Siman 629

The sakh must be from something that is not susceptible to tumah, and its growth is from the ground, such as: wood, leaves, branches, straw, and hay. And we learned this from that which is written: "The festival of Sukkot you shall make... from your granary and from your winepress." And this means: the waste of the granary, which are the hay and the straw, and the waste of the winepress, which are the vine-branches. For "from your granary" implies—but not your granary itself, "from your winepress" implies—but not your winepress itself. For the grain and the grapes are susceptible to tumah. And so we find in Nehemiah (8) when they ascended from the exile and made sukkot, it is written: "Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves, and oil tree leaves, and myrtle leaves, and palm leaves... to make sukkot as it is written" (Gemara 12a).

And know that there is reason to doubt in our northern countries, where snow frequently falls during the festival of Sukkot, and much snow has fallen upon the sechach, whether the sukkah is invalidated by this or not. And I saw one who wrote that it is kosher, for since snow does not form a barrier against impurity (Ohalot chapter four, mishnah 5) – it is not considered to be a ceiling over the sukkah (Be'er Heitev and Sha'arei Teshuvah in siman 626, subsection 1). And I say that there is no proof from this at all, for behold, even seeds and vegetables attached to the ground – it is taught there that they also do not form a barrier, yet regarding a sukkah, they certainly invalidate it. And this fact that snow does not form a barrier is because it does not endure. However, for its time, it certainly nullifies the sechach. But for another reason it may be said that it does not invalidate, for behold, snow is not susceptible to impurity, as we say in Niddah (17a). And the Mordechai in the sixth chapter of Chullin wrote in the name of a Gaon: that one may cover with snow, as it is written: "For He says to the snow, 'Become earth,'" see there – behold, it is like that which grows from the earth, and it is not susceptible to impurity. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in Tur Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 28, rejected this, see there. Therefore, it appears to me that at the time when the snow is abundant upon the sechach – one should not recite the blessing "to dwell in the sukkah."

Living creatures, even though regarding the matter of ma'aser they are called "products of the soil," as we say at the beginning of "Bekhol Me'arvin" – nevertheless, their growth is not from the ground, for they do not sprout from the ground. Therefore, one may not cover with hides, even at a time when they do not contract tumah, such as when they have not yet been processed. And similarly, one may not cover with dust, or with any types of metals that are dug from the ground, but their growth is not from the ground.

And with ordinary wood that are not vessels – one may use them for s'chach. But when they have been made into vessels – behold, they are susceptible to tumah. And regarding flat wooden vessels, of which there are some that are susceptible to tumah by rabbinic decree and one may not use them for s'chach, and those that are not susceptible to tumah even by rabbinic decree – one may use them for s'chach. And that is: those that are only for the service of man – are completely pure, such as a ladder and a clothes hanger. And those that are for the service of man and vessels, such as a table, and a baker's board – are susceptible to tumah, as the Rambam wrote in the fourth chapter of Keilim, and our teachers the Tosafists in Sukkah (5a). And it appears that those that are susceptible to tumah by rabbinic decree – are disqualified by rabbinic decree and not by Torah law. And the practical legal difference is regarding a doubt in this law, that one follows the lenient path in its doubt, according to the law of a rabbinic doubt.

And according to this, it appears that one may use wooden vessels that hold more than forty seah as s'khakh, for they do not contract tumah. And so too all those listed in the twenty-fourth chapter of Kelim regarding the three measurements, where the final measurement is pure from everything—all of those, when they are made of wood or cloth, one may use them as s'khakh. However, vessels that were broken in a manner that they were purified from their tumah—one may not use them as s'khakh, since they come from something that contracts tumah. And so it is stated in the Gemara (16a): If one used worn-out vessels as s'khakh, meaning rags that do not have three by three remaining, which do not contract tumah—it is invalid, because they came from something that contracts tumah. And automatically, the same law applies to vessels. And the Rambam at the beginning of the fifth chapter wrote the reason: that perhaps one will use shards as s'khakh that have not yet been purified, see there. And according to this, its invalidity is by rabbinic enactment. And it appears to me that if one intentionally purifies it for the sake of s'khakh—it is permitted to use it as s'khakh. And there is a proof from what will be explained in section 23, that an action is effective (and this contradicts this law, but according to what I have written, it works well).

