Rashi states that the reason why a sukkah one cannot set
any conditions on the kedusha of the sukkah is that at the
time of the inception of the kedusha it is Yom Tov and you
don't have the ability to dismantle the sukkah at that time.
{}

b. Ran states that you can't make any conditions on the

sukkah. The only reason why a condition works on the
decorations is because that establishes that the decorations
are not part of the sukkah. You can't do that with the actual
sukkah. {}

c. Magen Avraham states that the practical difference

between Rashi and Ran is regarding a sukkah that was built
on chol hamoed: {}

i. According to Rashi, a conditional sukkah would not

have kedusha.

ii. According to Ran, you can never set a condition on

the actual sukkah.

d. Shulchan Aruch HaRav rules that if you build a sukkah on

chol hamoed on condition to use it for other activities, the
sukkah has no kedusha and one can still fulfill the mitzvah
of sukkah in that sukkah. {}
10. There is an additional solution for the makeshift sukkah:

a. The Gemara states that a sukkah built by someone who is

not obligated in the mitzvah is valid as long as it is built for
the purpose of shade. {}

b. Rashba states that such a sukkah does not have kedusha if

you use it one time. {}

c. Mishna Berurah codifies Rashba's statement. {}

d. As such, if one has a non-Jew place the schach on the

makeshift sukkah, you can avoid all problems as long as he
himself uses it for shade.
 ‫‪ .1‬מש' סוכה ב‪.‬‬

‫‪ .5‬צורת הפתח כשהן עריבן‬

‫‪ .2‬גמ' סוכה ו‪:‬‬

‫‪ .3‬גמ' סוכה ז‪.‬‬

‫‪ .6‬צורת הפתח כשעשוי כמבוי‬

‫‪ .4‬רמב"ם הל' סוכה ד‪:‬ב‪-‬ג‬

‫סוכה שאין לה שלש דפנות פסולה‪ ,‬היו לה שתי דפנות‬
‫גמורות זו בצד זו כמין גם ב עושה דופן שיש ברחבו‬
‫יתר על טפח ומעמידו בפחות משלשה סמוך לאחד‬
‫‪ .7‬רא"ש סוכה א‪:‬ו‬ ‫משתי הדפנות ודיו‪ ,‬וצריך לעשות לה צורת פתח מפני‬
‫שאין לה שלש דפנות גמורות‪ ,‬וכבר בארנו בהלכות‬
‫שבת שצורת פתח האמורה בכל מקום אפילו קנה מכאן‬
‫וקנה מכאן וקנה על גביהן אע"פ שאינו מגיע להן‪ .‬היו‬
‫‪ .8‬ר"ן סוכה ב‪:‬‬ ‫לה שתי דפנות זו כנגד זו וביניהן מפולש‪ ,‬עושה דופן‬
‫שיש ברחבו ארבעה טפחים ומשהו ומעמידו בפחות‬
‫משלשה סמוך לאחת משתי הדפנות וכשרה‪ ,‬וצריך‬
‫לעשות לה צורת פתח‪ ,‬קנים היוצאים מסכך הסוכה‬
‫לפני הסוכה ודופן אחת נמשכת עמהן הרי הן כסוכה‪.‬‬
 ‫‪ .13‬מש' סוכה ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬מרדכי סוכה ס' תשלא‬

‫‪ .10‬שלחן ערוך תרל‪:‬ב‪-‬ג‬

‫דפנות הסוכה אם היו שתים זו אצל זו כמין ג"ם עושה‬
‫דופן שיש ברחבו יותר על טפח ומעמידו בפחות מג'‬
‫לאחד מהדפנות ויעמיד קנה )כנגד הכותל( )טור( כנגד‬
‫אותו טפח ויעשה לה צורת פתח שיעמיד קנה עליו ועל‬
‫הטפח וכשרה אף על פי שהקנה שעל גביהן אינו נוגע‬
‫‪ .14‬פסחים קט‪.‬‬ ‫בהן‪ .‬הגה‪ :‬ואם הטפח והדופן מגיע לסכך אין צריך קנה‬
‫על גביהן )מרדכי הגה"מ פ"ד( ומה שנהגו בצורת הפתח‬
‫עגולה הוא לנוי בעלמא )כ"כ המרדכי(‪.‬‬

