Siman 638

It is written: "On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot, seven days for Hashem." And this word "Sukkot" is superfluous, for we already know that it refers to Sukkot, as it is written afterward: "In sukkot you shall dwell..." and it should have written "a festival of seven days," and I would know that it speaks of Sukkot (Bach). Rather, it comes for an interpretation, for "chag" is an expression of "chagigah," which is the chagigah sacrifice. And just as the name of Heaven rests upon the chagigah, for it is forbidden for benefit until after the burning of the sacrificial parts—so too the name of Heaven rests upon the sukkah. And this is "for Hashem," meaning: that the sukkah shall be holy all seven days of the festival, and it is forbidden to benefit from it (Sukkah 9a). And it is forbidden to take from it even a splinter to pick one's teeth.

According to the opinion of the Rambam at the end of the sixth chapter, both the skhakh and the walls are included in this prohibition. And so the Tosafot wrote explicitly in Beitzah (30b). But the Rosh in Sukkah there wrote that the prohibition is only on the skhakh, and not on the walls. Most of the poskim agreed with the Rambam and Tosafot, that just as the skhakh is from the Torah—so too the walls of the sukkah according to the halacha, two in their standard manner and a third of a handbreadth—are from the Torah. And so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef. (The Taz in subsection 1 elaborated that the intention of the Rambam regarding the walls is not from the Torah, but rather due to the reason of muktzah, see there. But the Tosafot in Beitzah there wrote explicitly that the walls are also from the Torah. And this is how the Rosh and the Tur understood the opinion of the Rambam, and this is the opinion of most of the poskim. And there is a practical halachic difference, as I will write with the help of Heaven.)

According to this, the prohibition of benefit from a sukkah is from the Torah. And even though in Shabbat (45a) it is explained that the prohibition is due to the reason of muktzeh—this is when it has fallen. But as long as it stands—the prohibition is from the Torah (Tosafot ibid.). And likewise, from the Torah the prohibition is only for the amount required for the validity of the sukkah, and due to the reason of muktzeh it is prohibited even for what is more than the amount required for the validity of the sukkah (ibid. in the name of our teacher Tam). And so wrote the Tur, and this is his wording: The wood of the sechach, as long as the sukkah exists—is prohibited from the Torah. If it fell—it is prohibited by rabbinic decree. And our teacher Tam explained that even while it exists—the prohibition is not from the Torah, except for what is needed for the validity of the sukkah. And the rest—is not prohibited except by rabbinic decree. And regarding the walls, there is no prohibition in them. But the Rambam wrote that the wood of the walls is also prohibited, and it did not seem correct to my master, my father, of blessed memory. Thus far his words. And we have already written that most of the poskim hold like the Rambam.

And certainly there is a practical difference whether the prohibition is from the Torah or from the rabbis. For if it is from the rabbis, then when a minor or a non-Jew takes from it – we need not be concerned about this. But if it is holy from the Torah like consecrated items – it is obvious that we must see to it that it is not desecrated by the hands of others. There is another practical difference, for if the prohibition is from the Torah – no condition is effective. And if it is from the rabbis due to the reason of muktzeh – sometimes a condition is effective, as will be explained. There is another practical difference, for if it is due to the reason of rabbinic muktzeh – it was permitted for the sake of an ill person whose life is not in danger, as I wrote in siman 328, and for the sake of human dignity, as I wrote in siman 312, and regarding moving it from the side, as I wrote in siman 311. This is not the case if it were holy from the Torah – it would not be permitted in all of these, as is understood.

And even on the eighth day it is forbidden, because since it was forbidden for the entirety of the seventh day, it was muktzeh during the twilight between the seventh and the eighth, and since it was set aside during twilight, it is set aside for the entire day of the eighth. And why do we not say regarding an egg that was laid on the first day of Yom Tov, that it is forbidden on the second day of Yom Tov, because it was muktzeh during twilight, and set aside for the entire day? For we only say this regarding muktzeh due to a mitzvah like this of a sukkah and an etrog, or regarding muktzeh due to a prohibition such as a lamp burning on Friday evening during twilight, but not regarding standard muktzeh (see Tosafot Beitzah 30b, beginning with "Ad").

