Laws of (Shofar) Sukkah (and Lulav) Chapter 4 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Sukkah Chapter 4 — The Measurements of the Sukkah and Its Walls

Introduction: The Order of Study and the Structure of the Laws

Speaker 1:

Okay, rabbosai, we are learning the holy Torah. Yes, we are learning the laws of Sukkah. The Rambam has compiled all the holidays of Tishrei: Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav. And now we are beginning Sukkah, which is the fourth chapter of the set.

Let us thank the donors of our shiur: the distinguished patron, supporter of Torah, Rabbi Yoel Eli Weltzberger, and all others who support the shiur.

In the first chapter, the Rambam will state all the laws of how the sukkah must look. He is not yet going to discuss the obligation of sukkah, that will be later, but the next two chapters discuss how one builds a sukkah. After all, one must build a sukkah, there are many laws involved in this.

Discussion: Why Does the Rambam Begin with Building the Sukkah and Not with the Mitzvah?

Speaker 2:

Right, so as we have seen… ah, you’re saying that first one must build the sukkah. Sukkah is also a bit like… but with shofar he began that there is a mitzvah to sit in the sukkah. But this, a week before Sukkos one must already… before there is a mitzvah to sit in the sukkah, one must build a sukkah. It doesn’t make sense, one doesn’t encounter a shofar before the sukkah.

Speaker 1:

So let’s say this: the normal order that the Rambam usually follows, that apparently according to his structure of the 613 mitzvos, that is, first he says what the mitzvah is, then he says the details of what one does with it, and so on.

There are several laws where the Rambam begins by describing the object of the mitzvah, the reality that the mitzvah is, and only later does he begin to state the mitzvah. One of these mitzvos is the laws of Sukkah. Actually matzah was also somewhat similar in this, that he explained a part of the mitzvah of how to make matzah. Okay, that was about guarding from chametz. Okay, one can argue. So, not exactly.

Sukkah, I can find other examples, but the laws of Sukkah go exactly the opposite. There are two chapters about what is a kosher sukkah, and then the third chapter only, yes, whatever chapter five, six, seven, discusses when one sits in the sukkah, if I remember correctly, chapter seven or perhaps chapter eight. Seven, basically, he discusses the mitzvah of sukkah, the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah. It could be as you say.

In practice, Tractate Sukkah also goes this way, right? It’s not a proof, the Rambam won’t follow the order in the tractate, but often he does. I mean, the reality is that the Rambam worked from the Mishnah, from the Gemara. The Gemara begins this way. The Gemara often goes… I’m saying, from the Gemara there’s no proof, because that’s the reason also. No, the Gemara always goes in the same order. The Rambam makes his own order, but if we find that he makes it so that he goes with the Gemara’s order, it surely has to do with the reality. Or that one learned Gemara and made one’s book according to it.

But one can say explanations, I don’t know if there are… there are those who say that there is a mitzvah to make a sukkah, because a mitzvah doesn’t just happen. I mean, a sukkah doesn’t just happen. It’s not that the Torah says if there is a sukkah you should be in a sukkah, but it means, because you have a mitzvah, therefore to build a sukkah. One simply must deal with the preparations, you must go search and buy and get the materials. Yes, okay.

But here one certainly follows the first Mishnah of Sukkah, sukkah she’gevoha. Yes, yes. So, okay. What is the measurement of the sukkah? The Rambam says, yes, it’s called the measurement of the sukkah. What is a sukkah? He hasn’t yet said that one must sit in the sukkah. He said in the introduction, the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah perhaps. I’m saying, stop, yes, the measurement of the sukkah.

A Jew learns it, he says in it the measurement of the sukkah. He says, what is a sukkah? He says, the rabbi, come, you’re a Jew, do you know what a sukkah is? But you can say differently, come build a sukkah. He doesn’t say that one should build a sukkah, that’s not true, because he doesn’t say how a sukkah looks. Very good. But what is a sukkah? You don’t yet know what a sukkah is. Except for the verse, very good. There is generally a concept of the mitzvah. In short.

So, the Rambam says, the measurement of the sukkah… so let me tell you a bit of structure that the distinguished Rabbi Rabinowitz told us.

The Structure of a Sukkah: Six Sides

Basically, a sukkah is like a box, it turns out it has six sides, or in more detail, it has three parts:

– It has a roof, which is called the s’chach

– It has four walls

– And it has a floor

The Rambam’s order says, more or less, go according to this order. First he divided the roof of the sukkah, which has a special name called s’chach, which is the essence of the sukkah. Let’s say, about this there is very much…

Speaker 2:

Yes, I don’t know why one calls it the… yes, I don’t know. Yes, because I want to say about sukkah there are different laws, the wall is kosher with anything and the like. True, there are more laws about the s’chach than the sukkah, but I don’t know why one says that it’s called sukkah after the s’chach, but a sukkah must have walls just as it must have s’chach, so, I’m not sure.

Speaker 1:

In any case, the s’chach has many laws, this he divided in the next chapter. But the chapter goes more or less according to the order of the structure of the sukkah. We will see, first one learns generally the dimensions of it, the size of it. Then one will discuss how many walls it must have, then how high each wall must be, the connection of the walls with the s’chach, and so on we will see with each thing.

The sukkah must have six sides, which are six spiritual sides. We will see how many actual sides. The s’chach is the spiritual side, but it must have six sides. Sometimes there can be a wall that is less, true.

Law 1 — The Measurement of the Sukkah: Height and Width

Speaker 1:

Okay, the Rambam says, the measurement of the sukkah is as follows: it has a minimum and a maximum. Unlike many times when there is only a minimum or whatever, but here there is a minimum and a maximum.

Let’s say this: the height has a minimum, the height of the sukkah. The width has no maximum.

Speaker 2:

Do most measurements in the Torah actually have only a minimum?

Speaker 1:

Ah, interesting. Yes, with an esrog there is something that one must be able to hold it. Not in practice, it doesn’t work that way. Okay, here there is a special matter that one must be able to see the s’chach. Yes, okay, the height.

Height — Minimum and Maximum

The measurement of the sukkah is as follows: the height cannot be less than ten tefachim, because that is not called a structure. The Gemara calls it a temporary dwelling, it must be a normal place where one can live.

And not more than twenty amos, because one must be able to see the roof of the sukkah, the eye must catch it. One can see higher than twenty amos, but one doesn’t notice it.

Width — Minimum and No Maximum

And its width, there must also be a certain width, not less than seven tefachim by seven tefachim. Because this also, less than that is not called a dwelling. It’s more that one cannot… the language of the Gemara is that it doesn’t fit his head and most of his body and his table. It’s something like… it’s very small, but anyway. Yes.

But the width has no maximum. And one may add to the width even several mil, the width can be increased so that it should be even several mil, which we have already learned in the laws of techumin what a mil is. It’s simply the largest measure, because if you look at the list of measures, there is an etzba, a tefach, an amah, and after an amah comes a mil, after a mil there isn’t. There’s no larger one, it’s the largest, as large as you will basically, until as large as you can. I mean, how much… it can’t be practical.

It turns out that there are two ways that it should be invalid: either it’s too small, or it’s too large. And this the Rambam said how it must be, and he concludes: if not, it’s not just not good according to the rabbis, but if it was less than ten or less than seven by seven in height or more than twenty, behold this is invalid. It’s even a complete measurement, even a bit more, or less than the minimum measurement, or more than the maximum measurement of the height, it is invalid.

About this you will see, we will come later, you will see that there are two ways that people sometimes try to make a sukkah kosher. Sometimes there is a sukkah that is too high, one tries to make it smaller, digs deeper, or adds a structure to make it less high. Right, as one sees how one seeks to make it larger, how one seeks to make it smaller, is all about this basic measurement of how large and how small it may be. Which is the sizes.

Law 2 — Three Walls

Now one can learn how many walls there must be. The Rambam says, a sukkah that doesn’t have three walls, a sukkah that doesn’t have three walls, is invalid. And then there will be various limitations in the order, that it doesn’t need to be three complete walls, but there must be that wall.

So this is the language, the Rambam decided to say, I don’t know why, that one must have three walls. Yes, because all the other laws are discussions, and how large the third wall can be. Okay, it’s interesting.

Discussion: Why Must One Have Three Walls?

Speaker 1:

I want to think, the three walls, why do you need to have three walls? Is it something about privacy? Is it something like a domain? I’m saying, it reminds me a bit of the laws of Shabbos, when one learns a mavoi, there are similar laws. How a mavoi is a place that can be open, everything from one side doesn’t become a problem. It’s still, one must place things rabbinically, but one sees that three sides already means an enclosed area. The rabbis said that a mavoi should have a korah, perhaps one must also standing place a tzuras hapesach, similar. Do you understand what I’m saying? Yes.

I mean to say it doesn’t have to do with what it has to do with the walls. I mean it has to do with reality, with practicality. With reality that what? All huts have three walls. And the fourth is the door open to be able to enter.

Speaker 2:

You told me earlier, no, a door with a completely open side is not the same thing.

Speaker 1:

Could be because we have a more comfortable life than it is completely. But huts, when people build more temporarily, one makes sure that you will have three walls, and you will have the place where one walks in.

Speaker 2:

You told me earlier that the essence is the s’chach, why do we need walls at all.

Speaker 1:

It doesn’t just look, later one will see, sukkos is not just a word from sukkah, sukkas ha’aravim, there is such a hut, the huts one makes from a wall, it’s a place where they can live, it should have a bit of privacy. One doesn’t want just a… just a roof. There is also a situation of making just a roof to protect from the sun. But here we’re talking about a hut that was made.

It’s possible for a sukkah to have only a roof. If one makes a sukkah on top of the roof, and there is something like a good halachic wall, you shouldn’t be completely enclosed. It seems it’s more like a division of domain. It’s a concept that there must be a separate domain. A sukkah must be something a separate area. About this one will see soon, also regarding the walls there must be something something something. It’s enough for Shabbos within the part.

One thought that the matter of three walls is not… I don’t know what not, I don’t know what the other time exactly would have been. But I’m saying, it’s not… privacy is something a modern word. I don’t know how one says… it’s more protection.