‫היו לה שני דפנות זו כנגד זו וביניהם מפולש עושה‬

‫‪ .15‬רש"י ערובין פג‪ .‬ד"ה דמדברית‬ ‫דופן שיש ברחבו ארבעה טפחים ומשהו ומעמידו‬
‫בפחות משלשה סמוך לאחד משתי הדפנות וכשרה וגם‬
‫בזה צריך לעשות צורת פתח שיתן קנה מהפס על‬
‫הדופן האחד וי"א שאין זה צריך צורת פתח‪ .‬הגה‪:‬‬
‫אבל אם איכא דופן ז' בלא לבוד‪ ,‬א"צ כאן צורת הפתח‬
‫עד סוף הכותל‪ ,‬הואיל ואיכא דופן ז' שהוא שיעור‬
‫‪ .16‬חמתה מרובה מצלתה‬ ‫הכשר סוכה; וכל שכן שאין צריכים צורת הפתח‬
‫כשהדופן שלימה; ומה שנהגו בצורת הפתח כשיש לה‬
‫דפנות שלימות‪ ,‬אינו אלא לנוי בעלמא )ר"ן והמגיד פ"ד‬
‫וכל בו וב"י בשם מרדכי(‪.‬‬

‫‪ .11‬משנה ברורה סימן תרל‬

‫ועיין במ"א שהקשה על זה מירושלמי ודעתו דראוי‬
‫להחמיר משום דאינו נעשה הסכך לכך אבל האחרונים‬
‫יישבו קושיתו וע"כ הסומך על רמ"א לא הפסיד‪.‬‬

‫‪ .12‬סוכה טז‪:‬‬

‫‪ .17‬גמ' סוכה יז‪.‬‬

 ‫‪ .20‬אויר יותר מג' מן הצד ויש ד' דפנות‬
‫‪ .18‬תוס' סוכה יז‪ .‬ד"ה אויר‬

‫‪ .21‬אויר יותר מג' באמצע ויש הכשר סוכה בחלק א'‬

‫‪ .19‬אויר יותר מג' מהלך על פני כולה‬

‫‪ .22‬סוכה ה‪:‬‬
 ‫‪ .25‬ד' קונדיסין באמצע הגג‬

‫‪ .23‬סוכה ד‪:‬‬

‫‪ .26‬רמב"ם הל' סוכה ד‪:‬יא‬

‫נעץ ארבעה קונדיסין על ארבע זויות הגג וסיכך על גבן‬ ‫‪ .24‬ד' קונדיסין בשפת הגג‬
‫הואיל והסיכוך על שפת הגג כשר ורואין את המחיצות‬
‫התחתונות כאילו הן עולות למעלה על שפת הסכוך‪.‬‬

‫‪ .27‬רא"ש סוכה א‪:‬ו‬

‫‪ .28‬שלחן ערוך או"ח תרל‪:‬ו‬

‫נעץ ד' קונדסין בין באמצע הגג בין על שפת הגג וסיכך‬
‫על גבן פסולה ויש מכשירין בנעץ על שפת הגג משום‬
‫דאמרינן גוד אסיק מחיצתא‪.‬‬

‫‪ .29‬שלחן ערוך או"ח תרל‪:‬ט‬

‫היו דפנותיה גבוהים שבעה ומשהו והעמידם בפחות‬
‫משלשה סמוך לארץ כשרה אפילו הגג גבוה הרבה‬
‫ובלבד שיהא מכוון כנגדן ואפילו אינו מכוון ממש רק‬
‫שהוא בתוך שלשה כנגדו כשרה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .33‬שני פסים פחות מג'‬ ‫‪ .30‬דופן שאינו מגיע לסכך והסכך אינו על גביו‬

