📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of Chapter 6 — Laws of Sukkah (Rambam, Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav)
General Introduction to the Chapter
After Chapter 4 dealt with how to build a sukkah, and Chapter 5 with how to make the s’chach, Chapter 6 goes into the obligation of sukkah: who is obligated in dwelling in the sukkah, when is one obligated, and the details of dwelling in the sukkah.
Innovation in the Rambam’s order: The Rambam never writes explicitly “there is a positive commandment to dwell in the sukkah as it says…” — he doesn’t bring any formal declaration of the mitzvah as he used to do with other mitzvot. Only in halachah 5 does he mention “the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah,” but without a formal introduction. This is a fundamental omission from the book — not his style. He begins immediately with who is exempt, instead of saying “there is a positive commandment to dwell in the sukkah, who is obligated, who is exempt.” This remains an unresolved question.
—
Halachah 1 — Women, Slaves, Minors
Rambam: “Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the sukkah.”
Simple meaning: Sukkah is a positive time-bound commandment, therefore women, slaves, and minors are exempt.
Innovations:
– Comparison with matzah: With matzah, women are indeed obligated because there is a negative commandment (prohibition of chametz) together with the positive commandment — “whoever is included in ‘do not eat chametz’ is included in ‘eat matzah.’” With sukkah there is no negative commandment (no specific prohibition to eat outside), only a positive commandment, therefore the rule remains that women are exempt from positive time-bound commandments.
– Androgynous and tumtum — obligated out of doubt. Here the discussion that existed with shofar (which dealt with being motzi others) is not relevant, because sukkah is a mitzvah one does for oneself.
– A slave who is half slave and half free — obligated, because the half that is free is obligated. Humorously: perhaps only the “half free person” needs his head, majority, and table in the sukkah, and the slave half can stick out…
—
Halachah 1 (continued) — A Minor Who Does Not Need His Mother / Chinuch
Rambam: “A minor who does not need his mother is obligated in sukkah by rabbinic decree, to train him in mitzvot. And this is around age five or six.”
Simple meaning: The rule regarding chinuch is that we look at the specific mitzvah — with sukkah, the measure is when the child can already be independent from his mother (who herself is exempt from sukkah). A child who still needs his mother to eat and sleep is attached to her and exempt. When he can manage on his own — around age five/six — he is rabbinically obligated.
Innovations:
– The Gemara (Sukkah 28a) brings two interpretations of “does not need his mother”:
– The school of Rabbi Yannai: “Anyone who relieves himself and his mother doesn’t wipe him” — he is already toilet-trained. (This is usually earlier than five-six.)
– Reish Lakish: “Anyone who wakes from sleep and doesn’t call ‘mother’” — he doesn’t cry “mommy” when he wakes up. The Gemara asks: adults also call out — even grown-ups cry mommy! Answer: “doesn’t call ‘mother, mother’” — he doesn’t cry *twice* mommy, i.e., he can manage himself, he doesn’t need mother to come immediately.
– Reish Lakish’s measure fits well with sukkah specifically, because sleeping is part of the mitzvah — the child must be able to sleep alone in the sukkah.
– The other measure (the school of R’ Yannai) fits with the rule that we look at the mitzvah — he can already function on his own.
– The same measure (age six = needs his mother) also appears in the laws of eruvin and laws of marriage.
—
Halachah 2 — The Sick and Their Attendants
Rambam: “The sick and their attendants are exempt from the sukkah. And not a dangerously ill person, but even one who has a headache or eye pain.”
Simple meaning: Not only a dangerously ill person (who is exempt from all Torah commandments), but even someone who has a headache or eye pain — he is exempt from sukkah, and also his attendant is exempt.
Innovations:
– Sick vs. mitztaer — the distinction regarding the attendant: A sick person — even just suffering from a headache — is exempt with his attendant. A mitztaer (one who is bothered by the sukkah itself) — is exempt but not the attendant. This is the fundamental distinction.
– With a sick person we also speak of a situation where in the sukkah he will be more uncomfortable than at home — but the reason is his illness, not the sukkah itself. With a mitztaer the reason is the sukkah itself.
– Why is sukkah more lenient than other mitzvot? With matzah for example, if it’s difficult to eat, one was not exempted. With sukkah yes. Several explanations:
– (a) Sukkah must be k’ein taduru — as a person dwells. If he feels bad, he doesn’t dwell that way.
– (b) Sukkah is inherently a difficult thing — it’s outside, cold, windy, flies, cramped — therefore the Sages were lenient for a mitztaer.
– (c) Mitzvot must be done with joy, not with suffering.
Attendant of a Sick Person — Engaged in a Mitzvah
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav says that the attendant of a sick person is exempt from sukkah because he is engaged in a mitzvah (visiting the sick / kindness). This doesn’t mean an “attendant” of a rabbi (which is a service of honor), but an attendant of a sick person — someone who helps a sick person with all his needs, because the sick person cannot help himself.
Innovation regarding the definition of chesed: Chesed always means filling the other’s lack — when the other has no money, when the other has no strength. Two people with equal abilities — there is no mitzvah of being an attendant. Similarly, charity for a wealthy person is not charity. The sick person has a lack, therefore the attendant fulfills a mitzvah. (The Gemara says that a person of high status has a higher standard, therefore for him there is more of a “lack” when he doesn’t have.)
Distinction between mitztaer and sick person regarding attendant: A mitztaer doesn’t need an attendant — he still has strength, he can help himself, he’ll just go sit at home. A sick person needs an attendant because he has no strength. The “engaged in a mitzvah” reasoning only fits the attendant of a sick person.
—
Halachah 2 (continued) — Mitztaer
Rambam: “A mitztaer is exempt from the sukkah, he but not his attendants. And who is a mitztaer? One who cannot sleep in the sukkah because of the wind, or because of flies and fleas and the like, or because of the smell.”
Simple meaning: A mitztaer — one who suffers from the sukkah itself (wind, insects, bad smell) — is exempt, but his attendant remains obligated.
Innovations:
– Smell: The bad smell that makes him a mitztaer is not from the s’chach itself (because that would invalidate the s’chach, as we learned in Chapter 5). It refers to an external smell.
– Comparison with tefillin: The Rambam also says regarding tefillin that a mitztaer is exempt — but there the reason is different: tefillin requires a clean body and settled mind, and a mourner or mitztaer doesn’t have the proper mindset. With sukkah the reason is different — it’s because sukkah is inherently a difficult mitzvah, and one is lenient.
– Sukkah is a greater innovation than tefillin: With sukkah he misses all seven days if he is a mitztaer — he will no longer have the mitzvah. Therefore he is exempt.
Methodological Innovation: “Example” vs. “Rule” in Learning Halachah
An important principle: “Reality is more interesting and clearer than the definitions of the scholars.”
Scholarship seeks one rule, one sentence, one definition that will encompass a thousand cases. This is like science — one seeks one reasoning for all facts. But halachah is not science — halachah comes to say what to do, and that depends on reality.
Two ways of learning:
1. Rule-way — one seeks one sentence and fits all details into it.
2. Example-way (paradigm example) — one remembers a clear “picture” (like flies in the sukkah — the Rema’s example of mitztaer), and with a new case one compares to the example — whether it’s similar enough.
The Ramban calculates four types of mitztaer — they don’t have one formal rule, but rather a common denominator of mitztaer.
