Daf Ditty Succah 10: (Noy Succah)

1
2
MISHNA: If one spread a sheet over the roofing as protection for those sitting in the sukka due
to the sun, or if one spread a sheet beneath the roofing as protection due to the falling leaves, or
if one spread a sheet as a canopy over the frame of a four-post [kinof] bed, the area in the sukka
beneath the sheets is unfit. In the first two cases, because the sheet is susceptible to ritual impurity,
it renders the otherwise fit roofing unfit. In the case of the canopy, one is not sitting under the
roofing of the sukka; rather, he is sitting inside a tent.

However, one may spread the sheet over the frame of a two-post [naklitei] bed, which has one
post in the middle of each end of the bed. When spreading the sheet over the posts it forms an
inclined rather than a flat roof, and a tent with an inclined roof is not considered a significant
structure.

3
GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda said: The Sages taught the ruling that the sheet renders the sukka unfit
only when it is placed underneath the roofing due to the falling leaves; however, if his intent was
to spread the sheet for decorative purposes to beautify the sukka, it is not in the category of roofing
and the sukka is fit.

The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as: Due to the falling leaves, is what we learned in the mishna.
The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the same is true, i.e., the sukka is unfit, even when the
sheet was spread to beautify the sukka, and the reason that the mishna teaches specifically the
case where one spread the sheet due to the falling leaves is that the mishna teaches the matter,
spreading a sheet in the sukka, in the manner in which it typically occurs.

Rav Ḥisda teaches us that the formulation of the mishna is precise and the halakha applies
specifically to the case cited. If one spread the sheet for decorative purposes, it does not render the
sukka unfit.

4
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following Tosefta supports the opinion of Rav Ḥisda.
If one roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with
colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and
pomegranates, grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and
vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to derive benefit and use them.

Summary
Continuing with yesterday's discussion, we learn that there are times when the lower sukka is fit
and the upper sukka is unfit. The example given describes the lower roof as allowing more shade
than sunlight while the upper roof allows more sunlight than shade. In addition, the roofs of both
are within 20 cubits of the ground.1

Alternately, there are times when the upper sukka is fit and the lower is unfit. The example of this
is when both sukkot have roofs that allow more shade than sunlight, but the roof of the upper sukka
is less than 20 cubits from the roof of the lower sukka.

1
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/02/

5
We learn in a note that there are numerous commentaries about these statements, which do not
seem to be consistent upon first read-through. Eventually the rabbis agree that fit sukkot adhere
to complex laws, particularly regarding roofing.

The rabbis continue to discuss the fitness of two sukkot, one upon the other, with regard to different
measurements: the height of the upper sukka's roof, the distance between the upper and lower
roofs, any barriers that might intercede between the roof and the ground. From this discussion the
rabbis move to a Mishna that examines those barriers. They discuss the use of a sheet within a
sukka. Although area is important (a four-by-four cubit area must be uncovered, etc.), it seems
that intention is just as significant in this consideration. Is the sheet serving as decoration? Is it
intended to cover a bed, or to shield the dwellers from falling leaves? A sheet covering a four-
post bed invalidates the sukka, but a sheet covering a two post bed allows the sukka to be fit.

Decorations are discussed at some length. The rabbis are careful to specify whether or not hanging
decorations will change the area of the sukka. They tell a number of stories regarding both the
fitness of a sukka and the appearance of fitness. As always, we build a fence around the mitzvot
to protect the sanctity of those mitzvot. The rabbis tell us that drying a shirt on a sukka could be
misinterpreted as condoning an unfit roof. Then again, we learn that they find loopholes to explain
their actions rather than insult the Exilarch.

We end our daf with a great example of using one argument to prove another. The rabbis discuss
what is done when a person is naked, in bed, wanting to recite the shema. Of course, s/he should
put his/her head outside of the netting (out of respect for our prayer and G-d, the body should be
clothed when reciting the shema). Does this prove that the netting of a sheet/tent is not
clothing? How might this affect the halachot of the sukka? Then again, the rabbis continue,
perhaps this netting is ten feet above the person. In that case, the netting would not be 'clothing'
at all, but a roof where the bed is a residence. Or might there be another interpretation?

The arguments of Masechet Sukkot are relatively simple compared with other halachot that I have
been learning. However, they draw upon many other masechtot. As a true novice, I cannot even
recognize how much I do not know. At the same time, I am able to grasp so much more of this
learning after having studied every day for the past year and a half. Amazing.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

The Mishna rules that if one spread a sheet on top of the s’chach to protect him from the sun or if
he placed a sheet under the s’chach in order to prevent the leaves from falling on his table, the
Sukkah is invalid. The reason for this ruling is that the sheet is a material which is unfit for s’chach.
If one placed a sheet on top of four bedposts, the Sukkah is invalid because he is not sitting under
2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sukkah_10.pdf

6
the s’chach. Rather, he is deemed to be sitting under a tent. If one spreads a sheet over a bed that
has two posts, the Sukkah is valid as long as the roof of the tent is not a tefach wide.

Rav Chisda qualifies the ruling of the Mishna that a sheet that is spread under the s’chach
invalidates the Sukkah. If one placed the sheet under the s’chach for decorative purposes, the
Sukkah would be deemed valid (because the sheet is not deemed to be s’chach at all).

The Gemora provides support for Rav Chisda from the following braisa: If he covered his Sukkah
according to the law, and adorned it with colored hangings and embroidered linens, and hung in it
nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, bunches of grapes, wreaths of grain, (bottles of) wine, oil
or fine flour, it is forbidden to make use of them (for they are regarded as muktzeh since they were
designated for a mitzvah) until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival, but if he expressed a
condition about them (that he does not relinquish his right to use them at the beginning of the
festival), all depends on the terms of his condition.

The Gemora rejects the proof: No! It is possible that the ruling (that the hangings do not invalidate
the Sukkah) was made with reference to sheets hung at the side (of the Sukkah, i.e., on its walls;
but if they were hung from the s’chach, they would indeed invalidate the Sukkah).

It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah do not diminish the height of the Sukkah. Rav Ashi
said: But at the side, they do diminish (the width of a Sukkah). Minyamin, the servant of Rav Ashi,
had his shirt soaked in water, and he spread it out on their Sukkah (in order to dry). Rav Ashi said
to him: Remove it, lest they say that it is permissible to use as s’chach something which is
susceptible to tumah. Minyamin asked: But can they not see that it is wet? Rav Ashi answered: I
mean when it is dry.

There is a debate in the Gemara regarding a sheet that was hung for decorative purposes at a
distance of more than four tefachim away from the s’chach. Rav Nachman rules that the Sukkah
is valid because the sheet is subordinate to the s’chach. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna
maintain that the Sukkah is invalid because the decorations are considered independent of the
s’chach above it. The Gemora relates: Rav Chisda and Rabbah son of Rav Huna once came to the
house of the Exilarch, and Rav Nachman sheltered them in a Sukkah whose decorations were
separated four tefachim from the s’chach. They were silent and said nothing to him. Rav Nachman
said to them: Have our Rabbis retracted their teaching? They answered him: We are on a mitzvah
errand, and therefore exempt from the obligation of the Sukkah.

Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel rules that one is permitted to sleep in a Sukkah under a kilah,
which is similar to the roof of the four-posted bed mentioned in the Mishnah. This is allowed,
provided that the sheet is less than ten tefachim high from the surface of the bed. The Gemora asks
from a braisa: If one sleeps in a Sukkah under a kilah, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The
Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to a case where the canopy is more than ten tefachim high.
The Gemora asks from a Mishna: One who sleeps under a bed in a Sukkah has not discharged his
obligation.

Holiday Decorations

7
The Gemara discusses hanging ornaments to beautify the Sukkah. The Shelah writes that hanging
ornaments in the Sukkah reflects our endearment for the mitzvah of Sukkah. Thus, the more one
enhances the beauty of the Sukkah with ornaments, the more praiseworthy he is. Amongst the
various items that the Gemara lists for the purpose of decorating the Sukkah are fruits and foods
such as grapes, wine, oil and flour. It is noteworthy that these same items are listed in the Gemara
Avodah Zara 51 as items that are used for idol worship. Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha rules that
one does not have to be concerned with using items for Sukkah decorations even if these same
items are used by the gentiles for their winter holidays season.

The Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim 42) rules in a similar vein that one can use for lighting in the
synagogue candles that were designated for idolatry but were not actually used in the pagan
service. Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha to our Gemara explains why one who uses items that are
designated for idolatry is not in violation of the prohibition not to walk in the ways of the gentiles
who worship idols. The reason for this is because the Gemara (Sanhedrin 52) states that one can
perform any action that is recorded in the Torah, even if such an action subsequently was
performed for idolatry. A Jew is not performing the act on account of the idolaters. Rather, he is
performing the act because this is what he has been instructed to do by the Torah. The same idea
can be said regarding the Sukkah decorations mentioned in the Gemara. One would be allowed to
hang Sukkah decorations that are used by the gentiles for their holiday season, as a Jew would be
hanging the decorations because the decorations are mentioned in the Gemara and not on account
of the gentile’s custom.

Decorations for Benefit

The Gemara states that one cannot derive benefit from the Sukkah decorations during Sukkos.
Nitei Gavriel cites a dispute regarding deriving benefit from decorations that are hanging in a
section of the Sukkah that is invalid, i.e. under a dofen akumah. Pnei Yehoshua rules that one can
derive benefit from these decorations as they are not deemed to be Sukkah decorations. The Gerrer
Rebbe offers a proof to this ruling from our Gemara, as the Gemara states that if one covered his
Sukkah in accordance with the Halacha and he decorated it, he is forbidden to derive benefit from
the decorations. It is implicit from the Gemara that the prohibition to derive benefit from the
decorations was only said regarding the decorations that are placed in the valid section of the
Sukkah. If this was not so, why would the Gemara have stated that one covered his Sukkah in
accordance with the Halacha?

Eating and Sleeping in the Sukkah

The Mishna stated previously that if one builds one Sukkah on top of another Sukkah, the upper
one is valid and there is a debate regarding the lower Sukkah in a case where the upper Sukkah is
not inhabitable. Rav Dimi explains that this debate refers to a case where the lower Sukkah can
only support the pillows and cushions in the upper Sukkah with difficulty. Rashi adds that
according to the Tanna Kamma of the Mishna, the lower Sukkah will still be valid even if the
lower Sukkah cannot support the cushions and pillows of the upper Sukkah and that the lower
Sukkah cannot support one who sleeps in the upper Sukkah.

8
Rav Yosef Engel proves from the words of Rashi that for a Sukkah to be deemed valid, it must
also be fit for sleeping. This is in accordance with the opinion of the Mordechai who rules that if
one can eat comfortably in a Sukkah but it will be uncomfortable to sleep in the Sukkah, he will
not discharge his obligation. The reason for this is because a Sukkah must be fit for eating and for
sleeping. The Chacham Tzvi disagrees with this ruling and the Chacham Tzvi maintains that a
Sukkah is valid as long as there is room for one to eat comfortably. The fact that there is not enough
room to sleep does not invalidate the Sukkah. See Avnei Neizer Orach Chaim 479 for further
discussion on this matter.

Sukkah is like the Bais HaMikdash

The Gemara discusses beautifying a Sukkah with decorations. One must wonder why the Sukkah
would require decorations. The Gemara in Shabbos states that from the verse that states this is my
G-d and I will glorify Him, we derive the law that one should glorify before HaShem with mitzvos.
This means that one should make a nice Tallis, a nice Sukkah and other mitzvos should be
beautified. It is noteworthy that the simple definition of the above-mentioned verse is and I will
build Him a Sanctuary.

The Shem Mishmuel writes that Sukkos is corresponding to the Bais HaMikdash. When one builds
a Sukkah and glorifies it, he should have in mind that the Sukkah is akin to the Bais HaMikdash,
which itself was a beautiful edifice, enhanced for the honor of HaShem.

ONE SUKAH UNDER ANOTHER SUKAH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara discusses the laws of the various cases of one Sukah under another Sukah. The
Gemara says that when the lower Sukah has more shade than sunlight and the upper Sukah has
more sunlight than shade, and both are within 20 Amos of the ground, the upper Sukah is invalid
(one may not eat in the upper Sukah) because there is more sunlight than shade in that Sukah. The
lower Sukah is valid because there is nothing above it to invalidate it. (Rashi explains that the
Sechach of the upper Sukah is not considered Sechach at all, since it lets in more sunlight than
shade.)

The Gemara points out that it is not obvious that the lower Sukah is valid. One might have thought
that the Rabanan invalidated the lower Sukah in order to prevent someone from assuming that he
may use invalid Sechach together with valid Sechach for his Sukah. The Gemara teaches that there
is no such Gezeirah, and there is no concern that someone will make that mistake.

Rashi explains that the Gemara's initial assumption is that there is a concern that one might sit in
the lower Sukah even when the upper Sukah is taller than 20 Amos (in which case the Sechach of

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-010.htm

9
the upper Sukah is invalid and joins with the Sechach of the lower Sukah to invalidate the lower
Sukah).

Why is there a concern that a person may sit in the lower Sukah even when the Sechach of the
upper Sukah is higher than 20 Amos? If such a concern exists, then every Sukah should be invalid
out of concern that one will sit in it even when its roof is higher than 20 Amos.

(a) RASHI (DH Tachtonah Kesherah) explains that the Gezeirah would apply only in this case,
because the lower Sukah has all that it needs to make it valid (as it has more shade than sunlight).
Only in this case are there grounds for concern that that one might forget that the upper Sukah
potentially can invalidate the lower Sukah. (That is, one might ignore the upper Sukah, since it is
not a full, valid Sukah.)

(b) RABEINU TAM, cited by Tosfos (9b, DH Ha), says that Rashi's explanation is forced.
Rabeinu Tam explains the Gemara based on a different Girsa. According to his Girsa, the Gemara
does not say that both the lower and upper Sukos are within 20 Amos, but that the lower Sukah is
within 20 Amos (which implies that the upper Sukah is taller than 20 Amos). (The RITVA here
and the BA'AL HA'ME'OR (2a) cite a similar Girsa in which the Gemara states explicitly that
the upper Sukah is taller than 20 Amos, which is the same as saying that the lower Sukah is below
20 Amos.)

According to Rabeinu Tam, the Sechach of the upper Sukah -- which has more sunlight than shade
-- is above 20 Amos, and nevertheless the lower Sukah is valid because the Sechach of the upper
Sukah does not invalidate it. He explains that Sechach which is above 20 Amos is not considered
invalid Sechach; it is the Sukah which is invalid, because it is a "Diras Keva." The Sechach itself
is not Pasul. Therefore, the Sechach above does not invalidate the Sechach of the lower Sukah.
Rabeinu Tam's explanation is novel in that there is no Gezeirah that invalidates the lower Sukah
in such a case. Even though someone might confuse this case (of a Sukah underneath another
Sukah which is taller than 20 Amos) with a case of a Sukah underneath a tree and think that such
a Sukah is valid, the Rabanan were not concerned for such an error and made no Gezeirah to
invalidate the lower Sukah.

(c) The RA'AVAD (in his comments on the Ba'al ha'Me'or, 2a) has the same text of the Gemara
as the Ritva (see (b) above), that the Sechach of the upper Sukah is higher than 20 Amos. The
Ra'avad argues with Rabeinu Tam and says that Sechach higher than 20 Amos is invalid. He
explains, however, that the reason the lower Sukah is valid in this case is because the pieces of
invalid Sechach that are above 20 Amos are positioned between the pieces of the valid Sechach
below, and therefore the lower Sukah still has a majority of shade even after the shade created by
the upper (and invalid) Sechach is removed.

According to the Ra'avad, the Gemara's answer of "b'she'Chavtan" means that one makes each
piece of Sechach the only layer. This is also the Rambam's understanding (Hilchos Sukah 5:13,
according to the Magid Mishneh). We might have thought that the Rabanan invalidated the lower
Sukah lest one think that it is valid even when the Sechach of the upper Sukah is directly above

10
the Sechach of the lower Sukah. The Gemara teaches that the Rabanan were not concerned for
such an error.