‫‪ .31‬סוכה ז‪.‬‬

‫‪ .34‬מש' ערובין טז‪:‬‬

‫‪ .35‬מהרש"א לתוס' שם‬ ‫‪ .32‬תוס' טז‪ :‬ד"ה בפחות‬

‫ותימה למה לי פס ארבעה יעשה פס שני טפחים‬
‫ויעמידנו סמוך לדופן וירחיק שלשה טפחים פחות‬
‫משהו ויעמיד פס אחד של שני טפחים ‪ ...‬וליכא לשנויי‬
‫הכא כדמשני התם דאתי אוירא דהאי גיסא ודהאי גיסא‬
‫ומבטל ליה דהכא כל הפחות מג' כלבוד דמי והוה ליה‬
‫כסתום דאפילו עשה כל דפנות הסוכה קנה קנה בפחות‬
‫מג' כשרה כדתניא לעיל )דף ז‪ (.‬דופן סוכה כדופן שבת‬
‫ובלבד שלא יהא בין קנה לחבירו ג' טפחים ואין שייך‬
‫לחלק כלל בין סוכה של ג' דפנות לסוכה של ארבעה‬
‫ועוד קשיא טפי דבשני פסין שיש בכל אחד חצי טפח‬
‫ומשהו סגי דמוקי חד בפחות מג' סמוך לדופן ואידך‬
‫מוקי בפחות מג' סמוך לראשון וי"ל משום דאמרינן‬
‫בסוף פ"ק דעירובין )דף טז‪ (:‬דכל מחיצה שאינה של‬
‫‪ .36‬מגן אברהם תרל‪:‬א‬
‫שתי וערב אינה מחיצה ואם היו שני פסין שאין בכל‬
‫אחד ארבעה הויא לה כמחיצה של שתי‪.‬‬
 ‫‪ .41‬ב"ח או"ח ס' תרכט‬ ‫‪ .37‬משנה ברורה תרל‪:‬ז‬
‫במ"א מבואר שמותר לעשות דפנות הסוכה בקנים‬
‫שמעמידם פחות פחות מג"ט רחוק זה מזה והוא בעושה‬
‫כן ד' דפנות דהיינו קנים כזה מארבעה רוחות אבל‬
‫כשאין רוצה לעשות רק ג' דפנות בעינן שתי מחיצות‬
‫שסמוכות זה לזה ושלמות והשלישית בטפח‪.‬‬

‫‪ .38‬מש' וגמ' סוכה ט‪.‬‬

‫‪ .42‬ר"ן סוכה ד‪ :‬ד"ה וגרסי'‬

‫פירוש שאע"פ שהסוכה בעצמה צלתה מרובה מחמתה‬
‫כמו שכתבתי במשנתנו אפ"ה כיון שצל האילן שהוא‬
‫פסול למעלה הרי הוא מבטל צל סכך כשר שהוא למטה‬
‫ממנו שהרי אינו משמש כלום כיון שהעליון מיצל עליו‬
‫ונמצא שמצטרף הכא סכך פסול של אילן עם סכך כשר‬
‫שאינו תחת האילן שבשניהם נעשית הסוכה צלתה‬
‫מרובה מחמתה וראוי שתפסל עד שיהא צל האילן מעט‬
‫כל כך דבלאו סכך שתחתיו יהא צלתה של סוכה מרובה‬
‫מחמתה אבל בלאו הכי מפסלא לא שנא קדם אילן‬ ‫‪ .39‬תוס' שם ד"ה הא‬
‫לסוכה ולא שנא קדמה סוכה לאילן‪.‬‬