Speaker 2:

You’re saying protection.

Speaker 1:

Not protection. It’s not protection. Jews were surrounded with a thin covering. But let’s say, one made a sukkah. It doesn’t need to protect, I’m telling you. It just needs to be called a domain. If I have I have I said, there is a side law that because we look at it as a domain, it doesn’t mean so three walls.

Speaker 2:

No, it doesn’t mean. It’s not just.

Speaker 1:

Okay, I don’t know, whatever is not a proof. But I’m saying the law of gud asik when there are four small ones on top of the roof, because there is the edge of the roof, and there is a wall, that is like a roof.

Laws of Sukkah — The Law of the Third Wall and Partitions

The Foundation of the Matter of Partitions

Speaker 1:

It’s protected, as if it’s separate, not that it’s protected that one can’t shoot in a water balloon. There is such a concept called division of domain. This is a separate area. I don’t see that it should be the matter of division of domain. But I would have said that this is called a little house, and then there are laws that there are certain things that we consider as if it’s a little house.

It must be a little house. In a house one must already have four walls, three walls are enough. A house one doesn’t even need to have one wall. If it is yes, if it speaks practically, it depends on what he wants. A domain must have walls. Partitions. The Gemara calls it partitions. Partitions means something that divides. And it’s like half, yes? Until here is not the same, and here is yes the same. Okay, I can say it differently if you want.

And one will learn how much wall, how one can make the third wall a bit less than a wall. Yes?

Rambam: Two Complete Walls Next to Each Other Like a Gamma

So, the Rambam says, if there are two complete walls next to each other. If there are two proper walls, understand already two walls that touch each other, one next to the other. Like a gamma. This means apparently seven tefachim, whatever the measurement. But the point is like a zeh, they touch each other, they have an angle, a shared corner. Like a gamma, like a gamma which is a dalet or a reish whatever that two… a gamma is a letter in Greek.

Discussion: Why Does the Gemara Use the Greek Letter Gamma?

Speaker 2:

What does it mean in Greek one calls it gamma?

Speaker 1:

It seems that the sages, often when one borrows another language, Greek has a custom to add like a vowel at the end of every word. But when one says it in lashon hakodesh, it doesn’t work out. Like alef beis gimmel. Why? Because every language has its customs of how words begin and end.

In lashon hakodesh it’s very normal that a word should end, it’s even more normal, a word should end with what one calls a closed vowel. No, yes, you can call it a shva nach, but a closed vowel, like “gam”. Or very many words, “alef”. The last word is silence, has no sound.

In Greek the custom is that every word almost ends with a vowel, with a vowel. Therefore it would be g-m, and in Greek it’s g-m-a. And the sages, for some reason, when they spoke certain things, numbers or pictures that they always used Greek words, not…

Speaker 2:

Although you’re right that a dalet or a reish, looks very similar, it’s backwards. Although it looks…

Speaker 1:

There’s no difference, there’s no difference between two walls, there’s no difference to how you make the shape. It’s true. It could be that in lashon kodesh they were afraid that there is Hebrew script, Ashuris script, and it wasn’t at all. I don’t know. Okay.

Rabbeinu Manoach says to the contrary. He says that when one wants to make an example for a mundane thing, a size, one doesn’t use a holy name. So?

Speaker 2:

Yes, it’s interesting, because there is a holy matter, the sukkah.

Speaker 1:

It’s probably, the reality is this is a cultural thing. It was probably that way then, people called it that way.

Speaker 2:

Yes, it was found, certain numbers usually, people speak say numbers in English, even people who speak Yiddish often.

Speaker 1:

It’s the things that that’s the order. A ball was called like a round redemption, and a thing was called gamma. That was the custom how people continued.

The Law of the Third Wall by Gamma

In any case, if it’s so, then what must one do? It holds with two kosher walls, but one would have said that as long as you don’t build a third wall, it’s not yet a sukkah.

He says, no, there is a way how to make a sukkah without a proper third wall, with something that is a weak wall, but it gets the status of a wall. So what?

One makes a wall that has a width of more than a tefach, I can make a third wall at the third side there is a very small wall, it’s only a bit larger than a tefach, and one places it less than three tefachim close to one of the two walls, he places it less than three tefachim next to the corner of one of the walls.

Laws of Sukkah – Walls (Continued)

Law 3 (Continued) – The Law of Tzurat HaPetach for a Three-Wall Sukkah

And this, now there has become a third wall of, it’s true the wall is actually only more than a tefach, but we consider the wall to be greater than four tefachim, because by the three tefachim there is lavud, as we learned earlier that any breach that is less than three tefachim, we view it as if it’s covered, we don’t see it as a breach. So here there are two complete walls with another wall of a few tefachim.

Right, that is to say, that is to say means, lehafika, soon we will see that if it’s open, that is, we see here all the time that when two walls come together, it is more, it means it’s already more closed than when it’s mefulash, when one can go completely through, because here there’s already a place where one cannot go through, it’s already a closed place.

So if you have here like four, and four is like a majority, that’s the idea, right? Four is a majority of seven, so this is as if a majority of a third wall, so it’s already enough, it will be called three walls.

Discussion: Why Are Four Tefachim Enough?

Speaker 2:

Why are the four tefachim enough? And they learned that the width of the sukkah must be seven tefachim, right? A majority of the, so across kekulo, a majority of the wall.

Speaker 1:

It’s not a majority, as the other one says, he made lavud and a goat went through. The goat doesn’t know, the Chachamim don’t know from the concept of lavud. I don’t mean, but it’s already… It’s said, therefore I call this the concept of chalkat reshut. It has already been divided.

Again, I mean to say, if the law would have been that a wall of one tefach is enough, one wouldn’t need to place three tefachim next to the wall. One could place it by the wall. One adds to this that this way it’s a majority of seven tefachim. As if, as if, as if, you’re not truly four. It’s as if.

Here we see that as if, as the other one says that as if avodah zarah doesn’t help at all, but as if pesukah does help. I don’t know clearly if this is… That is, in the Gemara it says, in the Mishnah it says according to the claim that is invalid, lo tasisu says to stand from every side the third even a tefach, everyone knows this text. But the Gemara says that the tefach should be placed in a specific place, yes, in such a way that it should become as if lavud. I don’t know clearly why we should think this, one must learn.

The Law of Tzurat HaPetach for the Third Wall

The Rambam says further, the third wall, besides placing the tefach, one should make it in a manner that requires making for it a tzurat hapetach. The third wall should have a tzurat hapetach, which means that by the empty space one should place a beam from above, yes? A reed, a beam, it’s all the same. Therefore it doesn’t have three complete walls, it doesn’t have proper three walls.

We see that this is another stringency, that the third wall, which is not a real wall, how does it become a kosher wall? If it looks like a door. A door is never a breach, it’s normal that there should be a hole in the wall, because there is a door there.

And we have already explained, says the Rambam, what is this tzurat hapetach? The Rambam says, and we have already explained in the laws of Shabbat, in the laws of Shabbat there were many laws about how one builds something that should become a wall and the like, we were taught that the tzurat hapetach mentioned everywhere doesn’t mean that one must have two doorposts and a complete threshold, rather even a reed here and a reed here and a reed upon them, even just small pieces of wood. Even if the reed that lies horizontally doesn’t touch the reed that lies vertically, it’s still called a tzurat hapetach.

Discussion: The Tefach and the Tzurat HaPetach

Speaker 2:

But it still must have a tefach, yes? Even if one makes a tzurat hapetach, one must be a…

Speaker 1:

Ah, the previous tefach, yes, apparently. The tzurat hapetach cannot be instead of a complete wall. It’s still like a stringency, so it seems. Besides needing to place the tefach, one must also place that the entire wall should look as if like a complete wall, one makes a tzurat hapetach there, yes.

Speaker 2:

Up to the entire seven, for the next three tefachim as if, does he perhaps also cover the… But by the area of lavud he places it there, but by the other wall, how does he place it there?

Speaker 1:

Ah, I understand, simply it’s with the other wall, other side.

Speaker 2:

No, but the reed must be like on two pieces of wood.

Speaker 1:

The reeds can hang…

Speaker 2:

Yes, he must add a piece of wood. But the wood that he adds… is it enough that it’s like together? That there’s a reed and it just extends out with reed and with reed and with reed and with reed. He just places it just yes by the…

Speaker 1:

Right, he must add. Basically, he must buy another piece of wood. But that wood doesn’t have to be a tefach. It can be a reed, it can be very thin. It can be like a string, like we do by the eruv.

Speaker 2:

Ah, one must be a tefach, because that one is the wall. And the other makes it for a tzurat hapetach. Like the… is there a picture?

Speaker 1:

But is it certain that the tzurat hapetach cannot be on the other side there where we say the lavud? Wouldn’t it help?

Speaker 2:

Apparently not.

Speaker 1:

I want to show the picture, so we’ll see the picture. This seems to me the simple meaning of the Rambam. I mean there are perhaps those who learn differently, but the simple meaning, this is how one makes it. That here may be open, because here it’s already lavud, here one can already there, it’s lavud, and here it is indeed open, but tzurat hapetach helps for this. This is how one views it as if there is a third wall.

The Law of the Third Wall by Mefulash (Two Walls That Don’t Touch)

The Rambam says another case. What is something a bit worse? We learned that when one makes the third wall, the first two should touch. He says, there is a way even when the two walls don’t touch. We said the walls, even if it’s open, a wall here and a wall here. How can one make this into kosher two walls?

So like this, one makes a wall that has a width of four tefachim and a bit, one should make the wall that we learned earlier, not like before. Now one must make a complete four tefachim. A real four tefachim. Lavud wouldn’t help here. And one still makes lavud. But now one makes a complete four tefachim, plus lavud. And a bit. And one places it less than three.

Speaker 2:

Do we have a picture of this too?

Speaker 1:

He has a picture of it.

Laws of Sukkah – Walls (Continued)

Law 3 (Continued) – The Law of Tzurat HaPetach for a Three-Wall Sukkah

Speaker 1: Now one must make a complete four tefachim. A real four tefachim. Lavud doesn’t help here. And one still makes lavud. But now one makes a complete four tefachim, plus lavud. And a bit. And one places it less than three… Do we have a picture of this too? One places it or less than three adjacent to one of the two walls. He places it less than three tefachim next to one of the three walls.

