Siman 639

How is the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah? One eats, and drinks, and sleeps, and strolls in the sukkah. And likewise, when one speaks with his fellow – he should speak with him in the sukkah, for this is his home for all the days of Sukkot, as it is said: "In sukkot shall you dwell seven days." That is to say: that all your dwelling in these days shall be in the sukkah, and not in the house. And from where do we know that these seven days include even nights? We learn it from the seven days of the inauguration, as it is written: "And at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting shall you dwell day and night seven days." Just as there it is days and nights – so too here it is days and nights (Megillah 2a), and so it is in the Torat Kohanim.

And this is what our sages, of blessed memory, said (26a): "You shall dwell" in the manner that you reside, in the way that one resides all year in his house—the Torah obligated him to leave his residence and to reside here in the sukkah, with his beds and his service vessels and his bedding (Rashi). And all seven days a person makes his sukkah a permanent dwelling, and his house a temporary dwelling. If he had beautiful vessels and beautiful bedding—he brings them up to the sukkah. And so too all drinking vessels—he brings up to the sukkah, such as flagons, and cups, and flasks, and glass pitchers. But eating vessels—he shall not bring up to the sukkah. And so they said in the Gemara (29a): Drinking vessels are in the sukkah, and eating vessels are outside of the sukkah. And Rashi explained: The bowls after they have eaten in them—one must remove them. And so wrote the Tur. But in the Tosafot they wrote that there are those who explain this as referring to pots and kneading basins, and the reason is that we require "in the manner that you reside," and these are not usually in a residential room, but rather they have a room for themselves. And so explained the Bahag: Such as pots, and spits, and the roasting room, and the oven room. Thus far his words. And such is the custom of the world not to bring earthenware vessels into the sukkah, such as pots and the like, because these belong in the kitchen, and it is a disgrace to the sukkah. But regarding bowls after eating—the world is not careful. And it appears that the world adopts the explanation of the Tosafot and the Bahag as primary (and see Magen Avraham, subsection 3).

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote according to the explanation of Rashi and the Tur, and this is their wording: But eating vessels after eating, such as pots and bowls – are outside the sukkah. The lamp – is in the sukkah, and if it was a small sukkah, he places it outside the sukkah. Thus far their words. And now the custom is that pots – one does not bring them into the sukkah even before eating, and bowls – one does not take them out even after eating. Nevertheless, one must be careful in this, that immediately after eating – they should take the bowls and the platters out of the sukkah (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And nevertheless, if he brought in eating vessels and earthenware vessels – the sukkah is not disqualified by this (ibid.). And the jug with which one draws water – one should not bring it into the sukkah (ibid.), and so too vessels in which one keeps flour, and the kneading troughs, and vessels for spices and peppers – are outside the sukkah (ibid.). And so too the vessel in which one keeps much salt, from which they take a little salt into small vessels to place on the table. And so too one must be careful not to bring an earthenware lamp into the sukkah. And that which in a small sukkah one should not bring in any lamp – the reason is simple, so that the sukkah should not burn. And there is no measure for this except according to the estimation.

One should not perform any degrading use in the sukkah, so that the mitzvot should not be degrading to him. Therefore, at night he should not urinate into a vessel in the sukkah. And similarly for washing for netilat yadayim – it is good that he wash them outside of the sukkah. However, netilat yadayim of the morning, which is near his bed – he must of necessity wash them in the sukkah, and immediately he should remove the vessel from the sukkah. And similarly to place shoes in the sukkah – it is not for its honor. And only at night when he removes his shoes – he must of necessity place them on the ground near his bed, but other shoes he should not bring into the sukkah. And the etrog and the lulav – it is a mitzvah that they stand in the sukkah, even if the lulav stands in a vessel in water. And similarly the clothes that he strips off, if they are not honorable – he should not leave them in the sukkah. And his staff that he walks with, if it is not an honorable staff – he should not stand it in the sukkah. The general rule of the matter: anything that he would not keep in his house in the fine room within it – he should not keep this thing in the sukkah. And it is impossible to explain all the details. (See Taz, subsection 4, that tashmish hamitah is not included in this.)