‫‪ .43‬ר"ן סוכה ה‪ .‬ד"ה ונמצא‬

‫ונמצא ג' דינין בדין סכך כשר ופסול האחד כשהאילן‬
‫עומד על הסוכה שאפילו קדמה הסוכה וצלתה מרובה‬
‫מחמתה ואין האילן צלתו מרובה מחמתו אפ"ה פסולה‬
‫אא"כ תשאר הסוכה צלתה מרובה מחמתה אפילו לאחר‬ ‫‪ .40‬תוס' סוכה י‪ .‬ד"ה פירס‬
‫שינטל כל מה שתחת האילן ושלא יהא מה שתחת‬
‫האילן שיעור ד' טפחים במקום אחד בגדולה וג' בקטנה‬
‫הא לאו הכי פוסל‪.‬‬

‫‪ .44‬שלחן ערוך או"ח תרכו‪:‬א‬

‫)אין לעשות סוכה תחת בית או אילן( והעושה סוכתו‬
‫תחת האילן יש אומרים שאם האילן צלתו מרובה‬
‫מחמתו פסולה בכל ענין אף אם הסוכה צלתה מרובה‬
‫מחמתה אבל אם האילן חמתו מרובה מצלתו אם הסוכה‬
‫צלתה מרובה מחמתה בלא אילן כשרה אפילו לא‬
‫השפיל הענפים למטה לערבם עם סכך הסוכה אבל אם‬
‫אין הסוכה צלתה מרובה מחמתה אלא על ידי האילן‬
 ‫‪ .48‬סוכה ד‪.‬‬ ‫צריך שישפיל הענפים ויערבם עם הסכך בענין שלא‬
‫יהיו ניכרים ויהא סכך רבה עליהם ומבטלן‪ .‬וי"א‬
‫שאפילו אם הסוכה צלתה מרובה מחמתה בלא האילן‬
‫והאילן חמתו מרובה מצלתו אם ענפי האילן מכוונים‬
‫כנגד סכך הכשר פסולה בין שהאילן קודם בין שהסוכה‬
‫קדמה כיון שענפי האילן מכוונים כנגד סכך הכשר‪.‬‬
‫הגה‪ :‬מיהו אם השפיל הענפים למטה ועירבן עם הסכך‬
‫‪ .49‬ר"ן ב‪ .‬ד"ה בנה‬ ‫שאינן ניכרין בטלין והסוכה כשרה )הרא"ש והר"ן( וכן‬
‫אם הניח סכך הכשר על סכך הפסול מקרי עירוב וכשר‬
‫)מרדכי פ"ק דסוכה(‪ .‬אבל אם הענפים כנגד האויר‬
‫שבין הסכך הכשר (או שהסכך הרבה שאפי' ינטל נגד‬
‫האילן נשאר כשיעור( )טור(‪ ,‬כשרה הואיל וצל הכשר‬
‫הוא מרובה מחמתה‪ ,‬שאפילו אם ינטל האילן יש שיעור‬
‫בכשר להכשיר ובכל זה לא שאני לן בין קדם האילן‬
‫לקדם הסכך‪ ,‬דין אחד להם‪.‬‬