A CUBIC TEFACH AND "TUM'AH RETZUTZAH"

Rav Huna says that in order for the lower Sukah to be invalid because it is a Sukah underneath a
Sukah, the distance between the Sechach of the upper Sukah and the Sechach of the lower Sukah
must be at least one Tefach. He derives this figure from the laws of Tum'as Ohel, in which a
covering is considered an Ohel only when the space below it is at least one cubic Tefach.

RASHI (DH Tefach Al Tefach) explains that there are two practical ramifications for the law that
a covering is considered an Ohel only when there is a cubic Tefach of open space below it. First,
since the covering is not an Ohel when the space is less than one cubic Tefach, it does not spread
the Tum'ah from one point to another under the covering. Second, if there is an object on top of
the covering, the Tum'ah will penetrate through the covering, since there is no Ohel to block the
Tum'ah. Rashi adds that when there is less than a Tefach between the object of Tum'ah and the
covering above it, it is called "Tum'ah Retzutzah" and it penetrates through the covering and rises.
Why does Rashi mention the principle of "Tum'ah Retzutzah"? Even without that principle, there
is nothing to stop the Tum'ah from rising upwards beyond the covering, because the covering does
not have the status of an Ohel (since there is not a Tefach of space beneath it). Why does Rashi
mention that the Tum'ah penetrates the covering because of the principle of "Tum'ah Retzutzah,"
which teaches that Tum'ah actively penetrates the covering above it? No active force to push the
Tum'ah through the covering is needed here, because the Tum'ah continues by itself through the
covering since it is not considered an Ohel or an intervening partition.

The question assumes that the only thing that can stop Tum'ah from spreading upwards is an Ohel.
Without an Ohel, the Tum'ah spreads upwards by itself. Ha'Ga'on Rav Moshe Shapiro shlit'a
pointed out that the Gemara in Chulin (125b) teaches that a covering which is not an Ohel can also
stop Tum'ah from spreading upwards under certain circumstances. The Gemara there says that
Rebbi Yosi maintains that when one places a rope within one Tefach above a corpse, an object that
passes above the rope and serves as an Ohel (Ma'ahil) over the corpse does not become Tamei.
Rebbi Yosi maintains that Tum'ah cannot break through any intervening substance and rise
("Boka'as v'Olah").

In such a case, there is no Ohel that stops the Tum'ah from spreading, and yet the Tum'ah
does not reach above the covering. The logic behind this is that the object that is above the covering
does not serve as an Ohel (Ma'ahil) over the corpse, but rather it serves as an Ohel over
the covering which is over the corpse (and whatever is beneath the covering is inconsequential).
This is why Rashi must mention the additional principle of "Tum'ah Retzutzah"; even though there
is no Ohel here, the Tum'ah still would not spread above the covering unless there is another force
that pushes it through -- and that is the force of "Tum'ah Retzutzah."4

4
One might ask that the Mishnah in Ohalos (6:1) says that if a utensil that can be Mekabel Tum'ah is even a few Tefachim above
a corpse, it does not stop the Tum'ah from spreading upwards. The utensil itself cannot stop the Tum'ah from spreading, because
an object which can become Tamei itself cannot block Tum'ah from spreading. However, it should be able to block the Tum'ah
from rising. If a covering stops Tum'ah from rising even when it is not an Ohel, then a utensil should also stop Tum'ah from rising

11
The Acharonim point out that there are additional consequences of the rule of "Tum'ah Retzutzah,"
the positive force that pushes Tum'ah upwards (and downwards) when it is "squeezed" into less
than a Tefach. First, the Torah teaches that a tightly sealed, earthenware vessel ("Tzamid Pasil")
blocks Tum'as Mes in an Ohel from being Metamei an object inside of the vessel. However, a
"Tzamid Pasil" which is above a "Tum'ah Retzutzah" does become Tamei (RASH, end of Ohalos
9, based on the Tosefta); the force of the "Tum'ah Retzutzah" pushes the Tum'ah through the sealed
vessel. Second, a person who stands above a "Tum'ah Retzutzah" is considered as though
he touches the Tum'ah and not merely as though he serves as an Ohel over it, since the presence
of the Tum'ah is considered to fill the entire space above the intervening object (as the Gemara
says in Chulin 125b).

The VILNA GA'ON (Parshas Chukas) says that even though non-Jews transfer Tum'ah only
through Maga and not through Ohel, they can still transfer Tum'ah with "Tum'ah Retzutzah" (that
is, if a Jew touches a stone or object that is less than a Tefach above the non-Jew), because "Tum'ah
Retzutzah" is like Maga.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The Mishnah on our daf teaches about the case of a person who places a sheet above the sechach in
order to protect it from the sun or underneath it to keep it from falling onto the people below. In
both of those cases the sukkah would become unusable.

How about a poster bed that has a sheet hanging above the sleeping person?

In such a case, the Mishnah teaches that the halakha will differ depending on how the bed is set
up. In the case of kinof the sheet would be a problem, but in the case of naklitim the sukkah would
remain kosher and the bed can be slept in.

The case of kinof is where there is a full four-poster bed, where the sheet that is spread across the
top creates the effect of a full roof, like that of an ordinary house.

The case of naklitim is when there are just two posts that rise from the bed in the middle of the
head and the foot of the bed. This creates the effect of a tent over the bed.

According to the Jerusalem Talmud, the case of naklitim is not a problem because it is similar to a
person who is sleeping under a blanket who occasionally will lift the blanket over his head. Just
as a blanket used for sleeping does not negate the fact that this person is sleeping in a sukkah,
similarly a tent-like structure does not do so.

(even though it can be Mekabel Tum'ah itself). It must be that the type of covering that can stop Tum'ah from spreading is only a
type that cannot become Tamei. If the covering itself can become Tamei (like a utensil), then whatever is Ma'ahil over that covering
is considered as though it is Ma'ahil over the corpse itself.
5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_sukkah612/

12
The Ran explains that there are three levels of bed coverings discussed in the Gemara.

A kilah, which is a canopy over the bed that is not permanent and is not part of the structure of the
bed at all, does not present any problems for someone sleeping in a sukkah.

With Naklitim, although the two posts are permanent parts of the bed, the sloped tent that they
create is not considered a significant covering to negate the fact that the individual is sleeping in
a sukkah.

Only the case of kinofot, which are both permanent and create the effect of a full roof, will establish
a covering that is significant enough to make it seem as though the person sleeping in such a bed
is not considered to be in his sukkah.

Halachah follows the opinion of Rabanan (1) who maintain that one is exempt from affixing a
mezuzah to his sukkah even during Sukkos. Accordingly, in the opinion of some Poskim, (2) one
who constructs his sukkah on a balcony would be required to remove the mezuzah after Sukkos
and then reaffix it.

Since halachah follows the position of Rabanan, the sukkah was exempt from the obligation of
mezuzah during Sukkos and the obligation begins anew after the Yom Tov is over. To merely
leave the mezuzah in place violates the principle of ‫—העשוי מן ולא תעשה‬You should make it and it
should not come about on its own.

Conceptually it would be the equivalent of purchasing a doorframe, affixing a mezuzah to the

doorframe and then placing the doorframe into a doorway. In this scenario the mezuzah was not
affixed in a way that fulfills the mitzvah, rather the mitzvah ended up in place when the doorframe
was placed in the doorway. The halachah (3), however, does not follow this opinion because the
disqualification of ta’aseh v’lo min ha’asui applies only when the mitzvah was initially performed
in a disqualified manner as in the scenario of the doorframe described above. In our case the
mezuzah was originally affixed in a way that fulfilled the mitzvah, i.e. sometime during the year
other than during Sukkos, therefore it cannot become.

13
The Sefas Emes zt”l explains why one needs a diras ara’i, a temporary dwelling, for a Sukkah
instead of a permanent one. The Sukkah represents the World-to-Come, and a permanent dwelling
symbolizes someone who is consistent in serving Hashem.

A temporary dwelling represents someone who is less regular in his devotion than he should be.
But since all of the Jewish people have a portion in the World -to-Come—even the one who is
erratic in his avodas Hashem—the temporary Sukkah reminds us of the inclusive nature of the
future world. Of course, some do manage to make their life in this world completely and
consistently dedicated to serving Hashem until their last moment.