So, what does it mean that it’s connected with the wall with the lavud? Lavud means like davuk, that it’s connected. If it means like it’s connected to the wall, and you now have seven tefachim you already have here, because it’s four tefachim with three tefachim of lavud. And it’s kosher.

But here further what is the wall of seven tefachim. What is the new wall of four tefachim, one must however add tzurat hapetach so that it should also touch the other side wall. Doesn’t mean with the wall, rather that it should be like an opening between the new wall and the other side wall.

Dispute Among Rishonim Regarding Tzurat HaPetach

It’s not clear. On this there are indeed Rishonim who argue. I mean, the Rav is on the spot. And they don’t understand why also in this case one has tzurat hapetach. Because the previous case was only a small wall of a tefach, but you now have a full wall of seven tefachim. But the Rambam rules that what the Gemara says that one needs to make tzurat hapetach applies to both.

The dispute is on what it says in the Gemara that one must make tzurat hapetach, does it apply only to the first case when one makes a wall of a tefach, or also when one makes a wall of three tefachim.

Question: Where Does One Place the Tzurat HaPetach?

There’s also another question, I see that all the commentators here assume that the tzurat hapetach one places on the same side where one places the half wall. There are those who argue, and I see that Rabbi Rabinowitz means for some reason or another, yes, the tzurat hapetach one places on the fourth wall. It makes a bit more sense. One only needs three, the fourth one doesn’t need at all, so we understood. Perhaps a new law emerges that every sukkah has only three walls and on the fourth a tzurat hapetach?

For example, here it’s a bit funny, because you say lavud? You make another lavud opening a tefach from the lavud? It doesn’t make much sense. Actually, the fourth wall always anyway has the tzurat hapetach, because you place s’chach on top, so the s’chach makes it a roof. I really don’t know.

Question: Why Isn’t the S’chach Enough for Tzurat HaPetach?

And why by this also? Ah, it’s not enough. Do you see that it’s not enough? By here also, here is s’chach on top, right? It’s always the s’chach from above. It seems that the s’chach is not enough for a tzurat hapetach. One must add something a piece… something a reed. It’s a special… No, so it shouldn’t come out that the wall is not a real wall, it’s just something a small piece of a wall. It’s a good question. Just like that, why doesn’t the s’chach count as a tzurat hapetach?

And alternatively, perhaps it means the extra beam that one must place, the… the… the… like the lechi, as if that one places. I don’t know. I don’t understand clearly. Not clear.

The Rama’s Position Regarding S’chach as Tzurat HaPetach

Okay. And one must mention that the Rama says, he brings it here. The Rama says further in Sukkah that the custom is to make sukkot with four walls, because when one makes all these tricks of three walls many questions arise, and not all people know the laws. So the custom is usually to make four walls in a sukkah, so it says in the Rama.

Ah, and the Rama indeed also says this that the s’chach itself can be. If the s’chach and the reed come until the s’chach, that is, the Ohr HaMeir’s innovation is when there is no s’chach there, or something like that. When one will use later, one must still make a gap, or something that the s’chach doesn’t touch close to the wall. But if the s’chach touches close to the wall, that itself makes the tzurat hapetach. Okay, that’s the matter.

Beyond Law 4 – Connection of Walls with S’chach and with Ground

Now we’re going to learn about the… Until now we learned about the walls, like the side of the walls, how much there must be. Now we’re going to learn about the connection of the walls with the roof and with the floor, how close it must be, how connected it must be. Let’s learn section law 4.

Law 3 (Continued) – Reeds Extending from the S’chach of the Sukkah

Speaker 1: Yes, the Rambam says, “Reeds extending…” Ah, sorry, one law before, I forgot. There’s another law. Sorry, yes, one law. It seems that it’s connected with this, I don’t know what is part of the law, but it’s a different situation, I don’t know. “Reeds extending from the s’chach of the sukkah in front of the sukkah”.

What happens in a case? This is a law of the walls. He doesn’t speak here clearly about what he’s speaking. When there is a sukkah of three walls, but one side wall is much longer than the other side wall, and there is also s’chach there. So, if there wouldn’t be s’chach, there would only be s’chach on the wall, it would be a problem, yes? There is no s’chach. Without s’chach you can’t sit, there’s no doubt.

Okay, so our problem here is that there is, let’s say like this, there are two full walls, and then there is a third, there is also the measure is there, there are seven tefachim wall, but it doesn’t go until the corner. So it’s like a half wall. It would be a problem, you might have thought that a half sukkah is not kosher, because for the half sukkah there aren’t complete three walls.

The Rambam’s Language

But one doesn’t say so. Since the s’chach goes until the end, so he says like this: “Reeds extending from the s’chach of the sukkah in front of the sukkah” – it sticks out by the side. It’s interesting, because the Rambam doesn’t say… he doesn’t give the words, he doesn’t give the example. It seems that the commentators looked into the Gemara, and they figured out what we’re talking about.

The “reeds extending from the s’chach of the sukkah” – there is extra s’chach also by the side of the sukkah where there is no wall – “in front of the sukkah, and one wall extends with them” – the other wall. I mean one should also put in the picture, and one should know what we’re talking about. One wall continues with. Simply this… one wall continues with. “They are like a sukkah” – one means to say that the… “They are like a sukkah” it says, I don’t know, the reeds, as if the… the reeds become like a wall of the sukkah. That is, that the reeds means apparently s’chach here. The beam means the beam of the s’chach. So the reeds one used to place, I don’t know. The top of the s’chach continues with. So apparently there is only one wall basically, right? In the area. But the whole thing connects, it’s a part of the sukkah. The long sukkah means apparently that one doesn’t say that one stops the sukkah here, the sukkah continues with.

Discussion: Why Does This Work?

Speaker 2: But I want to understand, why does this work? Why shouldn’t one say that there are already three walls? Because the third wall is a wall of seven tefachim.

Speaker 1: No, there is one wall. One.

Speaker 2: Where is the other?

Speaker 1: In the area, in the front here, there is nothing but one corner.

Speaker 2: Yes, we’re talking about this. But does one look at the sukkah at every corner? One looks that there is a measure of sukkah of three complete walls.

Speaker 1: Very good, that’s indeed the answer. If one looks in a comprehensive manner, one indeed looks at every corner. If there will be a corner, let’s understand, if here there is no one wall, it doesn’t help. The s’chach just sticks out in a sukkah. You have the s’chach, you don’t have walls. Since you have one wall, the sukkah continues.

This is true, it’s not simple that if for example a person makes that the s’chach runs a large area, and only the first part of it has only three walls, it wouldn’t be kosher. Even the three walls is kosher, it would only be kosher in the three walls. Here it becomes kosher even outside of the three walls. The area is outside of the three walls.

Speaker 2: Right. It’s indeed because the reason why it’s good is because of what you say, because now one views it that if it would be on both sides it indeed wouldn’t be good. When the sukkah would run further with both sides, one would only be able to sit under the… until where the walls go.

Speaker 1: You mean that the sukkah is empty from both sides?

Speaker 2: Yes, if there wouldn’t be one wall extending with them, one wouldn’t be able to sit under the s’chach in that area.

Speaker 1: Right. Right. That’s the sort. We’ll see later about when one says that one looks how the roof comes down.

Law 4 – Connection of Walls with S’chach and with Ground

Introduction: S’chach and Walls

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s see. So, but for a roof one always needs the walls. It doesn’t help. Just a roof without the walls never helps. Except… no, almost never. Let’s see. In any case, here is the law here. Now we can learn what I said that we’re going to learn. That how connected the walls must be with the roof and with the floor. Yes?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Walls Attached to the Roof – Walls Hanging from Above

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, now we’re going to talk more about the walls. Walls that were attached to the roof of the sukkah, one made walls and they are connected to the s’chach, so the s’chach touches the walls, and they didn’t reach the ground. Let’s say one made curtains that can hang, yes, anything can hang, one has it well to… You ask connected, false, whatever, something. And it touches below, the walls don’t come until the floor. Does this count as walls or not?

Ah, so the answer is like this: if they are high from the ground three tefachim, it’s invalid, because there are no walls until below. But if less than this, it’s less than three tefachim, it’s again the same rule that we already said, the rule that is called lavud, that we view it as if it does come until the floor.

Walls Attached to the Ground – Walls Standing from Below

What’s the opposite? If there are walls from below, but they don’t touch the s’chach from above, then… yes, what happens in the opposite case? “Hayu devukos ba’aretz v’lo magi’os las’chach.” The problem is, the wall doesn’t reach up to the roof, to the s’chach. So “im gevohos asarah tefachim,” if the walls are ten tefachim high, then you don’t need lavud, it doesn’t need to be so close to the s’chach within three tefachim, rather “afilú im hayu rechokim min hagag kamah amos,” even if there are amos, even several amos away from the roof, “it is kosher.” Less than twenty, right?

Speaker 2: What? Less than twenty.

Speaker 1: Certainly yes. Then it’s still kosher. Why? Because the… as long as there’s a mechitzah, defanos mechubaros k’neged zo k’neged zo, there’s a halachah that says that the… yes, about this one says pi tikrah, yes? That means gud asik mechitzasa. No, not pi tikrah. Gud asik mechitzasa. We view it as if the s’chach comes down and makes walls. Not that it comes down. That means, the moment you have a complete mechitzah, it doesn’t matter that the entire mechitzah should reach up to the roof. That’s basically the meaning.

Distinction Between the Two Cases

But gud asik mechitzasa wouldn’t help in the previous case, then you need lavud. “V’lo hayu magi’os la’aretz.” Yes, because there’s no mechitzah. And because you don’t have a mechitzah, you don’t have ten tefachim. If you do have ten tefachim, it doesn’t matter about the tefachim.