And this is what we learned in the Mishnah (Sukkah 15a): One who roofs his sukkah with spits, or with the long boards of a bed, if there is a space between them equal to them – it is kosher. For the spits and the long boards themselves are disqualified, as spits are made of metal, and all metal is disqualified for s'chach, and the long boards of the bed are the fragments of the bed. And the Mishnah teaches us: that there is no difference between a disqualification of Torah origin and a disqualification of rabbinic origin. And even though in the Gemara it is established as referring to a long board and two legs, which themselves are susceptible to tumah – this is according to what it wanted to reject, that the law of roofing with worn-out vessels is disqualified, see there. But according to the truth it does not require this, and therefore the Rambam, of blessed memory, did not mention them. (And the Tur Orach Chaim 629 and the Shulchan Aruch section 2 who mentioned spits and long boards of the bed – they adopted the flow of the language of the Mishnah, and the spits are of metal. And as for the difficulty raised by the Beit Yosef that if so it mentioned it for no reason, since those of iron are disqualified anyway, and so wrote the Taz subsection 2, and the Bach labored over this – I do not know what the difficulty is. For the Mishnah teaches us the law that those of iron are disqualified, and the Tur adopted the language of the Mishnah. And it appears to me that this is the intention of the Magen Avraham subsection 1. And therefore he left the Beit Yosef with "requires further study," see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

There is a wooden shaft that connects to iron arrowheads, and there are some where the shaft is hollow and they place the arrowheads inside them, and there are some that are not hollow and they insert them into the socket of the arrowhead—and these are valid for s'chach, as long as one has not inserted them into the socket of the arrowhead. But once they have been inserted—they are disqualified, even if they were removed afterward, for once it was connected to the arrowhead—it became susceptible to tumah, and if so, it is disqualified forever, as with the worn-out parts of vessels that we wrote about. And those that are hollow, since they have a receptacle—behold they are tamei, and one may not use them for s'chach. (And the Tosafot, Yevamot 12b, starting with the words "In the female parts," wrote that it is somewhat a wonder: since it is made to be filled, it should be considered unfinished wooden vessels which are tahor, like the handle of a knife, until one has placed the iron. Thus far his words. And I have not merited to understand, for from where do our teachers know that the handle of a knife does not contract tumah? For it is explained in the Rambam in the fifth chapter of Keilim that if only the form of the vessel is finished, even though they did not complete it—it is tamei. And it is an explicit Mishnah at the end of the twelfth chapter of Keilim, that all unfinished wooden vessels are tamei, except for those of boxwood, meaning: when it is not completely finished. And so too in Chullin 25a, which considers unfinished wooden vessels where the body of the vessel is lacking, see there. And it requires further study.)

Any receptacle that was not made for receiving, such as a gutter, and similarly a receptacle that formed on its own, such as hollow reeds and the like, and they do not stand for receiving—they are pure, and one may perform sechach with them (Magen Avraham subsection 2). And if one performed sechach with flax that was not crushed and not combed—it is kosher, as it is merely wood. But if it was crushed and combed—it is invalid, for even though it does not yet receive tumah, nevertheless it is close to spinning where it will receive tumah, and the rabbis decreed upon it (Taz subsection 6). And the Rambam wrote the reason is that since its form has changed—it is as if it is not the growth of the ground. And according to this, also with cotton and hemp, if it was crushed and combed—one may not perform sechach with them (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 3). And there is one who wrote the reason is because they are fit to be placed in pillows and bolsters (ibid. in the name of the Ran). Therefore, also the dakdakta, which is the fine material that falls from the flax—one may not perform sechach with them for this reason (ibid.).

If one roofed it with ropes of flax—it is forbidden. And even though ropes do not contract tumah, nevertheless, since its form does not remain—it is as if they are not from the growth of the ground (Maggid Mishneh). But with those of reeds or of palm-fiber—it is kosher, for these have not had their form changed. And this is from the Yerushalmi. And mats that are fit for lying upon—it is obvious that one may not roof with them, for they contract the tumah of midras. And those that are not fit for lying upon—one may roof with them.

