Siman 631

It is a halacha given to Moses at Sinai that the s'chach must have its shade greater than its sunlight. And it is not similar to "breach and standing" regarding partitions, where "breach like standing" is permitted, but regarding sunlight and shade—it is not so. Therefore, if on top of the s'chach the covered area and the open area are equal—it is invalid, for this is a sign that below, its sunlight is greater than its shade. For it is known in the science of optics that the sunlight entering a window spreads more than the width of the window, because light has expansion (the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah, chapter two). Therefore, since its shade must be greater than its sunlight, perforce on top the s'chach must be much more than the open area. And this is the approach of Rashi (22b) and the Rosh, and likewise the Rif and the Rambam in chapter five, and so wrote the Tur. And this is the approach of most of our teachers.

And our teacher Tam, and our teacher Eliezer of Metz, and the Maor – they have another approach in this. Namely: that a specific halacha was not stated regarding sun and shade, but rather they are included within the rule of "breach and standing" of partitions, and likewise "breach and standing" of schach: that if there is schach equal to the air-space from above – it is "breach like standing," and it is permitted, and one does not measure the sun and the shade. However, when we stand below, and it appears to us that the schach is like the air-space – it is invalid, because the air-space is shortened in the sight of the eye at a distance more than the schach. Therefore, if from below the breach appears like the standing – it is a sign that the breach is greater than the standing. And so it is regarding partitions, when seeing from a distance. (And the Tur brought in the name of the Ittur that he also validates in such a case, except that he wrote that when they are equal above – it is a sign that below the shade is greater than the sun, see there. And it requires further study, for this is against the senses.)

And for the law, it is simple that the halacha follows the majority of the poskim. Nevertheless, the approach of our teacher Tam is true: for if we look from below to above, it is not only if they appear equal that it is invalid, but even if the skhakh appears slightly more—it is also invalid according to the approach of Rashi, for the air space is shortened in sight. Therefore, even if it appears slightly more—nevertheless they are equal, and when equal it is invalid, because below its sun is greater than its shade, as I have written. Therefore, from below it is necessary that it appears that the skhakh is much more than the air (Bach). The general principle of the matter: when we measure above—the skhakh must be more than the air by a proper amount, so that below its shade will be greater than its sun. And all the more so when we measure by the sight of the eye from below to above, that it requires even more. And if we measure below—the shade must be greater than the sun.

And if the majority of the s'chach has its shade greater than its sunlight by two minute amounts, and in its minority the sunlight is greater than its shade by one minute amount—it is kosher even to sit under the minority, since in the aggregate its shade is greater by a minute amount. For just as with partitions regarding the matter of breached and standing—we follow the aggregate, as I wrote in siman 362, so too regarding the sunlight and the shade. And if in the majority there is only one minute amount—it is invalid, for if so, its shade is equal to its sunlight (Perishah). And similarly, if in its minority the shade is much greater, and in its majority the sunlight is slightly greater, even though in the aggregate its shade is greater—it is invalid, because in any event in its majority its sunlight is greater (ibid. in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham). And even if in the majority they are equal—it is invalid, as is understood.

And some of our teachers are uncertain: that perhaps in that which we follow the majority, as I have written—this is in a small sukkah. But in a large sukkah, where there is a span of seven tefachim, which is the minimum measure of a sukkah, where its sun is greater than its shade—perhaps it is forbidden to sit there, even though in the total its shade is greater (Ran there). And even though regarding the partitions of Shabbat—it is obvious that we follow the total, even in a very large area, this is because there is no fixed measure for partitions. But regarding the span of a sukkah—perhaps every measure and measure is like a sukkah unto itself. And based on this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that there are those who are stringent if the sukkah is large, and there is a place of seven by seven where its sun is greater, even though in the combination of the entire sukkah the shade is greater. Thus far his words. And from the silence of all the poskim, it is explicitly clear that even in a large sukkah it is so. And so it is explicitly clear from the wording of the Shas. (19a: Rabbah bar bar Hanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: It was only necessary for a sukkah whose majority is its shade etc. Rabbi Oshaya said: It was only necessary for invalid sechach of less than three in a small sukkah etc., see there. And if it should enter your mind that Rabbah bar bar Hanah in the name of Rabbi Yochanan also deals with a small one, according to the words of the Ran, he should have also said "in a small sukkah," as Rabbi Oshaya said. And it requires great study, and examine and you will find it simple.)