Gud Asik Mechitzasa, Lavud, and the Strength of Walls

Gud Asik Mechitzasa — Explanation of the Principle

Speaker 1:

Not that it comes down, on the contrary, the s’chach is a mechitzah. We view it as if the mechitzah of ten tefachim would reach up to the roof, to the s’chach. That means, the moment you have a complete mechitzah, it doesn’t matter that the entire mechitzah should reach up to the roof. That’s basically the meaning.

Distinction Between Gud Asik and Gud Achis

But gud asik mechitzasa wouldn’t help in the previous case, then you need lavud. This is not like gud achis. By the “v’lo yargish l’orah.” Yes, because there’s no mechitzah, because you don’t have a mechitzah, you don’t have ten tefachim. If you do have a full ten tefachim, it doesn’t go down when it has ten tefachim. The wall has ten tefachim, it’s not a simple wall, it’s a good wall.

Because if I wouldn’t make this distinction, it would be a greater chiddush to say that we can say gud achis mechitzasa, that the mechitzah comes down to the bottom. It doesn’t work that way. It was that there is something else there. If I remember from the Gemara, below is where the mechitzah is needed. The Gemara says that goats come in. Above you’re protected, but above is open. But below, it’s not enough that there’s a din of a wall, there must be a wall that provides some protection or privacy or whatever it is. And because it says in the Gemara, a mechitzah… that’s what he says. Therefore you need to have lavud there. Mah she’ein kein above, from the roof, from the wall, from the roof, from the wall, you don’t need lavud, rather the din that we consider as if the roof goes up to the wall, to the s’chach.

The Logic of This Distinction

In other words, all these leniencies, gud achis, gud asik, and the like, are about establishing that this is a proper and enclosed place. Everyone understands that you enclose from below. Usually when you make a gate, a gate comes from below. Okay, there can be a little space between the floor too, but not completely. Even in reality, in the world it’s like this, that’s how you actually build, right?

From above, even if you wanted, a sukkah needs a roof, a sukkah can never be without a roof. Okay, if the roof won’t touch, you look at it, you see that it reaches there. But from above you can’t say that a roof hangs, a mechitzah there, I don’t know, in the air, it doesn’t come in. It’s very logical, it’s not…

Distance of the Roof from the Wall Three Tefachim

Now, says the Rambam, but… what does it mean, I just learned, it must be aligned. It turns out, when can we say that it’s as if the wall goes up to the top? When they align, when from the side, they lie on the same plane. But “richuk hagag min hadofen sheloshah tefachim,” but if it’s made that the roof sticks out, it extends further, or it’s in or out. Both ways, right?

Speaker 2:

No, no, when it ends, meaning three tefachim before the… if it goes longer you don’t care. It ends three tefachim before the…

Speaker 1:

Yes, yes, that’s what it seems to mean. I mean that there’s a wall, it seems to me that it goes more. I mean that you go a wall three tefachim, perhaps yes, because it must be visual, it should look like it’s a continuation. I mean that’s what it means… I thought about this. It doesn’t go to the hands. I mean that’s what it means, yes.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

But “richuk hagag min hadofen sheloshah tefachim”. But if the roof is far from the wall, three tefachim, meaning that the roof doesn’t go to the end, to where the wall goes, then “pesulah,” because then you can’t say that we view the mechitzos as going up, it’s not a kosher mechitzah. “Pachus mikan”? “Pachus mikan, if it’s less than three tefachim, it’s kosher,” because then we say, lavud also helps that we view the roof as going to the corner. It’s close enough, basically. Right? It’s close enough. So here it’s close enough in the corner. Right, it reaches to the… well, it reaches to the… lavud helps that we view the roof as going to the corner. Also, it reaches to the top, and at the top it’s next to the roof. Then it’s as if, k’ilu, that’s how we describe the situation.

A Suspended Mechitzah in the Middle — Combination of Lavud and Gud Asik

Now there’s a way that you can make a very small mechitzah. We learned earlier that it’s… once you know the secret of lavud, and the secret of gud asik mechitzasa. Let’s explain the term gud asik mechitzasa. We consider as if the mechitzah goes up. Asik means… and what does gud mean? Asik means going up, but it can go down. What does the term gud mean? I don’t know that. Gud, gud, gud. What’s the meaning?

Speaker 2:

I don’t remember.

Speaker 1:

Okay. I remember, I also don’t know. Don’t you have gud gud, Denny?

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Speaker 1:

No, the one before isn’t.

So lavud, you can use both tricks. That means you can make a small mechitzah, where below it should be within three tefachim close to the ground you use lavud, and above you should use gud asik mechitzasa. That’s also good, says the Rambam. That means you shouldn’t think that you can only accept one of the so-called mechitzos at once. One could have thought so, someone would have thought that if you use more than one at once, it doesn’t really look like a wall, but no, you can. “Talin hamechitzah shegavhah arba’ah u’mashehu ba’emtza,” if there’s a suspended mechitzah that’s four and a bit high in the middle, “b’fachus misheloshah samuach la’aretz” within “pachus misheloshah samuach lagag, harei zo kesheirah,” because between all of them you have a mechitzah that is halachically ten high. It’s not actually ten high, but with the lavud and with the gud asik it’s ten high, and also it’s less than three close to the roof.

Discussion: Here Only Lavud Works, Not Gud Asik

Here it must be less than three, here the bent wall won’t help. Here basically there’s no gud asik, there’s only lavud. There’s a problem. The chiddush here is that lavud can go both ways.

It’s not clear, in the halachah you don’t see clearly when there’s a din of gud asik that does more than lavud. I mean, earlier, yes, when there’s a full ten tefachim. But here the simple understanding is, only lavud works. Why? Because you can’t add gud asik to a fake mechitzah. That’s how it looks.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

That’s what they say. Gud asik is only on a real mechitzah. But everyone understands it. The logic also says so. No, it could be that the chiddush here is, it could be that we would have said it’s an extra thing. But here we want that we should view the mechitzah as complete. Here the problem is something else, that the mechitzah didn’t stand, and it’s not ten. He says that this now counts as a mechitzah of ten. I agree, but… but I don’t like that the same halachah can’t also serve lavud. Yes, gud asik we say that we view as if the roof reaches to the s’chach. But here, you already need to use lavud so it should be ten.

Question: If We Use Lavud Below, Perhaps Gud Asik Above?

Speaker 2:

It says there, if there is a mechitzah of ten, and below you use lavud, perhaps above you would also use gud asik mechitzasa. The point here is that even when there isn’t ten, you use both ways lavud.

Speaker 1:

It says here, when the mechitzah stood, it only stood here a full ten tefachim, I don’t know. I understand what you’re asking. That’s what Moshe made, if the wall would have been seven and a half, and below you would have used lavud, perhaps above… I understand what you’re asking.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Halachah 5: Strength of Walls — One Who Makes His Sukkah Between Trees

So as we have, we learned about the size of the walls, more the connection of the walls with the other things. Not really the material of the walls, because that’s what I thought. Later, the end of the chapter says that the material of the walls can be anything. What we’re now going to learn is more the strength of the walls, because material has no halachos. S’chach has halachos about what it can be from… but the wall must be strong enough.

He says like this: “Ha’oseh sukaso bein ha’ilanos, v’ha’ilanos defanos” — the trees can be walls. Different from what we’ll see by s’chach, it can’t be attached to the ground, but the walls can be called walls. The chiddush here isn’t that, but the next piece. “Im hayu chazakim” — but there’s a condition, it must be strong walls. If they are strong, thick trees that don’t sway too much, “o shekashar osam v’chizek osam ad shelo tehei ruach metzuyah menidah osam tamid” — or he tied them strong enough that when there’s a regular wind that we can expect, it wouldn’t shake.

Filling Between the Branches

And later there’s a problem that a tree also has more flexible parts, the leaves that do blow around in a ruach metzuyah. “U’milei bein ha’amirim b’teven u’vekash kedei shelo sanid osam haruach, u’keshar osam” — between the… what does the word “amirim” mean?

Speaker 2:

Like “gargerim b’rosh amir.”

Speaker 1:

It means something like the branches. The same thing as “omer” with an ayin?

Speaker 2:

No, “amir.”

Speaker 1:

Okay, the branches. “B’teven u’vekash,” he put things between them “kedei shelo sanid osam haruach, u’keshar osam.” Does it require both things?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

Why does it also require putting straw and hay? Because it’s not about holes. The whole thing isn’t the holes. It shouldn’t move. It seems that the “keshar osam” didn’t help. You have to do it well so it shouldn’t move, whatever the practicality is.

Principle: A Mechitzah That Cannot Stand in a Common Wind

Okay, “harei zo kesheirah.” Why? “Shekol mechitzah she’einah yecholah la’amod b’ruach metzuyah shel yabashah” — a mechitzah that can’t remain standing in a proper common wind that occurs on dry land, there on the sea there are other types of common winds. Even then it only needs to stand in a common wind of dry land. “Einah mechitzah” — is not called a mechitzah. Therefore you must do all these things so it can stand in a common wind.

Discussion: What Does “Ruach Metzuyah” Mean?

What does the term “ruach metzuyah” mean? Ruach metzuyah means what is common every day. Because for example, yes, there are people who every Sukkos, when there’s a bit of wind, Sukkos falls apart from the world. No, that’s not a ruach metzuyah. Ruach metzuyah means what happens once every few weeks. But if, let’s say, every Sukkos there’s such a… let’s say such a storm happens once every two-three weeks there’s such a storm. It’s not a number. It means it’s not a storm. That’s not considered a storm, but regular wind, regular air. That’s what I mean. Not that. Making a calculation, every one of every ten, no difference. Every year there are storms. Storms are a normal thing.

But I want to say, for example, an area where there are really common storms. Would you say that’s not ruach metzuyah, because… common storms is still not normal. It’s becoming climate change now, yes? There are more and more winds. Will we say that it remains still… the term ruach metzuyah. Ruach metzuyah remains ruach metzuyah, or according to the situation, according to the place, according to the…

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Speaker 1:

Probably according to reality, but metzuyah doesn’t mean that you make a number of how many days there are storms. If there are many storms, that’s stormy weather. I don’t believe that’s what it means. Metzuyah means what is not a storm, a normal wind that comes daily. Something that doesn’t get awareness for it. That’s exactly the point, that the sea… there are always greater winds, but the Gemara says we don’t reckon with that. Winds from the sea. Because that still counts as a wall.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

What does it look like? Certainly, when it’s fallen down it’s no longer a wall. We’re talking now that before… yes, it should be called kosher even before there was a need to… right. So in other words, so let’s go back to our logic from before. People make such structures that fly in the air, yes. When there’s a storm, you put it away. Okay, it’s a problem. So that’s called a wind. That means such a type of thing that nobody makes. I mean, someone who wants something, it should be a piece of sukkah, he doesn’t make, it’s out wall. Do you understand?