If after one has made the minimum required measure of a sukkah necessary for the walls, he added another wall—it is not forbidden, for this is like a mundane wall. And if it fell—they are permitted to be moved, as they were not sanctified at all. And even while it stands, they are permitted on Chol HaMoed. However, on Yom Tov it is forbidden due to the prohibition of dismantling. But if he made all four walls together—all of them are forbidden and muktzeh, even when they have fallen, for you do not know which one is for the purpose of the sukkah's validity and which one is not for the purpose of the sukkah's validity. Therefore, the sanctity and the status of muktzeh take effect upon all of them. And it appears to me that this applies to walls. However, if he added to the sechach even after the required measure of validity—nevertheless, he has dedicated them for sechach, since they are placed upon the previous sechach. This is not the case with a wall that he built afterward—for it stands on its own (and so it implies in Beitzah 30b, see there).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even if the sukkah fell—they are forbidden, and a condition is of no avail regarding them. However, wood adjacent to the sukkah is permitted. And see above, siman 518, section 8. Thus far his words. That is to say: for later regarding the decorations of the sukkah it will be explained that a condition is of avail, when one says: "I do not withdraw from them for the entire duration of bein hashemashot." And this is what he says, that regarding the walls a condition is of no avail—for he perforce withdraws from them, due to the prohibition of demolishing a tent. However, wood adjacent to the sukkah, meaning that which he leaned more than the amount required for its fitness—is permitted when it falls by means of a condition. But when it has not fallen—it is forbidden due to muktzeh, as I wrote in siman 518, for even that which is in excess of the fitness of the sukkah is forbidden by rabbinic decree due to muktzeh. And likewise, if he leaned wood or sacks against the walls of the sukkah to thicken them—they are forbidden when it has not fallen, and when it has fallen—they are permitted if he made a condition beforehand during bein hashemashot. (The Taz, subsection 2, wondered that it contradicts what is there. And according to what I have written, here too the explanation is such. And so it appears from the Magen Avraham, subsection 1.)

Since the reason that a condition is not effective regarding the walls is due to the dismantling of a tent, as I have written, therefore if it is in a manner where there is no dismantling of a tent, as I have written in siman 518, a condition is effective if it fell. And likewise, if he built it during Chol HaMoed, where there is no prohibition of dismantling a tent, a condition is also effective. However, this is all regarding what was not prohibited by the Torah. But regarding what was prohibited by the Torah, no condition is effective, even if it fell (Magen Avraham in the name of the Ran, see there).

And all this only deals with a sukkah in which he sat one time, for it has become sanctified. But if he designated it for a sukkah and did not sit in it – it is not forbidden when it fell, or in a case where there is no dismantling of a tent, or on Chol HaMoed even without a condition; for designation is not a substantial matter. And the same law applies to a sukkah in which he sat in the previous year, if he has not sat in it now – its sanctity is nullified, and it is as if he never sat in it. And another act is required for its sanctity to take effect (ibid. subsection 2). And if he sat in it, even if it was not made for the sake of a sukkah, and he also did not innovate anything in it, nevertheless when he sat in it one time for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah – it became sanctified (ibid.). But designation is not a substantial matter. And even though since we compare sukkah to the Chagigah offering, and the sukkah is the physical object of sanctity like the Chagigah, and behold regarding a physical object of sanctity we hold that designation is a substantial matter above in siman 42 – yet in truth it is not exactly like the Chagigah, and it is like the accessories of a mitzvah regarding this matter, that designation is not a substantial matter (Magen Avraham, and Taz subsection 3).