The manner of the sikhukh is to be light, so that the stars of the sun are visible through it, and also the stars of the night; and "stars of the sun" are the rays of the sun. However, ex post facto, even if it was thick like a house, and even if the stars of the sun are not visible through it—it is kosher. The Tur wrote that our teacher Tam ruled that if the rain cannot descend into it—it is invalid. The Rosh did not cite this, see there. The reasoning of our teacher Tam is from what we say at the beginning of Taanit, that rains are a sign of a curse on the festival. And they likewise said that one leaves the sukkah upon the descent of rains. If it were permitted to provide sikhukh in a manner that rains would not descend—this would not be a sign of a curse, and one would not leave the sukkah. The reasoning of the Rosh appears to me to be from that which we learned in a Mishnah: we may provide sikhukh with planks less than four tefachim. And it is obvious that when we provide sikhukh with them, the rains will not descend. And one cannot say that he should distance one plank from another by any amount, for from where do we have the authority to say so? Rather, it is certain that the majority of sikhukh materials are from things through which the rains descend, as it is written in Nehemiah (8): "Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves" etc., and like our sikhukh materials. And regarding such as these we learned that it is a sign of a curse, and one leaves the sukkah. But if one provides sikhukh with a material that is kosher for sikhukh, and the rains do not descend—it is kosher. Furthermore, it appears to me regarding the reasoning of the Rosh, that it is written: "And there shall be a sukkah for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a refuge and for a covert from storm and from rain." And from this verse he expounds at the beginning of Sukkah that above twenty cubits it is invalid, see there. According to our teacher Tam, one must say that it is a refuge from the storm, yet the rains always drip through (see Bach, and it requires further study). There are some of the great authorities who were concerned for the words of our teacher Tam, and they invalidate when the rains cannot descend (Levush and Bach, and see Magen Avraham). Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not mention anything of this. And it appears in my humble opinion that in a time of pressing need, one may simply rely on the opinion of the Rosh, to validate when rains do not descend into it.

The schach, even if its covering is very thin, such that there is much air space, provided that there are not three tefachim in one place—for in such a case it is disqualified, as I will write in the next siman—if in total its shade is greater than its sunlight, it is kosher. That is to say: this is the definition of schach, and the matter does not depend on thinness or thickness. And similarly, if the covering was not leveled evenly but in confusion, meaning that the schach is partially above and partially below, and it is so throughout the entire schach—it is kosher, provided that one is not higher than the other by three tefachim, for then they are like two separate schachs. And sometimes even with a distance of three tefachim it is permitted, and that is, for example, when there is an extension of a tefach in the upper part or more, and there is a corresponding place below for the length of a tefach—we say "chavut rami," that is to say: we beat it down from above and place it below. And this is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai, that with an extension of a tefach we say "chavut rami," but not with less than a tefach. And we view it as if it descended below and touched the edge of this lower part. Therefore, it must be aligned opposite the edge of the lower part, and there must be a vacant space of a tefach there.

And know: that even though when some of them are higher than three tefachim, the sunlight will necessarily be greater there because it enters from the side, nevertheless, since if we were to lower them – its shade would be greater, and also now at the time when the sun is in the middle of the sky and the shade strikes beneath it – its shade will also now be greater, and therefore we are not concerned about it. And although there is one who disagrees on this, as is explained in the Tur, nevertheless all the poskim agreed thus, as the Tur wrote, see there.

Reeds that extend behind the sukkah, for example, where reeds from the s'chach protrude behind the middle wall, and they have the minimum requirement for a sukkah, and their shade is greater than their sunlight; and this has three walls, for example, where the middle wall is not at the edge of the side walls, but rather enters within them—it is kosher. And the novelty in this: the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 6 wrote that even though the middle wall was not made for them, but rather for the main sukkah which is inside of it. Thus far his words. And ostensibly it is not understood, for do we require that the walls be made for its sake? Even when one has placed s'chach not for the sake of the sukkah—it is kosher, as I wrote in siman 635, and all the more so the walls. However, their main intention is: that since the middle wall was not made for them—there is room to say that the s'chach outside the wall was also not placed for the sake of shade, and in such a case it is invalid, as is explained there. And it comes to teach us that this is not so. (This I learned from the words of the Perishah, see there. And according to the version of Tosafot 19a, beginning with the words "Livra'ei"—it works out well with simplicity, see there.)