Now, says the holy Rav, now we’ve learned about the walls, now we’re going to learn about the floor of the sukkah, something about where to place it. Not the floor, but where the sukkah is.

Laws of Sukkah: The Floor of the Sukkah, Shapes of the Sukkah, and Mechitzos

Halachah 5: The Floor of the Sukkah — Sukkah on a Wagon, Ship, Tree, Camel

Speaker 1: People make such structures that fly in the air, yes. When a storm comes, you put it away. Okay, it’s a problem. So that’s called a wind. That means such a thing that nobody makes, someone who wants something, it should be a piece of sukkah, he doesn’t make, it’s out wall. Do you understand?

Now says the holy Rav, now we’ve learned about the walls. Now we can learn about the floor of the sukkah, something about the sukkah. About placing it. But where you place it.

Speaker 2: Yes, I don’t know. Something is…

Speaker 1: That’s what the Rebbe Alleviner tried to say, but he wanted to talk about all six sides. But as if below, where do you make it? That’s a chiddush. Like Rosh Hagalah, a person gave thought, you don’t build houses on a… I mean it’s not a way.

Hagalah doesn’t mean a… hagalah means a wagon. A wagon, I don’t know.

Speaker 2: It will be on a camel too, but a camel will be a problem.

Speaker 1: An elephant, must be big enough.

Speaker 2: No, it’s a living creature, soon we’ll see if living creatures are kosher. As walls?

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: No, here we’re talking as a floor.

Speaker 1: The wall is the same?

Speaker 2: There’s no din of floor. It just needs to rest on something, on a… it shouldn’t be in the air.

Speaker 1: There’s certainly a… very good. Every sukkah, you say, a wall, the third wall can be empty. A floor must be completely full. I don’t know where else… where can you fall?

Speaker 2: Yes, but a… it’s on an elephant, that’s the floor. The elephant is its floor.

Speaker 1: According to the foolishness that the world stands on turtles, does that mean he can’t because he stands on a turtle?

Speaker 2: Already.

Speaker 1: He makes a sukkah on a wagon, a horse and wagon, an agalah. Agalah or agalah? Which do you say for an animal?

Speaker 2: Eglah is an egel, is a female of an egel, and agalah is a wagon.

Speaker 1: If one makes on a ship or on a ship, in advance, so he can use the sukkah when he travels Chol HaMoed, and the like. It’s kosher, it’s kosher, v’olin on Yom Tov. You may also go up on Yom Tov, because you may go up on Yom Tov on a ship or a wagon.

But he makes it on the top of a tree or on the back of a camel, he makes it on the top of a tree. Rosh doesn’t mean the tip, it means the top of a tree. Or on the back of a camel, on the back of a camel. We’re talking about if the back of the camel is large enough in size, yes, he can build a sukkah there of seven by seven, it is also kosher, because as we once said that the floor is also, anything can be called a floor.

Innovation: Prohibition to Climb a Tree on Yom Tov

But regarding the law of rosh ha’ilan you must remember that one may not ascend it on Yom Tov, one may not go up on it on Yom Tov. Why? Because it is forbidden to climb a tree or upon an animal. There is a prohibition on Shabbat and Yom Tov that one may not climb a tree or an animal. In both cases there is the concern that one will cut off a piece from the tree, and that is the melacha of kotzer (reaping), or simply because when one climbs a tree, that’s what one does. And also the same thing on a camel, because to drive the camel one also uses a rod, a stick, so one won’t be allowed.

Presumably here the innovation is that you shouldn’t think that because he made an entire structure that is fixed, perhaps one shouldn’t be concerned, because I know, a different kind of situation? No, the decree of “forbidden to climb” still applies.

Law 6: Part Walls Made by Man and Part Trees

Speaker 1: If part of the walls were made by human hands. Here is something interesting. We learned earlier that one can make the trees be walls. He says, what happens if one made half… between the trees one built, one laid wood.

Speaker 2: Not between, on the trees, because one may walk between trees on Shabbat.

Speaker 1: It must be talking about that he built the sukkah in the trees, part of them are lying on the…

Speaker 2: Ah, in the tree he built?

Speaker 1: Part are by human hands, and part are trees. In the tree he made such a tree-house, halfway though, he made a bit of walls. So, we see as if the trees were removed, if it could stand with the walls made by human hands.

Speaker 2: No, he’s talking about… walls means he set up a sukkah from above, he has a bit of one beam.

Speaker 1: It’s the walls, but he made beams, he made pillars somewhere that stand earlier, here there is a pole somewhere. He built a kind of tree-house on a tree, but he also built under it a structure to hold the sukkah. So now we look, if the structure only helps, but the main thing is the trees, if the trees were removed, when he doesn’t have the branches of the tree to hold up the sukkah, it couldn’t stand on the walls made by human hands, one may ascend it on Yom Tov.

Innovation: Using the Walls, Not the Tree

That means, someone built a tall sukkah, but he uses the trees as a wall somewhere, or a bit for a floor also. But as long as the tree doesn’t hold it up, one removes the tree it still stands, he can ascend even though he uses it. The innovation is as if, I’m not climbing on the tree, I’m climbing, let’s say, I made steps and I made a… but it stands on a tree. So now the question is, does that mean he was ascending the tree on Yom Tov or not?

We say that it depends if it holds it. Very interesting, we see all the time that when the Sages made a decree, we don’t look to ask if he will now be in a situation where he will tear a piece from the tree. No, there is a law, one may not climb the tree. He may be next to a tree, he is next to a tree. That is using the tree is not allowed. But here he doesn’t use the tree, because he doesn’t need the tree, he is using the walls. We say, if indeed the walls cannot stand by themselves, the tree is only a support, it doesn’t mean you are ascending the tree, it means you are ascending the sukkah.

Pictures of the Sukkah

Speaker 1: Now one can learn the next few laws until almost the end of the chapter, all kinds of other pictures of the sukkah, what is missing, what one needs to make and what not. What do the laws we’ve learned until now mean? That is, all the rules apparently we’ve already learned, perhaps the rules of the roof haven’t been learned yet. All the rules more or less we’ve already learned, it must have s’chach, it must have three-four walls, etc. Now one can learn all kinds of ways what is good and what is not.

Law 7: A Sukkah Without a Roof — Tzrif

He says, a sukkah that has no roof. A sukkah that has no roof. Obviously he doesn’t mean to say that it has no s’chach, because it must have s’chach. He means to say that the s’chach runs slanted, and he explains how. Such as when the tops of the walls are attached to each other like a tzrif. He made it so it’s a triangle type of sukkah, and the two walls go slanted, and that makes on top like many tents work this way, on top there is like a roof, but it’s not a real roof, because really it’s a wall.

Oh, another case, he leaned the slanted wall of the sukkah against a wall, one slanted wall, the second is straight, but the other side is straight, and the same wall is the s’chach, it is invalid. Why? This is also an innovation. A sukkah must have a roof. There is actually s’chach, but it doesn’t have the status of a roof, it must have the status of a roof. This is besides the fact that it must be certain material that should be s’chach from above, there is a law that it must look like walls with a roof.

At minimum, we’ll see, and if there was even a tefach, if there is indeed a bit of a roof, even if it’s only a tefach, for example the tops of the walls are attached to each other, but besides that there is still s’chach on top. Or if he raised the wall leaning against the wall from the ground, the wall leans on the wall, and the other wall that goes slanted he added a tefach from below, but he moved it a bit and he added, ah, from below?

Speaker 2: From below? That’s the point. So it means the slant means it’s like a slanted roof.

Speaker 1: Ah, it is kosher. Yes, something is the normal form, I don’t know why. There was actually a real dispute in the Mishna, right? But the Sages held that a sukkah must be a roof with walls, not just someone thought up a patent that the roof is the roof is a wall, that’s not good. One can think exactly why, one thought something like that.

Digression: Clouds of Glory

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s interesting, because the Clouds of Glory are indeed one… There isn’t one law in sukkah that we learn from how the Clouds of Glory were. Perhaps the topic of the roof. One must build as a remembrance, but yes.

Speaker 1: I say to myself, the cloud is such a large structure that surrounds. There isn’t any… yes, which isn’t relevant further. Rabbi Eliezer said it’s not good, and it’s ruled that way. What will I do?

Law 7: A Round Sukkah

People heard here that it must have four walls, you would think that a sukkah must specifically be square. It’s not clear like that. He says so, a round sukkah I’m only concerned that it should have the size, a comfortable sukkah. It doesn’t help if throughout the entire circle there will be three walls, I mean seven tefachim, that won’t help. There must be a place where there is a box of seven tefachim.

A round sukkah, if it has a circumference sufficient to square in it seven tefachim by seven tefachim, if it’s large enough, apparently this must be what, something double that, right? I don’t know exactly what the number is in the Gemara, what you don’t know you don’t know. If it has a circumference sufficient to square in it seven tefachim by seven tefachim, even though it has no corners it is kosher, because there are walls, and the measure of a comfortable three by three is also there, so it’s kosher. Even though it has no corners it is kosher.

Innovation: No Corners Necessary

There was an argument, there were also people who thought that just as the roof must be a roof with a wall, the walls must also have corners. We rule no, that a sukkah doesn’t need corners, it can be round, but it must indeed be what you say, not only is it not enough that it’s the area of seven by seven, it must have exactly enough space to insert a box of seven by seven tefachim.

