Siman 640

The sages taught in the Mishnah (28a): Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the sukkah. For every positive commandment that is time-bound, women are exempt. Slaves are compared to women, and minors are exempt from all commandments. Regarding other positive commandments, such as shofar and lulav, the Tanna did not need to inform us of this, for since we learned in Kiddushin (34a) that women are exempt from a positive commandment that is time-bound, it follows automatically that this is the case. Rather, it is because regarding sukkah there was room to say they are obligated; and not only regarding the first night, for we learned "fifteenth"-"fifteenth" from the Festival of Matzot, as I wrote in the previous siman, and women are indeed obligated in matzah, and I would have said that they are also obligated in sukkah on the first night. Rather, even for all seven days, since it is written "you shall dwell" as you reside—and what is a residence? A man and his wife and his children—we should obligate them in the sukkah. However, regarding this matter a specific Halakhah LeMoshe MiSinai came (ibid.) that women are exempt. And this is also hinted at in the verse, for it is written: "Every citizen [ha-ezrach] in Israel shall dwell in sukkot," and it is not written "every citizen [kol ezrach]." This comes to teach that specifically the primary citizens, namely adult men, are obligated, and not women and minors (ibid.).

However, our women—many sit in the sukkah and recite the blessing "to sit in the sukkah." And this is not a blessing in vain, for this is how we hold: regarding any positive time-bound mitzvah—it is within their authority to perform the mitzvah, and they recite the blessing over them. But a man should not recite the blessing "to sit in the sukkah" for the sake of a woman if he himself does not need the blessing (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And a minor, even though he is exempt according to the Torah—nevertheless, because of the mitzvah of chinuch, one must train him to eat in the sukkah from the time he does not need his mother, which is like a five-year-old or a six-year-old, each one according to his sharpness. And the chinuch is incumbent upon the father. And if there is no father—his mother trains him. And if he has no father or mother—beit din trains him. And some say that chinuch is only upon the father alone, and see what I wrote above in siman 343. And in any case, to feed him lekhatchilah with one's hands outside the sukkah—is not proper (ibid., subsection 3). And I do not know why people are not careful in this in our times. And perhaps because in our countries, for the most part, the weather is cold during Sukkot, and it is difficult for a minor to eat in the sukkah, and it requires further study. And a tumtum and an androgynos are obligated out of doubt, and they do not recite the blessing "to sit in the sukkah," for in a doubt regarding blessings, one is lenient. However, since the women recite the blessing, as I have written—they are able to recite the blessing. And one who is half slave and half free—is obligated, and recites the blessing. For the half that is free—his obligation is certain. And a minor who is obligated in chinuch—recites the blessing.

The sick and their attendants are exempt from the sukkah. And it is not specifically a sick person whose life is in danger, but even if there is no danger, if the sukkah is difficult for him, and even if he feels pain in his head or pain in his eyes, which is an ailment and not an illness—he and his attendants are exempt when the sukkah is difficult for this ailment. And there is one who says that his attendants are not exempt except during the time that the sick person needs them. And the reason that his attendants are exempt: some say it is because one who is occupied with a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah (Levush and the HaGra"z). And this is not clear to me: for this would be well if he does it for free—because of the mitzvah, but if he does it for pay—he should be obligated. And we have not found this distinction in the Gemara or in the poskim. Furthermore: if it is because of one who is occupied with a mitzvah—what is the reason for the first opinion, which exempts them even when they are not occupied with the mitzvah?