This is the wording of the Rambam there, Law 6: A mat of reeds, or a mat of papyrus, or of small rushes—its default purpose is for lying upon, therefore one may not use it for s'chach unless he made it for s'chach. And a large one—its default purpose is for s'chach, therefore one may use it for s'chach unless he made it for lying upon. And if it has a rim—even a large one, one may not use it for s'chach, for it is like a receptacle. And even if its rim was removed—one may not use it for s'chach, because it is like the fragments of vessels. Thus far his words. And the rim, even if it is very small, since it surrounds it—it is fit for containing (Kessef Mishneh from Rashi at the end of the first chapter, see there).

The Ra'avad, of blessed memory, ruled that if it is made with a thick weave or braiding—even if it is small, one may use it for s'chach, because it is not fit for lying upon. The Rambam does not make a distinction in this matter. This is also the opinion of the Tur, who wrote: It makes no difference if it is woven such that it is smooth and fit for lying upon, or if it is made like chainwork, which is not smooth and not so fit for lying upon. If it is small—it is presumably intended for lying upon, etc. Thus far his words. And their reasoning is that even that which is made with a thick weave or braiding is fit for lying upon in a time of need, as is explained from his wording, where he wrote "it is not so fit for lying upon"—this implies explicitly that with difficulty one is able to lie upon it. But if it is truly not fit for lying upon at all—it is obvious that they also agree that even if it is small, one may use it for s'chach.

And what is called "made it for lying upon" or "made it for s'chach"? The Rosh explained that it depends on the custom of the place, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6, that the majority of the city's residents make it for s'chach or for lying upon, and it does not depend on the individual himself. However, this is certainly in a place where there is no known custom—it depends on his making it, whether his intention was for lying upon or for s'chach. And in an unspecified case, there is a distinction between a small one and a large one, and between one that has a rim and one that does not have a rim. But if he made it for s'chach—it is explicit that even if it has a rim, one may use it for s'chach. (See Taz subsection 7, and it is not a refutation, see there.)

There is one who wrote that in these places, an ordinary mat is for lying upon (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). However, in our regions it is not so, for all mats are made to wrap merchandise in them. Yet, according to the law, it seems that this is like that which is for lying upon, for they are made for the reception of merchandise, and they are like a receptacle. And even though they are currently flat, and when one wraps merchandise in them one makes them into a receptacle, nevertheless, ultimately they were made for reception. Therefore, it is obvious that one may not use them for sechach. And even old ones that were torn are like the worn-out remnants of vessels. Therefore, it is invalid to use mats for sechach. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: In a place where they are accustomed to fix mats to the roofs, like a ceiling—one may not use them for sechach. Thus far his words; meaning: even large ones that do not stand for lying upon, nevertheless, since they make them for a ceiling, we decree lest one sit under the ceiling of the house. And consequently, such is the law in our regions, where thin boards make the ceilings which they call "gantes" or "shindlen," that it is forbidden to cover the sukkah with them, a decree lest one sit under the ceiling of the house (Taz, subsection 7). Therefore, we have not heard in our days that they cover the sukkah with thin wood or "lattes," since with them they make the roofs. And although from the Torah they are valid, nevertheless, one should not use them for sechach because of the reason of the decree of the ceiling, meaning: that he will come to sit under the ceiling of the house. (And however, if he is in a distant place, where it is impossible for him to cover with something else—he should cover with thin boards, and he should not be nullified from the mitzvah of sukkah, for according to the law they are valid. And see in section 32.)

Among us, there are those who make for sechach woven reeds, which are called "palupeskes," and it is obvious that they are kosher. However, there are those from which they make the sides of wagons and their bottoms, and they are disqualified for sechach, for they are made for sitting and contract midras impurity. Therefore, one must warn not to take these woven items from the wagons to cover the sukkah. And they are disqualified by Torah law. Even those made for the purpose of wagons—it is disqualified to cover with them, as with the small mats that have been explained. And even if they are made for wagons without specification—they are disqualified, as with the mats. One must be very careful in this, for in our province, the majority of wagons are made from this.

The author of the Terumat HaDeshen wrote (siman 90): It appears that it is permitted to cover even the entire sukkah with our ladders, for it is not invalid s'khakh: even though it is a vessel, it does not contract tumah, as it has no receptacle, etc. For it was taught in Torat Kohanim: A ladder and a clothes-hook, even though one ascends and descends upon them – they do not contract midras tumah. And he explains the reason because they are not made for the enjoyment of treading, but rather in order to ascend and descend upon them. And so it is in Tosafot, etc. Thus far his words.