‫‪ .45‬ביאור הלכה תרכו‪:‬א ד"ה וי"א‬

‫‪ .50‬טור ס' תרלב‬ ‫‪ .46‬מש' סוכה יז‪.‬‬

‫‪ .51‬בית יוסף ס' תרלב‬

‫‪ .47‬בית שנפחת‬

‫‪ .52‬מגן אברהם תרלב‪:‬א‬

 ‫‪ .58‬מגן אברהם תרלב‪:‬ה‬ ‫‪ .53‬שו"ת רע"א פסקים וכתבים ס' יב‬

‫‪ .59‬בכורי יעקב תרכו‪:‬ח‬

‫‪ .54‬פנים מאירות א‪:‬סא‬

‫‪ .55‬ביאור הלכה תרלג‪:‬א‬

‫‪ .60‬משנה ברורה תרכו‪:‬יז ]ושער הציון כג[‬

‫ויש מאחרונים שמחמירין בזה וסוברין דבכל גווני‬
‫בעינן שאפילו אם ינטל נגד העצים ישאר צילתה‬
‫מרובה מחמתה אכן באמת בסתם סוכות כמו שלנו‬ ‫‪ .56‬משנה ברורה תרלב‪:‬כ‬
‫שרגילין לכסות כל הסוכה בודאי בכל גווני ישאר‬
‫צילתה מרובה מחמתה וכשר אכן כדי לצאת ידי כל‬
‫הספיקות יראה שיהיה ריוח בין העצים הדקים בין אחד‬
‫‪ .57‬רשב"א עירובין טז‪ :‬ד"ה אי מוקי‬
‫לחבירו ]כג[ כשיעור ג' טפחים‪] .‬שעה"צ כג‪ -‬כן מסיק‬
‫בזה בספר בכורי יעקב לחוש בזה לדעת הב"ח משום‬
‫חשש לבוד‪[.‬‬
‫‪ .64‬רש"י שם ד"ה שמעמידה‬ ‫‪ .61‬מנחת שלמה צא‪:‬יט‬

‫‪ .65‬ר"ן י‪ :‬ד"ה ומאן‬

‫‪ .62‬שבת הקהתי ה‪:‬קו‬

‫‪ .66‬רא"ש סוכה ב‪:‬א‬

‫‪ .67‬ר"ן י‪ :‬ד"ה ולענין‬

‫‪ .63‬סוכה כא‪:‬‬
‫‪ .74‬רמב"ן מלחמות ה' סוכה י‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .68‬תרומת הדשן ס' צא‬

‫‪ .75‬ריטב"א סוכה כא‪ :‬ד"ה וחד‬

‫‪ .69‬שלחן ערוך תרכט‪:‬ח‬

‫לחבר כלונסאות הסוכה במסמרות של ברזל או לקשרם‬
‫בבלאות )פירוש חתיכות של בגדים בלוים( שהם‬
‫מקבלים טומאה‪ ,‬אין קפידא‪.‬‬

‫‪ .70‬שלחן ערוך תרכט‪:‬ז‬

‫יש להסתפק אם מותר להניח סולם על הגג כדי לסכך‬
‫על גביו‪ .‬הגה‪ :‬לכן אין לסכך עליו ואפילו להניחו על‬
‫הסכך להחזיקו אסור וה"ה בכל כלי המקבל טומאה כגון‬
‫‪ .76‬ביאור הגר"א או"ח תרכט‪:‬ז‬ ‫ספסל וכסא שמקבלין טומאת מדרס )מהרי"ל(‪.‬‬

‫‪ .71‬מגן אברהם תרכט‪:‬ט‬

‫‪ .77‬חזון איש או"ח קמג‪:‬ב‬

‫‪ .72‬משנה ברורה תרכט‪:‬כב‬

‫וכן העתיקו כמה אחרונים לדינא דלכתחלה יש ליזהר‬
‫שלא להעמיד הסכך בדבר המקבל טומאה אכן בדיעבד‬
‫או שאין לו שאר דברים קי"ל דמותר להעמיד הסכך‬
‫בדבר המקבל טומאה כדמוכח בסוף סי' תר"ל‪:‬‬

‫‪ .73‬רא"ש סוכה ב‪:‬א‬

‫‪ .79‬קהלות יעקב סוכה ס' כד‬

‫‪ .78‬משנה ברורה תרכט‪:‬כו‬

‫לחבר וכו' במסמרות של ברזל ‪ -‬זה מותר לכו"ע אפילו‬
‫למאן דאוסר להעמיד הסכך בדבר המקבל טומאה כיון‬
‫שאין סומך הסכך על המסמורים אלא שמחזיק בהם‬
‫הכלונסות המעמידים להסכך‪.‬‬

‫‪ .80‬שפת אמת כג‪.‬‬

 ‫‪ .83‬מש' סוכה יא‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .81‬בצל החכמה ה‪:‬מד‬

‫‪ .84‬דברים טז‪:‬יג‬
‫ספ ְך ָ‬
‫בא ְ‬
‫מים ְ‬
‫עת י ָ ִ‬
‫שב ְ ַ‬
‫שה ל ְך ָ ִ‬
‫ע ֶ‬ ‫כת תַ ֲ‬ ‫ס ֹ‬‫חג הַ ֻ‬ ‫ַ‬
‫ך‪.‬‬
‫קב ֶ ָ‬‫מי ִ ְ‬
‫מג ָר ְנ ְך ָ ו ִ‬
‫ִ‬