—
A Mourner and Sukkah
The Rambam’s position: A mourner is obligated in sukkah.
One would think: if a mitztaer is exempt, surely a mourner — who has the greatest suffering — should be exempt. But no — a mourner is obligated in sukkah.
Innovations:
– Reason: The mourner’s suffering doesn’t come from the sukkah. He won’t be less sad at home than in the sukkah. With a mitztaer (like flies) it’s specifically the sukkah that causes the suffering — at home he’ll be better. With a mourner the suffering is “from within” — there’s no difference where he sits.
– Gemara: “He causes himself suffering” — the mourner makes himself suffer, it’s an internal suffering. The obligation on the mourner is that he should calm down enough that he can go into the sukkah.
– Innovation of the Magen Avraham: The mourner wants to be alone, not with people — the people in the sukkah are like “disturbances” (bothering him). This could make him a mitztaer.
– One shouldn’t think that because a mourner is more sensitive, flies that normally don’t bother are now a greater suffering — this doesn’t automatically make him exempt as a mitztaer. The rule remains: a mourner is obligated in sukkah because the suffering doesn’t come from the sukkah.
– Tanya Rabbati (Rishonim): If “the deceased is very dear to him and he cannot divert his mind” — he is exempt. “Cannot divert his mind” means that the sukkah prevents him from diverting his mind — at home he can more easily divert his mind. If in both places he won’t divert his mind, there’s no reason to exempt. The answer: in the sukkah there are people who are celebrating, and the mourner doesn’t want to be part of that.
—
A Groom and All the Wedding Party Are Exempt from the Sukkah
Rambam: “The groom, the groomsmen, and all the wedding party are exempt from the sukkah all seven days of the feast.”
Simple meaning: Groomsmen — in the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah this means those who give money for the wedding. The wedding party — the close people who are there. They are engaged in a mitzvah — they have a mitzvah to be joyful.
Innovations:
– Rashi (Sukkah): A groom has a mitzvah to be joyful, which is not so with a mourner who doesn’t have a mitzvah to be “broken” (sad) — he has a mitzvah of mourning, but not of suffering itself. Therefore the groom is exempt (engaged in a mitzvah) but the mourner is not.
– Gemara: One cannot properly celebrate in a sukkah — a groom is embarrassed to play with his bride in a sukkah where there are many people. A chuppah is designed so the groom can spend time with the bride — a small gathering, more private.
– Rashi’s interpretation of “groom’s suffering”: “Because the place is narrow and he is embarrassed to play with his bride” — the sukkah was too cramped a place, and the groom was embarrassed to play with his bride there. “Play” means to play (not just smile), like “laughter and frivolity.”
– Story of R’ Zeira (Gemara): He ate in the sukkah, but the celebration (simchah) he made elsewhere (in the chuppah), without eating. He was satisfied that he fulfilled both mitzvot. Gemara: “There is no simchah except where there is a meal” — essentially the simchah should be where one eats.
– Innovation in the Rambam’s language: The Rambam says only “groom” and doesn’t mention “bride” — “from the implication there is a bride.” The simple meaning: the bride is exempt from sukkah because she is a woman (exempt from positive time-bound commandments), and the groom must be with the bride, therefore he is also exempt.
[Digression: Sheva Brachot — Groom and Bride Together]
When making sheva brachot where groom and bride sit separately (apart from others), there is a question whether one can say sheva brachot — because the essence of the joy of groom and bride is that the groom rejoices with the bride. If they sit completely separately, how can one say “gladden the beloved companions” — we’re talking about their joy together. In all generations it was conducted that groom and bride sit together, and so it is conducted among most of the Jewish people.
—
Messengers on a Mitzvah, Travelers, City Guards, Guards of Gardens and Orchards
Messengers on a Mitzvah — Exempt from the Sukkah Day and Night
The foundation is “one engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from the mitzvah.” Even at night when he’s not actively going, he is exempt, because part of his mission is also resting along the way. This is different from ordinary travelers.
Innovation: A messenger on a mitzvah is exempt even when he has already arrived at his destination — for example, someone traveling to the Rebbe and the Rebbe doesn’t have enough room in his sukkah — he doesn’t need to seek a sukkah.
[Digression: Traveling to the Rebbe] — is traveling to the Rebbe a mitzvah? If the Rebbe is truly “his teacher” (greeting one’s teacher), it’s a mitzvah. But if he’s just “the king of that community,” there’s a question whether one may travel at all (because one abandons the sukkah without a mitzvah).
Travelers — Distinction Between Day and Night
The mitzvah of sukkah doesn’t say to change one’s lifestyle, but to replace the house with the sukkah. Whoever travels at night — exempt at night, obligated by day. Whoever travels by day — exempt by day, obligated at night.
Innovation: The exemption of travelers is not the same as engaged in a mitzvah — with engaged in a mitzvah one is always exempt, but with ordinary travelers the exemption is only when one is actively traveling. At night, when he’s not going, he must seek a sukkah. The rule “you shall dwell as you normally dwell” as a rule for everything is not sufficient — the exemption of travelers must be explained separately.
City Guards — Day/Night Distinction
City guards by day — exempt by day, obligated at night. City guards at night — exempt at night, obligated by day.
Innovation: “City guards” doesn’t necessarily mean a mitzvah-guarding (like guarding lives), but an ordinary arrangement — “city watchmen” — those who guard the city as their job. The exemption is because this is their way, not because they are engaged in a mitzvah.
Guards of Gardens and Orchards — Exempt Day and Night
Reason: If the guard makes a sukkah, the thief will know he has a fixed place, and will steal from another place. The nature of guarding gardens and orchards is that he works constantly, without distinction between day and night.
Innovation: Even when he sleeps, he is a guard — because he sleeps each night somewhere different, and the thief is afraid to come because he’ll wake him. But if he sleeps in a fixed place (like a sukkah), he is “no longer a guard.” The essence of his guarding at night is specifically through not being in a fixed place.
—
Halachah 6 — The Mitzvah of Dwelling in the Sukkah: How?
Rambam: “How is the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah? That one should eat, drink, and dwell in the sukkah all seven days, day and night, in the manner that he dwells in his house the rest of the days of the year.”
Simple meaning: One should eat, drink, and dwell in the sukkah all seven days, as one dwells at home the other days of the year.
Innovations:
– “Dwell” is the emphasis — not just eating and sleeping, but even just sitting, moving around, spending time — everything should be in the sukkah. “Where do you live? Where do you sit? Where do you move about?” — this is stringent, not just lenient.
– The verse “you shall dwell in sukkot” — “dwelling” means the sukkah should be your fixed place, your place of residence.
Making One’s Sukkah Permanent — Vessels in the Sukkah
Rambam: “All seven days a person makes his sukkah permanent and his house temporary. How? Pleasant vessels — in the sukkah, drinking vessels like pitchers and cups — in the sukkah. But vessels that become repulsive from use like pots and bowls — outside the sukkah. The lamp — in the sukkah. And if it was a small sukkah — the lamp outside the sukkah.”
Innovation: Whether pots and bowls outside the sukkah is because they’re repulsive, or because even at home one doesn’t put them in the center of the room but to the side (in the kitchen, in the courtyard). That is, “outside the sukkah” is perhaps not a law in the sukkah itself, but a reflection of “as he dwells in his house.”