And in the responsa of the Rashba (Part 1, Siman 195) it is written: You asked regarding a portable ladder, whether it is permitted to use it for schach, etc. Answer: This ladder, if it is made to be carried like a sack, and its side-beams are bored to receive the ends of the rungs—it appears that it is susceptible to tumah, for a receptacle made to be filled is considered a receptacle, etc. And the ladder mentioned in Torat Kohanim, etc., and likewise in the Tosefta, etc., which are tahor—it appears that this is when they do not have a receptacle, but rather its rungs are fixed upon the side-beams. Thus far his words. And according to this, he does not disagree with the Terumat HaDeshen, for the Terumat HaDeshen is dealing with a case where it has no receptacle, or like our standard ladders, where the carving in the side-beams is from one side to the other, completely hollowed out, and this is not a receptacle. And even with a receptacle, according to the opinion of the Rambam in the second chapter of Kelim—it would not be a receptacle. And the Rashba disagrees with him. And behold, Rashi in Sanhedrin (68a) also holds like the Rambam, and the Tosafot in Sukkah (12b) hold like the Rashba, see there. However, in any event, our ladders which are bored from one side to the other—certainly according to all opinions it is permitted to use them for schach (and so it is implied by the Magen Avraham, subsection 8).

And according to this, I wonder at our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 7, who wrote: There is a doubt whether it is permitted to place a ladder on the roof in order to place s'chach upon it. Therefore, one should not place s'chach upon it. And even to place it upon the s'chach to hold it down is forbidden. And the same law applies to any vessel that is susceptible to tumah, such as a bench or a chair, which are susceptible to the tumah of midras. Thus far his words. And I do not understand the basis for the doubt: for if the ladder has a receptacle, it is certainly invalid for s'chach. And if it is perforated from one side to the other, or if the rungs are on top of the side-beams, it is certainly valid for s'chach. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (Taz, subsection 9, and Magen Avraham, subsection 8) wrote that the basis for the doubt is regarding a ladder that does not have a receptacle, but perhaps the sages did not distinguish and forbade all ladders; see there. And these are strange words: for is it possible to decree decrees from our own minds? Furthermore: behold, later in section 18 it is explained in the Shulchan Aruch that it is permitted to use for s'chach planks that are less than four tefachim, even if they are planed such that they resemble vessels, and we do not decree on account of vessels. And all the more so we should not decree regarding a ladder on account of another ladder (the Magen Avraham himself alluded to this, as wrote the Machatzit HaShekel). Furthermore: for on Yom Tov there is a ladder that is forbidden to move and one that is permitted to move, as I wrote in siman 518, and we do not decree regarding one ladder on account of another ladder, so why should we decree here? (However, there it is a matter of moving, which is rabbinic.)