And it appears to me: that all of this is included in "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside. For just as a person whose residence is difficult for his health would leave his residence, so too regarding the sukkah. And just as the attendants of the ill leave their home and sit near the ill person – so too regarding the sukkah. And even if they are engaged for wages, for they are no worse than guards of fruit who are exempt, as will be explained. For the sukkah is not superior to a person's residence. Therefore, the first opinion holds: that just as is the way of attendants, who do not leave the ill person immediately after their service, but rather sit near him and converse with him in the manner of people, and do not return immediately to their home – so too it is regarding the sukkah. And the "there is one who says" holds: that nevertheless, when he has finished his service – why should he not fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah? And this is not included in "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that one who lets blood is obligated in the sukkah. Thus far his words. This law is from the Hagahot Ashri (chapter two). He wrote the reason: because he is not an invalid, but on the contrary, he is happy and increases in eating and drinking. Furthermore: he should not have let blood during the festival, but rather before the festival or afterward. Thus far his words. The explanation of these matters is in the Or Zarua HaGadol (siman 299): that it is not speaking of an invalid who lets blood, but rather it was their custom for the strengthening of the body to let blood. And at the time of the bloodletting, they were happy and increased in eating and drinking. If so, he is not in the category of an invalid that he should be exempt from the sukkah. There is further proof that the bloodletting does not prevent him from the sukkah: for if it did prevent him, he should not have let blood during the festival, since he does this of his own will. But certainly, if because of some illness or some ache he lets blood, and the sukkah is not good for him, it is obvious that he is exempt from the sukkah. Therefore, one whose stomach is upset and takes a laxative drink, and sitting in the sukkah is difficult for him, is exempt from the sukkah. (And see Magen Avraham subsection 4, who compared these to one another, but it is not a comparison. This was caused because he did not have the Or Zarua HaGadol in his hand. And the Taz subsection 3 arrived at this through his own reasoning; see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

One who suffers is exempt from the sukkah (25b). That is to say: if through the sukkah pain comes to him, and if he were not in the sukkah he would not have this pain. For example: if he is unable to sleep or eat in the sukkah because of flies or fleas and the like, or because of the wind blowing there, or because of a bad odor reaching there—he is exempt. And even if no illness will reach him from this, nevertheless this is also included in "you shall dwell"—similar to how you reside. It is not the way of a person to reside in a dwelling that causes him pain, and he leaves it. Here too, he leaves his sukkah. But on the first night, even if he suffers, he is obligated to eat a kezayit in the sukkah. For we have already explained in the previous siman, section 17, that on the first night we do not require "you shall dwell"—similar to how you reside, see there.

And no one is exempt except for him himself, and not his attendants, for the matter of attendants only applies regarding a sick person, who is compelled to have them attend to him. But a healthy person—his attendants are not like him. For if it were not so, a wealthy woman who has many attendants—they would all be exempt from the sukkah because she sits outside the sukkah and they are attending to her. And here too it is so. And this is not similar to guards of produce, for there it is a necessity to guard them so that they are not stolen. But those who attend to a healthy person—it is only for the sake of general comfort. And should they be exempt from the sukkah because of this? It is a wonder.

And specifically when the distress came to him by chance after he made the sukkah, and at the time he made the sukkah there, this distress did not exist. However, it is forbidden to make his sukkah initially in a place where distress will reach him there due to the wind, or the smell, or in a place of flies and fleas. And more than this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4 that one who makes it in such a place – it is not a sukkah at all, and he does not fulfill his obligation with it. This is his wording: And if he made it initially in a place where he suffers distress in eating, or in drinking, or in sleeping; or if it is impossible for him to do one of them in the sukkah because he fears bandits or thieves when he is in the sukkah – he does not fulfill his obligation with that sukkah at all, even regarding things in which he does not suffer distress, for it is not "as one dwells," such that he can perform all his needs there. Thus far his words.

And his words require clarification: For if so, in hot countries where flies are found everywhere, and conversely in cold countries where the cold is great, and it is almost impossible to sleep there—we would exempt ourselves entirely from the sukkah. However, the matter is as follows: For the Torah said "you shall dwell"—similar to how you reside, that the sukkah should be like his house and his residence. And it is a known thing that a person who makes a residence for himself—he will seek out the most proper place. And if there is a proper place and an improper place—he will choose the proper place. But if all the places are improper—it is necessary to make a residence for himself however it may be. And likewise regarding the sukkah: if all the places are improper because of the heat, or because of the cold—it is obvious that he is obligated to make a sukkah however he can. However, when it is in his power to choose, such as when in this place the wind dominates, or there is a foul odor, or flies and fleas, and in another place they are not found—he is obligated to make it in the place where they are not found. And if he made it in a place where they are found—he has not fulfilled his obligation, for this is not "similar to how you reside." And therefore one should not make a sukkah in a public domain, for a person does not make his residence in a public domain. However, in an alleyway it appears that it is permitted, for even though there is a concern regarding thieves who might steal the objects—nevertheless it is a residence, as he can bring them into the house. And behold, even in courtyards thieves are found. And that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that in a place where he fears bandits or thieves he has not fulfilled his obligation—this is when there is a concern that they will harm his body, for such a place is certainly not fit for sleeping at all. But not because of the theft of objects.