Rav Yosef Shlomo Horowitz, zt”l, learned in Ponevezh after the war. He spent all of his time
learning and was so devoted to his Torah study that he always stood, even while learning in the
middle of the night. One night, the bochurim noticed Rav Yosef Shlomo’s absence and knew right
away that the reason must be serious. They brought in a doctor, who told them that the ninety-
three-year-old scholar had only a few hours left to live. They called for the Mashgiach, Rav
Yechezkel Levenstein, zt”l, and when he entered the room, he was shocked to find the terminally
ill Rav Yosef Shlomo sitting and learning!

The Mashgiach subtly turned their conversation to the present matter. “Since no one knows how
much time he has,” he said, “It would be better for you to lie down.” Rav Yosef Shlomo caught
his meaning. “Don’t worry, I still have a few hours left to grab some more Torah in this world. As
soon as I feel that my time is coming, I will get into bed—so that I won’t be shamed by falling
from the chair, as the Mashgiach fears…”

Rav Chatzkel left the room at about eight o’clock at night. At one in the morning, Rav Yosef
Shlomo interrupted his learning, got into bed, said Shema, and returned his soul to his Maker!

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:6

On our daf, we learn from a mishnah that if one spreads a sheet over the s’chach (roofing
materials) of a sukkah to provide shade from the sun or to catch falling leaves, then the sukkah is
unfit for use. In the Gemara, Rav Hisda comments that if a sheet is used for decorative purposes,
it does not invalidate the sukkah.

Later, we read the following anecdote:

6
Myjewishlearning.com

14
Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the exilarch. Rav
Nahman, who was the official in charge of the exilarch’s household, lodged them in a sukkah
whose decorations were removed from the roofing four handbreadths.

Earlier we learned that while Rav Nahman believes that a sukkah whose decorations are four
handbreadths away from the roof is fit, his guests deem it to be unfit. About what do they do they
disagree? About whether a decorative sheet that is hung four handbreadths or more below the
roofing becomes a roof in and of itself. If so, one who sits under it is no longer sitting under the
roof of the sukkah and thereby does not fulfill the mitzvah.

So, it would not be surprising if Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna took offense to Rav Nahman’s
decision to put them up in such a sukkah; yet, the Gemara reports that they were silent and did not
say anything to him.

Mystified by their silence, Rav Nahman asks his guests if they had retracted their position and now
believed that a sukkah whose decorations are more than four handbreadths away from its roof is
to be considered fit. They give this somewhat cryptic response:

We are on the path to perform a mitzvah and, therefore, we are exempt from the mitzvah of
sukkah.

As we’ll learn in a few weeks, a person who is traveling in order to perform a mitzvah is exempt
from the obligation to dwell in a sukkah. So, Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna’s failure to reject
the sukkah they were offered was not a sign that they had changed their mind; rather, it resulted
from the fact that they were exempt from dwelling in a sukkah.

Rav Nahman’s decision to lodge his colleagues in a sukkah that they consider to be unfit is still
problematic. How can he justify offering them a sukkah that he knows is unacceptable in their
eyes? Some commentators equate his actions to feeding a guest food that they believe to
be treyf (non-kosher) when the host deems it kosher. (Which by itself is an interesting comment
that presumes different Jews will have different ways of observing kashrut.)

Also problematic is the fact that Rav Nahman acts on his own opinion when two other sages have
ruled against him, violating the rabbinic rule that the law follows the majority of sages.

Some later commentators try to let Rav Nahman off the hook by suggesting that the incident took
place before the legal debate was settled. Others point out that since the decorations in the sukkah
were in plain view, at least Rav Nahman was not leading his colleagues astray. If they had an issue
with the placement of the decorations, they could speak up and ask for the sukkah to be modified
or for an alternate one to sleep in.

On the other hand, perhaps Rav Nahman housed his guests in that sukkah because he had yet to
accept the fact that he lost the debate. Perhaps, despite being outvoted, he is certain that his opinion
is right and follows it on the estate that he runs. Maybe he is even filled with contempt for his
colleagues who rejected his ruling and is acting out of spite rather than according to the rule of
law. (We’ve seen this kind of high-handed approach to halakhah before, from Rabban Gamliel.)

15
Personally, while I understand the desire to show Rav Nahman in a positive light, I’m more
convinced by readings that allow him to have a full range of (less than pretty) emotions and
motivations. This story is particularly notable because the ugly skirmish is over a small detail in
the design of a sukkah. We’ve seen the rabbis are capable of incredible acts of
kindness, tzedakah and compassion. But today we’re reminded that they are human beings who,
like anyone else, are sometimes simply peevish.

(“Noy Sukkah”)7

Our Sages have said, in Masechet Shabbat (133) the following: The verse “This is my G-d and I
will give Him Beauty,” (Shemot 15:2) may be interpreted in this way …- (The Sages are offering
a Midrashic explanation to answer the unasked question, “How can Man give anything to G-d?”
Who was the Creator, and therefore Owner, of, literally, everything – and is the quintessential
example of the difficulty of giving presents to one who has everything!)

“Make yourself beautiful before Him in your performance of the “Mitzvot,” the
Commandments: “… a beautiful “Sefer Torah,” “Scroll of the Torah;” written for the
sake of the Commandment, with beautiful ink, with a beautiful pen, by an expert scribe,
and placed in a beautiful covering.”

The above principle, of performing the Commandments in a beautiful way applies to all the (248)
Positive “Mitzvot,” or Commandments of the Torah, but has special application to the “Mitzvot”
of Sukkot, where “beauty” is not just a quality describing the Commandment but is an essential
part of the Commandment. When the Torah describes an “Etrog,” a Citron Fruit, as a “Pri Eitz
Hadar,” (Vayikra 23:40) a “fruit of a tree of beauty,” it doesn’t mean to say only that the fruit
should exhibit the quality of beauty, but that beauty should be part of the essential nature of the
“etrog.”

To paraphrase Keats, with apologies, “Beauty is the “Etrog; the “Etrog,” Beauty.”

Keats had written, in “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” the following:

7
https://www.ou.org/holidays/decorations_of_the_sukkah_noy_sukkah/

16
 “Beauty is Truth; Truth, Beauty
That is all ye know on earth,
And all ye need to know”

(which is somewhat doubtful).

For a Jewish Perspective on “Beauty,” see Rabbi J. Shmidman’s essay, Beauty and the Etrog.

In any case, this concept applies as well to all the “Mitzvot” of Sukkot, with lesser emphasis,
perhaps, to the other members of the “four species,” the four members of the fruit and plant
“Kingdoms,” which are used together as a “Mitzvah,” but to the Sukkah, itself, as well.

That is why we go to such effort to beautify our Sukkot; to hang pleasant fruit and vegetables, real
or imitation, fancy decorative hangings, pictures on the walls of the Land of Israel, of scenes from
Jewish History, especially of Times of the Temple, verses from the Bible, portraits of great Jewish
Leaders from ancient and less ancient times. It is why we use our best dishes and silverware,
glasses and Kiddush Cups; to live in the “Sukkah,” on a temporary basis, in the same manner as
we live in our “permanent and secure” homes all year long.

Are Sukkah Decorations Just Decorations?

Rabbi Yosef Fleischman writes:8

One of the beautiful and pleasing aspects of Sukkos is the customary Sukkah decorations. They
provide children with healthy Sukkos activity prior to the festival, and adults with the pleasure of
enjoying the finished product in the Sukkah.

Although there is no formal halachic obligation to decorate the Sukkah, doing so is clearly an
ancient custom (decorations are mentioned in early and later writings of Chazal), and it fulfills the
precept of “this is my G-d, and I will beautify Him” (Shemos 15:3). And though our principal focus
concerning decorations is that they should adorn the Sukkah as best as possible, there are some
important halachic issues that Sukkah decorations are liable to raise.

In the present article we will discuss some of these halachic points.

Mitzvah of Decoration

8
https://dinonline.org/2017/10/04/are-sukkah-decorations-just-decorations/

17
The Gemara (Shabbos 133b), citing a beraisa, notes a general obligation to beautify
the mitzvos we perform. This obligation is derived from the words in Shiras Hayam “this is my G-
d, and I will beautify Him” (Shemos 15:3), which is understood to mean that we must beautify
the mitzvos. One of the examples that the beraisa mentions is the mitzvah of Sukkah: The Sukkah
we build should be beautiful.