However, in truth it appears from their words that they are not dealing at all with the law of using ladders for s'chach, but rather they are dealing with a ladder that is forbidden to be used for s'chach because it has a receptacle, and regarding the matter of placing s'chach upon it due to the reason of a support made of an object susceptible to tumah. And the place of doubt is because most poskim rejected this matter of a support made of an object susceptible to tumah. And the authors of the Shulchan Aruch themselves ruled so in this siman, section 8, that it is permitted to join the beams with iron nails. And likewise later at the end of siman 630 they ruled that it is permitted to support with an object susceptible to tumah. However, here there is more reason to forbid, for there the supports are from the side, and the matter is not so noticeable. This is not the case here, where the support is along the entire length of the s'chach, below or above to hold it, and it is as if it is the primary s'chach. And so it is with any vessel susceptible to tumah. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (Taz subsection 10, and Magen Avraham subsection 9) wrote that the doubt is because the ladder is the s'chach itself, and it is four tefachim wide, and four tefachim of invalid s'chach invalidates in the middle, as they wrote in siman 630. And they themselves rejected this matter, for behold this is only when a valid sukkah does not remain, as is explained there (Taz ibid.). Furthermore: behold between rung and rung there is much airspace. And there is one who says that the reason is because of a support made of an object susceptible to tumah. And that which they permitted later—that is post facto, but ab initio it is forbidden (Magen Avraham ibid.). And it is a wonder: for later it also deals with ab initio. However, in any event, for the law it appears in my humble opinion that with our ladders which are carved from side to side—it is permitted to use them for s'chach, and all the more so to place them upon the s'chach or under the s'chach. And those rungs that they set up in stables, in which they give horses and animals to eat, which are called "Zalab"—it is obvious that they are a receptacle and susceptible to tumah, and it is forbidden to use them for s'chach. (And I did not understand the opinion of the Taz, who first wrote that the ladder itself is the s'chach, and afterward in subsection 11 wrote due to the reason of a support, and because of onlookers who will come to make the body of the s'chach from them, see there. And this is a new decree that we have not heard. And the clear explanation is as I have written. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And if it is permitted to support [the schach] with something susceptible to tumah: our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8 ruled that it is permitted, and this is his wording: To join the poles of the sukkah with iron nails, or to tie it with worn-out garments which are susceptible to tumah – there is no concern. Thus far his words, and he ruled similarly at the end of siman 630, see there, for such is the opinion of most poskim. And similarly in the Yerushalmi, second chapter, this matter is completely rejected, for there is no prohibition at all to support with something susceptible to tumah. And so wrote the Rosh, and he elaborated on this. And this is the opinion of most of our teachers. (Except for the Ran who ruled it is prohibited by reason of a decree, lest they say: just as it is permitted to support with them, so too it is permitted to use them for schach. And the Bach elaborated that it is a Torah prohibition, and cited Rashi. And I wonder: even if it were so, Rashi did not rule like Rabbi Yitzchak. And so it is implied from the Responsa of the Rashba, siman 195, who ruled that the ladder does not disqualify the schach. And what the Bach wrote, that he follows the system of Rabbeinu Tam, who distinguishes between whether the kosher schach preceded the invalid schach, see there – his words are astonishing: for the Rashba explicitly rejected the system of Rabbeinu Tam in his novellae on the Mishnah of "one who trained a vine over it," as I wrote in siman 626. And since even according to the Ran it is only a rabbinic prohibition, and most poskim and the Yerushalmi do not hold so, why should we be stringent? Moreover, there are several difficulties with this system, and they were forced to press themselves, as the Beit Yosef wrote, and the Bach himself. And since this is also the decision of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch and the Acharonim – one should not be stringent in this.)

All types of food fit for human consumption contract tumah, and one may not use them for sechach. However, animal fodder does not contract tumah. And thus we expound in Torat Kohanim: "'Of all food... shall be tamei'—food designated [for humans], excluding animal fodder." Therefore, straw and stubble, even though they are fit for animal fodder, one may use them for sechach. And they are the primary material for sechach, as we learn from the verse "from your threshing floor and from your winepress." And there is a question regarding this: behold, all foods prior to being rendered susceptible by water do not contract tumah, and if so, it should be permitted to use foods for sechach that have not been rendered susceptible? And the answer: since it lacks nothing for tumah except a secondary deficiency, it is impossible to call it something that does not contract tumah, for it contracts tumah by means of water and a sheretz. Furthermore: how is it possible to use this for sechach, when after an hour rain might fall and it would become completely disqualified? Rather, certainly their disqualification is from the Torah, like any object that contracts tumah.

Fig branches with figs on them, and grapevine branches with grapes on them, if the waste is greater than the food—one may use them for sechach, and if not—one may not use them for sechach (Baraita 13b). And one should not ask regarding the Rambam, who ruled in chapter five, law 13: If one mixed a substance that may be used for sechach with a substance that may not be used for sechach, even though the valid is greater than the invalid—it is invalid, as I wrote in siman 626, so how do we follow the majority here? For it can be said that what the Rambam wrote there—that is when each was separate, and afterwards he used both for sechach, and for the reason we wrote there. It is not so when both were together from the beginning, for the minority is nullified by the majority, as in the entire Torah. And there is proof from the verse "from your threshing floor and from your winepress," for is it possible that in the waste of a threshing floor some kernels of food are not found, and likewise in the waste of a winepress? Rather, it is certain that we follow the majority in such a case.