Law 8: S’chach on an Achsadra

So now one can learn just an interesting law, apparently it’s simple, I don’t know exactly what is the innovation of the next law. S’chach on an achsadra. He has an achsadra, achsadra is a… one should remember achsadra from eruvin, it’s a place that has three walls, and he added s’chach from above. So, the achsadra has, the achsadra that has patzimin, the achsadra has a place where the wall becomes wider and narrower, or pillars in the middle of the wall, such a kind of thing.

Laws of Achsadra, Mavoy, and Psei Bira’ot – Continuation

Law of Achsadra with Patzimin – Pi Tikra Yored V’Sotem

No difference if from outside it’s one long wall, but inside the form of the wall changes, it goes more in, or the opposite, if from outside. From inside it’s one wall, but from outside it sticks out. And they are not visible from outside. Both ways it’s kosher.

Why? We’ll see, when it’s not kosher, we’ll understand why here it is indeed kosher.

And if not, but if it doesn’t have patzimin, it doesn’t have the place where the wall changes size, it is invalid. Why? Because it is a sukkah made like a mavoy. We look at it as a sukkah that is made like a mavoy.

What does it mean that it has only two walls? Who said it has three. Excuse me. The achsadra… yes. It has only two walls. The patzimin we look at as if it makes it like a wall. He adds, but what? What truth is indeed order in the wall? So already the one in patzimin is bent. It looks like somewhere there is a wall, but the third wall is somehow too far. Not clear. There’s some reality that I see he’s dealing with here. What is the fact whether the order has two walls or three walls? Aha.

The Maggid Mishneh’s Explanation – Pi Tikra Yored V’Sotem

Often it says that the achsadra is a thing that is a roof, that we learned apparently in achsadra. It’s not clear to me something the exact case. That is, what is the innovation? If we’re talking that there’s no wall in the back, we understand very well. We say that the patzimin makes it like a wall. There’s some innovation, even though there aren’t seven tefachim.

No, it says the patzimin must be seven tefachim. No. So, is it indeed a new innovation that patzimin is something new? Yes, we reckon that there it makes it, that there is a wall, there it makes it.

We look at it as if the s’chach comes down on the patzim, somewhere there is a roof, and we say that pi tikra yored v’sotem (the edge of the roof descends and closes). So says the Maggid Mishneh, that there’s some roof, and if there’s patzim, one can reckon the roof as a wall. Without patzim, we reckon…

But the Rambam doesn’t say anything about how a roof… ah, it’s not clear to me. In the back of the achsadra, half the achsadra is open without a roof, and there one laid s’chach. Half has a roof, so there where there is the roof it’s not kosher, yes? Because it’s not s’chach. A roof is not s’chach. It’s a roof.

Right, even if one can use the roof, it doesn’t help me. The roof, we look at it as if there where there’s patzim, there’s indeed a bit of wall. On this we say that the roof comes down. For example, the world means it’s as if there’s a complete wall there. So the remaining area is a kosher sukkah.

But if there are no patzimin, then we don’t say that pi tikra yored v’sotem, and there aren’t three complete walls. So says the Maggid.

The Rambam’s Approach – Cases, Not Rules

I don’t know what an achsadra is, I don’t know if the Rambam knew what an achsadra is. Perhaps he was plainly explaining the Gemara, and in today’s times there is no achsadra. So I mean, again, all these laws one can learn from this, but the Rambam brings the cases, not the laws.

He didn’t even say, we hold to insert things, pi tikra, gud asik. The Rambam doesn’t say one of these things, he says plainly the fact. According to his good custom, if you’re not happy, not you with Rabbi Chasdai Crescas are happy with this custom, but that’s the Rambam’s custom.

Someone should remember, if he goes to a city, he’ll find an achsadra, and he’ll have patzimin, he’ll know the law. If he wants to know the learning of pi tikra, of two therefore, of three therefore, of how far, he’ll have to learn another book, because the Rambam is not the book for him.

Difference Between Pi Tikra and Gud Asik

It’s interesting how the law will fit. For example, with the law we learned earlier, where we say gud asik, pi tikra and gud asik work differently, meaning when we say that the wall goes to the roof, and when we say that the roof comes down to the bottom?

No, with pi tikra there is no roof. A sukkah doesn’t have a roof. Pi tikra means as if… here is a wall, the sukkah goes until there and there is a wall, there everything ends. That means, an area that has a bit of a roof, you can say that this is separating, the place of the roof separates from the place of the rest. Do you understand that? That’s the idea of pi tikra. Pi tikra is not something magical.

Law 11 – Planting Four Poles on Four Corners of the Roof

Already, further the Rambam says… nothing is magical. Already, the Rambam says so: One plants four poles on the four corners of the roof. A person will make a sukkah on the second floor of his house. On the roof, as it were. On the roof of his house. But he doesn’t build any complete proper structure. But since it’s on the roof of his house, a great innovation comes here. That he plants four poles, he inserts four beams, four poles. I still couldn’t do something. I couldn’t in sorry. I couldn’t in sorry. I couldn’t in sorry.

Law 10 – S’chach on a Mavoy That Has a Lechi

Already. The Rambam says further, s’chach on a mavoy that has a lechi. Similar to achsadra, there is a thing called a mavoy. A mavoy is a place that is surrounded by three walls. A mavoy from Shabbat, yes. Surrounded by… it’s not three walls. Surrounded by two walls, and in back there is something… or there are two kinds of mavoyot. There is a closed mavoy, and there is an open mavoy.

Here we’re talking about the innovation of an open mavoy, because if not that’s not an innovation, if not it’s kosher. It’s together with a mavoy that has only two walls, and the third wall is the wall called a lechi wall. It means on the third wall there is a piece, a pole that serves regarding Shabbat, as we look at it as if that makes it like a wall.

Oh another case that we remember from the laws of Shabbat, on a well that has pasin, there was a thing called psei bira’ot, which the Sages were lenient that around a spring, usually, as long as there’s no proper, complete wall it doesn’t mean it’s a private domain.

But around a well, if one places corners such doors, such two corners, even if the posts are in total… you know, open more than closed and so on, so even most there is no wall, there’s only at the four corners there’s a bit of wall. But we learned in the laws of Shabbat, both places it means as if it’s a wall.

It means, the lechi makes the third open area make it like a wall, the lechi itself, even though the lechi doesn’t have seven tefachim, it’s not enough that it should be called a wall. And the pasin makes it like four walls, even though it’s only pasin, only small pieces. This is a leniency that the Sages permitted for pilgrims, yes, so the pilgrims could draw water.

It Is a Kosher Sukkah for That Shabbat Within the Festival Only

The Rambam says, it is a kosher sukkah for that Shabbat within the festival only. So the sukkah is kosher for that Shabbat and that Yom Tov. Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot, or Yom Tov Sukkot that falls on Shabbat, one will be able to place s’chach on the mavoy or on the pasin, on the well that has pasin, one can place s’chach, and it will be called a kosher sukkah.

Why? Because Shabbos tells us that there is a wall here. Otherwise, one wouldn’t have been permitted to carry in the mavoi or in the bor that’s in a reshus harabbim. And since the Chachamim said that this is called a wall, there can’t be a contradiction – is there a wall or isn’t there a wall? Ah, the Chachamim said that for Shabbos this is called a wall. So if it’s called a wall regarding eruv, it’s also called a wall regarding s’chach.

Since this lechi and these passin are partitions for the matter of Shabbos, we consider them as partitions for the matter of s’chach. One doesn’t make a dispute in speech and say it’s only called a wall to permit carrying, rather one says that there is here a wall, a halachic wall.

And likewise, it wouldn’t help for Sukkos which is not on Shabbos, because we know that regarding sukkah a wall is not enough. But for Shabbos we see here a wall, one who sees with Torah eyes sees here a wall, so it’s called a wall also regarding sukkah.

It’s Not Torah Eyes – It’s a Fact

It’s not Torah eyes, by the way, because you see that people conduct themselves on Shabbos that this is a reshus hayachid. Afterwards, certainly, the Torah made it so. But it’s a fact. One draws water, one may. What does it mean one draws water? It’s lying there in order to draw. Ah, there’s a sukkah? Nu, one draws water. The animal drinks from a sukkah. It’s a tzaddik, the animal only drinks water in a sukkah.

The point is that you understand, in short, it’s a kula, but I think one hasn’t arrived at the lomdus. One can say that it’s a fact that one conducts oneself, on Shabbos one conducts oneself here differently than the whole week, so that’s still a strong thing. Because on Shabbos a Jew doesn’t carry in a reshus harabbim, but here he does carry, so it comes out that he conducts himself here like an extra reshus.

The Rema’s Chiddush – Only When the Lechi Helps L’halacha

But there’s an interesting Rema. The Rema says that it actually only helps when l’halacha it helps, because the pasei bira’os is a din regarding olei regalim. So when the olei regalim go and the pasei bira’os helps, it will help. Sukkos is a time when olei regalim go, but it won’t help just like that.

And the same thing the Mishnah Berurah says, that in a case where the lechi wouldn’t help, for example because of one of the previous halachos that we spoke about in hilchos eruvin, some error where the lechi wouldn’t help, when there’s no other wall in the back and the like.

Or even more, in other words, the Rema means to say, imagine someone needs for Shabbos Sukkos a large sukkah, he thinks “ah, I don’t have strength, I don’t need to make a whole wall, I only need to make pasei bira’os, I don’t even need a bor.” No, he does need a bor, because he needs it for the lechi, there where we reckon it as a reshus, there those other things serve their function, and then it can already serve for a sukkah too.

One sees from the Rema like my sevara, that it’s more a practical thing, one uses it on Shabbos.

The Sevara of This Din – Mechitzah, Not Just Dofen

Chassidic sefarim love the toros, Shabbos, Sukkos, etc. But the simple pshat is a simple logical thing, that today one conducts oneself this way. It was said that the mechitzas sukkah is like this, one sees the whole time that it has a din mechitzah, not just a din dofen. It’s a matter of mechitzah, it makes an extra reshus, and now it’s an extra reshus.

So when the Rambam said lechi, he said as we explained regarding Shabbos, perhaps he also means to hint at this, that the lechi is not essentially a good wall, but that lechi is good for a whole… no, but perhaps there are like two levels in this, that the reason why a lechi works is also only because the Chachamim created it for Shabbos. The kula of lechi they created for Shabbos. We already spoke in hilchos Shabbos that apparently a lechi is something that architects used to make even for halachos Shabbos.

