626 - תרכו העושה סוכה תחת האילן או תחת הגג ובו כ"א סעיפים

One who makes a sukkah under a tree or under a roof

1. A person fulfills his obligation only with a sukkah that is made solely for shade.

This is similar to the Clouds of Glory.

But if it is also made for dwelling—

meaning, to live in it permanently, and not just to sit in its shade—

or if it is also made for a private use,

such as for storage, or any other use that requires privacy,

or if it is also made as a shelter and protection from rain and storms—

in any case, if it is not made solely for shade, it is not a sukkah, but a house,

for a house is designated for all these purposes. And the Torah said: a sukkah, not a house.

2. The sukkah must be under the open sky,

similar to the Clouds of Glory.

But if it is made inside a house, it is invalid,

because the shade of the sukkah serves no purpose,

since even without the sechach there is shade from the roof of the house.

The same applies to one who makes a sukkah under a tree, or under other things that are invalid for sechach, as will be explained in ^[1].

Whether the sukkah was made before the invalid covering above it, or the invalid covering was there before the sukkah,

in any case, now, the shade of the sukkah serves no purpose,

since the upper shade is above it.

3. Therefore, even if the shade of the sukkah is greater than its sunlight without combining the upper shade at all—

meaning, that even if the upper shade were removed, its shade would still be greater than its sunlight—

nevertheless, it is invalid.

And even if the upper shade alone is very minimal, so that if the lower shade—meaning, the shade of the sechach over the sukkah—were removed, the upper shade’s sunlight would be greater than its shade, it is still invalid.

For since the upper shade, which is invalid, is above, it nullifies the shade of the valid sechach directly beneath it, for it serves no purpose, since the upper shade covers the area it covers.

Therefore, we consider it as if the valid sechach’s shade is missing in the amount that the upper shade covers the sukkah, and as if that area is exposed to sunlight.

And the sukkah’s sunlight is greater than its shade.

4. But if the sukkah’s shade is so great that even if the amount of the upper shade were removed from the valid sechach, and the area covered by the upper shade were considered exposed to sunlight, the sukkah would still have more shade than sunlight, it is valid.

5. All this applies when the invalid sechach is above the valid sechach.

But if they are mixed together—

for example, a tree that shades the sukkah below it, and its branches are lowered and mixed in—

if the valid sechach is much greater than the invalid sechach mixed with it, the invalid is nullified by the majority.

Even if the valid sechach was placed on top of the invalid sechach, this is called mixing, and it is nullified by the majority.

And even if the invalid sechach is noticeable among the valid, and not well mixed, and it can be removed from there, nevertheless, it is nullified.

And although in all prohibitions of the Torah, if one recognizes the forbidden item and can remove it from the mixture, it is not nullified even in a thousand—

that is, it is forbidden to eat the mixture, so that one does not come into contact with the forbidden item itself, which is not nullified, since it can be removed—

but here, one does not benefit at all from the forbidden item,

for even if the invalid sechach were removed from the sukkah, its shade would still be greater than its sunlight due to the valid sechach.

And we only need to nullify the invalid by the majority so that it does not have the power to invalidate the valid sechach mixed with it.

6. But if the valid shade is minimal,

so that if the invalid shade were removed from the sukkah, its shade would not be greater than its sunlight, it is invalid,

because the invalid shade does not combine to complete the required amount for the valid shade,

since it has not yet been completely nullified, as it can still be removed from there.

7. All this is when the invalid sechach mixed with the valid is itself light and thin, so that its sunlight is greater than its shade.

But if its shade is greater than its sunlight, nullification by majority does not help, so that it should not invalidate the sukkah with its shade,

since the valid shade serves no purpose in the place where the invalid could provide shade, if it were not mixed in, since its shade is greater than its sunlight.

Therefore, the sukkah is only valid if there is so much valid sechach that, if an amount equal to the invalid sechach mixed with it were removed from the valid sechach, the sukkah would still have more shade than sunlight.