It is established for us to say that there is a "handle" (yad) for tumah, meaning: if the food requires the handle that is outside the food—the law of the handle is like the law of the food, in that it also contracts tumah. And we derive this from a verse at the beginning of the chapter "Ha-Or Ve-ha-Rotav" (Chullin 118). Therefore, if one harvested grain for food, and the food requires the stalks to hold the food with them—the handle has the status of food to contract tumah. And there must be enough waste matter to nullify the food and the handle. And there is no handle greater than three tefachim in grain and in all harvested items, as we learned in the first chapter of Ukzin. And there it was explained that the handle of dates is four tefachim, and in clusters of grapes there is no measure for the handle, see there. And there is one who says that we should decree these on account of those (Magen Avraham subsection 12). And I do not know why we must issue decrees from our own minds. And so it appears explicitly from the Responsa of the Rosh, Klal 24, see there.

And when is there a yad? When one harvested them for food. But if one harvested them for sikhukh—they do not have a yad, since he did not harvest for the sake of the food. On the contrary, the yad joins with the rest to nullify the food by a majority, as I have written. And if one harvested them for food, and then changed his mind regarding them for sikhukh—we maintain regarding tumah that thought does not remove it from the status of tumah unless one performs an action upon it. Therefore, one must perform an action upon them so that it is recognizable to all that this is for sikhukh and not for eating. For example: that he threshes them to remove the grain. And automatically, he does not need the yad. Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Arukh, wrote in section 11: One may use for sikhukh pigono, which is called in Arabic shumar, and it is animal food, and humans do not eat it except for medicinal purposes. Thus far his words. And we do not know what this is, but in any event we have learned from their words that even though humans eat this for medicinal purposes—it is not considered eating at all. For behold, they take even bitter things for medicinal purposes; because of this are they called edible?

Below in siman 632 it will be explained that invalid sechach invalidates the sukkah with four tefachim. And air is more stringent than it, as it invalidates with three tefachim. And the sages said that if one covered part of the sukkah with vegetables that are quick to dry out within the seven days of the festival, and fall away until air remains, and they are invalid for sechach because they are susceptible to tumah—their law is not like invalid sechach to require four tefachim to invalidate the sukkah, but rather they are considered like air to invalidate with three tefachim. And if it is not their way to dry out within the seven days of the festival—their law is like invalid sechach, and they invalidate only with four tefachim, even when they will dry out after the festival. And when do we judge it as dry immediately, even while they are still moist, and not from when they begin to dry a little? Rather, anything whose way is to dry out within the seven days of the festival—we immediately judge it like air and it invalidates, whether in the middle of the sukkah or from the side, with three tefachim. And so too, valid sechach that will not last all seven days—is invalid. (And this is the intention of the Rema in section 12, for if not so, what is he teaching us? For the Mechaber also intends this, rather it is as I have written. Examine it and you will find it simple.) And it will be further explained in siman 630 section 3, see there.

That which is attached to the ground is invalid for sechach, as it is written: "When you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress" – when you gather them from the ground and detach them, and not while they are attached to the ground. That which was detached and subsequently attached – is valid for sechach (Beit Yosef and Bach, end of siman 626 in the name of Terumat HaDeshen). And even though regarding the matter of shechitah its law is like that which is attached, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 6, nevertheless, since regarding the matter of the susceptibility of seeds to ritual impurity and regarding idolatry its law is like that which is detached, as is found in Chullin (16a), regarding the matter of sukkah its law is also like that which is detached (and so wrote the Magen Avraham in this siman, subsection 11).

There are things that the sages forbade for use as sechach ab initio, even though they are valid for use as sechach, but they have a foul odor. For there are types of grasses that are not fit for consumption and do not contract tumah, but their odor is foul, and we are concerned that one will not be able to sit in the sukkah because of the foul odor. And similarly, there are branches from which the leaves fall constantly, even though its shade will still remain greater than its sunlight, yet a person's mind does not tolerate the falling, and we are concerned that he will leave the sukkah. And all this is ab initio. But ex post facto – it is valid. And similarly, anything that is valid according to the Torah, but they decreed against it because of some matter – certainly ab initio one should not sit in it, and if he sat – he fulfilled the mitzvah of sukkah. And know: that this matter of not sitting when the leaves fall – this is when they fall on their own. But if they fall only when the wind blows through them – we have no concern with it. (See Tosafot Sukkah 3a, beginning with the words "De-amar," and in Berakhot 11a, beginning with the words "Tani." And this is only according to Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. And on the contrary, from there is a proof for one who looks well there. And be precise and you will find it easy.) (And similarly a proof from Magen Avraham, subsection 22.)