—
Halachah 7 — Prohibition of Eating Outside the Sukkah, Casual Sleep
Rambam: “One eats, drinks, and sleeps in the sukkah all seven days, day and night. And one does not eat a meal outside the sukkah all seven days, unless he eats a casual eating. How much? Like an egg minus a bit.”
Innovation in the measure of casual eating: The Rambam says “like an egg minus a bit” — not a precise measure, but even a drop more than an egg is no longer casual eating.
Casual Sleep
Rambam: “And one does not sleep outside the sukkah even a casual sleep.”
Innovation: Unlike eating (where casual eating is permitted outside the sukkah), with sleeping even casual sleep is forbidden outside the sukkah. The reason: eating sometimes happens that one doesn’t eat at home (one eats on the road), but sleeping is always at home — therefore sleeping in the sukkah is stricter. The foundation: “there’s no such thing as casual sleep” — because sleep is as much as a person needs, and sometimes a person sleeps a little and it’s enough for him. So it says in the Gemara.
Permitted to Drink Water and Eat Fruit Outside the Sukkah
Rambam: “It is permitted to drink water and eat fruit outside the sukkah.”
Simple meaning: Fruit and water one doesn’t need to check if it’s the measure of an egg — one may eat outside the sukkah, and this is also casual eating.
This Is Praiseworthy
Rambam: “One who is stringent upon himself and doesn’t drink outside the sukkah even water — this is praiseworthy.”
Innovation — R’ Chaim Brisker’s position: R’ Chaim Brisker said that if someone doesn’t have a sukkah, there is no concept at all of not drinking outside the sukkah. The “this is praiseworthy” is only when one drinks in the sukkah — not when one doesn’t drink at all. The Rambam’s language is “doesn’t drink outside the sukkah” — a negative language (not drinking outside the sukkah), which implies that the concept is to drink in the sukkah, not just not to drink.
—
Halachah 9 — The First Night Is Obligatory
Rambam: “Eating on the first night of Yom Tov in the sukkah — obligatory. Even if one ate an olive’s volume of bread — he fulfilled his obligation.”
Simple meaning: All other days eating in the sukkah is only an obligation when one wants to eat, but the first night is an obligation to eat — one must eat in the sukkah.
Innovations:
– Reasoning why the first night is different: The other days one already knows that the sukkah is one’s place, but first one must “establish” it once — the first night is the moment when one establishes the sukkah as one’s home.
– Measure of olive vs. egg: The measure of eating on the first night is not a fixed meal (an egg or more), but an olive’s volume of bread is enough. The reasoning: it’s a mitzvah of eating (like Pesach — matzah, Pesach offering), and with every mitzvah of eating the measure is an olive, not an egg. The measure of an egg is only the measure of fixedness (which makes it forbidden to eat outside the sukkah), but the measure of mitzvah is an olive.
– Dispute with the Ran: The Ran and others hold that one must eat an egg, because less than an egg is not at all an eating that obligates in sukkah. The Rambam doesn’t agree — he sees it as a mitzvah of eating where an olive is enough.
– The language “he fulfilled his obligation”: Perhaps the language is specifically to exclude that one shouldn’t think one needs a larger measure like a meal portion or fixed meal. It’s enough that he showed that this is his place of eating through an olive.
From Here On Optional
Rambam: “From here on optional. If he wants to eat a meal — he eats in the sukkah, if he wants — he doesn’t eat all seven days except fruit and snacks outside the sukkah.”
Simple meaning: After the first night, if someone doesn’t want to eat any fixed meal, only fruit and snacks, he may eat outside the sukkah all seven days.
Innovation: This fits very well with R’ Chaim Brisker’s position: only the first night is there an obligation of eating in the sukkah, like eating matzah on Pesach. The rest of Sukkot is only: if one eats a fixed meal, then it must be in the sukkah.
—
Halachah 10 — Head and Majority in the Sukkah and Table in the House
Rambam: “One whose head and majority are in the sukkah and his table in the house, or outside the sukkah, and he ate — this is forbidden… and as if he didn’t eat in the sukkah… a decree lest he be drawn after his table. Even in a large sukkah.”
Simple meaning: If someone sits in the sukkah but his table stands outside, this is forbidden — it’s viewed as if he didn’t eat in the sukkah. This is a decree: we’re afraid he’ll be drawn after the table and go out of the sukkah. Even in a large sukkah where there’s room.
Innovations:
– The Rambam says “forbidden” — not just “he doesn’t fulfill” but it’s actually forbidden. The prohibition is in the framework of the prohibition of eating outside the sukkah, which is a nullification of a negative commandment derived from a positive (or something similar). But the prohibition itself is rabbinic — a decree lest he be drawn after his table.
– The language “and as if he didn’t eat in the sukkah” is innovative — it’s not just that he doesn’t fulfill, but it’s viewed as if he didn’t eat in the sukkah at all.
—
Halachah 11 — Reading in the Sukkah, Studying Outside the Sukkah, Praying
Rambam: “All seven days one reads in the sukkah. But when he studies and examines carefully what he reads — he should study outside the sukkah, so that his mind will be settled on it. Praying — if he wants he prays in the sukkah, if he wants outside the sukkah.”
Simple meaning: Reading/learning Torah — in the sukkah. Deep study (thinking deeply) — one may do outside the sukkah, because one needs settled mind. Praying — optional, as one wishes.
Innovations:
– “Reading” means to pronounce, reading from the text — this is the part of learning that one can do in the sukkah. But “studying and examining carefully” — the part of deep study, thinking into what one learned (similar to “a third in Talmud”) — this one may do outside the sukkah, because in the sukkah there are flies and disturbances, and one needs settled mind. Rashi says: the wind and air outside the sukkah is good “to broaden his mind.”
– Therefore one can understand why the Rambam earlier permitted large sukkot — if one makes a huge sukkah, one can perhaps indeed learn deeply inside, because it’s comfortable enough.
– Praying — “if he wants in the sukkah, if he wants outside the sukkah”: This is a separate halachah. It’s not in the Gemara, but it was a question among the Geonim: whether one must make a sukkah in the synagogue and pray there? The Rambam says no — it’s optional, not obligatory.
– Why is praying different from reading? One cannot say that the reason is because “all year one prays in synagogue not at home” — because the Rambam doesn’t rely on the principle of “what one does all year at home.” The Rambam only speaks of things one cannot do well in the sukkah (like deep study). Praying is a separate category.
– “Praying” here means even communal prayer — there were people who thought that the synagogue must make a sukkah and one should pray there. The Rambam doesn’t agree.
—
Halachah 12 — Rain
Rambam: “When it rains — one enters the house. From when is it permitted to leave? When drops fall into the sukkah such that if they fell into food they would spoil it, even a dish of beans.”
Simple meaning: When it rains, one may go into the house. The measure is: when enough drops fall that it would spoil a dish, even a dish of beans (which spoils more easily).
Innovations:
– Rain is not the same exemption as mitztaer! This is a great innovation. With mitztaer there’s no measure stated — a mitztaer is exempt when he’s a mitztaer. But with rain the Rambam gives a specific measure (drops that spoil a dish). This shows it’s a different type of exemption.
– The foundation: A sukkah is something that protects from sun, not from rain. A normal sukkah doesn’t protect from rain. When it rains, this is not at all dwelling in a sukkah — like “riding in a car that doesn’t go.” It’s not that he’s a mitztaer in the sukkah, but that it’s not at all sukkah-dwelling.