‫‪ .85‬סוכה יב‪.‬‬

‫‪ .86‬מש' סוכה יט‪:‬‬

‫‪ .82‬מבית לוי )פסקי הרב ואזנר( ח"ד עמ' כג‬

 ‫‪ .90‬ביאור הלכה תרכט‪:‬ו‬ ‫‪ .87‬אגרות משה או"ח א‪:‬קעז‬

‫‪ .91‬סוכה יד‪.‬‬

‫רש"י סוכה יד‪ .‬ד"ה ר' מאיר‬ ‫‪.92‬‬

‫‪ .88‬רא"ש סוכה א‪:‬לז‬
‫‪ .93‬שו"ת הרשב"א א‪:‬ריג‬

‫‪ .89‬בכורי יעקב תרכט‪:‬ו‬

‫‪ .94‬חיי אדם קמו‪:‬לא‬

 ‫‪ .97‬ריטב"א סוכה טו‪ .‬ד"ה והנכון‬ ‫‪ .95‬אבני נזר תעג‪:‬ה‬

‫‪ .98‬אמרי יושר א‪:‬מג‬

‫‪ .96‬תשובות הגרי"ש אלישיב הובא באז נדברו ב‪:‬סו‬

‫‪ .99‬הלכות חג בחג‪ -‬סוכה נספח בענין סכך קיינעס‬

‫‪ .100‬הגהות הר"ף לסמ"ק מצוה צג‬

 ‫‪ .106‬שו"ת ישכיל עבדי או"ח ו‪:‬כ‬ ‫‪ .101‬הגהות מיימוניות הל' סוכה ה‪:‬כא‬
‫וכתב רא"מ מדקתני כמין בית ש"מ ולא כבית ממש‬
‫למדנו שיכול לסככה בעובי כרצונו אך שתראה סוכה‬
‫אבל בנסרים אפילו פחות מג' דהוו להו כקנים בעלמא‬
‫אחרי שכל הבתים סכוכין בענין זה ואינה נראית סוכה‬
‫פסולה דלא הויא כמין בית אלא בית ממש‪.‬‬

‫‪ .102‬ארחות חיים הל' סוכה אות טו‬

‫‪ .107‬שו"ת יביע אומר או"ח ד‪:‬מט‬

‫וכן בקדש חזיתיה לידידנו הרב הגאון המפו' כמהר"ר‬
‫עובדיה הדאיה שליט"א בשו"ת ישכיל עבדי חלק ו‬
‫‪ .103‬שלחן ערוך או"ח תרכט‪:‬יח‬
‫)חאו"ח סי' כ( שנשאל בנ"ד‪ ,‬וכ' ג"כ מדנפשיה דמ"ש‬
‫וכן אסרו לסכך בנסרים שרחבן ארבעה‪ ,‬אפילו הפכן‬
‫שלא נהגו לסכך בנסרים שאין בהן ד'‪ ,‬אינו אלא מצד‬
‫על צדן שאין בהם ארבעה ואם אין ברחבן ארבעה‬
‫המנהג משום חומרא בעלמא וכו'‪ .‬ומ"ש המשנ"ב‬
‫כשרים‪ ,‬אפילו הם משופים שדומים לכלים‪ ,‬ונהגו שלא‬
‫דכהיום מדינא אסור משום גזרת תקרה וכו'‪ ,‬הנה‬
‫לסכך בהם כלל‪.‬‬
‫בזמנינו זה נשתנה המנהג‪ ,‬ואין מסככים הבתים בנסרים‬
‫כאלה‪ ,‬ובפרט בבנינים החדשים‪ ,‬כי הנסרים עלולים‬ ‫‪ .104‬בית מועד עמ' לט‪:‬‬
‫להרקב‪ ,‬וגם אלה שמקרים בתיהם בפלפונים הוא רק‬
‫ע"י שמטייחים אותם בטיט וסיד‪ .‬ובפלפונים הללו אין‬
‫ג"כ חשש פן יבא לסכך באופן שאין המטר יכול לירד‪,‬‬
‫מכיון שהם דקים הרבה ואינם מתישבים כל כך על‬
‫המקום‪ ,‬ולכן אין לחוש לזה וכו'‪ .‬עכת"ד‪ .‬והגם שיש‬
‫להעיר על שלא שידד עמקים בדברי הראשונים כראוי‪,‬‬ ‫‪ .105‬משנה ברורה תרכט‪:‬מט‬
‫מ"מ לדינא דבריו נכונים שאין לחוש להחמיר כל כך‬
‫בזמנינו זה‪ ,‬ולכן מנהג המסככים בנסרים דקים כעין‬
‫אלו הפלפונים יש לו ע"מ לסמוך‪ .‬ומ"מ נכון לסכך‬
‫על רוחב הנסרים בקצת עלים וענפים‪ .‬כדי שלא יהיה‬
‫חלל ואויר בריוח שבין נסר לנסר על פני אורך הסוכה‪,‬‬
‫שאז אסור לישן תחתיו‪.‬‬

