Siman 630

All those disqualified are only regarding the sechach, and not regarding the walls of the sukkah, for the walls are valid from anything. And so too regarding the matter of "its sun is greater than its shade" – it is valid in the walls. And in the Hagahot Ashri (first chapter, siman 24) it is found in this wording: And according to the Yerushalmi one must be careful not to make walls from something that is susceptible to tumah, or that does not grow from the ground. Thus far his words. And so it is found in the Or Zarua HaGadol (siman 289), and this is his wording: Yerushalmi: Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Chama: It is written, "And you shall screen (vesakota) the ark with the parochet" – from here we learn that the wall is called "sechach," from here we learn that one makes walls with something that is not susceptible to tumah. And according to this we must explain that which is taught in the Mishnah (12a): Bundles of straw... and all of them are valid for walls – this is specifically regarding bundles of straw etc., which are valid by Torah law etc. And according to this, one would need to be careful not to make the walls from something that is susceptible to tumah, and does not grow from the ground. Thus far his words. And besides that this is not found in any posek, and on the contrary, they all wrote explicitly the opposite, I am further astonished: for it is an explicit Mishnah (24b): One who makes his sukkah between trees, and the trees are walls for it – it is valid. And yet that which is attached is disqualified by Torah law, as is proven from the Mishnah of a sukkah under a tree! And it requires great study. And regarding the Yerushalmi there is no difficulty, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And behold, before us is the version in the Yerushalmi (chapter one, halacha 6): From here, that one may make walls from a material that is susceptible to tumah. And certainly this is a difficult version, and the commentators were pressed to explain it, and there is no sense in their words. And certainly the primary version is "from a material that is not susceptible to tumah," like the words of the Or Zarua. And nevertheless, it is not a difficulty at all, for even in our Shas (7b) it was taught: Our Rabbis taught: Its shade must be from the sikhukh, and not from the walls. Rabbi Yoshiyah says: Even from the walls. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoshiyah? As it is written: "And you shall screen (vesakota) the ark with the parokhet" – the parokhet is a partition, and the Merciful One called it sikhukh; therefore, a partition requires the same laws as sikhukh. And the Rabbis? That refers to bending it slightly. And the halacha is like the Rabbis. And it follows that the Yerushalmi is according to Rabbi Yoshiyah, who expounds from this verse, and the Rabbis disagree with him. And the Mishnayot are according to the Rabbis, and Rabbi Yoshiyah is a Tanna and he disagrees. (And I learned this from the words of the Gra, see there.)

Nevertheless, one should not make the walls from something that has a foul odor, or something that dries out within seven days and will no longer have the measure of a partition. Our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly in section 1. And behold, regarding something that has a foul odor—certainly it is so. However, regarding that which dries out within seven days—I am wondered: for in the Gemara, Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree (27b). For Rabbi Eliezer expounds "The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself seven days"—make a sukkah that is fit for seven days. And the Rabbis, on the contrary: make a sukkah during the festival. And if so, according to the Rabbis, for the halacha is like them, they do not require a sukkah fit for seven days. And so ruled all the poskim, as I will write in siman 637. And so one must ask regarding what was explained in the previous siman, section 24, that sechach that will dry out within seven days is invalid. For Rabbi Eliezer holds so, and we hold according to the Rabbis.

However, the opposite is difficult for me, from that which Rava and Rabbi Yehuda disagree (23a) whether one may make a sukkah on the back of an animal, where Rabbi Meir validates it and Rabbi Yehuda invalidates it. And it says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse says: "The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself seven days" – a sukkah that is fit for seven is called a sukkah, a sukkah that is not fit for seven is not called a sukkah. And Rabbi Meir, this too is biblically fit, etc., see there. And if so, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that we require a sukkah fit for seven. And do they hold like Rabbi Eliezer and not like the Rabbis? And what compelled the Gemara to say this even according to Rabbi Meir? Furthermore: if so, let us rule like Rabbi Eliezer, since Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and the anonymous voice of the Gemara hold so.

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that in this matter everyone agrees that we require it to endure for the seven days of the festival, even without the derivation of "seven days" – make a sukkah fit for seven. For since it is written "In sukkot you shall dwell seven days" – it follows that the plain meaning of the verse is so, that we require it to be fit for seven. And if not so, this is not a sukkah at all. And Rabbi Eliezer and the sages disagree only regarding whether one may make a sukkah during Chol HaMoed, for Rabbi Eliezer derives "The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself seven days" – make a sukkah fit for seven, meaning: when you make a sukkah, make it so that you have it for seven days, and it follows that during Chol HaMoed one may not make a sukkah. And the rabbis derive the opposite, that all seven days you shall make for yourself a sukkah, and one may make a sukkah during Chol HaMoed. And in this, the halacha follows the rabbis. But when one builds it before the festival – it is obvious that it must be fit for seven. And you should know that it is so, for behold, several Tannaim hold that we require a sukkah to be a permanent dwelling, and if he did not build it as a permanent dwelling – it is invalid. And we hold that we require a temporary dwelling. However, our temporary dwelling is no worse than their permanent dwelling, for our temporary dwelling is seven days. And if so, in any event we require it to be fit for this temporary dwelling just as the other Tannaim require for a permanent one.