One eats, drinks, and sleeps in the sukkah all seven days, whether by day or by night. And one may not sleep outside the sukkah, even a brief sleep. And even though brief eating is permitted, however, regarding sleep there is no "brief." And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said (26a): There is no fixed standard for sleep. That is to say: sometimes a person wants to sleep, and slumbers a little and it is sufficient for him, and it becomes for him a fixed sleep. But brief eating, and likewise drinking, is permitted. And one who is stringent upon himself, and did not want to drink even water outside the sukkah—behold, this is praiseworthy. And we do not say that it appears like yohra, for we find among the Tannaim that there was one who acted thus, and one thus, as is explained there in the Mishnah. And it comes to teach us that a person may act in this according to his will. And we do not say regarding one who eats briefly outside the sukkah that he is not beautifying the mitzvah, and likewise we do not say regarding one who does not eat that it is like yohra. Rather, he who acts like this master has acted, and he who acts like this master has acted.

And how much is a casual meal? Bread up to the size of a kebeitzah, and a kebeitzah is included. The Rambam in the sixth chapter wrote: A casual meal is a kebeitzah, or slightly less or slightly more. And his reasoning: for this is implied in the Gemara there, which says "like that which a student of the academy tastes and enters the lecture," and certainly he is not precise in exact measurement but rather approximately a kebeitzah, or slightly less or slightly more. And the Rambam wrote: And it is permitted to drink water and to eat fruit outside the sukkah. Thus far his words. And he did not mention wine, because in the Gemara there only water and fruit were mentioned, and it is not his way to bring a matter that was not mentioned in the Gemara.

The Tur wrote that Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg was stringent even regarding fruit, not to eat them outside the sukkah. Our teacher Peretz would say that fruit does not require a sukkah, but other things such as meat, and cheese, and the like—require a sukkah. The Rambam wrote: It is permitted to drink water and to eat fruit outside the sukkah. And one who is stringent not to drink even water outside the sukkah—a blessing shall come upon him. And my master, my father the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that even if you were to say that fruit and cheese require a sukkah, that is specifically for one who establishes a fixed meal upon them. But one who eats them in a casual manner—certainly does not require a sukkah. And the drinking of wine—is also casual. However, since it is not the way to establish a fixed meal upon them, even one who establishes his meal upon them is not considered fixed, for it is no greater than the casual eating of bread, which does not require a sukkah. But a cooked dish made from the five species—one who establishes a meal upon it is considered fixed, and requires a sukkah. Thus far his words, and his words require explanation.

And the matter is as follows: Behold, in the Mishnah in Sukkah there, only fruit and water were mentioned as not requiring a sukkah, and no distinction was mentioned there between a fixed meal and a snack. However, in Yoma (79b), the Gemara deliberates whether fruit in a fixed manner requires a sukkah or not. And the conclusion of Rava is: that it does not require a sukkah. And it challenges him from that which Rabbi said, that we ate figs and grapes as a snack outside the sukkah—as a snack, yes; as a fixed meal, no? And it answers: we ate them like a snack, meaning: we ate them in a fixed manner, but their eating is considered like a snack. And it is known that the halacha follows Rava, as he is a later authority and a great master of the Talmud. However, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg was concerned for Rav Zevid, who answers there not like Rava, and according to him it is forbidden to eat fruit as a fixed meal outside the sukkah. But the teacher, our teacher Peretz, disagrees with him, for it is obvious that the halacha follows Rava, and one does not require a sukkah for fruit even if he eats them in a fixed manner. And he brought proof from the Rambam who holds this, since he wrote regarding bread as a snack "the size of an egg," and regarding fruit he wrote without qualification. Understand from this that even in a fixed manner—one does not require a sukkah for fruit. And there is no doubt in this at all, and such is the halacha. (See Milchamot, that Rava's reasoning is not needed for the conclusion. But the poskim did not agree with him in this.)