The Raavad (cited in Chidushei Anshei Shem, Berachos 38a) suggests that concept of beautifying
a mitzvah is a full Torah commandment. While there are no formal parameters for the Sukkah,
ensuring the Sukkah is well decorated will thus fulfill a Torah mitzvah. Other authorities, however,
write that this is a rabbinic mitzvah, and not a full Torah precept (see, for
instance, Ritva, Sukkah 11b).

Based on the idea of beautifying the Sukkah, the Mishnah Berurah (638:11) writes (citing
the Shela) that there is a mitzvah to decorate the Sukkah with nice fruits and clothing. However,
he adds that one should not hang fruit if there is a chance that children are likely to tear them down
(which might involve a Shabbos prohibition) or eat them (see below that this, too, is forbidden).

Where to Place Decorations

Decorations are either hung on the walls of the Sukkah, or hung from the roof of the Sukkah—
the sechach. Hanging decorations from the sechach raises a potential problem for the validity of
the Sukkah. The obligation of sitting in the Sukkah requires sitting under proper sechach. Plastic
and metallic decorations are disqualified as sechach, which raises the question: Do decorations
hanging from the roof constitute a problem concerning sitting under the sechach?

This question is discussed by the Gemara (Sukkah 10a-b). Based on the Mishnah, the Gemara
discusses a sheet that is placed under the sechach as a decoration, and rules that if the sheet is
within four tefachim of the sechach, the Sukkah is not disqualified by the sheet. The reason for
this is that the sheet becomes incidental, as it were, to the roof of the Sukkah—the sechach. Since
it serves the sechach (as the Rosh explains, it decorates the sechach) it is not considered an
independent entity, and therefore does not disqualify the Sukkah.

However, when Sukkah decorations are hung from the roof of the Sukkah and hang down lower
that four tefachim under the sechach, the Gemara cites Rav Huna and Rav Chidsa that the
decorations disqualify the area under them. The reason for this is that beyond four tefachim the
decorations can no longer be considered incidental to the sechach.

Rashi writes that under these circumstances, somebody sitting under the decorations is not
considered sitting under the sechach, since he is sitting under an independent ohel— a separate
roof — rather than the kosher sechach. The Rambam (Sukkah 5:18) and the Rosh (Sukkah Chap.
1, 15-16) write simply that the person is sitting under invalid sechach, and therefore cannot fulfill
his mitzvah.

Based on Rashi, it seems that only a decoration that is a halachic roof will disqualify the Sukkah.
This, indeed, is the ruling given by the Ra’ah (cited in the Ritva, Sukkah 10b), who states that only
a decoration whose “shade is greater than its sun” disqualifies the Sukkah. However, based on the

18
Rambam and the Rosh, any decoration wider that four tefachim—the shiur for non-
sechach material to disqualify the Sukkah—will be a problem.

These principles are ruled by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 627:4). The Mishnah Berurah
(12) writes that the restriction against decorations hanging below four tefachim applies to any
decoration wider than four tefachim. Moreover, if the decoration is in the middle of the Sukkah
(rather than adjacent to its walls), it may disqualify the entire Sukkah, and not just the area
immediately underneath it (based on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 632).

The Rema adds (citing Maharil) that one should preferably refrain from hanging any decoration
more than four tefachim under the Sukkah roof—even if the decoration is less the
four tefachim wide (Mishnah Berurah 15). Based on this, one who makes colored paper chains as
a decoration for the Sukkah should make sure that the chain hangs within four tefachim of
the sechach. Yet, if it does hang beneath four tefachim, the Sukkah remains kosher, and one can
sleep under the chain, too. The Mishnah Berurah adds that concerning lamps, one should be
careful not to hang them close to the sechach, for fear of the sechach catching fire.

On the question of whether the entire decoration needs to be within the four tefachim, or if being
partially within the four tefachim is sufficient, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Mikra’ei Kodesh) remained
in doubt. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky ruled that it is sufficient for the decorations to
be partially within four tefachim of the sechach, and they do not have to be within four tefachim
in their entirety (Emet LeYaakov, Orach Chaim 627). Rav Elyashiv zt”l (Sefer Heoros) proved that
is indeed the case, but noted that the common custom is to hang decorations only if they are entirely
within four tefachim of the sechach.

Using the Sukkah Wood

The Gemara (Sukkah 9a) derives from the shared terminology used by the Torah between a Sukkah
and a korban that just as a korban is sanctified, so the wood of a Sukkah is sanctified, and is
therefore forbidden for use for mundane matters in a way that interferes with their use for the Succa
(Thus, one is permitted to lean on the walls, of the Succa, Mishnah Beruro 638, 4.). According to
Tosafos (Beitza 30b), this is a full Torah-level prohibition.

The Rambam (Sukkah 6:15) writes that the prohibition applies not only to the sechach, but even
to the walls of the Sukkah, while the Rosh (Sukkah 1:13) rules that the prohibition applies only to
the sechach. Another dispute among early authorities relates to whether the prohibition applies
even if the Sukkah falls down (see Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim 638). On both matters, the Shulchan
Aruch (638:1) rules stringently: the prohibition applies even to the walls, and the Rema adds that
it applies even after the Sukkah falls down.

Elsewhere (Shabbos 22a, in discussing the prohibition of using Chanukah candles for their light),
the Gemara implies that the foundation of the prohibition relates to bizuy mitzvah, showing
disrespect for a mitzvah. Using the Sukkah for mundane purposes is disrespectful, and for the
duration of Sukkos it is therefore forbidden to do so.

19
It is possible that a separate derivation is required for the Sukkah, unlike for other mitzvos, since a
Sukkah is special in that there is no ritual mitzvah action related to the Sukkah. The mitzvah is
simply to live in the Sukkah. Nonetheless, we learn that the Sukkah has the sanctity of mitzvah
items, and therefore cannot be used for mundane purposes.

Using or Eating Decorations

Just as the Sukkah is prohibited from deriving mundane benefit for the duration of Sukkos, so it is
forbidden to derive mundane benefit from the decorations (Sukkah, ibid.; Shabbos, ibid.). The
decorations are part of the Sukkah (“annulled to the Sukkah”), and are prohibited together with the
Sukkah. This, too, is ruled by the Shulchan Aruch (638:2).

However, it is permitted to use (or eat) decorations during Sukkos if a condition is made in
advance, whereby one does not “separate himself from use of the objects when each of the days of
Sukkos begin (i.e. bein hashemashos of each day of Sukkos).” Based on this stipulation, which is
noted in the Gemara (Beitza 30a), the decorations do not become wholly attached to the mitzva of
the Sukkah, since even as Sukkos began the owner had in mind that he could make alternative use
of them.

Thus, if the stipulation is made it is permitted to remove and use the decorations from the Sukkah
and/or use them for other things, even if they did not first fall. This is ruled by the Shulchan Aruch
and by the Mishnah Berurah (638:19).

There are, however, specific requirements for how to make the stipulation. For this reason, the
Rama (638:2; but see dissenting view of various acharonim in the Mishnah Berurah 638:23)
prefers that people should not rely upon it.

Muktzeh on Shabbos

Aside from the prohibition against using the decorations for alternative purposes, the decorations
are actually muktzeh on Shabbos and on Yom Tov—it is forbidden to move them and handle them,
as with regular muktzeh items (this is not prohibited on Chol Hamo’ed, but only on Shabbos and
Yom Tov).

This prohibition is mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch, and the Gra explains that since a person
may not have personal benefit from the decorations, it follows that they have muktzeh status. If the
decoration fell on Shabbos or Yom Tov, it remains muktzeh for that entire day, and must not be
moved. The Biur Halacha discusses the case of decorations or pines falling on the table and
disrupting the Yom Tov meal: in this case, the decoration should be moved in an indirect way, to
facilitate the continuation of the meal.

When a condition was made permitting the use of the decorations for mundane purposes
the muktzeh prohibition will not apply, since it is permitted to use the decorations. However, many

20
decorations are attached to the Sukkah in ways that forbid their detachment, and one must of course
be careful of this regardless of the muktzeh prohibition.