It is a simple matter that it is forbidden to make the walls from trees of an asherah, and all the more so the s'chach. And it is not only necessary to state this regarding an asherah from the time of Moshe, for its required measure is considered crushed (Sukkah 31b regarding "lulav"), and a sukkah requires a measure. Rather, even regarding those of star-worshipers—behold, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. And even though mitzvot were not given for benefit, nevertheless, ab initio it is forbidden, as with a shofar in siman 586. Furthermore: in a sukkah the body derives actual benefit through his sitting in the sukkah. However, if he sat in such a sukkah—it can be said that he fulfilled his obligation, and even though it would be a mitzvah coming through a transgression, it is only rabbinic as the Tosafot wrote in Sukkah (9a, beginning with the words "Hehu"). And also perhaps since the transgression is not the cause of the mitzvah—it is not called a mitzvah coming through a transgression (ibid. 30a, beginning with the words "Mishum"). And one of the great ones researched this extensively (Noda BiYehuda, second edition, siman 133).

The Tur wrote: There are those who are meticulous, when making a wall from reeds, to stand them up in the manner of their growth. As we say regarding a lulav, that one only fulfills the obligation with it in the manner of its growth. But it is not necessary, since walls are valid from anything. Thus far his words, and so wrote our teacher, the Rema, in section 1, that it is not necessary to stand the wood in the manner of its growth. And the explanation of the matter: even though we say in Sukkah (45b) that regarding all the mitzvot, one only fulfills the obligation with them in the manner of their growth, as it is said: "acacia wood standing," and if so, when one makes the walls of the sukkah from wood, they must also stand in the manner of their growth, for is a sukkah not included in all the mitzvot? And this is the reasoning of those who are meticulous. But the Tur rejected it, for this applies to a mitzvah that must specifically be from wood, like the walls of the Mishkan and the lulav. But a sukkah, which is valid from anything, even from stones and metals – the manner of their growth does not apply to it. (And the schach is in the manner of its growth, since they lie flat. And "not in the manner of its growth" is what it is called when the top is toward the bottom and the bottom is toward the top. And see in section 29).

The walls of a sukkah are a law given to Moses at Sinai like all partitions (Rashi, Sukkah 6b, s.v. "hilkhata"): two walls according to their law, and a third even of a tefakh. And they derived this from verses, as it is written: "basukkot," "basukkot," "basukkot" — twice deficient and once full, which makes four. Remove one for itself, as it is not for a derivation but for its literal meaning (ibid. s.v. "legufia") — three remain. And the law came and diminished the third, and established it at a tefakh (Gemara ibid.). That is to say: thus it was told to Moses at Sinai, that for the third, a tefakh is sufficient. And it is stated in the Gemara there that this tefakh must be a "loose" tefakh, that is to say: slightly more than a tefakh. And he places it within less than three [tefakhim] adjacent to the wall, and it becomes like a wall of four, which is the majority of a sukkah wall, whose measure is seven tefakhim, as will be explained. And Rava added to say that it also requires a tzorat hapetach, as will be explained. And from where do we have all these, since the law was stated only as a tefakh? And the Rosh wrote that Rava received this from his teachers, see there. And it still must be understood from where his teachers knew this? And if we say that this is only rabbinic, it is difficult to say so, for the tefakh is certainly from the Torah. And even though in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Sukkah it says that the tefakh is from their words, and from the Torah there are only two partitions, see there — nevertheless, in our Shas in Niddah (26b) it is explicit that the tefakh is from the Torah, see there. And perforce it is so, according to what they said that the law came and diminished the third, and established it at a tefakh. And from the Torah there are three partitions, as is explained in the Gemara. (And so wrote the Tosafot 7b s.v. "sikhakh," that the tefakh is from the Torah, see there.)