However, regarding meat and cheese—it is a different matter. For behold, in Yoma there it is proven that for types of dessert [minei targima], when one eats them as a fixed meal—he requires a sukkah (for it refers to a fixed meal of fruit; examine closely and you will find it easy). The Tosafot and the Rosh in Sukkah there explained that types of dessert refers to meat and fish, and other things with which one eats bread; see there. If so, meat and cheese, with which one eats bread, if he ate them as a fixed meal—our teacher Peretz admits that he requires a sukkah. The Rosh, of blessed memory, disagrees even with this for another reason, namely: for behold, both Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg who is stringent regarding fruit, and the teacher, our teacher Peretz, who is stringent regarding meat and cheese—it is obvious that they were only stringent regarding a fixed meal, as we have explained, for regarding a casual meal there is no doubt that he does not require a sukkah. If so, consequently, since among us it is not the practice to fix a meal upon them, upon meat and cheese without bread—consequently they are always a casual meal, and he does not require a sukkah. And drinking wine is also always in a casual manner, and therefore it is permitted to drink even wine outside the sukkah. In the time of the Gemara—it was their practice to fix a meal upon these things, but it is not so among us. And behold, in types of dessert is also included food made from the five species of grain, as is proven from the Tosefta of Berakhot (chapter four), as it was taught: They brought before him types of dessert, he recites the blessing: "Who creates types of sustenance" (and before us the version is "Who creates types of pocket-bread," see there). And one who fixes a meal upon it—it is considered fixed, and requires a sukkah. But regarding cheese and meat—it is not the practice to fix a meal upon them. According to this, all things except for bread, and food of the five species of grain—it is permitted to eat them outside the sukkah, whether as a fixed meal or a casual meal. And a fixed meal of bread is more than a kebeitzah, and a fixed meal of the five species of grain in a cooked dish—is not dependent on this measure, but only between eating it in a casual manner and eating it in a fixed manner.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 2 ruled like the Rosh and the Tur, that aside from bread and a cooked dish from the five species—there is no fixed meal for anything. However, there are some of the great authorities who questioned this. There is one who wrote that this is only when he is by himself, but in a group—there is a fixed status for drinking, whether wine or other beverages (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 5). But they should not recite the blessing "to sit in the sukkah" over this according to our custom, for we only recite the blessing at the time of a meal (ibid.), and likewise over meat and cheese and other things (ibid.). But regarding fruits, as it is explicitly explained in the Gemara that there is no fixed status for fruits—certainly one does not require a sukkah. And there is one who is concerned even when alone, when one eats and drinks in a fixed manner all things except for fruits and water (Levush). However, regarding a fixed gathering in a group—certainly one should be stringent in practice, for thus the mind inclines. And also the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch perhaps only spoke of an individual, and not in a group. (And there are those who are concerned even regarding fruits, but it does not appear so. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And behold, it has already been explained that sleep is more stringent than eating, for even temporary sleep is forbidden. And now, the world is lenient regarding sleep. Our teacher, the Rema, already addressed this in section 2, and this is his wording: And that which they are accustomed now to be lenient regarding sleep, such that none sleep in the sukkah except those who are meticulous in the mitzvot – some say it is because of the cold, as there is distress in sleeping in cold places. And it appears to me that it is because the mitzvah of sukkah is a man and his household, a man and his wife, in the manner that he dwells all year. And in a place where he cannot sleep with his wife, because he does not have a private sukkah – he is exempt. And it is good to be stringent and to be there with his wife, as he dwells all year, if it is possible for him to have a private sukkah. Thus far his words. And one should not ask: how can he fulfill the obligation at all in a place that is not fit for being together? For in the next siman it will be explained that a sukkah that is not fit for sleeping – is not a sukkah even for eating. For this is not a question, as "not fit for sleeping" is called anything where it is impossible for a person to sleep there at all, as will be explained there, and not in a place fit for sleeping, but where due to another reason he cannot sleep there (and this is the intention of the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 8). And there is clear proof for this: for the measurement of a sukkah is seven tefachim by seven tefachim, and it is obvious that it is not fit for two, and even for one, sleep is difficult, as is understood. Rather, since under pressure he can lean and slumber – he has fulfilled the obligation. And all the more so in a case such as this.