Rav David Brofsky writes:9

The Tur (626) writes:

[What is the] ideal place for the sukka? It should be constructed under the sky, as it says, “And
you shall sit in sukkot,” and we learn from this – not in a sukka under a sukka, or a sukka under
a house, and not in a sukka under a tree.

He adds (627):

Just as the sukka should be under the sky, and there should not be another sekhakh covering it,
so too there should not be another sekhakh between him and the sekhakh.

The Tur explains that there should be no interference between the sekhakh and the sky, nor should
there be any obstruction between the sekhakh and the person sitting in the sukka. In this shiur we
shall examine the laws governing the relationship of sekhakh to both external and internal
interferences.

Seeing the Stars and Protecting from Rain

One of the central themes of the laws pertaining to building a sukka relates to defining the
difference between a sukka and a house. The gemara discusses in numerous contexts the concern
that a sukka may be too similar to a dirat keva (a permanent abode). As we saw last week, the
Rabbis prohibited using wooden planks wider than four tefachim, which would ordinarily have
been valid for sekhakh, lest one think that he may simply construct a sukka in one’s house and sit
under his own roof. Therefore, the gemara tries to carefully balance the need to construct a viable
and sturdy structure that one can live in for the duration of the festival with avoiding building a
structure too similar to a home.

9
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/holidays/sukkot/interference-sekhakh-above-and-below

21
The mishna (22a) discusses the density of the sekhakh with which one must cover the sukka: “If
[the covering] is close-knit like that of a house, it is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen
through it.” The gemara explains:

Our Rabbis have taught: If it is close together like a house, even though the stars cannot be seen
through it, it is valid. If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it, Beit Shammai invalidates it,
and Bet Hillel declares it valid.

The gemara implies that while on the one hand, one should preferably be able to see stars through
the sekhakh, on the other hand, a sukka should not be “like a house.”

The Acharonim disagree as to why and to what extent one should be able to see the stars from
inside the sukka. R. Yosef Teomim (1727-1793), in his Peri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 631:2),
explains that by seeing the stars from the sukka, one is reminded of “Who created them, and that
one is a stranger in this world, as it says (Tehillim 8:4), ‘[When I behold Your heavens, the work
of Your fingers,] the moon and the stars, which You have established.’” He rules that it is sufficient
to be able to see the stars even from one part of the sukka.

Alternatively, R. Yaakov Ettlinger (1798–1871), in his commentary to Hilkhot Sukka, the Bikkurei
Yaakov (631:5), argues that the ability to see the stars is a measurement of the density of
the sekhakh. Therefore, one should preferably be able to see the stars through the sekhakh covering
one’s entire sukka, and one should be careful that a four tefach wide area through which one cannot
see the stars should not run the length of one’s sukka, similar to sekhakh pasul.

Apparently, these Acharonim dispute whether the mishna refers to one’s personal ability to
properly experience sitting in a sukka, which includes seeing the stars through the sekhakh, or
whether it offers a means of measuring the density of the sekhakh, in contrast to a sukka which is
“like that of a house” (Sukka 22a).

The gemara (Sukka 22a) also teaches that although ideally one should see the stars through
the sekhakh of the sukka, be-di’avad, “If [the sekhakh] is close together like a house, even though
the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid.” According to this mishna, if the sekhakh is arranged
so densely, like the roof of a house, that one cannot see the stars, the sukka is still valid. The
Hagahot Maimoniyot (Hilkhot Sukka 5:9), however, records that Rabbeinu Tam disqualified
a sukka whose sekhakh was so thick that the rain could not penetrate the sukka. He relates that
Rabbeinu Tam‘s brother-in-law, R. Shimon, built a sekhakh from thin planks joined by nails.
Rabbeinu Tam disqualified the sekhakh, as it protected the sukka from the rain. The Mordekhai
(Sukka 1:732) cites the view of Rabbeinu Tam, and then notes that Rashi disagrees. According to
Rashi, even if the sekhakh protect the inside from rain, the sukka is still valid.

Why does Rabbeinu Tam disqualify a sukka just because its sekhakh is too dense and protects
the sukka from rain? The Hagahot Maimoniyot (ibid.) as well as the Mordekhai and Rosh (8:2)
explain that a sukka which is impervious to rain is similar to a house and is therefore not a
valid sukka.

22
The Shulchan Arukh omits the view of Rabbeinu Tam, leading some Acharonim to assume that he
rejects Rabbeinu Tam’s view, and states that if the sekhakh protects a sukka from rain, the sukka is
still valid. The Peri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 631:2) disagrees. He observes that that the Shulchan
Arukh writes that a sukka from which one cannot see the stars is valid, which quite possibly implies
that if the sekhakh is any denser, so that it would protect the sukka from the rain, the sukka may be
invalid!

Many Acharonim, including the Bach (635), the Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav (631:5), Chayyei Adam
(146:18), the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (632:6), and the Mishna Berura (632:6), write that in extenuating
circumstances, one may rely upon the lenient opinions and sit in a sukka whose sekhakh is
impervious to rain.

R. Ettlinger (Bikkurei Yaakov 631:4) asserts that according to Rabbeinu Tam, the sukka is only
invalid if the sekhakh keeps out the rain completely. However, if it merely delays the penetration
of rain, the sukka is still valid (see also Hagahot Maimoniyot, ibid.; Chayyei Adam ibid.)

Interestingly, R. Yoel Sirkis, (1561-1640), in his commentary to the Tur (Bach 631, 635) points
out that although the Rosh does not cite the position of Rabbeinu Tam in the context of “If it is
close together like a house,” he cites his opinion elsewhere.

The gemara (8b) teaches that sukkot known an sukkot ganba”k (an acronym for sukkot erected by
non-Jews, women, or sukkot erected for animals) and sukkot rakba”sh (an acronym
for sukkot used by shepherds, field-watchers, city guards, and orchard-keepers) are valid,
“provided that they are covered according to the rule. What is meant by ‘according to the rule’? R.
Chisda answered: Provided [the sekhakh] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for
the sukka.” The Rosh (1:12) cites Rabbeinu Tam, who explains that as long as the sukka was
erected to provide shade from the sun and not to protect one from the rain, it is valid.

The Bach explains that according to the Rosh, whether or not a sukka is impervious to rain is not
a significant measure of thickness of the sekhakh. Rather, it reflects the intentions of the person
who built the sukka. One need not fear that a “stam” sukka impervious to rain is invalid, but
a sukkat ganba”k or rakba”sh, regarding which we are extra careful about the intention of its
construction, may be invalid if it is impermeable to rain, lest it was built for that intention and not
to provide shade. We will return to the role of “intention” in the building of the sukka in a
future shiur.

If There Is More Sun than Shade

The mishna (2a) teaches that “A sukka… which has more sun than shade is not valid.” Later in
the masekhet, the mishna (22b) asserts that “A sukka… whose shade is more than its sun is valid.”
The gemara asks:

But if they are equal, it is invalid? But have we not learnt in the other chapter, “or whose sun is
more than its shade, is invalid,” from which it follows that if they are equal it is valid? There is no
difficulty, since the former refers to above and the latter to below. R. Pappa observed: This bears
on what people say, “The size of a zuz above becomes the size of an issar below.”

23
The gemara does not explicate whether the shade and sunlight must be alike from above or from
below.

Rashi (s.v. ha-ka-zuza) explains that even if the ratio of sekhakh to air on the top of the sukka is
equal, more sunlight than shade will enter the sukka, and the sukka will be disqualified. However,
if the ratio of sunlight to shade in the sukka is equal, then clearly there is more sekhakh than air,
and the sukka is valid

Rabbeinu Tam (s.v. ka-zuza) offers the opposite interpretation. If one views the sukka from above
and the ratio of sekhakh to sunlight appears to be equal, then the sukka is valid. However, if from
below the ratio of sekhakh to air seems to be equal, then most likely he is mistaken; there is more
air then sekhakh, and the sukka is invalid.

The Shulchan Arukh (631:1) rules in accordance with Rashi – the shade and sunlight must be equal
from inside the sukka.

The Shulchan Arukh (631:2) writes that if the majority of the sukka is tzilata meruba me-
chamata and a minority is chamata meruba me-tzilta, the sukka is valid, and one may even sit
under the area which has more sunlight. However, the Rama writes that in a large sukka, if there
is an area of seven tefachim by seven tefachim (the minimal dimensions of a sukka) within which
there is more sunlight than shade, one may not sit under that portion, although the rest of
the sukka is valid.