Furthermore, it must be understood: for in the Mishnah at the beginning of Sukkah we learned that a sukkah that does not have three walls is invalid. But are there three walls to the sukkah? Behold, there are only two walls here, and a handbreadth of a third wall cannot be called a wall, obviously. And it appears in my humble opinion that this is the presentation of the tradition: for since a sukkah is, in any event, a dwelling—granted that it is a temporary dwelling—nevertheless, it is obvious that the Torah would require one to sit in a place that has the status of a dwelling at least, and like the sukkot in which Israel encamped in the wilderness. And since from the Torah there is no reshut hayachid without three partitions, and with less than this it is a reshut harabim, there is no logic that the Torah would call this a house, and it must necessarily have three partitions. However, did the Torah not command only two partitions and a handbreadth, and how can we say the opposite? For this our rabbis said that in truth they are three partitions. And regarding this we learned in the Mishnah "three walls." And nevertheless, for the matter of sukkah this is only two walls and a handbreadth, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

For behold, the Ran, of blessed memory, already wrote in the first chapter that even though a tzurat hapetach is a complete mechitza regarding the matters of Shabbat and kilayim—nevertheless, regarding the matter of sukkah, it is not a mechitza. And the proof is from the fact that they required a tzurat hapetach for the (third) [3rd] mechitza. For if a tzurat hapetach were effective for these two mechitzot as well—the halacha would not have diminished the third dofen at all. Rather, it is certain that a tzurat hapetach is not considered a mechitza in a sukkah. And in several matters the laws of Shabbat are distinct from the laws of sukkah (Yerushalmi, cited by the Rosh). And regarding this came the halacha that the third mechitza of a sukkah is not like the two mechitzot, but rather a complete mechitza of a tefach is sufficient, and the rest is not a complete mechitza of a sukkah but a tzurat hapetach alone. And it turns out that it is a reshut hayachid. And this is why it says in the Mishnah: three dapanot. Nevertheless, regarding a sukkah, there are only two complete dapanot, and the third is a tefach alone, besides the tzurat hapetach. (And one should not ask: if so, why did Rava say on 7a regarding "two according to their law" etc. And similarly regarding the matter of Shabbat: "migo that it is a dofen" etc., and why does he need a migo? For even regarding the matter of Shabbat alone there are also three mechitzot. However, in truth, the version in the Rosh is "Rabbah," and so wrote the Korban Netanel and the Pnei Yehoshua, and they do not hold of this matter of tzurat hapetach. Therefore the Rif omitted it, as the Rosh wrote. Furthermore: even without this, a migo is needed for several matters, as the Ran wrote regarding the matter of "the breached part being greater than the standing part," and regarding the matter of "schach protruding from the sukkah," and as will be explained. Examine and you will find it simple.)

The walls of the sukkah, if they were two adjacent to one another like the shape of the letter dalet: one to the east and one to the south or to the north—one makes a wall that has in its width slightly more than a handbreadth, and places it within less than three handbreadths of one of the walls, for it is considered lavud. It turns out that there is a partition here of four handbreadths, which is the majority of the minimum requirement for a sukkah. Furthermore, one should place a reed opposite the handbreadth at the end of the wall, that is to say: at the end of the corner opposite the second wall. And he should make for it a tzurath hapethach, which is to place a reed above upon the reed and upon the handbreadth—and it is kosher. And we do not require that the reed which is above them touch them, as I wrote in siman 362, for a tzurath hapethach does not require the upper reed to touch the reeds that are on the sides. Rather, they must be aligned with the upper one, and they must be ten handbreadths high, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2, that if the handbreadth and the wall reach the sechach – one does not need a reed above them. And that which they are accustomed to making the tzurat hapetach rounded – it is merely for beauty. Thus far his words. And it is a printing error, and thus it should say: that if the reed and the wall etc. And the wall refers to the handbreadth (Eliyahu Rabbah), for the sechach is like the reed that is above them. And it is true that in the Yerushalmi it is stated that one must make the reed that is above them for the sake of the tzurat hapetach, see there. However, when one placed the sechach for the sake of a sukkah – it is automatically as if he made it for this sake (ibid.). And furthermore: for in the Yerushalmi Eruvin it says that even when it was not made for this – it is permitted. (ibid. But before us the version even in Eruvin chapter one halacha 9 is like in Sukkah chapter one end of halacha 1, like the Magen Avraham.)

If the two walls are opposite one another, and between them it is open—a handbreadth is not effective, because we require that the three walls be as if joined together. Rather, in such a case, we require for the third wall a wall of the minimum sukkah requirement, seven handbreadths; and likewise by means of lavud, that he should make a wall slightly more than four handbreadths, and place it within less than three of one of the walls. And since there is the measure of a sukkah—we are not concerned even if it is very far from the second wall. And one does not need a joining of the walls in such a case, for the sechach joins them. And there is one who is uncertain regarding this (Magen Avraham, subsection 3), but there is no doubt in this (Eliyahu Rabbah). And if it were not so, the poskim would not have omitted this. And so it is clarified from the language of the Gemara (7a), see there.