8. When does this apply? When the valid and invalid are mixed, or the invalid is placed below the valid.

Then, the valid must be the majority over the invalid to nullify it, so that it does not invalidate the sukkah with its shade.

But if they are placed on the sukkah, each one separately, side by side, and are not mixed at all,

it is not necessary for the valid to be the majority over the invalid.

Even if they are half and half, the sukkah is still valid,

for this is a law from Moshe at Sinai, as will be explained in siman 671, see there.

9. (And there are those who disagree with all this, and say

that if the invalid is mixed with the valid and both are of the same type, so that the invalid is not noticeable at all—

for example, one who makes his sukkah under a tree, and lowers the branches of the tree and mixes them with the detached sechach on the sukkah—

even though he can remove the forbidden item, meaning, he can lift the branches back to the tree,

nevertheless, as long as they are mixed together and not noticeable, they are nullified by the majority of the valid,

and they combine with it to complete the required amount for shade greater than sunlight,

(not as stated in the first opinion).

[Gloss: And although in all prohibitions of the Torah, if one can remove the forbidden item, it is not nullified by the majority,

here, it is a law from Moshe at Sinai that not all the sechach required for the sukkah must be valid sechach; it is enough that the majority is valid, and the rest, even though it is invalid, the sukkah is still valid with it.]

Therefore, there is no status of invalid sechach on the minority portion. Rather, it too reverts to being valid sechach through the majority of valid sechach with it.

Therefore, it is permitted to intentionally mix and nullify invalid sechach with valid sechach from the outset.

This is not the case with other prohibitions, where one may not intentionally nullify a prohibition from the outset.

Because there is no prohibition at all on the minority of invalid material that is mixed with the valid [sechach].

This is provided that the invalid sechach that is mixed in is thin and sparse, such that the sun is greater than the shade.

But if its shade is greater than its sun, it does not combine to complete the measure of “its shade is greater than its sun.”

However, if the sukkah’s shade is greater than its sun even without including the shade of the invalid sechach, it is never invalidated because of the shade of the invalid sechach, even if its shade is greater than its sun.

10. If the invalid sechach is not mixed with the valid sechach, but rather stands above and shades over the valid [sechach]:

If the sukkah’s shade is not greater than its sun without including the shade of the invalid [sechach], even though the invalid [sechach] has more sun than shade, nevertheless, it is invalid, because the invalid sechach completes its measure.

But if its shade is greater than its sun without including the shade of the invalid [sechach], even if the invalid [sechach] has more shade than sun, it is valid.

The primary ruling follows the first opinion in all this.

Nevertheless, in a pressing situation, where one has no other sukkah and it is also impossible to fix this sukkah and make it valid, one may rely on the latter opinion so as not to forgo the mitzvah of sukkah.

11. If one wishes to cut the tree to make it fit for sechach, it will be explained in [Siman 629] that one must shake the entire tree. See there for the reason.

12. It is permitted to make a sukkah inside a house, under the roof, after removing the tiles from it in order to make a sukkah, even though the beams or rafters on which the tiles rest remain. It is permitted to sit under the beams or rafters themselves, even though they are invalid sechach, because they were not set in the roof solely for shade, but rather to support the tiles.

Nevertheless, since one performed an action and removed the tiles for the sake of making a sukkah for shade, it is as if one performed an action on the beams or rafters themselves and designated them for the sukkah, for they are valid for sechach, since they grow from the ground and do not receive impurity.

And even though they are attached [to the ground]? This does not matter, for if something was detached and later attached, it is valid for a sukkah, as will be explained in Siman 629.

And since they themselves are valid for sechach through this action, and one can place additional valid sechach upon them, and they combine with this sechach to complete the measure of “its shade is greater than its sun,” therefore, even now, when one has not placed sechach upon them but rather sits under them inside the house, it is permitted to sit directly under them, since they are valid sechach.

13. But if one did not remove the tiles in order to make a sukkah there, but rather it was always built without a roof, since no action was performed on the roof for the sake of making a sukkah for shade, the beams or rafters are invalid sechach. Their law is like that of invalid sechach that overshadows valid sechach, as explained above.