However, the essence of this reason is very puzzling. For behold, in the Gemara (28b), Rava does not hold at all of "you shall dwell" as you reside regarding a man and his wife. It is Abaye who says this, and we hold according to Rava. And for other matters Rava applies this derivation of "you shall dwell" as you reside, for we learned many things from this. And even Abaye, behold he says that I would have thought to say so, it comes to teach us that it does not apply to this matter, see there. (And what the Magen Avraham wrote there, that nevertheless he is one who suffers distress – it is not relevant to this. And whenever he needs – he shall leave the sukkah.) And behold, at the beginning of Arachin regarding kohanim, it truly says so, that even though they are unable to be with their wives, nevertheless in whatever manner they are able to fulfill it – they shall fulfill it. As Rashi explained there, and this is his wording: It comes to teach us that even though it is not possible for them as you reside, however it is possible for them – they are obligated. Thus far his words. Furthermore: behold, it is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai that a sukkah is seven by seven, and behold, it is certainly impossible to be with his wife. (And also the proof of the Magen Avraham from the fact that all of Israel may go out in one sukkah, which is certainly not fit for this – is a clear proof. And in Arachin there is also another version, for with this version it is difficult to explain the conclusion, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the primary reason is the first reason: because of the cold. For in our northern countries, most years the weather is very cold during Sukkot, and there is no greater discomfort than this. And there are many times when one could be harmed when sleeping there. Aside from this, since we hold that one who is in discomfort is exempt from the sukkah, as I will write in siman 640. And according to our Sukkot, in the vast majority of cases one must necessarily be in discomfort when sleeping in the sukkah, as we see this with our own senses. And it is only a tiny minority who would not be in discomfort when sleeping in the sukkah. Therefore, they were accustomed to be lenient in this. Nevertheless, it is not called "unfit for sleeping," as I wrote in section 11. And there is no sukkah more unfit for sleeping than a sukkah of seven by seven. Nevertheless, since with difficulty one is able to sleep there—it is kosher. And one who is truly in discomfort in this manner—is exempt. However, one who fears the word of Hashem—should strive to sleep in the sukkah.

The Rambam wrote in chapter six, law 6: Eating in the sukkah on the first night of Yom Tov is an obligation. Even if one ate a kezayit of bread, he has fulfilled his obligation. From this point forward, it is optional: if one wishes to eat a meal, he dines in the sukkah. If he wishes, he does not eat anything but fruit or parched grain outside the sukkah for all seven days. And the law of eating is like the law of eating matzah on Pesach. Thus far his words. Behold, according to his words, there is no obligation at all to eat bread on Yom Tov, except for the first night. Also, in chapter six of Yom Tov, he did not mention eating bread at all on Yom Tov, but rather the delight of meat and wine. Only regarding Shabbat, in chapter thirty, did he mention three meals of bread, and not regarding Yom Tov. This is the opinion of the Tosafot and the Rosh in Sukkah (27a), but in Berakhot (49b) they did not write so. The Ran in Sukkah there wrote that there is an obligation to eat mezonot, and not bread of Hamotzi. And in the Yerushalmi in Sukkah there, it implies explicitly like the opinion of the Tosafot and the Rosh in Sukkah, see there. We have already written this above, in siman 529, section 3, see there. For the halakhah, it appears like the opinion of the Ran, of blessed memory. Nevertheless, if one forgot Ya'aleh V'Yavo in Birkat HaMazon on Yom Tov, we return him, as I wrote in siman 188, see there, because even in the blessing of Mein Shalosh we mention the day of Yom Tov. (Also in the Or Zarua HaGadol in Hilkhot Sukkah, siman 301, he ruled like the Tosafot in Sukkah. And so it is in the Hagahot Ashri ibid.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 ruled according to the words of the Rambam. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that one should not eat on the first night until it is certainly night. And he should eat before midnight. And he should not eat on the day (of Erev Sukkot) from midday onwards, so that he will eat in the sukkah with an appetite, similar to the eating of matzah. Thus far his words. And the reason: since we derive it from matzah—we require it to be similar to matzah. However, in that which he wrote that one should not eat on Erev Sukkot from midday—he was more stringent than by matzah, for there the prohibition is only from the tenth hour and onwards, as I wrote in siman 471. And perhaps because here one may eat bread, he was more stringent (see Magen Avraham, subsection 12). Also, that which he wrote to eat before midnight—it is merely a stringency, for regarding matzah itself, the Rambam ruled at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Chametz U'Matzah that it may be eaten all night. Rather, since there are those who hold regarding matzah until midnight—therefore he was stringent also regarding sukkah. And he should have considered another matter, which is: that on all the days of the festival, a kezayit is considered casual eating, and one may eat it outside the sukkah. But on the first night—it is considered fixed eating, and it is forbidden to eat it outside the sukkah, as we derive it from Pesach. And so it implies explicitly in the Yerushalmi (see Taz, subsection 11).