Some say that even in such a case one requires a tzurat hapetach, that he should place a reed from the strip onto the other wall. This is the opinion of the Rambam at the beginning of the fourth chapter, see there. And some say that in such a case one does not require a tzurat hapetach, and so it is explained from the wording of Rashi and Tosafot there, that specifically with a tefach one requires a tzurat hapetach, see there. In my humble opinion it would appear: that if the fourth wall is not three tefachim distant from the other wall, and it is as if it is entirely a wall—one does not require a tzurat hapetach even according to the first opinion, for they are like three complete partitions. And if he made a wall of seven tefachim—certainly he does not require a tzurat hapetach, even at a distance from the other wall, for regarding the measurement of a sukkah they are three complete walls. And all the more so that one does not require a tzurat hapetach with a truly complete wall. And those who are accustomed to make a tzurat hapetach even with three complete walls—it is nothing but for mere beauty. But from the law of partitions, it is not required.

And know that the Tur wrote that when there is a tzurath hapetach—it is permitted to carry within it even on Shabbat. For just as it is considered a partition regarding sukkah, so too it is considered a partition regarding Shabbat. Thus far his words. That is to say: even though according to Rabbinic law even three partitions are not effective regarding Shabbat without a lechi or a korah, nevertheless on the Shabbat of Sukkot—it is permitted by the principle of migo. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not bring this in the Shulchan Aruch. And his opinion appears to be that because the Rif and the Rambam omitted this statement—it implies that they do not hold accordingly. (See Beit Yosef. And in truth there is no proof, for they interpret the Gemara regarding Torah law, and as we maintain that where a tzurath hapetach is required it is not a Torah law, but regarding Rabbinic law they would agree. And the reason they did not write so is because it is not their way to explain a law that is not in the Gemara, but regarding the law they would agree. And why should we say that they would disagree with the Tur in a Rabbinic matter? Examine and you will find it simple.)

Some say that this which has been explained regarding walls that are opposite one another with a breach between them—that one requires a wall of seven tefachim, which is to say a wall of more than four and to place it within less than three—this applies when one sets up the walls in an open place, such as in a public domain or in a valley, where there is no wall opposite them. However, when one makes two walls opposite one another in a courtyard, where there is a wall around the courtyard, even though it is very far from these walls—nevertheless, for this matter it is considered as a third wall, regarding the fact that a pas of more than a tefach is sufficient, and to place it within less than three of one of the walls (Beit Yosef). And there is one who disagrees on this, and holds that it is all the same, since it is far from these walls (Magen Avraham subsection 4). And one should be stringent like the second opinion, for so it appears to be the primary view, unless they are adjacent to the wall of the courtyard within less than three, for then one does not need anything.

And know that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot (16b, starting with "Befachot"), raised a difficulty regarding this: since it was explained regarding a sukkah of two walls opposite one another that one requires a post of more than four, and to place it within less than three of one of the walls. Why do we need a post of more than four? Behold, he could place a post of two tefachim near the wall, and distance it less than three, and place another post of two tefachim and slightly more, and there would be a wall of seven tefachim. And furthermore: even this is not necessary, for behold, he could make a post of a half tefach and a bit more, and place it within less than three near the wall, and another such post and place it within less than three of the first post, and there would be seven tefachim in total. And one cannot say that the air from this side and the air from that side come and nullify it—for behold, anything less than three is considered lavud. And regarding lavud, we do not say that the airspaces nullify the standing part, for this is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai.

And they answered: Because we say in the first chapter of Eruvin (16b) that any partition that is not of warp and of woof is not a partition. Therefore, specifically a fourth strip is required, see there. And it is not understood, for the halacha is not so, as is explained there (Maharsha and Maharam). However, their intention is that he wants to say a validation that is effective for all (ibid.). And it is difficult to say so. Rather, their intention is that in a sukkah that has only two complete walls, and the third is a tefach or four tefachim—according to everyone we require complete partitions, and reeds less than a tefach or four tefachim are not effective (Magen Avraham). And certainly it is so, for if not so, the halacha that was stated that the third is a tefach, why do we need a tefach? For he could set up reeds of any size, two within less than three. Rather, certainly the halacha was stated thus, that specifically a tefach is required, and here too specifically four tefachim. And this is not a wonder, for behold, even a tzurat hapetach was not permitted in a sukkah except for the third wall, and not for all the walls, even though regarding Shabbat and kilayim it was permitted for all the walls, as I wrote in section 10. And here too it is so, and see in section 20.

Regarding the matter of the breached portion being greater than the standing portion – sukkah is more lenient than Shabbat. For on Shabbat, if in the totality of the partitions the breached portion is greater than the standing portion, and without a tzurath hapetach – the partitions are nullified, as I wrote in siman 362. Whereas regarding the matter of sukkah, even though they contain openings and without a tzurath hapetach, and the breached portion is greater than the standing portion – nevertheless the sukkah is kosher. And thus was the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai stated, provided that the opening is not wider than ten amot, unless it has a tzurath hapetach like on Shabbat, for by means of a tzurath hapetach it is permitted even in more than ten. And according to the Rambam, even a tzurath hapetach is not effective in more than ten, unless the standing portion is greater than the breached portion. And we have already explained this in siman 362, section 29, and that most of the poskim disagree with him, see there. And the poskim agreed that regarding this point that in a sukkah the breached portion being greater than the standing portion was permitted – this is in the totality. But in the two walls alone – they must have the standing portion greater than the breached portion (Maggid Mishneh, and Beit Yosef, and Taz, and Magen Avraham subsection 6). And there is a doubt whether the span beneath the tzurath hapetach is considered as standing, since regarding Shabbat and kilayim it is a complete partition. Or perhaps: since regarding sukkah it is not considered as a partition in the two walls, as I wrote – it is not considered as closed. And so it appears to be the primary view.