And behold, regarding reeds—it is permitted to use them for sechach. Nevertheless, the rabbis forbade using a bundle of reeds for sechach, meaning that there are twenty-five reeds in one tied bundle. And the reason for the matter: for all sechach of a sukkah, even though we do not require that he place the sechach for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah, nevertheless we require that his intent be for the sake of shade, to sit beneath it for protection from the sun, as will be explained in siman 635. But if he placed them to dry or for merchandise, and afterward desires to fulfill with it the mitzvah of sukkah—it is invalid according to the Torah, and requires a new act of making. And for this the sages said that regarding a bundle of reeds, it is the way to place them on the roof to dry them, and afterward he will settle on making it a sukkah, and it is invalid because of "you shall make, and not from that which is already made" in a state of invalidity. Therefore, they forbade them even to place the bundle for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah, because of a decree lest he place them to dry them, and afterward sit in it for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah.

And thus the sages said (Yevamot 11a, and in the Yerushalmi there) that any bundle that is less than twenty-five reeds—one may use it for sechach, because it is not their way to dry them in less than a bundle of twenty-five reeds. And when it has twenty-five reeds—it is forbidden to use it for sechach. And specifically when the bundle is tied from its two ends, as it is easy to carry it thus, or tied in the middle. But when it is tied at one of the two ends—it is not a bundle, and it is permitted to use it for sechach, because it is not fit for carrying to such an extent that they would fall. And likewise: specifically when the reeds are entirely separate from one another. But if twenty-five reeds or more emerge from one trunk, and at the other end they are separate from one another, and he bound them there—it is not called a bundle, since their base is one. However, if he bound with them even one more reed, and bound them—the name "bundle" applies to all of them by way of this reed. For the reason it is not called a bundle is because a binding in a single thing is not called a binding. Therefore, when there is another reed with them—it is properly a binding. And likewise, any bundle where the tying is not for a duration, but rather for a brief moment, in order to sell them by count, and immediately when the buyer purchases it he unties the binding—it is not called a bundle, and one may use it for sechach. For there is no decree regarding drying them, as it is not the way of such reeds to dry them on the roof.

Any bundle that one brought up to dry, and afterwards desires to make it for the sake of schach—it is not effective merely to untie it from the knot. Since it is disqualified by the Torah because of "make it, and not from that which is already made," this is not considered an act of making by mere untying. Rather, he must untie it, and afterwards shake each and every reed by itself. But if he placed the bundle for the sake of schach, which is valid according to the Torah, but the rabbis issued a decree as has been explained—therefore, mere untying is sufficient.

One may cover with boards that are not four tefachim wide. According to Torah law it is permitted, but the sages decreed [against it] because if so, one might say: what is the difference to me between these and the ceilings of a house? And this is disqualified by the Torah, for the Torah said "sukkah," and not his year-round house. They only decreed against those that are four tefachim wide, because standard house ceilings are not less than four tefachim wide. And even if he placed them on their sides, where there is no width of four—nevertheless, this board is disqualified for covering in any manner that he places it, and they are treated like iron spits. But if they do not have a width of four—one may cover with them even if they are planed, for even if he planed them and smoothed them until they are fit for use and resemble vessels, one may nevertheless cover with them.