He further wrote at the end of section 5 that also regarding the matter of rain – there is a greater stringency on the first night than on the rest of the festival. For during the rest of the festival when rain falls – one leaves his sukkah and exits. And if he does not exit – he is like an ignoramus, as will be explained. But on the first night – one must eat a kezayit in the sukkah even if rain is falling. And he should recite kiddush in the sukkah in order to say the "zman" blessing over the sukkah. Thus far his words. The Tur and the Smag ruled likewise, and the Ran also wrote, and this is his wording: And others say that for this reason we derive the laws of the first night of the festival of Sukkot from the festival of Matzot, to say that even if rain fell – one is obligated to eat in the sukkah, even though he would be exempt from it during the rest of the days. Thus far his words, and the Rosh wrote likewise in Berakhot (chapter seven, siman 23). However, the Rashba in his novellae rejected these words. And he wrote likewise in the name of his teacher, that there is no difference between the first night and all other nights. And he wrote in the name of a great one of the generation from France, who would require sleeping on the first night, even when rain fell, at the very least a temporary sleep. And he rejected this, see there. And the Smak wrote likewise.

And the reason for their dispute: for those who exempt hold that we require "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside, and a person does not reside in a house where rain is falling. And if it is because it was compared to the festival of Matzot – this means that he should eat in the sukkah when it is fit to dwell in the sukkah, and even the first night is not excluded from the rule of "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside. And those who obligate hold that the first night is not included in "you shall dwell in sukkot seven days," where we require "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside. For that applies to the entire festival, but the first night – we learn from "fifteenth," "fifteenth" from the festival of Matzot (27a). And this verse is written at the beginning of the parsha in "Emor": "On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot to Hashem...", and it is not written here "you shall dwell," that we should require it to be in the manner that you reside. And where is it written "you shall dwell"? At the end of the parsha: "You shall dwell in sukkot seven days." Therefore, for the seven days we require in the manner that you reside, but not for the first night, for its obligation is from the beginning of the parsha, and it is a mitzvah unto itself to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, eating and sleeping, just as they are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah on the first night of Pesach. For even one who suffers – is obligated, and so too in the sukkah. Therefore, a kezayit is sufficient, just as with matzah. And a brief sleep is sufficient, for this is like eating a kezayit, which is a brief eating. And the Torah decreed to fulfill it without conditions, and even if one suffers, and even if rain is falling. And such is the custom like those who forbid. Therefore, even a sick person who suffers, if he is only able to go to the sukkah to hear kiddush and eat a kezayit – he is obligated to do so. But regarding sleep, we do not practice it during the falling of rain even briefly, because in any case we are lenient regarding sleep, as has been explained. Furthermore: perhaps the comparison to matzah is only for eating like matzah, and not for sleeping, which is not relevant to matzah. (And according to what I have written – everything that they questioned against those who forbid is settled.)