He further wrote: One whose candles were extinguished in the sukkah on Shabbat, and he has a candle in his house – it is permitted to leave the sukkah in order to eat in the place of the candle. And he does not need to go to the sukkah of his fellow where there is a candle, if there is great bother in the matter. Thus far his words. And it implies that without great bother he should go to the sukkah of his fellow when it is possible for him, and his fellow allows him. Therefore, if in his sukkah rain is dripping, and in the sukkah of his fellow it is not dripping – he should go there if it is not far from his house, and there is no great bother in this (Ba'er Heitev subsection 6 in the name of Shevut Yaakov).

He further wrote: And if a wind comes to extinguish the candles in the sukkah – it is permitted to spread a sheet or a garment from the side, but not under the sechach. Thus far his words. And on Yom Tov it is forbidden even under a portion of the sechach, due to the prohibition of ohel. And on Chol HaMoed it is forbidden under the entirety of the sechach, because it nullifies the sechach. And there are several detailed laws regarding this: both regarding the matter of ohel, which were explained in siman 315, and also regarding the matter of nullifying the sechach, which were explained in siman 629. (And see Magen Avraham subsection 1, that if one intends to protect – there is room to permit it, and there are various opinions on this matter. And regarding the matter of ohel when there is no space of a tefach – it is certainly permitted, see there.)

He further wrote: One who is unable to sleep in the sukkah because it is too narrow for him to stretch out his hands and feet—he is not called a "metzta'er" (one who suffers), and he is obligated to sleep there, even though he must fold his hands and feet. Thus far his words. And there is clear proof for this from the measurement of a sukkah, which is seven by seven [handbreadths], and it is impossible to sleep there while stretching out hands and feet. And one cannot say that this measurement is for eating, but for sleeping one requires a wide sukkah, for if so, the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai should have specified how much it is. And there is one who says that certainly if from the outset he made such a small sukkah—he is obligated to sleep there. But if from the outset he made a large sukkah, and afterwards due to some cause it became small, and he is forced to sleep with folded hands and feet—he is a metzta'er and is exempt (Taz subsection 5). And because of this, he questioned our teacher, the Rema; see there. And I say that the words of our teacher, the Rema, are clear in their reasoning. For if it should enter your mind that in such a case he is a metzta'er and exempt—how could the Torah command to make such a sukkah? Rather, it is certain that for most people this is not called being a metzta'er. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote afterwards, and this is his wording: And a person cannot say "I am a metzta'er" except regarding a matter that it is the way of people to suffer from. Thus far his words. And his intention is regarding this matter of sleeping while folded, for since we see that the Torah commanded so—presumably it is not the way of most people to suffer from this. But regarding other matters—certainly there is a matter that for this person is called suffering and for that person is not called suffering. As we find in the Gemara (29a) regarding Rav Yosef, that in his sukkah the wind was blowing and dropping splinters of the s'chach upon the food, and he said that he was exempt from the sukkah because he was of the "aninei hadaat" (the fastidious) and could not tolerate this; see there. And it is simple that not every person can say, "I am an istanis" (a person of refined sensitivity), unless it is known that he is an istanis. And as we wrote above in siman 614 regarding rain on Yom Kippur, who is permitted to wear shoes; see there. However, regarding sleeping by means of folding—he cannot say "I am an istanis and a metzta'er," as I have written. (And the Taz subsection 6 was pressed on this, and according to what I have written it works out well with simplicity. And see Magen Avraham subsection 9, and examine it and you will find it easy.) (And the Chakham Tzevi disagrees with the Mordechai and the Rema, as cited in Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 5. And his words are not at all compelling; see there.)

It is a simple matter that this rule, that one who suffers is exempt from the sukkah, applies when by leaving the sukkah the suffering will be removed from him. However, if the suffering is an incidental suffering that does not pertain to the matter of the sukkah, even though it is possible that the one suffering requires solitude and in the sukkah this is not available, and if so it would be better for him not to be in the sukkah; nevertheless, since the sukkah is not what causes him the suffering, it is impossible for him to exempt himself from the sukkah. Therefore, a mourner is obligated in the sukkah, for this suffering is not because of the sukkah. And even though it would be better for him to sit silently in the corner of his house, nevertheless he is obligated to sit in the sukkah. And an onen, it appears, is exempt from the sukkah, just as he is exempt from all the mitzvot. (And the wording of the Gemara 25b: Regarding a mourner, for he must settle his mind. And Rashi explained: It is an obligation upon him to settle his mind for the mitzvah. Thus far his words, and it implies that if it is impossible for him in any way to settle his mind, he is exempt. And it appears that this is what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 10 in the name of the Tanya, that if the deceased was so beloved that he cannot remove him from his heart, he is exempt, see there. And the Rashba in his novellae there wrote in the name of his teacher that this is the explanation: that the sukkah settles his mind, and if so, even with a beloved deceased, he is obligated, see there. And if so, the ruling of the Tanya requires further study.)