Even when openings were permitted in two walls even without a tzurath hapetach, nevertheless, they should not make the openings in the two corners but rather in one of them, because we require two walls connected to one another, as has been explained. And even though without the partitions themselves a breached area greater than the standing area was not permitted, nevertheless, with reed after reed less than three [tefachim apart] it is permitted, for lavud is like being connected (Taz, subsection 6). However, according to what I wrote in section 18, this is only effective when there are four partitions, and not with two according to their law and a third of a tefach. And it does not imply such from Rashi (7a, beginning with the words "Dofen", see there). And nevertheless, this is not a contradiction to section 18, for in any case a partition of a tefach or four tefachim is certainly required, and for them alone it is not effective through lavud. For thus was the halacha stated, that one requires a partition of a tefach or four, but other than this, lavud is effective.

Now it is the custom to make complete partitions, because not everyone is expert in the law of partitions. One who does not have enough for four partitions—it is better that he make three complete partitions than make two complete ones and a bit on the two partitions, for perhaps it will not be according to the law. He should also be careful that the partitions are truly adjacent to the sechach. However, if it is impossible to make three complete partitions, he must perforce act according to the laws that have been explained. And likewise, how far the sechach is permitted to be from the partition, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

It has already been explained that a tzurath ha-petach without partitions is not effective for a sukkah except for the third wall. And all the more so when one fixed four poles in the ground and placed s'chach upon them, for this is nothing. Rather, even if one fixed four poles on the edge of the roof, and the partitions of the house are recognizable on the roof—meaning that the roof does not protrude beyond the partitions, as in our cornices where the roof protrudes, for if so, this is no novelty; but even if it does not protrude, and one could say gud asik mechitzta—nevertheless, partitions created by means of gud asik were not permitted for a sukkah. And all the more so if he placed them in the middle of the roof, where gud asik is not applicable—it is obvious that they are invalid. And some say that on the edge of the roof with recognizable partitions, we do say gud asik, and the sukkah is valid. And in this matter the Rishonim disagreed according to the versions in the Gemara (4b), and consequently one must be stringent in a Torah prohibition.

It is stated in the Gemara (Sukkah 7a): If one placed s'chach over an alleyway that has a lechi, it is kosher. Rashi, and likewise the Rambam and the Rosh, explained that this refers to an open alleyway, for we maintain that a lechi is considered a partition. One who throws from the public domain into an open alleyway that has a lechi is liable. And even though by rabbinic law it is forbidden to carry even with three complete partitions until there is a lechi in the fourth wall, nevertheless, since by Torah law it becomes a reshut hayachid for Shabbat by means of the lechi, therefore on the Shabbat within Sukkot, the sukkah is also kosher; for since it is a wall regarding Shabbat by Torah law, it becomes a wall also regarding sukkah. Therefore, even though in a sukkah, when the two partitions are opposite one another, one needs a wall of four tefachim, and even when the two partitions are like the shape of the letter dalet, one needs a wall of a tefach and a bit more—nevertheless, on the Shabbat within Sukkot, one fulfills the obligation even with a lechi of any size. The Tosafot wrote that here it refers to a closed alleyway that has a lechi, in which it is permitted to carry. But in an open one, where carrying is forbidden, it is not effective regarding sukkah. And if it is difficult: for if so, is the sukkah not kosher regardless? For it is not so, such as where he placed s'chach near the lechi and did not complete the s'chach until the third wall. It turns out that regarding the sukkah there are only two walls and a lechi here, but because of "migo" it is kosher on the Shabbat within Sukkot. (And in the Rif it is implied that it is always kosher, and they wondered about him. See there.)