Regarding the matter of the blessing "to sit in the sukkah" on the first night when it is raining—it would appear that one should not bless, as it is a doubt regarding a blessing. However, from our teacher, the Rema, it is clear that one must bless, for he wrote that one should sanctify in the sukkah so that he may say the blessing of time over the sukkah—it follows that he blesses over the sukkah. And it appears that it was established for him as the halacha according to the opinion of those who obligate, and according to what we explained, their words have a basis in the verse. Nevertheless, in practice, I believe it is not the custom to bless "to sit in the sukkah" during the falling of rain. And there is a practical difference in this also regarding the second day, namely when it is raining on the second night: if one must bless on the first night because the law is clear, then also on the second night one must eat a kezayit in the sukkah when it is raining, because of the doubt of the day, just as with matzah. But if on the first night one does not need to bless, as it is a doubt in the law—one does not need to sit in the sukkah on the second night during the falling of rain to eat a kezayit, since we are experts in the fixing of the month. And such is the custom, not to sit on the second night during the falling of rain. (And so wrote the Magen Avraham, subsection 15. And see Taz, subsection 17, and examine closely and you will find it easy.) And one who wishes to be stringent also on the second night—should eat a kezayit in the sukkah, after the meal or in the middle of the meal, and should not sanctify in the sukkah.

All seven days one reads and studies inside the sukkah. And if one needs many books for his study – he should take them to the sukkah. And even though this is a burden upon him, nevertheless, he cannot exempt himself from the sukkah because of this. And this is also included in "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside. However, if according to the depth of his analysis in his study, the analysis is difficult for him in the sukkah – he may study in his house, since this study is impossible for him in the sukkah. And the matter is an a fortiori argument: for if regarding physical pain they said that one who suffers is exempt from the sukkah, all the more so regarding the affliction of the soul concerning Torah, for it is necessary that his mind be settled upon him. And regarding the matter of prayer – there is no obligation at all to pray in the sukkah, for in this "in the manner that you reside" is not applicable, since even in his house he does not pray regularly, but rather in the synagogue. Therefore, if he wishes – he prays in the sukkah, and if he wishes – he prays in his house. Nevertheless, it is proper to pray in the sukkah if he has a place of rest in his sukkah where he can pray there.

If it rained – he enters into the house. And just as one evacuates because of rains, so too one evacuates in hot lands because of the heat and mosquitoes, and in cold places because of the winds and the cold. And there are times at night when the wind extinguishes the lamp, and he is forced to evacuate to his house. The general rule of the matter: Any type of person in distress is exempt from the sukkah. And anyone who is exempt from the sukkah and does not leave from there – does not receive reward, and is called an ignoramus. As it is found in the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Shabbat, that anyone who is exempt from a matter and performs it – is called an ignoramus. And it seems to me the reason: that even though there are matters where a person can be stringent upon himself, nevertheless, everything is according to the context. Such as regarding sukkah, where the Torah said "you shall dwell" – similar to how you reside, and automatically if it is not similar to how you reside – it is not a sukkah at all. And a person in his house would not sit when rains fall or other reasons. And if so – this is not the sukkah that the Torah spoke of, and you have no greater ignoramus than this. And how is receiving reward relevant to this? Behold, he is not sitting in the sukkah that the Torah commanded. And all the more so that one should not enter the sukkah at a time when he is exempt from it. However, when he leaves from the sukkah because of the rains – he should not leave as one who is angry and kicking, but rather with great submission, like a servant who comes to pour a cup for his master, and wants to dilute the wine with water, and his master poured the jug of water on his face. (And the Mekor Chaim explained regarding this that the water sweetens the red wine, and it is a hint to mercy sweetening the judgment, and they do not allow it from Heaven. And they said that this refers to the Land of Israel.)

What is the measure of rain that allows one to leave the sukkah? For at the beginning it falls upon the s'chach, and does not yet fall into the sukkah. And from when is it permitted for him to vacate from his sukkah into his house? From when so many drops fall into the sukkah onto the table, in a manner that if they were to fall into the cooked food – the food would be spoiled. Even a dish of beans, which is quick to spoil – we measure by it. And even if there is no cooked food before him – we measure by this, for so the sages measured, that with this measure there is no longer "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside. And one who is not expert in measuring by this measure – shall measure for himself: that if he would leave his house in such rain – he may also leave his sukkah. And it has already been explained that all this is on the other days and nights of the festival. But on the first night – it is an obligation to recite kiddush and eat in the sukkah even at the time of rainfall.