– Chassidic Jews who sit in the sukkah in rain: According to this foundation, they’re sitting not at all in a sukkah — it’s not sukkah-dwelling. It’s like a layman (one who does something he’s exempt from), or even worse — he’s not sitting in a sukkah at all.
– The measure “when drops fall”: A little rain one can still sit — the measure is when it would spoil a dish. “Even a dish of beans” — even a dish that spoils more easily, already then one is exempt.
The Rain Stopped
Rambam: “If he was eating in the sukkah and rain fell and he entered the house, and the rain stopped — we don’t obligate him to return to the sukkah until he finishes his meal. If he was sleeping and rain fell at night and he entered the house and the rain stopped — we don’t trouble him to return to the sukkah all that night, but he sleeps in his house until dawn.”
Simple meaning: If one went into the house because of rain, and the rain stopped: with eating — one finishes the meal at home; with sleeping at night — one sleeps at home until dawn.
Innovation: “Until dawn” doesn’t mean he must get up at dawn — but that the exemption applies until dawn. Dawn is the time when Jews get up, and this is a separate matter.
—
Halachah 13 — End of Sukkot / The Seventh Day
Rambam: “If he finished eating on the seventh day in the morning — he should not dismantle his sukkah.”
Simple meaning: If one finished eating in the morning of the seventh day, one shouldn’t take down the sukkah.
Innovations:
– The reason: perhaps he’ll still want to eat later, or learn in the sukkah, because it’s still in the middle of the seventh day. There’s an obligation to have a sukkah all of Sukkot — not just when one eats.
Removing Vessels from the Sukkah / Reducing the S’chach
Simple meaning: One removes the vessels from the sukkah already from midday of the seventh day (or Shemini Atzeret in the Diaspora). One must show that one is not fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah after Sukkot, in order not to transgress bal tosif.
Innovations:
– Usually it’s a disgrace to the sukkah when one removes the vessels, but after Sukkot it’s specifically an obligation to show that one is no longer fulfilling the mitzvah.
– If one doesn’t have anywhere at home to put his vessels (“he has no place to clear”), he eats in the sukkah also on Shemini Atzeret.
Reducing the s’chach: One must remove a bit of the s’chach. One doesn’t need to break down the entire sukkah, but remove a bit so one can see that there’s no longer an obligation of sukkah. With a sukkah of seven by seven perhaps it’s enough to remove a bit without invalidating; but with a sukkah of four by four (the minimum measure) even a handbreadth of invalid space will invalidate the entire sukkah.
—
Recognition of Invalidity on Shemini Atzeret (Doubt of the Day — Diaspora)
Rambam: “If he finished eating on the eighth day, he takes down his vessels and clears it… if it was small he brings in the lamp, and if it was large he brings in pots and bowls and the like to recognize its invalidity… and he cannot invalidate it.”
Simple meaning: In the Diaspora, where Shemini Atzeret is a doubt of the day, one cannot actually invalidate the sukkah (because it’s Yom Tov and work is forbidden). Instead one shows that the sukkah no longer has its importance: in a small sukkah — one brings in a lamp (which we learned earlier that one doesn’t bring into a small sukkah because of fire danger), and this shows it’s no longer a sukkah. In a large sukkah — a lamp doesn’t help (because there one always places a lamp), one must bring in pots and bowls (with food residue) which are repulsive, to recognize its invalidity.
Innovation: The distinction between Chol HaMoed and Yom Tov: earlier (halachah 1) the Rambam spoke about Chol HaMoed, where one can actually invalidate the sukkah through an action (removing the s’chach etc.), because on Chol HaMoed there’s a weaker work restriction. But Shemini Atzeret is Yom Tov proper, one cannot do such work, therefore one only needs to “show” through signs that it’s no longer important.
Sitting in the
Sitting in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeret Without a Blessing
Rambam: “In this time when we observe two days of Yom Tov… and on the eighth day which is the first day of Shemini Atzeret, we sit in it, but we don’t bless ‘to dwell in the sukkah.’”
Simple meaning: In the Diaspora one sits in the sukkah also on Shemini Atzeret (the first day), but without a blessing.
Innovations:
– Why no blessing? Because one doesn’t make a blessing on a doubtful mitzvah. The Rambam brings this principle: “A tumtum, androgynous, and one who is obligated in a mitzvah out of doubt — one never blesses on it.”
– Question: On the second day of Yom Tov we always make blessings (Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, eating matzah etc.) on a doubt! Why is it different here?
– Answer: With regular second day of Yom Tov we make blessings in order not to disgrace the second day of Yom Tov. But here it’s the opposite: on the side that it’s already Shemini Atzeret (a festival in its own right), one doesn’t sit in the sukkah. One must honor the side that it’s already Shemini Atzeret. Therefore: one sits (because of the doubt of Sukkot), but without a blessing (because of the doubt of Shemini Atzeret). On the side that it’s still Sukkot one will transgress bal tosif if one makes a blessing on Shemini Atzeret.
– Custom not to sit in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret: There are people (like certain Chassidim) who don’t sit in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. This is described as a great dispute among the later authorities, but “not according to halachah” — not according to the simple meaning of the Gemara, the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and all others.
—
One Who Did Not Make a Sukkah
Rambam: “One who did not make a sukkah, whether inadvertently or intentionally, makes a sukkah on Chol HaMoed. Even at the end of the seventh day he makes a sukkah, for its mitzvah is all seven days.”
Simple meaning: Whoever didn’t make a sukkah — whether inadvertently or intentionally — makes a sukkah on Chol HaMoed, even on Hoshana Rabbah afternoon.
Innovations:
– We don’t say “he should have made it before Yom Tov” — there’s no penalty on the fact that he didn’t make it earlier. The mitzvah is great enough that one should indeed make a sukkah even late.
– This also fits with what we learned earlier that one may not break down a sukkah — because there’s an obligation to have a sukkah all seven days.
—
Halachah Regarding the Blessing “To Dwell in the Sukkah”
Blessing at Each Entry
Rambam: “Whenever one enters to sit in the sukkah all seven days… he blesses before he sits: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to dwell in the sukkah.”
Simple meaning: Every time one goes into the sukkah one makes the blessing, even when it’s not an obligation (because it’s not eating). The blessing is made before sitting down — before one sits, like “prior to performance.”
Innovations:
– The mitzvah is “to dwell in the sukkah” — not just to eat. There is an obligation all seven days to dwell in the sukkah, and what is exempt is only regarding eating specifically. But “to dwell” means to be/live in the sukkah, and this is an obligation all seven days.
– The blessing is made before sitting down — prior to performance, as with every mitzvah.
Order of Blessings on the First Night of Yom Tov
Rambam: “And on the first night of Yom Tov he blesses on the sukkah and afterwards he blesses on the time, and he arranges all the blessings over the cup. It turns out he makes Kiddush standing… and blesses ‘to dwell in the sukkah,’ and sits, and afterwards blesses on the time.”
Simple meaning: The first night of Sukkot one makes Kiddush standing, then “to dwell in the sukkah” (still standing), then one sits down, then “Shehecheyanu.”