The Tur wrote that the Rambam wrote that the groom, throughout all seven days of the wedding feast, is exempt from the sukkah, as are his groomsmen and all the members of the wedding party. And my lord father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that groomsmen are not called "those engaged in a mitzvah," and are obligated in all the mitzvot, etc. And a groom, even though he is exempt from all the mitzvot, is obligated in sukkah, for it is possible for him to rejoice in the sukkah. Thus far his words. And in the Gemara (25b) it is explained like the Rambam, except that it is stated there that there were those who were stringent upon themselves, and so it is in the Yerushalmi. And the Rambam holds that this is a measure of piety. But the Rosh rules like those who are stringent. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 6 ruled like the Rambam. And the reason for the groom's exemption is because there is no joy except in the wedding canopy and in the place of the meal, and it is impossible to do this in a sukkah which is an open place, and he would be ashamed to rejoice there. And the groomsmen are forced to be with the groom. And it seems to me that all this was in their days. But nowadays, in our many sins, all joy has faded, and it is not the way of the groom to rejoice so much. And also the groomsmen are not always with the groom. And it is impossible for us to exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah. Furthermore: for behold, by necessity he married before the festival, and among us we do not make feasts all seven days of the wedding feast, as is known. Therefore, among us the established law is to say like the Rosh, and the groom and the groomsmen are all obligated in sukkah. And in my humble opinion it seems that this was the primary reason of the Rosh, of blessed memory, and see the following section.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the brit milah feast, and similarly the feast eaten at the home of the woman who has given birth—are obligated in the sukkah. Thus far his words. And certainly it is so, for this is not like the joy of a groom and bride. And even if it were a seudat mitzvah—nevertheless, they are able to eat in the sukkah. Furthermore, only the brit milah is a seudat mitzvah, and not the feast at the home of the woman who has given birth. And we do not know of this feast at all. Similarly, the night before the milah, which is called "Vach Nacht"—it is not worthy of being called a seudat mitzvah to exempt oneself from the sukkah. And so too regarding all other types of feasts (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). However, I have seen that due to the multitude of people—since they cannot all enter the sukkah for a brit milah, those remaining eat in the house. And it appears that this is a complete permission, for since they do not have a sukkah—they are like travelers, who are exempt from the sukkah. And one should not say that they should wait until the first ones eat and leave, and afterwards they should eat, for we have not found this reasoning. For if so, there would be no end to the matter. Nevertheless, one who fears the word of Hashem—should be scrupulous to eat in the sukkah. And all this is regarding types of mezonot. But regarding other types of food—we have no concern with it, for this is not a fixed meal but merely a temporary one (and see Sha'arei Teshuvah, end of subsection 10).

We have learned in the Mishnah (25a): Those sent on a mission of a mitzvah are exempt from the sukkah. Those traveling for the purpose of a mitzvah, such as: to study Torah, to greet one's teacher, or to redeem captives (Rashi), and they are exempt even at the time of their encamping (ibid.). And as we have learned in the Baraita there (26a): Those traveling for a matter of a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. That is to say: even though their traveling is only by day (Tosafot). And the reason: for if we were to require him to exert himself for a sukkah, he would be hindered from his traveling by day. Therefore, if it is within his power to obtain a sukkah at night without exertion, he must sit in the sukkah at night (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). And if he will not be able to sleep in the sukkah so well, and because of this his traveling by day will be diminished, he is exempt (ibid.). And the reason that those sent on a mission of a mitzvah are exempt: because we hold the principle that one who is occupied with a mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah. Therefore, if the mitzvah of sukkah will not hinder him from the mitzvah he is performing, he is obligated in the sukkah. Therefore, all those occupied with mitzvot must know this, and they should look into this, whether the sukkah is liable to cancel this mitzvah or not.