Anything that one hangs in the sukkah for the purpose of ornament, if they are food or drink—it is forbidden to benefit from them all eight days, even if they fell, for they were set aside for their mitzvah. And on Yom Tov and Shabbat—it is forbidden to move them, for they are muktzeh. And even one who does not hold of muktzeh—concedes regarding muktzeh due to a mitzvah, for even Rabbi Shimon concedes in this. And if he knows that the children will eat them—it is better not to hang them, or he should make a condition as will be explained. And if the sukkah ornaments are objects—he shall not move them on Shabbat and Yom Tov, and he shall not use them on Chol HaMoed for his personal needs. And if he used hadassim for sechach which have a pleasant scent, or hung etrogim for sukkah ornament, or other fruits that have a pleasant scent—nevertheless it is permitted to smell them, for he did not set it aside from its scent. He set it aside from use, but not from its scent. He should only be careful not to move them on Shabbat and Yom Tov, for the reason of muktzeh, as I have written. And there are those who forbid regarding hadassim. For it is well regarding an etrog which is fit for eating—we also say that he set it aside from eating, but not from its scent. But hadassim which only exist for scent, when he set them aside—he set them aside from their scent. And it will be explained in siman 653 with the help of Heaven.

Regarding the decorations of a sukkah, a condition is effective. This means that one says on the eve of the Yom Tov while it is still day: "I do not withdraw from them during the entire twilight period." That is to say: I am not designating them for the mitzvah. It is better to say: "The entire twilight period of all the days of the festival." However, if he speaks without specification and says: "The entire twilight period" – the intention is also thus for all the days of the festival. Behold, he may partake of them at any time he wishes, for he did not designate them, the sanctity of the sukkah and its mitzvah did not take effect upon them, and they are not considered decorations of the sukkah. And this is specifically when he spoke with this phrasing. But if he said: "I make a condition upon them to eat them when they fall" – this is nothing, for this is like saying: "The sanctity shall take effect upon them now, and when they fall – their sanctity shall cease." And this thing is impossible. However, if he said: "I make a condition upon them to eat them whenever I wish" – it is effective, for the twilight period is also included, and consequently the sanctity does not descend upon them. There is one who holds that this phrasing is not effective (Ran ibid.), but the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled that it is effective, and thus we establish the law. Nevertheless, it is better to satisfy all opinions and to say with the phrasing: "I do not withdraw from them during the entire twilight period." There are those who hold that the condition is only effective for after they have fallen, but this is not the primary view, as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote. Nevertheless, it is proper to be stringent, for such is the opinion of the Tosafot in Shabbat (45a) according to one resolution, and the Bahag according to what the Tur wrote, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: There are some among the later authorities who wrote that in this time we are not accustomed to make a condition, because we are not expert in the laws of conditions. And such is the custom regarding decorations hanging from the schach. But regarding decorations placed on the walls, such as decorated sheets – it is the custom to move them because of the rains, even without a condition, because some say there is no prohibition even regarding the walls themselves, and certainly regarding the decorations. Nevertheless, it is good to make a condition regarding them. Thus far his words, and it is a great wonder: for behold, there is no one who holds this view, that there is no prohibition regarding the walls themselves (Taz, subsection 8). And likewise what he wrote that certainly regarding the decorations, for it is explicitly implied in the Gemara that there is a prohibition regarding the decorations of the sukkah (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). Rather, one may say a justification, that since the custom is such to use them, we presumably hang them based on the custom (Taz, ibid.). And one should make loops for the decorations of the sukkah, so as not to untie a knot. And one should not hang shaatnez in the sukkah, unless they are higher than a man's height. And those who engrave the verse "In sukkot shall you dwell" into fruits – they do not act properly. And every person should be careful after Sukkot not to tread upon the schach, and certainly not to use them for a degrading use. Rather, he should place them in a corner, and burn them little by little. And let this matter not be light in your eyes, for behold, the Name of Heaven rests upon them (see Magen Avraham).