And know that there is reason to doubt regarding our built sukkot, where they remove the roof, and during the time of rains they return it. And it is the way to return it immediately when rains begin to descend, for if it remains open until they begin to drip into the sukkah – much rain will gather in the sechach which will drip afterwards, and will cancel him from the mitzvah of sukkah. However, if at the time they begin to eat rains began to descend, in a manner that they are able to finish the meal even if it remains open, is it permitted to return it immediately so that the rains do not gather and cancel him after some time? Or perhaps: the mitzvah of its hour is preferable, and he should not return it until afterwards when he finishes the meal, so that he may eat in the sukkah now? And if afterwards he will be canceled from the sukkah because of this – behold, he is exempt. And so it seems proper to instruct, but the world does not practice so. And perhaps just as our sages, of blessed memory, said: Profane one Shabbat for him, so that he may fulfill many Shabbats, regarding a sick person whose life is in danger; here too it is better to cancel this meal from the sukkah, so that he may fulfill many meals in the sukkah afterwards. However, this is certainly so on Hoshana Rabbah, when the rain begins to descend during the time of the meal – he should not return the roof; since he does not need by the Torah to eat in the sukkah anymore – he should not cancel a Torah law for the sake of the meal of Shemini Atzeret, lest he not be able to eat because of this.

And so too regarding sleep: one who was sleeping in the sukkah, and rains began to fall – he goes to his house to sleep. And in this, it is more lenient than eating, for regarding eating one must estimate enough so that the food would be spoiled, but regarding sleep one does not need to estimate so, for with even a small amount of rain it is a distress to sleep there, and he may leave. Therefore, as soon as some drops fall upon his bed – he leaves his sukkah and stays the night in his house. And also, one should not be stringent in this, and such a person is called an ignoramus, unless he is not bothered at all by a few drops.

One who went in the middle of his meal to his house because of the rains, and the rains ceased, and he is still in the middle of the meal – nevertheless, he is not obligated to return to his sukkah, and he finishes the meal in his house. And similarly, when he was sleeping and rains fell at night, and he entered to sleep inside the house, and the rains ceased: if he has not yet lain down on his bed in his house – he shall return to the sukkah, like one who has not yet lain down, who is obligated to sleep in the sukkah. But if he is lying on his bed – the sages did not trouble him to return to his sukkah that entire night, even if he woke during the night from his sleep. And he lies in his house until the dawn wakes, which is to say that the morning star rises, and he wakes from his sleep on his own, for then he is obligated to go to the sukkah if he wants to sleep more. And the reason for the matter appears to me: for everything is included in "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside. For it is not the way of a person, when he eats outside his house, to stop in the middle of a meal and go to his house to finish his meal. And it is not the way of a person, when he sleeps outside his house, to get up in the middle of the night to go sleep in his house. Rather, he waits until the day brightens and he awakens from his sleep. And likewise, he must conduct himself regarding the sukkah.

There is reason to doubt whether this law also applies to our built sukkot, where we open the roof, and during rain we return it. If one began a meal and rain fell, and he returned the roof, and afterwards the rain ceased—is he not obligated in the middle of the meal to open it, just as he is not obligated to go out from his house to his sukkah? And so too at night in the middle of sleep, when the rain ceased—is he not obligated to get out of his bed and open the roof, just as he is not obligated to go out from his house to his sukkah? Or perhaps: since there is no change of location here, but only a bit of exertion in opening the roof—he is obligated to do so, even in the middle of a meal and in the middle of his sleep. And so it appears to me as the primary ruling: that he is obligated to open the roof. However, regarding sleep, if the standing, dressing, and washing are difficult for him—it is like the walking from his house to his sukkah, and he is exempt. But every God-fearing person will certainly stand with joy to open the roof and fulfill the mitzvah. And it is not similar to entering from his house, where he would be called an ignoramus, since there is no change of location here.