‫‪ .108‬קובץ מבית לוי חוברת ח' עמ' יג‪-‬יד‬

 ‫‪ .114‬חזון איש או"ח עז‪:‬ו‬ ‫‪ .109‬סוכה יב‪.‬‬

‫‪ .110‬רש"י שם‬

‫‪ .111‬סוכה כד‪:‬‬

‫‪ .115‬שלחן ערוך או"ח תרל‪:‬י‬

‫על כן אין נכון לעשות כל המחיצות מיריעות של פשתן‬ ‫‪ .112‬רש"י שם‬
‫בלא קנים‪ ,‬אע"פ שקשרן בטוב‪ ,‬זמנין דמינתקי ולאו‬
‫אדעתיה והוי ליה מחיצה שאינה יכולה לעמוד בפני רוח‬
‫מצויה; והרוצה לעשות בסדינים‪ ,‬טוב שיארוג במחיצות‬
‫קנים בפחות משלשה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .113‬משנה ברורה תרל‪:‬מח ]ושעה"צ מה[‬
‫ר"ל דאם מנידה אותם אפילו אין בכח הרוח להפיל‬
‫‪ .116‬קנה פחות מג'‬ ‫אותם לגמרי רק שע"י הרוח ]מה[ הולך המחיצה ובא‬
‫קי"ל דשוב לא חשיבא מחיצה‪ .‬ואפילו עומדת בבית‬
‫שאין שם רוח כלל לא חשיבה מחיצה‪] .‬שעה"צ‪ -‬כן‬
‫מוכח מרש"י דיבור המתחיל שאינה יכולה‪ ,‬וכדבריו‬
‫כתבו גם כן הר"ן והריטב"א והאור זרוע‪ ,‬ודחקו לרש"י‬
‫לפרש כן דאי לאו הכי יפל קושית הגמרא דקמקשה‬
‫והא איכא נופו‪ ,‬שבודאי לא יפל על ידי הרוח אחרי‬
‫שלמטה מן הנוף האילן הוא קשה ועב‪[.‬‬

‫‪ .117‬שער הציון תרל‪:‬מט‬

‫ולא העתקתי מה שכתב המגן אברהם דלפי מה שכתב‬
‫בסעיף א אם עשו רק ג' דפנות לא מהני קנים בלא‬
‫יריעות גם בעניננו יש להחמיר‪ ,‬כי דעת האליה רבה‬
 ‫‪ .122‬סוכה לא‪.‬‬ ‫להקל בזה מטעם כיון שהיריעות קשורים בטוב והקנים‬
‫אינם רק לחומרא יתרא אין להחמיר כל כך‪ ,‬וכן‬
‫בבכורי יעקב הקל בזה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .118‬מאמר מרדכי תרלז‪:‬ב‬