And so too the reeds protruding from the schach toward the fourth open side, and one wall extends with them, it is permitted to sit under this schach even though it has no wall opposite it. And it is not only necessary to say if the second short wall is only seven tefachim, like the minimum size of a sukkah, for it is obvious that this is the case for any valid sukkah: two according to their law, and a third of a tefach. And it is permitted to use the entire wall even not opposite the tefach. And so too this person who made the wall seven tefachim for the minimum requirement of a sukkah, it is permitted to use further along. Rather, even if he made the short wall much longer than seven tefachim, and nevertheless did not extend it until the long wall opposite it, where there is room to say that this man did not extend the wall for the sake of the sukkah's validity, for if so, why did he have to extend it more than seven tefachim? Rather, certainly his intention was not to use more than the length of the short wall, and this part of the long wall that extends with the schach has no connection to this sukkah, and it is like a sukkah unto itself. And if so, it has only one wall, and nevertheless it is valid, for it is always one sukkah. And he did not want to extend the short wall further, and not for the reason of nullifying this part.

And there is reason to doubt whether this is specifically when he made the entire sukkah in one continuous act at once; but if at first he made equal walls, and the skhakh extended outside the sukkah, and afterward he extended one wall under the skhakh, for then it is like a sukkah unto itself, and does this not have the fitness of a sukkah? Or perhaps: even in such a case, since he joined it to the sukkah – it becomes as one sukkah, and is kosher. And so it appears to my humble opinion to be the primary view. (All these laws were not found in the Rif, and I do not know why. And perhaps it is because they are not common.)

It has already been explained that it is a halacha given to Moses at Sinai that if the breached part is equal to the standing part, it is permitted. Therefore, even though regarding sun and shade it is not so according to most poskim, as I have written, nevertheless regarding invalid schach and valid schach, it is so. Nevertheless, the sages said (15b): Since it is impossible to be exact, it is necessary that the valid must slightly exceed the invalid. Therefore, if one covered part of the sukkah with iron spits which are invalid for schach, and there is not four tefachim in any one of them, and he also did not place short spits of four tefachim in one place—for if there were a width of four tefachim of invalid schach, it would invalidate the entire sukkah, as I will write in the next siman—but rather they are not four in one place, and between each spit he left an air space the width of the spit, and he placed valid schach there; nevertheless it is invalid, because it is impossible to be exact so that all the air space is filled with valid schach, and it turns out that the invalid is the majority. Therefore, one must make the valid schach slightly exceed the spits. Or, if the spits were placed as the warp, he should place the valid as the woof, or vice versa, for in this manner it is necessary that all the air space be filled with valid schach. That is to say: for in such a case he will place the ends of the valid upon the invalid, for if not so they would fall, and if so, the air space is automatically filled. (And this is, for example, when the valid has nothing to rest upon except the invalid from warp to woof or vice versa. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And that which we said, that there should not be four in one place—this is in a large sukkah. But in a small sukkah, which has only seven tefachim by seven tefachim—there must not be three tefachim of invalid schach in one place, but rather less than three, as will be explained in the next siman.

It has already been explained in siman 629, section 30, that by Torah law one may use for s'chach even planks that are four tefachim wide. However, by rabbinic law it is forbidden, due to the decree of the ceiling. That is to say: that one might say, what is the difference for me between sitting under this and sitting under the ceiling of my house? But with less than four—one may use them for s'chach, because the ceiling of a house is not less than four. And for this reason, in this time when they roof ceilings with less than four—one does not use planks for s'chach at all, see there. And they said there in the Mishnah and Gemara (15b) that a house roofed with planks that do not have ma'aziva upon them, which is to say clay and pebbles spread upon them, but rather they are placed as they are, and now he wants to make them fit for the purpose of a sukkah, and the planks are four tefachim wide—and these, had he come to use them for s'chach initially, it would have been forbidden, as I have written. However, since it was a ceiling, and he comes to nullify them from the status of a ceiling to make them for the purpose of s'chach—the sages permitted it in one of two ways, which are: either he removes all the nails from them, and lifts each and every plank and places them for the purpose of the mitzvah of sukkah. Or, he removes one plank from between these planks, which is to say a plank from between two planks throughout the entire sukkah, and places fit s'chach in its place, and it will all be fit for the reason that will be explained.