Innovations:
– The Rambam’s reasoning: Because “to dwell in the sukkah” must be prior to performance (before one sits), one must make the entire Kiddush also standing, because all the blessings are made over the cup together. Therefore: Kiddush (standing) → to dwell in the sukkah (standing) → sit down → Shehecheyanu.
– Shehecheyanu comes last because it no longer has to do with “to dwell in the sukkah” — it’s a separate blessing.
– The Rambam brings: “And this was the custom of my teachers and the teachers of Spain” — he relies on the custom of his teachers in Spain.
– The Raavad disagrees: “The custom of our place was never like this, and the reason is that the dwelling is only with intent to eat.” The Raavad means that “to dwell” refers to eating, therefore the blessing is still prior to performance even when one is already sitting, because one hasn’t yet started eating.
– Kiddush sitting vs. standing: The Rambam assumes that the normal custom all year is Kiddush sitting (because Kiddush is part of the meal, and a meal is sitting). Only Sukkot at night is different. So it also says in the Rema that one may stand but it’s better to sit.
[Digression: The Arizal and Kiddush Standing]
The Arizal said one should make Kiddush standing, unlike the Shulchan Aruch. It is asked: how can the Arizal go against all the authorities? It is answered that he saw in his revelations that this is the correct way. But this makes the question even greater, not smaller — because Kiddush is connected to the meal, and a meal is sitting. Perhaps it was a custom that already existed among his teachers.
—
The Wood of the Sukkah Is Forbidden All Eight Days of the Festival
Rambam: “The wood of the sukkah is forbidden all eight days of the festival and one may not use them for anything else all eight days. Because the entire seventh day the sukkah is set aside until twilight, and since it is set aside for twilight it is set aside for the entire day.”
Simple meaning: The wood of the sukkah — both s’chach and walls — are forbidden in benefit all eight days. The first seven days because they are set aside for its mitzvah. The eighth day (Shemini Atzeret) — because at the beginning of twilight of the seventh day they are still set aside, and “since it is set aside for twilight it is set aside for the entire day” — the rule of muktzeh extends to the entire eighth day.
Innovations:
– The Rambam emphasizes that not only s’chach (which is the main mitzvah) but also walls (which are weaker in the mitzvah) are forbidden — because they are also “wood of the sukkah,” a part of the sukkah.
– The mechanism of the prohibition on the eighth day is not because it’s still a mitzvah, but through the rule of muktzeh: because twilight of the end of the seventh is still muktzeh, this extends to the entire Yom Tov of Shemini Atzeret.
—
Sukkah Decorations
Rambam: “And similarly [forbidden] all types of decorations that one hangs in the sukkah to beautify it, for they are forbidden all eight days. And it is permitted to make a condition on them at the time of hanging and say ‘I do not separate from them all twilight,’ and they are permitted for whatever he wishes, for he did not set them aside and the sanctity of the sukkah did not apply to them and they are not considered like it.”
Simple meaning: Sukkah decorations (flowers, fruits, etrogim etc. that one hangs for beauty) are also forbidden all eight days. But there is a solution: one makes a condition when hanging them — “I do not separate from them all twilight” (I don’t separate from them at twilight, i.e., I retain the right to use them). Then they are permitted.
Innovations:
– The Rambam brings three expressions for the same thing that the condition accomplishes: (1) “that he did not set them aside” — it’s not muktzeh; (2) “and the sanctity of the sukkah did not apply to them” — no sanctity; (3) “and they are not considered like it” — they are not counted like the sukkah itself. This shows that sukkah decorations without a condition become like it — like the sukkah itself.
– Important distinction: The condition only helps for sukkah decorations, but not for the sukkah itself (s’chach and walls). Because the sukkah itself has already become a sukkah — it’s an object of mitzvah, one cannot stipulate that it shouldn’t be a sukkah. Only sukkah decorations, which are an addition, can one say “I do not separate from them.”
– Question: Earlier we learned that one may sit under sukkah decorations because they’re nullified to the s’chach. Isn’t this a contradiction to what here we say that sukkah decorations are a separate category? Answer: There’s no contradiction — there we speak about nullification regarding s’chach (that it doesn’t count as an interruption), here we speak about the law of muktzeh/sanctity.
—
Conclusion
This concludes the laws of sukkah. The following chapters (7-8) will deal with the laws of lulav.
📝 Full Transcript
Chapter 6 of the Laws of Sukkah — The Obligation of Sukkah: Who is Obligated in Dwelling in the Sukkah
Introduction to Chapter 6
Speaker 1:
Good day, dear Jews. Now is the next chapter of the Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav, more specifically, the third chapter of the Laws of Sukkah. Until now we have learned, Chapter 4 we learned how one makes a sukkah, Chapter 5 we learned how one makes the s’chach. Chapter 6 we will learn how one sits in the sukkah, the mitzvah of dwelling, who is obligated, when is one obligated, and so forth.
Yes, the obligation of sukkah. After one already has a sukkah, one must know who is obligated, who goes into this sukkah. Very good. And we recognize all the donors, and at their head the prince of donors, Rabbi Yoel Halevi, who support the shiur.
Yes. But it’s very strange. Do you have any other novelty?
What concerns the donors of the shiur?
Question on the Rambam’s Order — The Declaration of the Mitzvah is Missing
Speaker 2:
No, it’s very interesting, because we spoke at the beginning of the Laws of Sukkah that the Rambam goes backwards. But you know, I’m catching now, that it’s even worse than that. He never gets to the mitzvah. He doesn’t say “dwelling in the sukkah is a positive commandment.” That is, perhaps in halacha 5 he brings the verses.
Speaker 1:
In halacha 5 it says “the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah.”
Speaker 2:
Yes, but it’s interesting, he doesn’t begin that there is a mitzvah. Nowhere does it say “it is a positive commandment to dwell in the sukkah as it says…”, it’s very interesting. It’s literally a fundamental principle missing from the book.
Speaker 1:
It’s not his usual style, yes.
Speaker 2:
Yes. One must say that Sukkos, after a Jew who has done Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, one doesn’t need to say anymore, he sits down in the sukkah. One only needs to say when one must eat and when one doesn’t need to. Just a Purim Torah.
Speaker 1:
Well, not… Do you have another explanation?
Speaker 2:
I don’t have an explanation.
Speaker 1:
No, I understood that first one builds the sukkah.
Speaker 2:
Right, but you see that he doesn’t even get to it. He should have begun, “at the very least it is a positive commandment to dwell in the sukkah, who is obligated, who is exempt.” He begins with who is exempt and… yes? He begins with who is exempt. So granted, that can be, but he should have begun “the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah,” and you exempt, you obligate. Yes, not clear.
Halacha 1 — Women, Slaves, Minors are Exempt from the Sukkah
Speaker 2:
The Rambam says thus: Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah, they are exempt from sukkah. It’s different for example by matzah there was some special reason why women are also obligated in the mitzvah of matzah, because by matzah there is a prohibition, there is a negative and a positive. By sukkah there is no negative, there is no prohibition on… There is a positive commandment, therefore one may not eat outside. But yes, therefore it is a time-bound positive commandment, so women, and all others who have the same law as women, slaves, minors who are exempt from the entire Torah, are exempt from the sukkah.