‫‪ .123‬תלמוד ירושלמי סוכה ג‪:‬א‬

‫‪ .119‬ביאור הלכה תרלז‪:‬א‬

‫‪ .124‬אור זרוע הל' סוכה ס' שב‬

‫‪ .125‬שלחן ערוך ורמ"א תרלז‪:‬ג‬

‫סוכה גזולה כשרה כיצד אם תקף על חבירו והוציאו‬
‫מסוכתו וגזלה וישב בה יצא שאין הקרקע נגזלת‪ .‬הגה‪:‬‬
‫מיהו לכתחלה לא ישב אדם בסוכת חבירו שלא מדעתו‬
‫כ"ש אם דעתו לגזלה וכן לא יעשה סוכה לכתחלה‬
‫בקרקע של חבירו שלא מדעתו וכן בקרקע שהיא של‬
‫רבים )הגהות אשירי וא"ז( מיהו בדיעבד יצא‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .120‬תשובות הגרמ"פ בס' זכרון שלמה )הל' חוה"מ( ס'‬
‫כא‬
‫‪ .126‬מגן אברהם תרלז‪:‬ה‬
‫ואף דבדיעבד כשרה מ"מ נ"ל דאין לברך עליה דאע"ג‬
‫דלית בה משום מצוה הבאה בעביר' כיון דלא קניא כלל‬
‫כמ"ש הר"ן ורי"ו מ"מ אין לברך עליה כמ"ש רסי'‬
‫תרמ"ט וכ"מ בתוס' רפ"ג דסוכה וא"כ הוי ברכה‬ ‫‪ .121‬שמירת שבת כהלכתה פרק סז הע' קעז‬
‫לבטלה‪.‬‬
 ‫‪ .129‬עיקרי הד"ט או"ח ב‪:‬סח‬ ‫‪ .127‬ביאור הלכה תרלז‪:‬ג‬

‫‪ .128‬ביצה ל‪:‬‬

‫‪ .130‬רש"י ביצה ל‪:‬‬

‫דלא דמו לסוכה לענין תנאה ואף על גב דבטלי לגבה‬
‫דכי מהני תנאה באומר מבעוד יום איני בודל מהם‬
‫מהיות כוחי וזכותי בהם ליטלן כל שהות אורך של בין‬
‫השמשות של ערב יום טוב הלכך בשעת ביאת היום‬
‫שהיתה קדושה צריכה לחול עליהם לא חלה לפיכך לא‬
‫הוקצה אבל עצי סוכה שאינו יכול להתנות עליהם תנאי‬
‫זה שהרי על כרחו יבדל מהם בין השמשות משום‬
‫דסתר אהלא ובין השמשות ספק יום טוב הוא חלה‬
‫קדושה עליה ועל ידי קדושה זו הוקצה לשבעה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .135‬רשב"א עבודת הקדש‪ ,‬בית מועד שער ב'‬ ‫‪ .131‬ר"ן ביצה יז‪ .‬ד"ה אבל‬

‫‪ .136‬משנה ברורה תרלח‪:‬ג‬

‫‪ .132‬מגן אברהם ריש ס' תרלח‬

‫‪ .133‬שולחן ערוך הרב או"ח תרלח‪:‬יד‬

‫ואם עשה סוכה בחול המועד והתנה על עצי הדפנות‬
‫בתנאי המועיל להסתפק מהן בכל עת שירצה הרי זה‬
‫מסתפק מהן בכל עת שירצה אפילו בשעה שהסוכה‬
‫קיימת ויושב בה לשם מצוה ואין בזה משום ביזוי מצוה‬
‫כיון שהדפנות לא הוקצו כלל למצוה שהרי התנה‬
‫עליהם מתחלה שיהא רשאי להסתפק מהן ונמצא שלא‬
‫חלה עליהם קדושת הסוכה מעולם‪.‬‬

‫‪ .134‬סוכה ח‪:‬‬