According to the law of the Gemara (Sukkah 46a), one must recite the blessing "to dwell in the sukkah" every time he enters it, because the mitzvah is to dwell in the sukkah, aside from eating and sleeping. This is what is written: "In sukkot shall you dwell," meaning: you shall remain there seven days. Just as with tefillin, where as long as one dons them—he blesses. Therefore, even if he enters and exits his sukkah ten times a day—he is obligated to bless every time "to dwell in the sukkah," for after he exited the sukkah, the previous blessing was removed. However, this is when he exited a complete exit for his affairs, and not to return immediately. But if he only exited to speak with his fellow, or to bring something to the sukkah, and the like—he does not need to bless a second time. And so the Rif and the Rosh ruled ibid. And so the Rambam ruled in the sixth chapter, law 12, and this is his wording: Every time one enters to dwell in the sukkah all seven days—he blesses before he sits: "Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to dwell in the sukkah." Thus far his words. And that which he required "before he sits"—will be explained in siman 643 with the help of Heaven.

However, Rabbeinu Tam ruled that one only needs to recite the blessing "leshev basukkah" at the time of the meal. This is the wording of the Tur: And Rabbeinu Tam explained: Since the primary permanence that a person establishes within the sukkah is eating, he recites the blessing over the eating and exempts all other matters, even sleep, which is more stringent than eating. For one may eat a snack outside of it, but one may not sleep even a snack outside of it. Even so, since the eating is primary, it exempts the rest. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Rosh, and the Mordechai in his name, that since all matters are secondary to the eating, such as strolling and sleeping, therefore they are all exempted by the blessing over the eating. And they wrote that it is the custom to act according to Rabbeinu Tam. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8 wrote: It is the custom that one does not recite the blessing over the sukkah except at the time of eating. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, added to say: And such is the custom. And I do not know what he added to the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. There is one who holds that according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam there is a stringency: if one sat all day in his sukkah and ate two times, that he recites the blessing over each meal (Bach, and Taz subsection 20). And there are those who disagree with this (Levush and Magen Avraham subsection 17), and so it appears in my humble opinion to be the primary view. For the approach of Rabbeinu Tam is not to be more stringent than the previous approach, but rather to be more lenient. And since in such a case according to the previous approach one does not need to recite the blessing at the second meal, it is a kal vachomer according to the approach of Rabbeinu Tam. And so we practice, and all the more so since a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently. And so if one is in doubt whether he recited the blessing "leshev basukkah" or not, he should not recite the blessing, and he should not seek to bring himself into an obligation so that he does not stumble into a blessing in vain (see Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 18). And nowadays there are those who practice to recite the blessing every time they enter, according to the words of the Rif and the Rambam (based on the opinion of the Gra). But as for us, we have only the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch. And the measure of eating is when one eats something that requires a sukkah, which is to say when he eats more than a kebeitzah of bread or types of sweets of mezonot, and then he must recite the blessing.

And know that it would seemingly appear clear to me that even according to the approach of our teacher Tam, this is only regarding his own sukkah. However, one who enters to sit in the sukkah of his fellow, where he will not eat, and the blessing of his own sukkah—surely it would not exempt another sukkah. And if so, he must bless when he enters the sukkah of his fellow. Yet the custom is not so. And perhaps this is the intent of our teacher, the Rema, in what he wrote: "And such is the custom." That is to say: even in the sukkah of his fellow. And the reason is that we maintain that the essence of the mitzvah is the eating, and we only bless over the essence of the mitzvah, and see what I will write in siman 643. And it is simple that if in the middle of a meal he went to another place and stayed there, and returned to the sukkah to eat, he returns and blesses "to sit in the sukkah" (Magen Avraham, end of subsection 17). And if he did not bless at the beginning of the meal—he should bless in the middle, and even after the meal, for in any event the sitting is also part of the mitzvah (ibid.). And since he did not bless over its essence—he should bless at least over the secondary part, and it is still "prior to their performance."