Androgynous, Tumtum, A Slave Who is Half Slave and Half Free
Speaker 2:
An androgynous and a tumtum are obligated out of doubt. The entire discussion that was in the Laws of Shofar is not relevant here, there it was about fulfilling the obligation for others. Yes. A slave who is half slave and half free is obligated, because there is the half of the half that is free which is half obligated. If he can stick out the half that is a slave from the sukkah… It could be that there where it says one needs his head and majority and his table, it could be only the half of the half that is free needs to be there. That is also an interpretation in Torah. Obligated.
A Minor Who Does Not Need His Mother — Education in Mitzvos
Speaker 2:
Okay, a minor who does not need his mother. Here he will speak about education. We already know the principle that by education one always looks at the specific mitzvah. One who can already eat matzah, there is already a mitzvah of education. And what is the measure by sukkah? As long as a minor still needs to sleep near the mother and be near the mother, to eat and sleep, and the mother is exempt, he is attached, he goes with the mother. But a minor who can already be a bit independent, does not need his mother, what does the Rambam say that this is recommended when it’s five or six years old. So there, if someone is very Torah-oriented and he only wants to know when is it called normal according to the Torah, and when does one need to go to a therapist, when one is five or six one should already be able to be a drop independent.
Discussion: The Gemara’s Interpretations of “Does Not Need His Mother”
Speaker 1:
Yes. The Gemara says, if you already mention, the Gemara says this language, I want to be just the simple explanation, the language of the Gemara. Yes, the Gemara explains, what does it mean does not need his mother? The Gemara says thus: The Gemara says, they said in the house of Rabbi Yannai, a few explanations. One, the house of Rabbi Yannai said, anyone who relieves himself and his mother does not wipe him. That means he is already toilet trained. That is by us usually less than five or six. But Reish Lakish said, anyone who wakes from his sleep and does not call mother. He doesn’t cry mommy when he wakes up. The Gemara asks, adults also call? A big boy also cries mommy when he wakes up. The Gemara answers, rather anyone who wakes and does not call mother mother. He doesn’t cry twice. You mean to say that there is someone who cries mommy when one has woken up, one is excited, or one is afraid. But the other is, you who stands independently? He can’t get out of bed, he can’t do basics. He can perhaps, but five and six usually he can already, but he comes right to mommy’s bed when he wakes up, he needs his mother to tell him. But the first fits, because sleeping is part of the mitzvah. But the other is, with the principle that one always looks at the mitzvah, one can already learn. In any case, such a minor, we have also seen in the Laws of Eiruv, when also in the Laws of Women it says the same measure, that six years old means needs his mother. Well, he is obligated in sukkah, such a minor is already obligated in sukkah from rabbinic law, but it is to educate in mitzvos, and I educate together with him. Here you also see that the essence with sukkah is actually in sleeping, because by eating perhaps also he needs his mother, he eats with his mother in the kitchen.
Halacha 2 — The Sick and Their Attendants are Exempt from the Sukkah
Speaker 2:
Well, further, now come exemptions. This is the main obligation of exemption, who is obligated in mitzvos. All people that is relevant by all people. Now he will speak about specific types of people who are exempt specifically from sukkah, not just those who are exempt, because they are exempt from mitzvos, or such types of mitzvos. It’s outside the rule in the entire Torah that one who is sick, who is in danger, there are still things where one is more lenient by sukkah. The sick, people who are ill, and their attendants, also those who need to attend to them, are exempt from the sukkah. And I mean the reason is because Sukkos is a difficult thing, one must go out from the usual routine and the beginning of illness, going away from the usual order is difficult for a sick person. And not a sick person who is in danger, because that is exempt from the entire Torah, but even one whose head hurts, even one whose eyes hurt, something hurts him, his head, his eyes, one calls him sick. It doesn’t mean a pain that a normal person, a healthy person also has this pain, something that makes him sick. Headache, one takes something once, one presumably doesn’t speak of that. It means that it is difficult for him sometimes. Sick, sick.
Speaker 1:
It’s not relevant.
Speaker 2:
Right. It’s like suffering a bit.
Speaker 1:
You mean that it’s different from suffering, he means he suffers from the sukkah. A sick person is simply that he doesn’t feel well, and it’s difficult for him to go in the sukkah, he is exempt. Such a person is exempt even the attendant.
Speaker 2:
Right. You see there that you’re speaking that one who has such a strong headache that he needs to have an attendant. If he has… he is a gabbai.
Speaker 1:
No, a rabbi has a gabbai, and now he has a headache, so automatically the gabbai is exempt.
Speaker 2:
Yes, yes, yes there is a certain definition in what he is. He has such a head, he can’t manage himself, he needs help now.
Speaker 1:
I don’t agree. Now he would be exempt from all mitzvos, he doesn’t need any sukkah. A sick person who is in danger.
Speaker 2:
I’m saying the halacha. An attendant, I mean strongly Michael, I’m saying the halacha. An attendant, I’m saying thus. I’m not arguing with the Shulchan Aruch, he speaks about through. It’s that the attendant is exempt until when the sick person needs him, or even when the sick person needs him, doesn’t matter.
Speaker 1:
Yes yes, that is another detail.
Speaker 2:
But I’m saying an attendant, doesn’t mean so. A head ache, that’s exactly what it means. A head ache. For example, one has a cold, it’s not pleasant for him to go in the sukkah, he is exempt. Now, he has a gabbai where the gabbai gives him to eat, generally speaking, not he is a gabbai for every day, he is an attendant because his job, like a shamash. One learns in all the laws such a thing a shamash, the shamash pours the wine, the wine, whatever, he may go with him in the way, because he who pours the oil on his voice, the oil on his voice, if one is not any matter of service. Yes, he is exempt.
One Who Suffers is Exempt from the Sukkah — He But Not His Attendants
Speaker 2:
But one who suffers, one for whom it is difficult to go in the sukkah because of him, is one who suffers for other reasons. Not because he is sick, one will see, the sukkah disturbs him something. Not that he is sick and it’s difficult for him to go in the sukkah, rather the sukkah bothers him. He is exempt from the sukkah but not his attendant, just as he is exempt from the sukkah, but not the attendant. The Rama says, and who is one who suffers? This is one who cannot sleep in the sukkah, because of the wind, because there is wind, or because of the flies and the insects, and the like, or because of the smell. Not the smell of the s’chach, because that we said would invalidate the s’chach. Actually because of that one may not make the s’chach, but the smell makes him exempt. But there are too many people who don’t like… When one speaks of sick one also speaks in a manner that in the sukkah it will be more uncomfortable for him than at home, but simply not there because he is sick. But it’s always a bit difficult to go in the sukkah.
Speaker 1:
Be sick in the sukkah. What is the difference where you are sick?
Speaker 2:
One speaks in a manner when the sukkos are uncomfortable.
Speaker 1:
Yes, it’s always, it’s a bit colder there.
Speaker 2:
So the difference is only actually, because of this the difference is only regarding the attendant. But the sick person, one is more lenient that also the attendant becomes exempt, but the sick person is also a sick person who suffers in the sukkah.
Speaker 1:
Yes, seemingly.
Speaker 2:
The novelty is but is more, it’s a bit different. But by one who suffers is exempt from the sukkah.
Discussion: Why is Sukkah More Lenient Than Other Mitzvos?
Speaker 2:
There is a reason why the Sages were more lenient by sukkah than by the entire Torah. One for whom it is difficult to eat matzah, one was not exempted from eating matzah.
Speaker 1:
Why do you think?