Hilchos Sukkah — Dafnos HaSukkah: Gud Asik Mechitzasa, Parutz Merubeh Al Ha’omed, U’Mi’ut Govah

Digression: Pasei Bira’os Today — Olei Regalim and Tzorchei Mitzvah

Speaker 1: Okay, I understand what you’re saying. Okay. Let’s go learn now. But it’s interesting the dispute between the Rema and the other poskim, whether one says that because today one does it as an actual thing, or only when it’s literally…

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: So apparently according to this there isn’t today the din pasei bira’os at all.

Speaker 2: So according to this when there’s oleh regel.

Speaker 1: According to the Rema’s chumra, yes.

Speaker 2: Today there’s also oleh regel.

Speaker 1: What do you mean? A place where a large crowd goes on Yom Tov, it still doesn’t have a din oleh regel, it’s in honor of Yerushalayim. One needs to look into it there. Oleh regel isn’t just a din of tzorech mitzvah, it’s not just tzorech mitzvah, it’s something more than that.

Speaker 2: I think it says explicitly there that yes, if it doesn’t say explicitly I can say.

Speaker 1: No, I remember that it says something that it doesn’t have to be specifically oleh regalim, it can be any tzorech mitzvah or such a thing. That’s what it says there. Tzorech davar mitzvah brings it here even. If one travels to the Rebbe it can also help, understand? I don’t know, one needs to know whether oleh regel means a matter of tzorchei.

Speaker 2: Yes, it says explicitly, it says explicitly.

Speaker 1: You remember so?

Speaker 2: I see that he brings it, I don’t need to remember. The tzaddik brings it, that it says l’tzorech ul’dvar mitzvah.

Speaker 1: No, but the Rebbe doesn’t speak according to the Rema.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, he doesn’t say so.

Speaker 1: That’s what the Rema says?

Speaker 2: No. Until Menasheh. Olei regalim, or in times means that olei regalim. The mitzvah then would also work, pasei bira’os also means my…

Speaker 1: Right, right. Pasei bira’os is olei regalim is the mitzvah that the Chachamim said, but it can be… I want to think in hilchos Chol HaMoed for example, is olei regalim or any tzorchei tzibbur, yes? One fixes the water of Yerushalayim for the olei regalim, but the same thing any tzorchei tzibbur.

Speaker 2: Yes, ah, you spoke that one may on Chol HaMoed.

Speaker 1: Yes, true, he certainly does true.

—

Halacha 11: Sukkah on a Roof — Gud Asik Mechitzasa

Speaker 1: Now further, the Rambam says, now one can learn about a Jew who makes a sukkah on the roof. On the roof of a house he makes a sukkah. Here there’s a great kula, that even if he didn’t make full walls, there’s some way how one looks at it as if there are walls. How?

The Rambam says like this: He planted four poles on the four corners of the roof, and put s’chach on top of them, normally this wouldn’t be enough, because there’s no wall of seven tefachim. But since the s’chach is on the edge of the roof, the s’chach is however on the tip of the roof, it’s aligned with the same as his house, it’s on the roof.

The edge of the roof is specifically when it fills the whole roof, because in the middle of the roof the Rambam rules that it doesn’t help. There’s a question in the Gemara, but the Rambam says this is the ruling that in the middle it doesn’t help. It goes to the edge of the roof, meaning the sukkah is now the same structure as the house beneath it.

Then there’s a din that the four poles, what the four poles do is, that it makes as if there were walls, and we see the lower partitions as if they rise up to the top at the edge of the s’chach, as if the walls from below are walls that go up until the top of the s’chach.

Discussion: Whether One Specifically Needs Four Poles?

Speaker 2: The poles essentially do nothing, the poles only hold the s’chach. The chiddush is the four walls that they make walls. One doesn’t need poles. If he has a way that this should hold the s’chach from the middle, I don’t know whether the… It doesn’t need to be four poles. This isn’t about four poles.

Speaker 1: Yes, because that’s practical. If a person has a way that he can make it hang there…

Speaker 2: Not a way, he builds in the middle a large pole that holds the s’chach.

Speaker 1: And also. Nu, it doesn’t say so.

Speaker 2: It says yes. How does it say that one sees that it’s poles? It doesn’t say we see the poles. It says we see the mechitzah, so it’s the place where as if the wall comes up.

Speaker 1: I don’t know, it only says about four poles.

Speaker 2: It could be that one speaks about the practicality, but I’m not sure so. If someone has a question, one should…

Speaker 1: It wasn’t not, what then will he hang it? In general, he has a large pole.

The Ra’avad Disagrees

Speaker 1: If someone has a doubt l’ma’aseh, he needs to know that the Ra’avad says that even this doesn’t work. So, the holy Ra’avad says that one should be stringent, that one needs to be machmir. The Gemara asks whether it helps, and the Gemara remains with a teiku. That’s what the Gemara says.

But the Maggid Mishneh says that there are in this two versions, and the Ra’avad had one version, and the Rambam had the version that the teiku is on a different situation.

If one asks halacha l’ma’aseh, one needs to know that there’s a great difference if one rules like the Rambam or like the Ra’avad. But regarding this, in our doubt there’s already another doubt, so I don’t know.

Okay, go well. Now.

—

Halacha 12: Parutz Merubeh Al Ha’omed

Speaker 1: Now we’re going to speak about parutz merubeh al ha’omed. We learned that there need to be walls. What happens when the walls have many holes? It depends how the holes stand, depends how the holes look.

A sukkah that has many openings, and has many windows, it has many doors, and has many windows, even in the bit that there is a wall without doors, there are also windows. This is kosher, even though parutz merubeh al ha’omed. Usually when one looks at a wall, if there are holes in the wall, they’re only holes. But if the holes, all the holes together, are more holes than the wall, it’s not called a wall, the wall becomes batel.

But that’s only when they’re holes. But if they’re doors or windows, it’s a structure that has windows, and that’s still called a wall.

The Din of Pesach Yeser Al Eser

But provided that there not be there a pesach yeser al eser. The door, it means if it’s open more than ten, even if it’s a door, it doesn’t help. There’s one way how even more than ten the door does help.

But if there was in it a pesach yeser al eser, now, if there’s a pirtzah yeser al eser, yes, open more than ten, even if it has tzuras hapesach, even if on top there’s such a pole from above, it looks like it has a tzuras hapesach, it’s necessary that the parutz not be merubeh al ha’omed, it shouldn’t be the majority of the wall.

It means, if it’s not one whole of ten, but a bunch of small ones, then even if it’s parutz merubeh al ha’omed. But if it’s one large one, then it only helps if the wall is more than, let’s say the wall is twenty-two, even if the door is ten, there’s still more than ten of wall.

But in such a case one needs to be tzuras hapesach, yes? If it’s a pesach yeser al eser, even if it’s omed merubeh al haparutz, without a tzuras hapesach it also won’t help, because a door only goes until ten without a tzuras hapesach.

Discussion: Whether Tzuras Hapesach Helps by Yeser Al Eser

Speaker 2: Tzuras hapesach doesn’t make any difference.

Speaker 1: It does make a difference, certainly. That’s what I want to say now. If it’s pesach yeser al eser, even if it’s omed merubeh al haparutz, it won’t be good only if there’s a tzuras hapesach, because more than ten it doesn’t look like a door anymore.

Speaker 2: He says that one needs a tzuras hapesach.

Speaker 1: He says yes, but if there was in it a pesach yeser al eser, even if it has tzuras hapesach, it’s necessary that the parutz not be merubeh al ha’omed.

Speaker 2: Yes, but he doesn’t say that one needs a tzuras hapesach when it’s less.

Speaker 1: I don’t know. Not when it’s less, I’m saying. I’m saying, when it’s more omed merubeh al haparutz, it’s not the Rambam that one needs a tzuras hapesach. What he says is the opposite, what he says is not that. What he says is that majority parutz merubeh doesn’t help any tzuras hapesach. But he doesn’t say that… that…

But I don’t know if more than ten amos without a tzuras hapesach is still called a pesach.

Speaker 2: It’s already called a pirtzah.

Speaker 1: No, you need to remember that this is a dispute that the Rambam and many other Jews in hilchos Shabbos. The Rambam in hilchos Shabbos also wrote the same halacha, that a pesach yeser al eser doesn’t help any tzuras hapesach, because it never helps.

We don’t conduct ourselves so, yes? All our eruvin, or very many of them, have tzuras hapesach, even yeser al eser amos, even parutz merubeh al ha’omed, everything, why? Because we say that it does help. But the Rambam holds that it doesn’t help.

It seems that this is the same shita of the Rambam, who holds that tzuras hapesach doesn’t help. The one who holds that tzuras hapesach helps, it will always help. But the Rambam holds that it helps.

And if it’s less than ten tefachim, it could be one doesn’t need any tzuras hapesach. Understand what I’m saying? I don’t yet know whether one needs. He doesn’t say clearly.

Speaker 2: I don’t see that he says, because he says clearly, if it’s less than ten amos, he doesn’t even need any tzuras hapesachim, it can even be parutz merubeh.

Speaker 1: If it says tzuras hapesach?

Speaker 2: No, he doesn’t say. He says even if there is tzuras hapesach. When it’s more than ten…

Speaker 1: Because someone would have thought, again, until ten amos doesn’t bother me. You can be completely open as much as you want. More than ten amos, no sukkah. A Jew comes and says, no, I’ll make a tzuras hapesach. The Rambam says, it doesn’t help. That’s what it says in the Rambam. Nothing more is written.

Back to the Question of Shi’ur Mechitzah

Speaker 1: And they learned earlier that even by the… It’s interesting, they learned earlier that even by the sukkah that has only two dafnos, and the third one needs to make tzuras hapesach, yes? But it doesn’t say about parutz merubeh al ha’omed.

That means, the parutz merubeh speaks that it does have somewhere seven tefachim, three whole walls, right?