They further said there: If one placed s'chach on top of the strips of the wells, it is kosher, for the strips of the wells are four partitions of one amah by one amah, and they permitted them for those ascending for the festivals, as is explained in the second chapter of Eruvin (20b). Therefore, if they made a sukkah there, it is kosher for the Shabbat within the festival, based on the reasoning of migo—that since it is effective regarding Shabbat, it is also effective regarding sukkah. And even though they only permitted this for those ascending for the festivals, and according to the Tosafot we do not permit it in a breakthrough area based on Torah partitions, as I have written—this is because there it was not permitted at all by rabbinic law. But here, it was permitted for those ascending for the festivals in any event. And know that our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding these two laws in section 7, and this is his wording: And one should only permit it in a place where a lechi and strips permit regarding Shabbat, for then migo is applicable. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that his intention is that with a lechi one only permits in a closed alleyway, according to the opinion of the Tosafot, and with strips one only permits in a place where the strips of the wells were permitted, such as in the Land of Israel and not outside the Land, as is found in Eruvin (21a) and in the Rambam, chapter seventeen of Shabbat. And the Levush omitted this gloss, see there. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 10, explained: when the lechi stands next to the alleyway, and the strips are in the field, see there. And it requires further study: what is the novelty, is it not obvious?! And furthermore: for his source is from the Ran, and the Ran follows the system of the Tosafot that whenever there is no permission regarding carrying, migo is not applicable. See there.)

It is further stated in the Gemara (18a): If one placed s'chach over an exedra that has pitzimin—it is kosher, and if it does not have pitzimin—it is invalid. According to the explanation of Rashi, this is the explanation: every courtyard is in front of the houses, and the houses are built on two sides of the courtyard. And they make an exedra in front of the houses along the entire length of the courtyard, which is a roofing without partitions, and it is wider than four amot. Therefore, one who places s'chach in the airspace of the courtyard, and supports the s'chach on the edge of the roofing of the exedra—the partitions of the house do not rise for the sukkah. For since they are further than four amot—we do not say dofen akuma, as will be explained in siman 632. However, if the exedra has pitzimin, which are pillars, less than three [tefachim] apart at the edge of the roofing—they are like three partitions. For anything less than three—is considered lavud. And we do not hold that lavud is not effective for all the partitions. And even according to what we wrote in section 18 that for two partitions and a tefach lavud is not effective—nevertheless, for three partitions it is effective. And here the pitzimin are on all three sides. But when it does not have pitzimin—it is invalid, even though one could say the edge of the ceiling of the exedra descends and closes, and it is like partitions—we do not say so. Because the edge of the ceiling is only effective for the space under the exedra, for which the edge of the ceiling was made, and not to be considered a partition for the space outside the exedra (Gemara 19a). (See Magen Avraham subsection 17, and in my humble opinion it is not so. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

The Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Tur explained that it has two complete partitions in the shape of a "gam," east and south or east and north, and at the third wall it is adjacent to an exedra, and the sechach touches the edge of the exedra. If it has pillars with less than three between one and the other—it is kosher, meaning: even if there is not a tefach in any one of these pillars. And if not—it is invalid, and we do not say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes," for the reason that was explained according to Rashi. And whether according to Rashi or according to the Tosafot, when it has doorposts such that it is kosher, even if these doorposts are visible from the outside and not from the inside, or from the inside and not the outside—they are kosher. And this matter and its explanation were explained above in siman 363, see there. And the Tosafot and the Rosh raised a difficulty: for how is it possible to validate that which is visible from the outside and level from the inside? For it is obvious that the partition of a sukkah must be visible in the sukkah. And the Rosh answered: that it deals with a case where there is also a tzurat hapetach, as I wrote above that a tzurat hapetach is also required. And if so, one fulfills the Torah obligation with the tzurat hapetach alone. Therefore, the doorposts are sufficient when visible from the outside and level from the inside. (And there is a distinction between Rashi and the Tosafot in a place where we say "the edge of the ceiling." For example: where one made the sukkah under the exedra, where the partitions are made for their interior, for according to Rashi we say "the edge of the ceiling" on all three sides, and according to the Tosafot only on one side, as he wrote at the beginning of the chapter "Kol Gagot." And from the Tur it is implied that with a beam the width of a tefach we say "the edge of the ceiling," see there. And it is a wonder, for in siman 361 it is explained that with less than four we do not say "the edge of the ceiling." And the Bach answered: that since he only needs a partition of a tefach according to the explanation of the Tosafot—a tefach is sufficient, see there. And he further wrote that when visible from the inside—one does not need a tzurat hapetach when there are many doorposts. And the Magen Avraham, subsection 12, disagrees with him, and likewise wrote that we require the edge of the ceiling to be four tefachim. And the Maharshal wishes to say that even under the exedra we do not say "the edge of the ceiling" for the sake of the sukkah, and the Maharsha, the Bach, and the Magen Avraham disagreed with him, for specifically regarding the outside of the exedra we do not say "the edge of the ceiling." See there.)