(That is, if the valid sechach is not so abundant that, if one were to remove from it an amount equal to the invalid sechach that shades over it, the sukkah would still have more shade than sun, it is invalid.)

14. When does this apply? When one places sechach under the roof. But if one places sechach on top of the beams or rafters, even if they are close to each other by less than three handbreadths, it is valid. We do not say here the principle of lavud, that all the beams combine and are considered as one wide piece of invalid sechach more than four handbreadths wide, which would invalidate the sukkah, as will be explained in Siman 732. Since valid sechach is placed between each beam, it separates them so that they do not combine. The principle of lavud is only applied when there is nothing separating between them.

15. Whether it is permitted to sit under the beams will be explained in Siman 731.

16. If one placed invalid sechach on the sukkah when there was no sechach on it at all, and afterwards placed valid sechach on top of the invalid sechach, and then removed the invalid sechach from the sukkah, leaving only the upper valid sechach shading the sukkah, or if one made the walls of the sukkah under the roof of the house and placed valid sechach on top of the roof, and then removed the roof from under the sechach that was placed upon it, it is invalid. For at the time one made the sukkah, that is, when one placed the valid sechach, which is the essence of the sukkah, the sukkah was invalid because of the invalid sechach upon it. Afterwards, when one removed the invalid [sechach], no action was performed on the sukkah itself to make it valid; rather, it became valid on its own through the removal of the invalid [sechach]. But the Torah says, “You shall make the festival of Sukkos for yourself,” and not from something that comes about on its own. The initial act, which was in a state of invalidity, is not considered an act at all.

17. When does this apply? When the invalidity of the sukkah was due to itself, such as in the case mentioned, where one placed valid sechach on top of invalid sechach, so that the sukkah itself, meaning the valid sechach, was made in a state of invalidity due to itself, since there is something separating between it and the walls, and its shade is of no benefit. But if the invalidity of the sukkah is due to something else that invalidates it, such as one who made his sukkah under the roof of the house, and after placing valid sechach as required, removed the roof from above the sukkah, it is valid, even though no action was performed on the sukkah itself to make it valid. Since its invalidity was only due to something else, namely the roof of the house that shaded over it, and not due to itself, for it was covered as required with valid sechach placed on its walls. Therefore, since one performed an act of validation on the thing that invalidated it, namely, removing the beams of the roof, which were fixed there for the sake of dwelling and not for shade, and therefore had the status of invalid sechach, and now that one has removed them entirely, they are now considered valid sechach. Even the remaining beams are now considered valid sechach, as explained above. Therefore, this act of validation is effective to make the sukkah valid, since its invalidity was only due to the roof, and one has already performed an act of validation on it.

18. However, if he did not perform an act of preparation with the object that invalidates the sukkah—for example, he did not completely remove the roof from its fixed place, but rather made it like a door, to open and close it when it rains—since he did not remove it entirely, this is not considered a complete act. Therefore, it does not suffice to render the remaining beams or the sukkah, which was invalidated because of it, valid (when the door has not yet been opened and it is still covering the sukkah).

19. When does this apply? When he placed the s'chach on the sukkah before opening the door in the roof, or even if he opened it afterwards, but at the time of placing the s'chach the door was closed and was covering the sukkah. For since the construction of the sukkah was done in an invalid manner, opening the door afterwards does not help, since no act was performed on the sukkah itself. But if, at the time he placed the s'chach, the door was open as required and was not covering the sukkah, even if he later closed it and the sukkah became invalid while the door was closed, nevertheless, when he opens the door, the sukkah returns to being valid, since its initial construction was valid when the door was open.

20. If this door has hinges, so that it is opened and closed with them, it is considered a proper entrance, and it is permitted to open and close it on Shabbos and Yom Tov. There is no prohibition of demolition or building in this.

21. One must be careful not to sit beneath it for the mitzvah of sukkah when it is closed, for then it is invalid, and one does not fulfill his obligation by sitting there.