And the reason for the matter: for their growth is from the ground, and they do not contract tumah according to the law of flat wooden vessels. And even though flat wooden vessels that are fit for use contract tumah rabbinically, and they too are disqualified for sechach as I have written—this refers to those that are very wide, such as tables and bakers' boards, upon which one performs complete uses. But not those less than four, which are not fit for complete use, only for light use, and they do not contract tumah. And also the tumah of midras is not relevant to these boards, which were not made for midras, and he did not designate them for sitting or for use. For if he designated them for sitting—they are disqualified by Torah law. And if he designated them for use—they are disqualified rabbinically. Even though they are only for light use, nevertheless he designated them for use, and they are like wide flat wooden vessels that contract tumah rabbinically. (See Taz, subsection 20, that even thought is not effective for midras, but only an action, that he should fix it in the place where he needs it, see there. And I wonder: for are boards not fit for sitting without any preparation, and are they any worse than palm branches in Shabbat 50a, see there. And automatically it descends to tumah with mere thought, and it is not related to all that he brought. And there in Shabbat 49b it implies explicitly that ordinary boards are for use, see there. And examine and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 18, regarding the law of planks, that the custom is not to cover with planks at all. Thus far his words. And the custom follows the core of the law, for now it is customary to roof houses with planks smaller than four and three. If so, it is obvious that the decree of a ceiling applies here. Therefore, we have never heard in our days of covering with planks, even short ones, as I wrote in section 13. And so too with laths and every type of wood. Therefore, those who cover with very small painted planks—the sages are not pleased with them. And all the more so, one should not cover with shingles. However, in a place where it is impossible, where it is not possible to obtain something with which to cover—by necessity one may cover with planks less than a width of four. But he should not fix them with nails, for in such a case it is a complete house, and it is invalid according to the Torah. (See Magen Avraham subsection 22, and Eliyahu Rabbah subsection 15 in the name of the Agudah, who ruled as I have written).

The sages taught in the Mishnah (10a): If one spread a sheet over it because of the sun, or beneath it because of falling leaves – it is pasul. And it is stated in the Gemara that specifically because of falling leaves, but to beautify it – it is kosher. Rashi and the Rambam explained it according to its plain meaning. However, the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote that if the sheet is so that the sun will not shine upon him, or to prevent leaves and twigs from falling – it is no worse than to beautify it, since his intent is not for the sake of s'chach. And here it is dealing with a case where, were it not for the sheet – the sun would dry out the s'chach, and its sunlight would be greater than its shade. And similarly beneath it because of falling leaves. And were it not for the sheet the leaves would fall, and its sunlight would remain greater than its shade. And since the sheet assists in the kashrut of the sukkah – therefore it is pasul. And to beautify it – it is kosher, since without the sheet its shade would also remain greater than its sunlight.

And according to Rashi and the Rambam, regarding "to beautify it" there is another reason, because the decorations of the sukkah that are within four tefachim adjacent to the sechach are nullified to the sukkah, and are not like a thing unto themselves, as I wrote at the end of siman 627. But "because of the sun" or "because of the falling [leaves]"—it constitutes an intervention, and he is not sitting in the shade of the sukkah. And the Tosafot and the Rosh hold that even these are like "to beautify it," and are nullified to the sukkah. And according to their words, all of them deal with being within four [tefachim] adjacent to the sechach. For if not so—in any case it is invalid. And also according to Rashi and the Rambam it is so. And the position of the Geonim is that if the valid sechach preceded the sheet—the sheet does not invalidate it, just as their position is so regarding a sukkah under a tree in siman 626. And the Rosh, even though he disagreed with them there, here he instructs because "because of the sun" or "because of the falling [leaves]" is like "to beautify it," and not because of the reason that the sechach preceded. And according to this, even if the sheet preceded—it is valid, just as with "to beautify it," for certainly there is no difference. And so too for the Geonim: even if the sheet is four tefachim distant from the sechach—it is valid when the sechach preceded, but according to the Rosh it is not so. (So it appears in my humble opinion regarding this matter. And the difficulty of the Beit Yosef on the Tur from "tree" is settled well, see there.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 19 brought both interpretations. And the Tur brought only the words of the Tosafot and the Rosh. And afterwards they wrote, this is their wording: However, ab initio one should not do so, unless it is recognizable to all that he intends it in order to protect, or if it is soaked in water, for then it is recognizable to all that he is not spreading it there except to dry. Thus far their words. And "in order to protect" constitutes a recognition for all, such as when the sun has reached the place where he is sitting. And even not during the time of eating – one should not spread it when there is no recognition. And during the time of eating, even with a recognition it is not proper (Magen Avraham subsection 125), for such a short time as this one is able to endure. However, if rain is dripping into the sukkah, and it is impossible to eat there, and he is able to spread a sheet – it is better that he spread a sheet than that he eat outside the sukkah. And nevertheless, he should not recite the blessing "to sit in the sukkah," firstly: because according to the law he is exempt. And furthermore: since the sheet intervenes, he is not sitting under the shade of the sukkah according to Rashi and the Rambam, for this is like "sun and falling."