Siman 633

We learned at the beginning of Sukkah: A sukkah that is higher than twenty amot is invalid. For a sukkah must be a temporary dwelling, and up to twenty amot a person makes his dwelling a temporary dwelling if he so desires. However, above twenty amot it is impossible to make it a temporary dwelling due to its height. And the Torah insisted that the sukkah must be capable of being a temporary dwelling (according to Rava ibid., as the Rif ruled; see there). And there is no difference between a small sukkah and a large sukkah, or between partitions that reach the sechach and those that do not reach the sechach—for in all of them it is invalid above twenty amot. (Because according to the other Amoraim there is a difference, as is explained in the Gemara, but according to Rava there is no difference.)

Do not err by saying that since the Torah commanded a temporary dwelling for a sukkah, one should not make it strong, for this is not so. For one may even make partitions of iron; rather, the Torah stated that it must be fit to be made temporary (Gemara). And there is room to doubt: for while it is certainly so, nevertheless, perhaps in any case there is more of a hiddur to make it temporary, in the manner of the sukkot made for the festival of Sukkot and afterwards they dismantle them, than if we make them in built houses by removing the roofs, in the manner that we do with fixed sukkot in the houses? And it appears that there is no concern at all, and there is no hiddur in this more than in that. For the essence of "temporary" refers to the sechach, and not to the walls. However, in any case, it is impossible to make walls of such a height in a manner that it is impossible to make them temporary at all. (And even though it somewhat appears from the wording of Rava there, who says: Up to twenty cubits... when one makes a permanent dwelling he also fulfills his obligation, etc. And this implies "fulfills his obligation" post facto. It is not so, for he employs this phrasing on account of above twenty cubits, where even post facto it is invalid. And so it is explained by Tosafot in the comment starting with "Ki," see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

Every amah is six exact tefachim, and they are against the spacious ones by less than half a finger per amah. And that which we said above twenty is invalid, the intention is regarding the interior space, meaning: that the interior space shall not be more than twenty amot. However, the sechach can be above twenty amot. And so it is in the beginning of Eruvin, see there.

If it was higher than twenty cubits, and palm-leaves descend into the twenty, if their shade is greater than their sunlight—it is kosher; so it is in the Gemara (4a). And the Rosh explained that "palm-leaves descend into the twenty"—this means they reach into the space of the twenty, see there. That is to say: for we maintain that the space of the sukkah shall not be more than twenty, but the sechach can be above twenty. Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the space is more than twenty, and only the palm-leaves, that is to say the branches and the leaves that extend—they descend below until they cover the space that is more than twenty. And we require that in them themselves their shade be greater than their sunlight. And if not, they are considered as if they are not there, since they are not from the primary sechach. For regarding the primary sechach, we would not require that at the end of the twenty its shade be greater than its sunlight, for there is no reason for this except because they are palm-leaves.

And some say that for this reason, that the palm leaves are not part of the essential s'chach—we require that they be literally within twenty, and their shade is greater than their sun. And if they were above twenty, even though their shade is greater than their sun—we view them as if they are not there (Kessef Mishneh from the Ran, see there). And so it is explained from the wording of the Rambam in the fourth chapter, see there. But the Tur wrote: and the palm leaves descend until twenty, see there. And this is like the wording of the Rosh, see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2, leaves the matter undefined. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 2, who understood that the words of the Rosh and the Ran are one and the same. And it is not so, and see Machatzit HaShekel and Pri Megadim.)

A sukkah whose interior space is more than twenty amot, and one hung decorative items in it beneath the sakhakh, and through this the interior space was diminished—it is of no effect, since this is not part of the sakhakh. And they are not similar to palm fronds. For even though they are fit for sakhakh, nevertheless, since he hung them for decoration and not for the purpose of shade, they are not included in the sakhakh, and they do not diminish the interior space that is more than twenty. And likewise, if he wishes to diminish the interior space by raising the ground, such as if he placed pillows and blankets or other items on the ground, and diminished the interior space—it is not a diminution, as they are not nullified to the ground, even if he nullified them explicitly. But if he diminished it with a large amount of straw that he placed on the ground, and nullified them explicitly—it is a diminution. And all the more so if he placed earth and nullified it forever explicitly. But if he did not nullify it explicitly, even earth—it is not a diminution. Even though it is known that they will not be removed from here, nevertheless, when he did not nullify it explicitly—it is not a diminution, and certainly straw. And it appears to me that the same law applies if he placed wood on the ground, like a floor, and nullified them explicitly—that it is a diminution. And perhaps a floor is by default like one who makes it explicit. And all other items—it is of no effect even if he nullified them explicitly, for it is not the way for them to be nullified. And his intent is negated by the standard of all people, even if he truly wishes to nullify them. And one may not diminish on Yom Tov because this is like building.

If it was higher than twenty amot, and one built a platform in it opposite the middle wall across its entire length, and since it is a permanent structure it certainly diminishes the height, and it has the minimum measure of a sukkah of seven by seven—it renders the entire sukkah fit, for the rest of the sukkah is like reeds extending behind a sukkah, which is considered like the sukkah. And even though there, at least, the sechach is fit, while here the sechach is unfit as it is above twenty, nevertheless even this is not called unfit sechach, for it is indeed fit, only that its airspace is not of the fit measure of a sukkah. And there is one who truly holds that here the permission is only for the platform, and not for the entire sukkah (the Ran and Rabbi Yeshaya in the Tur). But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote without qualification according to the first opinion, and this is the opinion of most of the poskim.