Speaker 2:
Because one didn’t say the principle. The principle stands specifically by sukkah.
Speaker 1:
Let’s learn already.
Speaker 2:
There is clearer with the thing of… I mean that sukkah must be in the way that a person dwells.
Speaker 1:
Yes, but the entire Torah must be the person dwells.
Speaker 2:
One must understand that it happens that I suffer from a sukkah. A sukkah is a bit a difficult thing. It’s outside, it’s cold, there are winds, there can be flies, I know, all kinds of things, it’s not big enough what becomes at home. What is there to say suffering from matzah? That is the mitzvah that eating matzah was actually in illness, that in illness you should make it soft, you should mix it with a bad mixture. There is another mitzvah that stands in the Rambam that one who suffers is exempt, and that is Torah study. Torah study was the opposite, even if one is divided he should learn Torah, yes, even a sick person. A bit, not a whole.
Speaker 1:
Tefillin.
Speaker 2:
It says in the Rambam that tefillin is one who suffers is exempt from tefillin. Because of this, a mourner doesn’t put on tefillin, and Tisha B’Av there is a custom that one doesn’t put on tefillin. The Rambam says that it is one who suffers is exempt from tefillin. Okay, it’s different, because tefillin is generally a different type of mitzvah, it’s not any mitzvah, it’s not dependent on time. That one must put on tefillin today. He will put on tefillin, it’s difficult with the reasons is because tefillin requires a certain expanded consciousness, and he doesn’t have any distraction, yes. Something of that sort. Right, but sukkah I mean that it’s different. With sukkah is because it happens that it’s difficult. I mean that sukkah is much more of a novelty, because he will miss the seven days, he will no longer have the mitzvah of sukkah. It’s not a problem, the essence is that he should remember. But the reason is because the sukkah is a difficult thing from the outset, so when it’s not pleasant he is exempt. Yes, mitzvos one must do with joy, not with suffering.
Speaker 1:
I see that the certain one, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav says that the attendant of the sick person is exempt because he is already engaged in a mitzvah of attending to a sick person. So here one means more that it’s an attendant who is a mitzvah of visiting the sick, not as you said that he is a rabbi who has an attendant. If he is a rabbi who has an attendant, he is not engaged in a mitzvah, because the rabbi doesn’t feel well now. No, that always means an attendant of a sick person.
So it’s not always engaged in a mitzvah, it’s a worse thing. First of all, it’s a mitzvah to attend to a rabbi. Second, it’s a mitzvah to attend to every Jew. Third, when one is sick, we have already learned the Laws of Shabbos. A sick person is such a type of person who takes, one helps him. Not one helps him give his medicine, one helps him all things that the attendant does, that you go visit a sick person, what do you do? You bring him a piece of kugel. It’s the same kugel that one brings for a healthy person. It’s not something special for the sick, it’s not a nurse. Do you understand what I mean to say? Because he can’t help himself. He can help himself on his own.
Discussion: Difference Between Attendant and Kindness
Speaker 1: Obviously you want to be sick? No, you’re saying that every Jew one must be an attendant. Obviously he must. Hello, you have a nice car. So, we have both mitzvos. The two are contradictory, I must attend to you, and you must attend to me. Again.
Speaker 2: But I’m telling you a sick person, is not a nurse who takes care of his health. An attendant means he takes care. When you go to the sick it’s something a certain mitzvah that… not necessarily the doctor, because a sick person needs more to come to help. So I mean kindness.
No, I would say thus: kindness always means what the other needs, because the other doesn’t have money, and you have. The other doesn’t have strength, and you have. When two people who have the same amount of strength, and just as there is no reason to give money to a wealthy person, that’s not called charity, helping a healthy person, there is no mitzvah to be his attendant. It’s always filling the other’s lack. That is the meaning of kindness, filling the other’s lack.
Every Jew needs an attendant, and they are not rich enough to buy. If it’s true, it says in the Gemara that a son of good people is accustomed because that is his standard, okay, means because he lacks it, because that is the word, because by him that’s called a lack. Okay, let’s go further.
Return: One Who Suffers and Sick Person
We learned about a metzta’er (one who is in distress) and a choleh (sick person). I’m talking about a metzta’er who doesn’t have an attendant, because a metzta’er isn’t someone who needs an attendant for that reason. It has nothing to do with it. The metzta’er sits at home. You understand? It’s not a sick person to whom one brings food. But I don’t mean that the sick person, until they bring him food, has no strength. You understand that? A metzta’er does have strength, he can still give advice himself. Or even if he does have an attendant. That doesn’t mean they’ve already weakened him so much.
Anyway, presumably regarding this they thought about the osek b’mitzvah (one engaged in a mitzvah), because they wanted to make the distinction between metzta’er and choleh. I understand, but in short, one must know the cases. When is when?
Methodological Innovation: Example vs. General Rule in Learning Halacha
I have a principle. Reality is often more… You already know my principle, I say it every chapter again. Reality is more interesting and clearer than the definitions of lomdus (Talmudic analysis). Lomdus has a problem – it wants to apply to a thousand other cases, each one slightly different with one sentence, one definition, and it should always fit. For some reason, the lomdim (scholars) always seek to fit everything. I understand why, because science works that way, because one wants to find the one explanation for all the facts. I want – he won’t remember a thousand details, he’ll remember the lomdus, then he’ll fit all the details into the lomdus. I’ll tell you the advice, I’ll tell you the advice now.
But reality – halacha isn’t science that comes to explain why. Halacha is something that comes to tell what to do, and you would depend on reality. Now you ask a question: one must be able to know what the halacha is, it’s hard to remember all the details. The answer is this: there are two ways of learning.
There’s a way of learning where one seeks a general rule, one sentence, and fits other details into it. There’s another way of learning, which means one seeks an example. Example means, like in English it’s called a “paradigm example”. What is the case of a metzta’er? I know the case of a metzta’er, that it says in the Mishna, for example, soon we’ll see about yordin geshamim (when rain falls), but metzta’er means someone about whom the Rama says, there are flies and he can’t go into the sukka.
Now, if you have a new… this you can easily remember, it’s a “picture” in your head, it’s one “picture”. Now you want a “case” that isn’t the same, you compare, you’re medameh (draw an analogy) – is it similar enough to that. There’s a big difference…
Discussion: Medameh Without Lomdus
Speaker_1: But the medameh is also with lomdus.
Speaker_2: No, no, without lomdus.
Speaker_1: People must convince themselves differently, you want to say that…
Speaker_2: No, one doesn’t need to do that. No, it’s not necessary. The lomdim have convinced themselves that one must be milsa l’milsa (exact correspondence), must go with a rule that covers both. That’s true for “logic”. It’s true that in order to be “logic” it must be true, but it’s not true for halacha, it’s not true for “practical” things. You can see that it’s similar enough. Certainly, similarity – if you want to ask theoretically on a lamdan (scholar), sometimes similarity means so much… everyone… The Ramban says, “What is a metzta’er?” He lists four other types of metzta’er, but all of them, the tzad hashaveh shebahem (common denominator) is metzta’er.
Speaker_1: Right, but the tzad hashaveh is ‘helping’ that it’s ‘less’ than the ‘examples’.