Speaker 2: Okay, that’s an extra discussion about… whether if there aren’t seven tefachim it won’t help that the ten is a pesach. It still needs to be that the wall needs to have a shi’ur wall.

Speaker 1: Right, there must be somewhere like the minimum. It needs to be both things, there needs to be a shi’ur wall, and it needs to be omed merubeh al haparutz if it’s more than ten amos.

Speaker 2: One shouldn’t need not.

Speaker 1: No, even ten amos, if the wall isn’t ten tefachim, seven and a half tefachim, it won’t help that there’s ten…

Speaker 2: Okay, it also won’t be, it will be called also parutz merubeh al ha’omed.

Speaker 1: Okay, no, it won’t be anything.

Now. Further.

—

Halacha 13: Mi’ut Sukkah Gevohah Me’esrim Amah

Speaker 1: Okay, now one can learn what we learned earlier, that this is if a person has, he says, a sukkah that’s a bit too large, and he wants to make it smaller.

Ah, they learned that if it’s a sukkah that is high above twenty amos, it’s invalid, the first Mishnah, so what happens if someone wants to fix it? How can one fix it?

A sukkah that is high above twenty amos, and he wants to reduce it, he puts in there cushions on the floor, yes? If he reduced it with cushions and blankets, it’s not a reduction. That doesn’t mean the sukkah has now become lower, because the cushions and blankets don’t now become a floor. He thinks, ah, there’s a floor, that’s not called a floor. Even if he was mevatel, even if he was mevatel it, he decided that he’s going to leave the cushions and blankets there, that’s not called a floor, because one can take it away.

But if he reduced it with straw and was mevatel it, then the straw now becomes a part of the floor. So this is a reduction, it means yes, now there’s no longer air high twenty in the sukkah.

And needless to say earth and was mevatel it, it’s certainly that this is called a way. But both need to be bittul. He left it there, and he plans to leave it there.

But with earth without specification it’s not a reduction. Even earth without bittul doesn’t help. Or straw also, apparently, the same thing.

Question: What Does “Bittul” Mean Here?

Speaker 2: How is this not that bittul needs to say kol chamira, it’s batel now?

Mi’ut Air Gavo’ah Me’esrim, Atzaba, Amud, Chakikah, U’Material of Dafnos

Mi’ut Air Through Earth and Straw (Continued)

Discussion on Halacha 4 — The Fourth Wall with Vessels, Animals, and People on Yom Tov

Continuation: Why Doesn’t Making a Fourth Wall with Vessels Constitute Building?

Speaker 1: One must know about building – what constitutes building and what doesn’t. I saw today that there’s a dispute. The Yosher Divrei Emes said, why is Kabbalah called “nistar” (hidden)? Because it cannot be explained, because it’s something of feelings with things. Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin says this doesn’t make sense. It’s called nistar because it’s not stated clearly in the Torah, it’s only hinted at. The Leshem, Rabbi Elyashiv, asks on this that Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin doesn’t understand, because if so, all of Torah she’baal peh is nistar, not just Kabbalah, nothing is stated explicitly. But the answer is, he’s correct. In the Gemara there are “sitrei Torah” (secrets of Torah), it doesn’t have to be Kabbalah. And after there’s a Gemara, it’s no longer nistar. Kabbalah has remained not explicit. Regarding the simple meaning of the Chumash, and the reasoning after it’s stated in the Gemara is also nistar. So I hold, you know there are such teachings that one shouldn’t yet learn out certain secrets? The nistar everyone already knows, that means Kabbalah. What’s the meaning of most of the Gemara that no one knows? That’s an even greater nistar. Mashiach must come and tell us what most of the Torah means.

Anyway, one of the things is this. What’s the issue with the animal? Why when he sets up that the animal doesn’t constitute building? Okay, it’s not so clear. Let’s see if others explain. Why can’t one make a person a wall, you mean? With his knowledge. Yes, no. Why does the person constitute as if he’s the builder, and unlike the person who places him there doesn’t constitute as if he’s the builder, he tells him, stand here. That means, he doesn’t make building. He doesn’t know about it. Yes, but the person who tells him to stand there, then makes the building. No, he’s not a person. A person, when one uses a person as a tool… Okay. Yes yes, that’s such, true. No no, actually, that’s the answer. On the end is an answer. A wall, it’s done inadvertently. A person does human things. A person can only do things when he knows what he’s doing. If one uses a person for a purpose, it’s not called an action, it’s not a human action at all. That’s not a problem. But when the person knows, then he’s doing something.

The Rambam’s Position: Fourth Wall with Vessels on Yom Tov

Speaker 1: And so one does with vessels. Vessels as a fourth wall on Yom Tov. One can take vessels and make them a fourth wall on Yom Tov. Why doesn’t this constitute building? I don’t know. Why specifically does the person constitute building? Not clear. It’s still all open. That’s regarding vessels. Why does it constitute building when he places them as vessels? If making a partition constitutes building, then every type of way. Vessels, animals, I don’t know. It’s not clear. Okay, the next halacha. So one makes a ramp, vessels as a fourth wall on Yom Tov? Only the fourth wall which isn’t needed. But a third wall, one should not make it with vessels on Yom Tov, because with this he makes it significant. And one makes a temporary tent on Yom Tov. That means, when he makes a fourth wall, it’s not a real one, it’s not a real wall. When he ties it up, he builds something, it would actually be forbidden. He just places it there so it should have the status of a wall. It has no status, he doesn’t need the status. So the fourth wall, it’s not a real wall, therefore it’s not real building. It doesn’t validate the sukkah. But with what validates the sukkah, it’s called a temporary tent. And why not an animal, I still don’t know.

Discussion: The Distinction Between Person, Vessels, and Animal

Speaker 2: What you said earlier, animal. By the way, you did just make Yom Tov. It doesn’t say that one may make an animal on Yom Tov. And the friend when he doesn’t know?

Speaker 1: The friend when he doesn’t know, yes. What’s different about the friend when he doesn’t know versus vessels? Vessels also don’t know.

Speaker 2: The vessels one may not. Why may one use the friend who doesn’t know?

Speaker 1: One may not with vessels because he’s inadvertent, he doesn’t know about it. But the person who places him down there?

Speaker 2: I think exactly like the person places vessels.

Speaker 1: He doesn’t place him. Does “oseh adam” (makes a person) mean that he places him?

Speaker 2: Oh, a new teaching. It’s not written anywhere such… You can also say that one places him.

Novel Interpretation: “Oseh Adam Es Chavero” Doesn’t Mean “Placing”

Speaker 1: No, no, no, I’m telling you, we’re making a mistake. We’ve convinced ourselves that “oseh adam et chaveiro” means that you’re setting him up. That’s not what it means. A person can stand however he wants. A person doesn’t become new, you understand yourself why it’s easier. A person can stand however he wants. He’s standing right there, ah, now as a simple partition. But if you place him, certainly it’s forbidden, that’s what “l’da’at” means. “Ya’aseh oto” means he’s standing exactly there. Or “ben nartam,” and so on. He’s standing exactly there, he’s asking if you can move him, I don’t know. But in this case it can’t be referring to “ben nartam,” he’s standing. A person can stand however he wants, there’s no such thing that a person can’t stand somewhere where he becomes a partition, he’s standing on his own. But if he’s standing and you make him, yes, certainly, it’s not a Torah-level partition perhaps, but it’s a form of partition. You can’t make a living creature into a partition on Yom Tov, only a person.

Again, the same thing says regarding an animal, if it’s standing exactly, perhaps it’s permitted. It’s different from what our Rabbis, we apparently learned that you need – in the laws of eruv it says that he can still run away. By sukkah it helps, the person will also run away. The moment that he’s not standing… A person also learned by eruv and it also answers. “Shelo l’da’at” he has something like… he doesn’t bring it here. Yes, you see? Placing an animal on Yom Tov, they indeed say you can’t. Placing a person is easier. I’m telling you, a person is something that moves on Yom Tov. Not clear. And by the animal, ah, you see? Doesn’t it say explicitly that you need to tie up the animal? I don’t understand, the Rambam doesn’t say it. The commentators on the Rambam say it. Again, it needs to be like everything that is “omed b’ruach metzuyah.” It’s not wind, it can move away on its own. It’s a different thing. Something isn’t clear here.

Practical Application: Partition for Women’s Section with People

Speaker 2: There’s a practical difference, it could be that you need to use a person for a partition, right? I don’t know. So it also means in the women’s synagogue, can you take, if you want to make an ezrat nashim, can people stand with their backs to the women and they should be the partition. What is the…

Speaker 1: Here we’re not talking about it like a law of partition, here it’s simply so they shouldn’t be able to see, that you certainly can do. The dispute between Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Satmar Rebbe revolves around whether there’s a law of partition, or it’s made so they shouldn’t be able to see. A leniency emerges from the Satmar Rebbe’s interpretation, not a stringency, you understand?

The Ra’avad and Magen Avraham

Speaker 1: Okay, so much for the laws. What does the Rema say on the last law?

Speaker 2: About what? About the friend?

Speaker 1: Go back up, he brings the Rema. “B’Yom Tov, aval…” What on Yom Tov? I mean, I’m mistaken, the Ra’avad I mean, the Ra’avad. The Ra’avad says a fourth wall you can also use a person. But it doesn’t turn out to be a fourth wall, yes, I don’t know clearly. And the Rambam also says, with vessels you can. Similarly, says the Magen Avraham, he doesn’t understand what the Ra’avad is saying, because it’s obvious. No, people say that even, for example, if a person wants now to have a fourth wall, he places vessels. Would you have thought that in practice it has become part of the tent? He says, it’s not a tent. Says the Ra’avad, the same thing with people. The same thing is the answer to your question about the partition of the ezrat nashim, that it’s permitted. It’s not a valid sukkah, it doesn’t make it into a tent. It’s not a real tent, it’s not there in essence, it’s only a halachic tent. But a halachic tent, when it makes it valid, it’s called a temporary halachic tent. That’s the concern of what’s called a temporary tent. Very good.

End of the Chapter

Speaker 1: Good, we have finished Laws of Sukkah Chapter 4. This is actually the first chapter of Laws of Sukkah. Yes.