Based on the above, one should be careful to cover the sukka with enough sekhakh to ensure that
it provides sufficient (i.e. a majority of) shade for the sukka, and that it is heavy enough or securely
fastened so that it will not blow away. However, one should still allow for the possibility of
viewing the stars through the sukka, and the sekhakh should certainly not be so thick that it renders
the sukka impervious to rain.

A Sukka under a Sukka and a Sukka under a Tree

The Talmud teaches that not only must the sukka be considered to be “under the sky,” but one may
also not build a sukka under another sukka, under a tree, or under a house. For example,
the mishna (9b) teaches, “If one sukka is erected above another, the upper one is valid but the lower
is invalid. R. Yehuda said: If there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.”
The gemara explains, “Our Rabbis taught, ‘You shall dwell in sukkot’ – but not in a sukka under
another sukka, nor in a sukka under a tree, nor in a sukka within the house.” Minimally, this
halakha teaches that there should be no interference between the sukka and the sky.

Often, one finds oneself building a sukka close to, and at times under, the branches of a tree.
Regarding this scenario, the mishna (9b) discusses the impact of the shade from a tree on this
principle: “If one made his sukka under a tree, it is as if he made it within the house.”
The gemara cites Rava, who explains, “[Our mishna] was taught only in respect to a tree whose
shade is greater than the sun [shining through its branches], but if the sun is more than its shade, it
is valid.” Regarding the sukka itself, the gemara continues, “But even where the sun is more than

24
the shade, what is the advantage, seeing that all invalid covering is joined to a valid one? R. Papa
answered: [This is a case] where [the branches of the tree] were pushed down [and interwoven].”

The Rishonim disagree as to how to properly understand this passage.

Rashi explains that if the tree branches provide more shade than sunlight, then certainly
the sukka underneath the tree is invalid. However, if the tree allows more sunlight than shade, then
we must look at the sukka. If the sukka itself, without the shade provided by the tree, is valid, then
we ignore the branches hanging above the sukka. However, if the sekhakh allows more sunlight
than shade, and only with the branches of the tree above do they together provide more shade than
sunlight, then the sukka may be valid, as long as one lowers the braches and weaves them into
the sekhakh.

However, R. Eliezer ben Yoel Ha-Levi (d. 1225), known as the Ra’avya, writes in his Avi Ha-Ezri
(413) that even if the sukka is perfectly valid (i.e. its sekhakh ensures tzilata meruba me-
chamata without the tree), even branches which allow more sunlight than shade invalidate
the sekhakh located directly below. Therefore, if, without the sekhakh beneath these branches,
there is not enough sekhakh for a valid sukka, the sukka is pasul.

The Geonim and Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot 10a; Rosh 1:14) offer a third interpretation. They claim
that the tree branches only disqualify the sekhakh located below if the sukka is built under the tree.
However, if the sukka was built properly and the branches then grew over the sukka, then
the sekhakh and sukka are valid.

The Shulchan Arukh (626:1) cites both Rashi and the Ra’avya. The Bi’ur Halakha (s.v. ve-yesh)
notes that when the Shulchan Arukh cites two opinions, both beginning with “ve-yesh omrim” (and
some say), the halakha is in accordance with the second view – in this case, the view of the
Ra’avya. Interestingly, both the Tur and Shulchan Arukh omit the view of the Geonim and
Rabbeinu Tam.

The Tur (626) records that based upon the stringent opinion of the Ra’avya, some prohibit the
apparently once common practice of removing the bricks from one’s roof and building
a sukka under the wooden beams that support the roof. Rabbeinu Yechiel reportedly would raise
the sekhakh to the height of the roof, in order to “mix” the wooden beams with the sekhakh, similar
to the lowering of the tree branches described above. The Tur cites the Ba’al Ha-Ittur, who claims
that by removing the bricks, one demonstrates that the wooden beams are intended to be part of
the sukka, and they are not to be considered sekhakh pasul. The Tur himself disagrees, insisting
that even if the beams were invalid, there still remains enough sekhakh kasher in between the
beams to validate the sukka.

The Shulchan Arukh (626:3) rejects this stringency and rules that one may build a sukka under the
horizontal beams of a house after removing the bricks from the roof.

25
Making a Sukka under a Bed

The mishna (20b) teaches that “He who sleeps under a bed in the sukka has not fulfilled his
obligation.” Many (Rif 10a; Rosh 2:1; Rambam, Commentary to the Mishna
2:1, Hilkhot Sukka 5:23; Bach 626) explain that just as one may not build one’s sukka under
another sukka, one similarly may not sleep under a bed. Apparently, they understand that the
disqualification of a sukka built under another sukka teaches that there should be no significant
interference between both the sekhakh and the sky and the sekhakh and the person. Or, as some
have suggested, one should not sit under “two coverings,” but rather under only one, as it says,
“and you shall sit in sukkot.”

The Ba’al Ha-Ma’or (10a), however, disagrees. He explains that one who sleeps under a bed inside
the sukka is akin to one who sleeps in a tent inside a sukka. In this case, one does not fulfill his
obligation, as one must sleep “under the shade of the sukka, and not under the shade of a tent.”
The Ramban (Milchamot Hashem 10a) rejects this, arguing that a significant structure, such as a
bed higher than ten tefachim, negates the sukka found above.

The gemara (20b, 10b–11a) discusses different types of beds and tents under which one may not
sleep.

Noy Sukka – Hanging Sukka Decorations

Although one must sit under the shade of the sukka, the Talmud allows, and even praises, one who
adorns the sukka, including the sekhakh, with decorations. The gemara (10a) even describes
how sukkot were beautifully adorned.

If he covered it according to the rule, and adorned it with embroidered hangings and sheets, and
hung therein nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, bunches of grapes, wreaths of ears of corn,
[phials of] wine, oil or fine flour, it is forbidden to make use of them.

We will discuss “making use” of the sekhakh for other purposes next week.

The gemara (Shabbat 133b), for example, teaches:

For it was taught: “This is my God, and I will adorn him” (Shemot 15:2) – adorn thyself before
Him in [the fulfillment of] precepts. [Thus:] make a beautiful sukka in His honor, a beautiful lulav,
a beautiful shofar, beautiful tzitzit, and a beautiful sefer Torah...

Furthermore, the Rashba (Responsa 1:55) explains that not only do noy sukka beautify the mitzva,
but they also make one’s living in the sukka more pleasant, especially significant in the mitzva
of sukka, where we are commanded to transform the sukka into our home for the duration of the
festival.

The gemara (10b) cites a debate regarding the maximum distance that the noy sukka may be hung
from the sekhakh.

26
It was stated: The adornments of a sukka which are removed four [tefachim from the roof] – R.
Nachman declared valid and R. Chisda and Rabba son of R. Huna declared invalid. R. Chisda and
Rabba son of R. Huna once came to the house of the exilarch, and R. Nachman sheltered them in
a sukka whose adornments were separated four tefachim [from the roof]. They were silent and said
not a word to him. Said he to them, “Have our Rabbis retracted their teaching”? “We,” they
answered him, “are on a religious errand, and [therefore] free from the obligation of the sukka.”

R. Chisda and Rabba maintain that if the sekhakh hangs lower than four tefachim from the roof,
then the sukka may be invalid. R. Nachman disagrees.

Assuming the halakha is in accordance with R. Chisda and Rabba (Rif, Rambam, Smag, Rosh,
and Shulchan Arukh 629:19, 627:4), why do decorations that hang lower than four tefachim from
the sekhakh potentially invalidate the sukka?

Some Rishonim (see Me’iri 10a, for example) understand that noy sukka hung lower than
four tefachim may create their own sub-area within the sukka, similar to a tent within a sukka. In
this case, he writes, noy sukka hung lower than four tefachim would only pose a problem if its
dimensions are under seven tefachim by seven tefachim and if it provides more shade than
sunlight, constituting a separate, invalid sukka within the sukka.