If one built the bench from the side, meaning against one of the side walls, if there is from the edge of the bench until the second wall more than four amot—it is completely invalid, for the length of the bench has only two walls. And we do not say regarding the bench "pull up the partition," because these are not recognizable partitions, and they are not similar to the partitions of a house. And if it is less than four amot—it is valid specifically upon the bench, for we say "curved wall," and we view the sechach as if it curved until beneath the bench at its edge. But the rest cannot be validated as before, like the law of reeds extending behind the sukkah, for we are taking the sechach from there and placing it opposite the bench. And even though this is only a conceptual viewing, and how is it different from the law explained in the previous siman regarding invalid sechach that divides the middle of the sukkah? For even though regarding the outer side we view it as if the middle wall stands here, nevertheless the inner side is also valid. For it is not comparable, as there the inner side is completely valid, and only regarding the outer side do we say "we view." But here, outside of the bench it is invalid, and since even regarding the bench we bring it down to here, how can we make them valid for the bench? (And the Magen Avraham in subsection 6 labored over this, see there. And according to what I have written, it works out well with simplicity. And also what he questioned from the end of siman 631—I do not know, for there, there is no "we view" here, and what comparison is it? And be precise and you will find it easy.)

If he built the platform in the middle, if there is from it to the wall on every side less than four amot—it is kosher on the platform. For it has already been explained in the previous siman that we say dofen akuma, even from the four directions, and even if the platform is higher than ten—we do not say it is another domain, but rather it is nullified to the sukkah. And if there is four amot between it and the wall—it is pasul. And we do not say gud asik mechitzta, even if it is ten high such that it is like a domain unto itself—nevertheless, it is not similar to the partitions of a house, as I have written, and we do not say regarding it gud asik mechitzta. And even if for two walls it is within four amot—it is of no avail, for behold it only has two partitions, unless it is within four for three partitions.

A sukkah has a measurement for height above and below. Above: as has been explained, it must not be higher than twenty amot. And below: it must not be less than ten tefachim, for anything below ten is not fit even for a temporary dwelling, and it is nothing but a chicken coop and not for human dwelling. Therefore, a sukkah whose interior space is not ten tefachim high is invalid. And even if it is ten tefachim high, and the sechach is above ten, but the palm fronds descend into the ten—it is also invalid, even if their sun is greater than their shade, for the invalidation is not due to the sechach but because there does not remain ten tefachim of airspace for use, and it is not a human dwelling. Nevertheless, if one hung things there for sukkah decorations, it is valid, even though they descend into the ten. And so too anything that is not in the category of a tent, for the tent is ten. And this is the usage of the sukkah, whereas the palm fronds are a tent that overspreads the sukkah and diminish the tent of the sukkah.

If it was lower than ten, and he excavated the ground across the entire sukkah and completed it to ten—it is kosher. And he does not need to loosen the sakhakh and return and place them because of "you shall make, and not from that which is made," for the sakhakh is in a state of fitness, and the sakhakh is not disqualified because there is no required measure in the partitions. To what is this comparable? To one who makes a sukkah and initially makes the sakhakh, and afterward makes the walls. Would it be disqualified because of this? And here too, so it is. However, in this case there are those who disqualify, and it will be explained in siman 635.

If he did not hollow out the ground across the entire sukkah, but rather hollowed out according to the minimum measurement of seven by seven, if there are three tefachim between the hollow and the wall—it is invalid, because the walls are distant from the valid area of the sukkah. And we do not say in this case "dofen akuma," for the halachah was only stated for complete walls, but whose invalidity is due to the distance from the sechach—we say "dofen akuma." However, one cannot create a wall through "dofen akuma" for that which is not a wall at all. But less than three—it is valid, as anything less than three is considered "lavud." And the Tur wrote that the validity is only beneath the hollow, and not outside of it. And it is not similar to a bench, where we treat the remainder like protruding reeds, since here it is not fit for use at all. And it is not similar to the end of siman 631 regarding a sukkah with a slope, where it is permitted to sleep even in the place of the slope that does not have ten; for there the wall is a complete wall, but through the slope it is shortened in one place, and it is all one wall. This is not the case here, where in the place that it stands it does not have the status of a wall at all, and how could we validate it? (And the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 8, is settled, and so wrote the Chemed Moshe.) And it is simple that just as hollowing in the ground to complete the measurement is effective, so too if the sechach is very thick, and he removes from the sechach from below until he completes ten tefachim—it is effective like hollowing (ibid.). (See Pri Megadim, subsection 9, who is in doubt regarding a pit ten deep, where he fixed four high poles on its edge and placed sechach upon them: do we say "gud asik," since the partitions are recognizable from the inside? Or do we require that they be recognizable from the outside? See there. And according to my humble opinion: it is obviously invalid. For in such a case on the edge of a roof, many also invalidate, as I wrote in siman 630. And even according to those who validate—they only validated with walls that are on the ground. And the proof: for in the middle of a roof—according to everyone it is invalid. And yet in a house there are recognizable partitions. Rather, it is certain that we require them to be recognizable on the outside, revealed to all. Examine this and you will find it easy.)