Siman 635

One does not need to make the sukkah lishmah, for the sake of the sukkah of mitzvah. And that which is written: "The festival of Sukkot for seven days for Hashem" – the intention is not to make it lishmah, but rather that it is forbidden all seven days like a holy object, and it will be explained in siman 638. And so too that which is written: "The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself for seven days" – this is that one is permitted to make a sukkah on Chol HaMoed, and it will be explained in siman 637. And that which is written "for yourself" – the intention is not "for yourself" = "lishmah," as we expound regarding tzitzit: "Tassels you shall make for yourself" – "for the sake of your obligation" (Menachot 42b). Rather, here the intention is to exclude a stolen one, and it will be explained in siman 637. For this is the implication of "for yourself" – "it shall be yours," like "for yourselves" regarding lulav. However, regarding tzitzit there is another verse for this: "And they shall make for themselves tzitzit," "for themselves" – from their own and not the stolen. Therefore, we expound from "for yourself" – for the sake of your obligation, which is not the case regarding sukkah (Sukkah 9a).

And nevertheless, even though we do not require a sukkah to be made specifically for the sake of the commandment, nevertheless, not all sukkot are valid, even if the sechach is from materials valid for covering, and similarly the walls are according to their law, and its shade is greater than its sunlight. And that is: we require that it be made for shade to hide there from heat and sun, as it is written: "And there shall be a sukkah for a shadow in the daytime from the heat." But if it was made on its own—it is invalid, for behold, it is not for shade. And similarly, if it was made to hide something there, or for a storehouse of grain, and the like—it is not a sukkah, since it was not made to hide oneself in the shade from heat. And similarly, even if it was made to hide oneself, but he made it to dwell in all year—if so, it is his year-round house, and the Torah said: "In sukkot you shall dwell," and not in a house that you dwell in the entire year. Rather, it is not valid unless it was made for a temporary dwelling for the sake of shade, to hide oneself occasionally from the heat of the sun, and the rain, and the cold—then it has the name of a sukkah upon it, and he can sit in it for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah, even though he did not make it for the sake of the mitzvah (see Bach and Magen Avraham).

And so the sages taught: A Ganbach sukkah is kosher, a Rakbash sukkah is kosher. And this is its explanation: A sukkah that a non-Jew or a woman made in order to hide there from the sun, and likewise a sukkah made for an animal to hide it from the intensity of the sun's heat, and likewise the sukkah of Kutim who travel with flocks, and likewise the sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of kayitzim, meaning guards of dried figs in the field placed to dry, and likewise the sukkah of burganin, that is, the city guards, and likewise the sukkah of fruit guards – all of these are kosher, because they are made for shade, as they make a sukkah in order to hide themselves from the heat of the sun. (Kutim – these are the Kutim in the Bible in Kings II 17, who did not conduct themselves according to the religion of Israel. And the novelty in all of these: even though they certainly were not made for the sake of the mitzvah, nevertheless they are kosher, since they were made for shade.)

Since it has been explained that a sukkah made on its own is invalid, therefore: one who has a stack full of grain, and on top is straw, and he hollowed out the inside of the stack and took from its interior until there remained walls according to their law, and also a sechach of straw—nevertheless it is invalid, for the sechach was not made for the sake of shade. And if you should say: let this hollowing be considered an act of making? This is not so, for this is "thou shalt make" and not from that which is already made, since he did not perform any act upon the sechach. And this is specifically when he did not leave any space there at all. But if at the beginning of the making of the stack he left at the bottom near the ground a space of a handbreadth in height over a span of seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, and this was a vacant span, and he stacked above this—the entire stack is considered like a ceiling, since it has a tent of a handbreadth, for this is for the sake of a sukkah or for the sake of shade. And if he hollowed it out afterward and completed it to ten—it is valid, for there is no issue here of "and not from that which is already made," since it was made for the sake of a sukkah or for the sake of shade. And it is not only if he hollowed it from below and left the handbreadth as it was, but even if he hollowed it above and did not reach the handbreadth—nevertheless it is valid, because the entire stack has the status of sechach, except that afterward it was thinned. And this applies to a small stack. But if the stack is large, and he left a space of a handbreadth over a span of seven, and afterward hollowed it out—the entire stack is not valid, only this place of the span of seven handbreadths. But the rest of the stack is invalid. And it is not like reeds behind the sukkah, since there is neither a sukkah nor a wall here, but merely the status of a tent. And since all the remainder of the stack is invalid, therefore if he hollowed the stack from both sides of the seven handbreadths, a span of more than four cubits on each side—there is a separation of more than four cubits of invalid sechach between the place of the seven handbreadths and the walls. And it is impossible to say "dofen akuma" in a case of more than four cubits, and automatically the seven handbreadths are also invalidated.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one should not make the sechach before he makes the walls. And if he made a tefach adjacent to the sechach – it is permitted to place the sechach before he makes the rest of the walls, as in the case of one who hollows out a haystack. Thus far his words. And certainly this is only a mere stringency, for what disqualification is there in making the roof before the walls? For this is not comparable to hollowing out a haystack, where it does not have the status of a roof at all. But here, it is a complete roof. And there are those who disqualified it even ex post facto (Levush and Taz), and he brought proof because a roof without partitions is not called an ohel, see there. And I wonder: for regarding the matter of tumah, a roof without walls is an ohel, and there is explicit proof from the Mishnah regarding one who suspends walls from above to below, see there in Rashi. And there are those who rejected this proof, but it is not clear. Nevertheless, there are those who are concerned for this opinion. (And the Bach and the Magen Avraham validate it, see there.)