And the reason for the matter is: that this sukkah is invalid because of "make it, and not from that which is already made" in an invalid state. Therefore, when he lifts each and every plank and places it back down—this constitutes a new act of making for the sake of the sukkah. And likewise, if he removes one from between two and covers there with kosher sechach—it is obvious that this is a new act of making. And since he performed an action on every plank that is between two planks—it is as if he performed an action throughout the entire span of the sukkah (Bach). And this is according to the view of the Rosh, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch section 9. However, from Rashi (15a, starting with the words "Rabbi Meir") it is explained that the entire span of the sukkah is not rendered kosher through this, but rather only those areas between the planks, while the planks remain in their invalidity; see there. And if it is difficult: behold, is there not still the decree of a ceiling, since they are four handbreadths wide? However, in such a case they did not decree, for since we see this man who is expert in "make it, and not from that which is already made," and performs a repair to render it kosher, how can we decree against him lest he sit under the ceiling of his house? Therefore, it is superior to one who comes to cover with sechach initially, whom we forbid from covering with planks of four handbreadths.

But the Rambam in chapter five, law 8, wrote: A ceiling that does not have plaster upon it… – behold, this is invalid, for they were not made for the sake of a sukkah, but rather for the sake of a house. Therefore, if one loosened the boards and moved the nails for the sake of a sukkah – behold, this is valid, provided that each and every board is not four tefachim. And similarly, if one removed one from between them and placed in its stead valid s'chach for the sake of a sukkah – behold, this is valid. Thus far his words. And it appears explicitly that the Rambam holds that, on the contrary: when the invalidity was also due to "it shall be made, and not from that which is already made" – it is more severe. And it is obvious that with those four wide it is invalid, but even with those not four wide – there is an opinion in the Gemara that invalidates on the grounds that they possessed an invalidity of "it shall be made, and not from that which is already made." However, we do not hold so. And this is the novelty that he informs us: that even when there was an invalidity of "it shall be made, and not from that which is already made" upon the s'chach – nevertheless, loosening or removing from between them is effective. (And it is explained in the Gemara there: they disagree regarding the nullification of a ceiling, and this is its explanation: that it always refers to those that do not have four in them, but one master holds that for this invalidity loosening is not effective, and one master holds that it is effective. And such is the halacha. And the Magen Avraham, subsection 8, wished to explain that only with loosening is it not effective with four, because of those who see. But with removing etc. – it is permitted even with four, for there is no concern regarding those who see, see there. And I wonder: for according to the Rambam, perforce the explanation of "they disagree regarding the nullification of a ceiling" means whether it is nullified by this or not, and what relevance does it have to those who see? And so it is proven in the Maggid Mishneh and in the Beit Yosef and Bach, that it refers to both of them. And this is also the method of the Rif, as the Ran wrote, see there. Also the Chemed Moshe refuted the Magen Avraham, see there, and see Taz, subsection 9. And examine and you will find it simple.)

A sukkah that has no roof, for example, where the tops of the walls were attached to one another like a beehive, or where one leaned the top of the wall of the sukkah against a wall and it stands at an incline—it is invalid, for there is no sukkah without a roof. And the inclines of tents are not considered like tents. However, if it had a roof of even a tefach, or within less than three tefachim near its roof there is a tefach—and a tefach is considered a tent regarding several matters—therefore the name "tent" is upon this, and it becomes valid, and the incline is considered like the roof of the sukkah. And if it is made of materials with which one may provide schach—it is permitted to sleep under the entire incline. And so too, if one leaned it against a wall at an incline, and raised the wall from the ground a tefach, and made a vertical structure of a tefach, and placed the base of the incline upon it below—for this tefach makes it as if it has a roof. And according to Rashi, even if the tefach is airspace—this tefach makes it like a tent, for we consider this tefach as a wall, and the entire incline as a roof. And it is obvious that it must be ten tefachim in height, and seven by seven, as this is the measurement for the fitness of a sukkah. And this is considered as a wall, and the rest above as a roof. Therefore, there must be valid schach there. And the ten tefachim—one measures vertically and not diagonally. And it appears that also in the height above ten—there must be seven tefachim, for there is no schach less than this measurement. And there are those who disagree on this, but the main point is as I have written (see Beit Yosef).