The Rambam in the fourth chapter, law 8, has another approach in this matter, for he wrote: If one placed s'chach on top of an exedra that has posts, whether they were visible from the inside and not visible from the outside, or whether they were visible from the outside and not visible from the inside—it is kosher. If it did not have posts—it is invalid, because it is a sukkah made like an alleyway. For it only has the two sides of the exedra, and the middle of the exedra has no wall, and the side opposite it has no posts. Thus far his words. And the Maggid Mishneh explained that this is the explanation: that the exedra has two walls opposite one another, and he placed s'chach adjacent to the walls, and it has two posts on the third side at its beginning and its end—therefore we say the edge of the ceiling descends and closes. And when it does not have posts—we do not say the edge of the ceiling descends and closes. (And regarding that which he does not explain that many posts are due to the principle of lavud, and not due to the principle of the edge of the ceiling, it appears that we hold that if so, how would it be effective when visible from the outside and level from the inside, like the difficulty raised by the Tosafot and the Rosh. But according to the reason of the edge of the ceiling, it works well.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8 brought only the wording of the Rambam. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding it: All this is the wording of the Rambam. But others disagree, and therefore one should not make a sukkah in this manner. Thus far his words, meaning: that according to Rashi, Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Tur – the permissibility of the posts is due to the principle of lavud and not due to the principle of pi tikrah (Taz, subsection 9). And even though according to the Rambam, where the sukkah is inside the portico, certainly according to these teachers of ours we also say pi tikrah as I have written – nevertheless here, for another reason, we do not say pi tikrah, as I wrote at the end of siman 361: that we only say pi tikrah with two walls that are like a "gamma," and not with one opposite the other. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 12, and according to this one should not be lenient even post facto. And the Taz wrote in the name of the Levush to be lenient post facto, and they did not mention at all that which is at the end of siman 361. Therefore, one should not be lenient even post facto.)

One who wishes to break open his roof on the east and south and the like, and to place s'chach there adjacent to the walls, and on one edge there is a beam four tefachim wide—we say the edge of the ceiling descends and closes, and it constitutes a third wall. And there is one who requires also two reeds under the beam, so that there will be a tzurath hapethach (Taz ibid.). And I do not know why we need a tzurath hapethach for a complete "edge of the ceiling." (And perhaps he holds like the Maharshal in section 26, and they have already disagreed with him, see there.) And know that the Maharil wrote: When one makes the sukkah from planks, and after Sukkot one dismantles it, and in the coming Sukkot one erects it, and so too every year—that one should mark the planks "1", "2", "3", so as not to change their standing from year to year. As it is stated in the Yerushalmi: "And you shall erect the Tabernacle according to its fashion." Is there then a "fashion" for planks? Rather, a plank that merited to be placed in the north—shall always be placed in the north. Thus far his words, and according to what I wrote in section 7 it is not mandatory. Nevertheless, it is proper to do so, and such is the custom.

The height of the sukkah must be ten tefachim, like all partitions, for there is no partition less than ten. It is not necessary for the walls to reach the skhakh, and it will be explained in siman 633. Therefore, one can make a wall of seven tefachim and a bit, and stand them within less than three adjacent to the ground. It is kosher even if the roof is very high, provided that it is aligned opposite the skhakh. And even if it is not exactly aligned – as long as it is within three adjacent to the skhakh – it is kosher, for it is considered lavud. This applies to a high sukkah. But if it is only ten tefachim in height – one can make a wall of four tefachim and two bits, and stand it within less than three adjacent to the skhakh and within less than three adjacent to the ground, and it is kosher. This is when one does not have another partition. But when one has – one should make proper partitions. And whenever the walls are three tefachim high from the ground – it is invalid, for it is a partition through which kids can break through. But within less than three we say lavud. And all this is Halakhah LeMoshe MiSinai.

One who makes his sukkah between trees and did not support it upon the tree, for if so it would be forbidden to ascend into it on Yom Tov, but rather supported it upon pillars and only the trees are walls for it, meaning the branches of the trees, and we maintain that any partition that cannot stand in a common wind is not a partition—how shall he act? He should tie the branches and strengthen them so that the wind does not constantly sway them. And even if it stands in a place where the wind does not reach—it is invalid if they would sway by means of the wind, for the status of a partition does not apply to that which a common wind can sway. Or if the majority of the wall from the branches are strong and hard branches, and the wind does not move them—it is valid. And likewise, he can fill between the branches with straw and stubble so that they do not move when he ties them.

Therefore, one should not make the walls of the sukkah from linen sheets or thin mats that the wind moves. And even though he tied them with pegs, for we fear that perhaps they will become detached without his knowledge, and it would be a wall that cannot stand in a common wind (Tur). Nevertheless, ex post facto, if he tied them—they are kosher. And there is one who says that he may make one wall even initially (Taz, subsection 11), and one may rely on this in a case of need. And one who wishes to make all the walls with sheets—it is good that he should weave reeds into the walls at intervals of less than three, for the reeds themselves are like a wall by reason of lavud. (That which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 17, that for three walls lavud is not effective—it requires further study. And it is explicitly proven from Rashi 18a, beginning with the words "He covered with skhakh," regarding an exedra that has posts, that we say lavud for three walls. And the main point is as I wrote in section 25, that for two walls we do not say lavud, but for three we do, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