It was further taught (ibid.): Those traveling by day are exempt from the sukkah by day and obligated by night. Those traveling by night are exempt from the sukkah by night and obligated by day. Those traveling by day and by night are exempt from the sukkah both by day and by night. Rashi and Tosafot explained that all this is derived for us from "you shall dwell" — in the manner that you reside. For just as a person does not refrain from leaving his house for his journey for commerce or for another matter, so too he should not refrain from leaving the sukkah. And this is its explanation: That when he travels by day, he is exempt from the sukkah; even if he encounters a sukkah, he is not obligated to delay there to eat. Rather, he goes on his way and eats on the road at the place where his time for eating arrives. But at night, when he is not traveling but rather sleeping, he is obligated in the sukkah if he encounters a sukkah on his way at night, and he shall lodge there, and he is not permitted to leave it and sleep outside of a sukkah. And those traveling by night are obligated by day to eat in a sukkah when they encounter one. But if he does not encounter a sukkah, he is exempt. And we do not tell him to make a sukkah. And just as he does not build a house on the road, so too he does not make a sukkah on the road. And there is one who says that he is obligated to make himself a sukkah (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And these are astonishing words: For certainly if he needs to be in some place for a long time, it is for him there like his house and he must make himself a sukkah. But when he lodges there or stays for a day or two, how can we obligate him to make himself a sukkah there? (And this is why a grain watchman is obligated — because he sits there for many days, as will be explained.)

And so it is explained from the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 8, who wrote concerning this law, and this is his wording: And specifically when they are able to find a sukkah. But if they do not find a sukkah – they may go on their way, even though they will not sit in one either by day or by night, like the rest of the days of the year, for one does not abandon his way on account of his house. And even though he only travels by day – he is exempt even at night, for one is not required to establish a dwelling there. And those who go to the villages to claim their debts, and they have no sukkah in those villages – they should be stringent upon themselves to return to their homes every night to eat in a sukkah. And even though there is room to be lenient – nevertheless, one who is stringent, may a blessing come upon him. Thus far his words. That is to say: for those who go regularly to the villages surrounding the city – there are times even throughout the entire year that they return to their homes every night, and therefore one should do so during Sukkot as well. And this is included in "you shall dwell" – in the manner that you reside. And nevertheless, according to the law – it is impossible to obligate them, because for the most part they do not return to their home except after many days (see Bava Batra 29b regarding peddlers etc., see there). And therefore he wrote the language of stringency, that it is proper to be stringent, because sometimes they return every night. However, in any event, we have learned from his words that there is no obligation at all to make a sukkah. Rather, if he finds a sukkah – he is obligated to sit there.

City guards by day are exempt by day and obligated by night. City guards by night are exempt by night and obligated by day. This is when they must go around the city (Magen Avraham, subsection 16). However, when they guard within the city, they must go to the sukkah and eat. But at night if they are guarding, it is surely impossible for them to go sleep in the sukkah, for they must stand on guard. And if they slumber a little, they must necessarily slumber outside, as is understood.

Those who sit in a shop, even though in most instances they eat in the shop—nevertheless, during Sukkot they must eat in a sukkah, since they dwell in the city. And there is one who says that even if they dwell outside the city, one is obligated to make a sukkah in the city (ibid.). And this is according to what he holds in section 17, that one who is on the road for several days must make himself a sukkah. But according to what I wrote there, it is not so, unless he stayed there for a long period of time. And it is brought in the Yerushalmi that Rav Huna was traveling on the road and was thirsty, and he did not want to drink until he entered a sukkah; see there. And it is a measure of piety and not from the law.

Watchmen of gardens and orchards are exempt from the sukkah, both by day and by night. And even if he remains there for a long duration, because he is unable to make a sukkah. For if he makes one, the thief will know that the watchman has a fixed place, and he will come and steal from another place. Therefore, if he was a watchman of a pile of grain, where this concern does not exist, and he remained there for a long duration—he is obligated to make a sukkah. And he should make it in a place from which he can watch the pile. And even though he cannot bring all of his utensils there—nevertheless, he dwells there in the manner that he dwells there all year (ibid.). And those who make wine at the home of a non-Jew during Chol HaMoed Sukkot—they shall not sit in a sukkah, because they must supervise so that he does not touch the wine. And if it is in a situation where it does not require guarding—they are obligated. And if the wine is placed in a courtyard—he can watch from the sukkah.