Other Rishonim (Rosh 1:18, for example) explain that as long as that which hangs from
the sekhakh was intended for decorative purposes and it hangs within four tefachim of the sekhakh,
it is considered “batel” and ignored. However, even noy sukka, it if hangs lower than
four tefachim, is considered to be sekhakh pasul. Seemingly, like all sekhakh pasul, one may sit
under noy sukka hung lower than four tefachim from the sekhakh as long as it is not
four tefachim wide. These Rishonim debate whether we consider noy sukka hung lower than
four tefachim to be sekhakh pasul even if it allows more sunlight than shade, or only if it provides
more shade than sunlight (see Mishna Berura 627:11 and Sha’ar Ha-Tziyun 14-16).

The Rama (627:4) writes that one should be careful not to hang any decorations lower that
four tefachim from the sekhakh. The Mishna Berura (15) concludes that although technically, one
may hang noy sukka smaller than four tefachim, one should refrain from doing so, lest one come
to hang many decorations, which may add up to four tefachim. He adds that one need not be
stringent regarding a light hung above the table, and in fact it may be preferable to distance it as
much as possible from the sekhakh.

If one may hang decorations from the sekhakh and they do not disqualify the sukka, then one might
ask whether one may hang items from the sukka for other reasons.

The mishna (Sukka 10a) teaches, “If one spreads a sheet over it because of the sun or beneath it
because of falling [leaves] … [the sukka] is invalid.” The gemara explains that “R. Chisda stated,
[our mishna] speaks only [of a sheet spread] because of falling [leaves], but if [it was spread] in
order to beautify [the sukka], it is valid.”

The gemara implies that one may only hang a sheet above or below the sekhakh in order to
beautify the sukka. Rashi and Rambam (Hilkhot Sukka 5:17) explain that one hangs the sheet in

27
order to protect the table from falling leaves. The Mordekhai (736) adds, citing R. Peretz, that
since the sheet was hung for the person’s sake and not for the sukka, it cannot be considered to
be noy sukka. Noy sukka beautify the sukka and are therefore batel (nullified) in relation to
the sekhakh.

Other Rishonim, however, limit the case of the mishna and permit, at times, to hang a non-
decorative sheet above or below the sekhakh. The Geonim (see Tosafot 10a), for example, explain
that if the sukka was already constructed properly, that is, it provides more shade than sun, one
may hang a sheet above or below the sekhakh to protect the sukka from the falling leaves.
Rabbeinu Tam (Tosafot ad. loc.) explains that the gemara prohibits hanging a sheet whose purpose
is to prevent the sekhakh from drying out and falling; it invalidates the sukka because
the sekhakh no longer provides ample shade. In other words, this sheet, according to Rabbeinu
Tam, contributes to the validity of the sukka, and is therefore pasul. However, if one hangs a sheet
not in order to maintain the integrity of the sekhakh, but rather to protect those sitting in
the sukka from the sun or the falling leaves, it does not invalidate the sukka.

Interestingly, Tosafot (10a) and the Rosh (1:14) imply that Rabbeinu Tam believes that if
the sukka is constructed properly and the sekhakh provides more shade than sunlight, the sukka is
valid even if tree branches afterwards extend over the sukka or one hangs sheet above or below
the sekhakh. The Tur, however, cites this view only regarding the sheet (629) and not regarding
the tree branches (626). The Beit Yosef (629) writes that apparently one can distinguish between
these two cases. The Bach (629) suggests that a sheet whose purpose is to make one’s stay in
the sukka more pleasant by protecting the sukka from the sun or from falling leaves may be
considered to be noy sukka and does not invalidate the sukka. However, the branches cannot, in
any way, be considered noy sukka, and therefore they disqualify the sekhakh found below.
Alternatively, he suggests that the Tur might accept both cases, the case of the sheet and that of
the branches, when the sukka was erected first, but the Tur did not record this opinion in chapter
626, as there he was referring to branches found more than four tefachim above the sekhakh. If,
however, the branches are within four tefachim of the sekhakh, they would certainly not disqualify
the sekhakh below.

The Shulchan Arukh (629:19) cites the view of Rashi and the Rambam, and then the view of
Rabbeinu Tam. The Mishna Berura (629:55) writes that one should follow the ruling of Rashi and
the Rambam, who prohibit hanging a sheet for non-decorative purposes. He concludes, however,
that in extenuating circumstances, if one cannot sit in the sukka due to falling leaves or string
winds, or even rain (Magen Avraham 629:25), it may be preferable to hang a sheet within
four tefachim of the sekhakh, but one should not recite the blessing of “le-shev ba-sukka.”

One may not remove or benefit from noy sukka for the duration of the festival (Shulchan Arukh
638:2) – but this is a subject for another shiur.

28
 Succoth: Our Protective Fortress: Rav Kook Torah

Chanan Morrison writes:10

The sukkah booth that we live in during the Succoth holiday is by definition a temporary dwelling.
The Sages ruled that a very tall structure, over ten meters high, is invalid as a sukkah because it is
a permanent structure. An exposed hut consisting of only two walls and a handbreadth for the third,
on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.
And yet, this rickety booth is our protective fortress. As King David said, “You protect them in a
sukkah from the strife of tongues” (Psalms 31:21). Why should such a flimsy structure be a
paradigm of protection and safety?

The Sukkot of the Great Assembly

To better understand the metaphor of the sukkah, we should examine a remarkable Talmudic
passage. In Nehemiah 8:17 it states that, from the time of Joshua, the Jewish people had not dwelt
in sukkot until the mitzvah was reinstated after their return from the Babylonian exile. How is it
possible that this mitzvah was neglected for so many centuries?
The Talmud in Arachin 32b explains that the Jewish people always performed the mitzvah of
dwelling in a sukkah. However, the sukkot erected by the Great Assembly in the time of Nehemiah
were special sukkot, possessing a protective quality that had not existed since the days of Joshua
bin Nun. According to the Talmud, these were not even physical sukkot, but rather a unique

10
(Silver from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Ma’amarei HaRe’iyah vol. I, pp. 149-150)
http://ravkooktorah.org/SUKKOT_68.htm

29
spiritual act of Ezra and the Great Assembly: “They prayed and abolished the passion for idolatry,
and this merit protected them like a sukkah.”

The Ultimate Fortress

Clearly, the protective aspect of the sukkah is of a spiritual nature. The eternal truth is that the
sukkah — purposely defined as a structure so flimsy that it cannot even be called a proper dwelling
— is a fortress that protects us from all adversaries and foes. What is it that transforms the exposed
sukkah into a shelter and stronghold? Certainly not any of its physical properties. Rather, its source
of inner strength is none other than God’s word. The sukkah protects us by virtue of the Torah law
that declares this structure to be our shelter during the holiday of Succoth.
This is an important message for all times, and especially in our generation. We need great courage
to return to the land of our fathers and rebuild our national home. Where can we find the moral
and spiritual resolve to withstand the challenges of those who oppose our return and deny our right
to a homeland in Eretz Yisrael? Like the sukkah dwelling, our national home is based on the
spiritual strength of God’s eternal word. The most advanced weapons may be able to penetrate the
thickest walls, but they cannot prevail over the stronghold of God’s word.
This is our fortress, our ultimate shelter of security: God’s eternal promise that the Jewish people
will return to their land and the House of Israel will be built once again.
The protective sukkah of the Great Assembly was the merit provided by their spiritual efforts to
abolish the desire for idolatry. Our right to the land of Israel is similarly based, not on our military
prowess, but on the moral strength of our eternal covenant with God and the merit of the Torah’s
mitzvot.

Beautifying the Law

However, we should not be satisfied with keeping only the minimum requirements of Torah law.
Jerusalem was destroyed, the Sages taught, because the judges ruled according to the strict letter
of the law. They failed to take into account the spirit of the law and seek a ruling that is both just
and compassionate — lifnim mishurat ha-din (Baba Metzi'ah 30b).
The mitzvah of sukkah is based on Divine law, but there is an ancient custom to adorn the sukkah
with decorated fabrics, fruits, and grains (Sukkah 10a). We should similarly seek to “adorn” the
Torah law. We should go beyond the minimum requirements of the Law and aspire to the highest
level of God’s word, in its purest ethical form. Then we will merit that “David’s fallen sukkah”
(Amos 9:11), the prophet’s metaphor for Jewish sovereignty, will rise again, speedily in our days.

30