If he is missing one partition for the fitness of a sukkah—he may make it from animals, to stand the beast as a wall. And even an impure beast is fit for a sukkah wall. And even according to the one who prohibited a shofar from an impure beast, as I wrote in siman 586—nevertheless, regarding a sukkah wall we do not care, since even inanimate objects and plants are fit, the impure is no worse than them, and as I wrote there. And it is obvious that the beast must be ten tefachim high, and that the space between its legs must be less than three close to the ground. And if not—he must fence between the legs. And it must be so high that even if it dies—it will be ten tefachim high, or he must stretch it in a manner that it will not fall when it dies. And there is one who wrote that we do not fear death, but it does not imply such in the Gemara (23a). And specifically when he tied the beast, so that it cannot go from this place. But without tying it—it is not considered a wall, since it can flee, and it is like a partition that cannot stand in a common wind. And even though even when tied there is a concern lest it loosen the knot, nevertheless, as long as it has not loosened—it is a partition, and we do not fear lest it loosen. And it is not on his mind, just as with sheets where regarding one wall they did not fear this, and as I wrote.

Above in siman 362 it was explained that even a person is valid for a mechitzah. However, on Shabbat and Yom Tov one should not station him as a mechitzah unless he is unaware, so that it should not be like building; see there. Therefore, also regarding the wall of a sukkah, one may make a wall for the sukkah from his fellow on Chol HaMoed, even when he knows that he was stationed for the sake of a wall. But on Yom Tov it is forbidden to station him if he knows that they are stationing him for the sake of a mechitzah, and only if he does not know is it permitted, as it is there. And even on Yom Tov there is no prohibition when he knows except for the three walls upon which the validity of the sukkah depends. But regarding a fourth wall—it is permitted, since he does not need it. And regarding a person, we do not fear that perhaps he will walk away from here, as we do with an animal, since he possesses intellect. However, on Yom Tov when he does not know—should we not fear that he will walk away? Indeed, there we explained that regarding a person this concern does not exist; see there. And know that an animal which we permitted for a mechitzah—it is only on Chol HaMoed, and not on Yom Tov. For even though regarding a person we distinguished between one who knows and one who does not know, and the animal does not know—nevertheless it is forbidden, for it is like wood and stone since it lacks intellect, and it is like making a mechitzah on Yom Tov (Magen Avraham subsection 19 and Eliyahu Rabbah).

One who supports his sukkah on the legs of a bed, meaning: that the bed is entirely enclosed with walls down to the bed on all its sides, and he set up the bed and placed s'chach upon the tops of its walls, which are called the legs of the bed; and it is known that the mattress of the bed is in the middle of the height, and in a manner that if we measure from the mattress to the s'chach there are not ten tefachim here, and only from the s'chach to the ground are there ten tefachim, and the s'chach is supported by the bed itself – it is invalid, because there is no permanence to this sukkah. Meaning: since there are not ten tefachim from the mattress to the s'chach. But when there are ten tefachim – it is valid. And there are those who wish to invalidate it on the grounds of supporting with an object susceptible to tumah. And it is not so, for it has already been explained in siman 629 section 19 that most of the poskim were not concerned for this, see there.

And this is when the sukkah is supported by the bed, for when the bed is removed – the sechach will fall. But if the sechach stands on four pillars, and only the walls of the sukkah are the walls of the bed as I have written – the sukkah is not disqualified by there not being ten tefachim from the mattress to the sechach, since there are ten tefachim from the sechach to the ground. And the bed does not diminish the airspace, because even if the bed is removed – the sechach will not fall, and then there will be a height of ten tefachim. And if it is difficult: behold, if the bed is removed – no walls will remain for the sukkah. However, these matters are not related to one another, for regarding the walls we consider the walls of the bed as walls of the sukkah, but not regarding the matter of diminishing the airspace. For this is like placing a table in a sukkah, or a high chair, in a manner that there does not remain ten tefachim from their top to the sechach – would the sukkah be disqualified because of this? And here too it is so regarding the fitness of the sukkah, even though it is impossible to remove it because of the walls that the sukkah would lack. For regarding the fitness of the sukkah we consider it like all other movable vessels, which do not disqualify the sukkah by diminishing its airspace. And there is one who is concerned not to support with something susceptible to tumah, and therefore they refrain from fixing nails into the sechach of the sukkah, and it is proper. Nevertheless, post facto this is not a disqualification, because most of our teachers were not concerned with the reasoning of supporting with something susceptible to tumah. And so it is in the Yerushalmi. (There are those who asked according to what I wrote that we say the edge of the ceiling descends and closes: if so, in every sukkah let us say the edge of the ceiling descends and closes? But this is not a question, for since the halachah was stated as two walls and a third of a tefach – it is as if it were stated explicitly that we do not say the edge of the ceiling. Examine it and you will find it simple.)