Siman 627

Just as the sukkah must be under the open sky, as I wrote in the previous siman, so too the person sitting and sleeping in the sukkah must be under the atmosphere of the sukkah, and not under another atmosphere that intervenes between the sukkah and the person. Therefore, the sages taught in the Mishnah (beginning of the second chapter): One who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. And it was established in the Gemara that this is when the bed is ten high, such that it is a tent—considered significant in its own right—and he sleeps under the tent of the bed and not under the tent of the sukkah. But when it is not ten high, we are not concerned with it, because it is not considered a tent. And even though it is a tent for several matters even at less than ten when it is a tefach wide, such as for tumah and the like, and a typical bed is a tefach wide or more—nevertheless, this is not a complete tent to nullify the tent of the sukkah unless it is ten high, for so it is explicitly stated in the Shas (beginning of the second chapter). And even though in the Yerushalmi it implies explicitly that this is so even if it is not ten high, nevertheless, in our Shas it is not so.

And know that there are some among the Rishonim who said that this is only rabbinic, but according to the Torah—he has fulfilled the obligation, for the tent of the bed does not nullify the tent of the sukkah (Ba'al HaMaor). But this is not the opinion of the Rif and the Rosh, who wrote that it is like a sukkah within a sukkah. And so wrote the Rambam. And certainly their intention is not that this is literally the law of a sukkah within a sukkah, for a sukkah within a sukkah is derived from a verse. Rather, their intention is that the invalidity of being under the bed—is from the Torah like the invalidity of a sukkah within a sukkah. And so wrote the Ramban in the Milchamot, see there (and see Taz subsection 1, and Bach).

One who sleeps on a bed under a kilah—and these are curtains spread around the bed, and also connected together above like a roof—if it is not ten tefachim high, even though it has a roof a tefach wide, or if it does not have a roof a tefach wide, even though it is ten high, it is not considered a tent in its own right, and it does not intervene between the sukkah and the person. But when it is ten tefachim high and the width of the roof is a tefach, it is considered a tent like a bed and it intervenes, and one who sleeps under it has not fulfilled his obligation according to the Torah. For the general rule of a tent is that it must not be less than a tefach in width, and to have the importance of a tent it requires a height of ten tefachim. And why did we not stipulate regarding a bed the matter of a tefach in width? Because you have no bed that is less than a tefach in width.

And know that even though the top of the roof does not have a width of a tefach, if it broadens as it goes down until there is a width of a tefach within less than three tefachim adjacent to the roof in height—it is as if the roof has a width of a tefach. For anything less than three tefachim is considered lavud. But with more than three, or exactly three—we have no concern with it. And the partitions of the kilah which we said must be ten tefachim high—this is specifically when they reach the ground within less than three tefachim, for it is then lavud. But if they are higher than the ground by three tefachim—it appears to me that it is not an ohel, for it is no better than a partition. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 1—have no solution, as the Pri Megadim wrote. And in the Bach it is implied that it must not be higher than the ground by a tefach, see there. And the Chemed Moshe disagrees regarding less than three tefachim adjacent to the roof of a tefach, see there. And it is not the primary view, but rather as I have written. And examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

The wooden posts protruding from the four corners of the bed, which are fixed to the bed, and one spreads a sheet over them like a canopy—and it is called in the language of the Mishnah (10a) a "kinuf"—it is forbidden to sleep under it, even if they are not ten high, since they are fixed (Gemara ibid.). And it is considered a tent that nullifies the tent of the sukkah. But if the posts do not protrude from the four corners of the bed, but rather one post is in the middle of the bed at its head, and one post is in the middle of the bed at its foot, and one spreads a sheet over it—and it is called in the language of the Gemara "naklitin"; and this is when they place poles from one to the other, and they do not have a width of a tefach at the top, and the sheet that they spread over the poles is not ten tefachim high from the ground—it is permitted to sleep under it. But when it is ten high—it is forbidden, even without a width of a tefach. And it is not similar to a canopy, which does not have permanence, even though the bed is certainly fixed. And despite all this, we require two things: ten tefachim high, and a width of a tefach. It is not similar, for the bed is not made to be a tent for what is beneath it, but rather to sleep upon it. This is not the case with these, which are made to be a tent for what is beneath them.

And according to this, it has been explained that there are three measures regarding these curtains: a kila, naklitin, and a kinofet. A kila, which is not fixed—is not forbidden unless there are two factors to its detriment: that it has a roof of a tefach, and is ten high. And naklitin are more fixed than a kila, and therefore even though they do not have a roof of any tefach, as long as they are ten tefachim high—it is forbidden to sleep under it. And a kinofet, which is fixed and has a roof, even though it is not ten tefachim high—it is forbidden to sleep under it (Ran, first chapter). And so it is explicitly explained in the Gemara (11a). But the Rif and the Rambam validated even naklitin, even when ten high, because it does not have a roof the width of a tefach. And the commentators have already exerted themselves over their words, for this is against the sugya of the Shas. And also regarding a kinofet they validated when it is not ten tefachim high. And all of this is against the sugya, and requires great study. (And see Maggid Mishneh there, who wrote that they rejected this sugya from the halacha. And see Lechem Mishneh there, fifth chapter, halacha 23 and 24).

It is permitted to spread decorated tapestries and decorated sheets in the sukkah for the beauty of the sukkah, whether around the walls or under the sechach, even though they are disqualified for use as sechach. And it is permitted to sit under them. They are not considered a tent to form an intervention, since they are for beauty—they are nullified relative to the sechach, provided only that they are within four tefachim adjacent to the sechach. But if they are separated by four tefachim—they are not nullified relative to the sechach, as I will write in siman 632. Therefore, if one spread a sheet under the sechach for beauty, if it is within four tefachim of the roof—it is kosher. And if it is four tefachim distant from the roof—it is disqualified. And if it is not for beauty, even though it is within four tefachim—it is disqualified. Therefore, one must be careful not to place any beauty for the sukkah under the sechach except within less than four adjacent to the sechach, even with something where there is no concern of a tent, so that they do not hang something that involves a concern of a tent. The Maharil was careful in this, and many are not careful, since according to the law it is permitted (Taz, subsection 5).