Speaker_2: If someone says, I’ll now see, mah she’ein kein (unlike) an avel (mourner)? Look very carefully, you can see right away. Metzta’er, what is metzta’er different from avel? He says, the four things with metzta’er are, you can say it’s physically metzta’er. And avel is spiritually, he is emotionally, he is in pain, not that the sukka is “causing” him the pain.
Speaker_1: Right.
An Avel is Obligated in Sukka
Speaker_2: An avel, the Rambam says this way, if a person thinks, metzta’er is exempt from sukka, then certainly an avel, he has the greatest pain, and his brother died, nebach (unfortunately). But no, an avel is indeed obligated in sukka, because he won’t be less sad at home than in the sukka. He’s sad about something else. It’s not the conditions that make him in pain, and at home he won’t be better.
Discussion: Avel Becomes Easier to Please
Speaker_1: I mean, here in the Gemara it says, it could be that he becomes easier to please. Yes, someone who is an avel becomes easier to please, so if the sukka is a bit cooler, he becomes a bit more pleased.
Speaker_2: I’ll tell you what the Gemara says. In the Gemara it says, a metzta’er, an avel doesn’t mean pain automatically, ihu d’kamtza’er nafshei (he pains himself). Apparently, ihu d’kamtza’er nafshei, it’s an “internal” pain, as you say. He has pain from something. You should calm yourself. You’re making yourself pained? Don’t make yourself pained. Unlike the rule that it’s better to cry in a comfortable place than on a train. It matters where you cry. Don’t cry. It’s hard, don’t cry. We’re talking about crying.
We learned in hilchos Yom Tov that one may not cry on Yom Tov, one may not mourn on Yom Tov. U’va l’Tzion goel (and a redeemer will come to Zion) is indeed consciousness. It’s actually impossible. When one is metzta’er, one may not. The obligation on the avel is that he should calm himself enough that he should be able to go into the sukka.
It’s like this, that if for example the avel now needs… he wants very much to lie on a comfortable couch because he needs to regain his strength, he’ll be more in the category of metzta’er that the sukka isn’t comfortable for him. No, just think, that’s what I’m saying. One goes practically. They’re talking about this down here. The Magen Avraham says, what is the avel? He wants to be alone now, he doesn’t want to be with people, because he’s… not clear. He’ll be like conditions. The people will now be the conditions. I don’t know why, one must be medayek (precise) in these kinds of things.
One can think, one can say that an avel is now much more sensitive. Therefore, the flies that usually don’t bother him, will now indeed bother him. So he’s still a metzta’er. You shouldn’t think that metzta’er now means every person who is broken. No, an avel is still obligated in sukka, because there’s no difference where he sits. The aveilus (mourning), as you say, comes from inside.
Tanya Rabbasi: And He Cannot Divert His Mind
Someone brings that the Tanya Rabbasi, which was from the time of the Rishonim, says that indeed if “the deceased is very dear to him and he cannot divert his mind,” he’s exempt, because the Gemara says “he can divert his mind.” But to divert his mind is… if his elderly mother died, okay. And he cannot divert his mind from the mourning here, mah she’ein kein (unlike) at home he will indeed manage, because at home it’s very nice, there’s a fish tank there, I don’t know what. No, it means “and he cannot divert his mind” because the sukka prevents him from being able to divert his mind. Let him be at home, because there he can more easily divert his mind. If in both places he won’t divert his mind, what’s bothering me? No, the answer is that in the sukka there are people, they’re celebrating there, he doesn’t want to be part of that. Okay, yes. Alright. Or something like that, I don’t know exactly actually.
The Groom and All the Wedding Party are Exempt from Sukka
Alright. Next, the chasan (groom). On the contrary, so aveilus doesn’t exempt, but simcha (joy) does exempt. Why indeed is the chasan v’chol hashushvinin (and all the groomsmen)… I just want to give a translation of what shushvinin means. In the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam it means those who give money for the wedding. V’chol bnei hachupa (and all the wedding party), all the people who are there at the chupa, the close people, yes. V’chol bnei hachupa peturim min hasukka kol shiv’as yemei hamishteh (and all the wedding party are exempt from sukka all seven days of feasting). They’re exempt from sukka kol shiv’as yemei hamishteh. Why? Because they’re the same thing, osek b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah (one engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from the mitzvah). Hey, should they calm down? No, they have a mitzvah to be joyful.
Mah she’ein kein, Rashi says in Sukka, mah she’ein kein an avel doesn’t have a mitzvah to be broken. He has a mitzvah to be in mourning, but he doesn’t have a mitzvah to be sad. Therefore, mah she’ein kein a chasan has a mitzvah to be joyful. And it says in the Gemara that one cannot properly rejoice in a sukka. It’s difficult.
That means, during the wedding we’re talking here about the few hours of the wedding, kol shiv’as yemei hamishteh. When they celebrate. When they celebrate, and they want to celebrate in a nice hall instead of in the sukka, they can. But apparently here too, if he can celebrate exactly the same in the sukka, he should presumably do it. We’re talking here in a manner that there’s a hall, there’s something special, they used to make something special for the chasan.
Story of Rabbi Zeira
In the Gemara there’s a story that there was indeed someone who, Rabbi Zeira said, I ate in the sukka, and they celebrated indeed in the chupa. That means, he ate there, he went to make the celebration somewhere else, without eating. So he was satisfied that he fulfilled the mitzvah also.
But in the Gemara it says, in simcha l’makom seuda (in joy to the place of the meal). That means, essentially the order is that there’s a chupa, there it’s more private, more set up for a chasan. The Gemara says that a chasan is embarrassed to play with his kalla (bride) in the sukka, where there are many people, a chupa is set up so that the chasan should be able to spend time with the kalla. Such a community, yes, he has a small community for himself. I don’t mean exactly, or with his friends, those who are close.
Innovation Regarding Sheva Brachos in Modern Times
In modern times when one makes a sheva brachos (seven blessings celebration), for example where the chasan and kalla sit separately, in my opinion one cannot make a sheva brachos there, because the chasan can manage. The simcha is the main simchas chasan v’kalla (joy of groom and bride) that the chasan rejoices with the kalla. If they sit completely separately, even the chasan and kalla, I don’t understand how one says – what was it? What was it at the men’s? What was it at the home? And now, Avraham and beloved ones make, we’re talking about their simcha. We’re not talking about the current moment’s simcha. We’re talking yes. It was the order. All generations it was together that the chasan and kalla sit together. Even if the crowd sits separately, the whole point here is that the chasan and kalla sit together. That’s how one conducts oneself to this very day among most of the Jewish diaspora, except for a few crazy Chassidim.
Continuation of Discussion: Chasan and Kalla – “Sameach Tesamach Re’im Ahuvim”
Speaker 1: Which re’im (friends) and which ahuvim (beloved ones)? One is down in the courtyard, one is there. That doesn’t increase the simcha. They’re together all day. When they go home they’ll discuss how it was, how it was at the men’s, how it was at the women’s.
And now “sameach tesamach re’im ahuvim” (gladden the beloved companions), we’re talking about their simcha. We’re not talking about the momentary simcha. We’re talking yes. All generations it was that the chasan and kalla sit together, even if the crowd sits separately. The whole point here is that the chasan and kalla sit together.
That’s how one conducts oneself to this very day in most of the Jewish diaspora, except for a few crazy Chassidim. Both at the wedding, and at the sheva brachos, that’s the normal order, and on this one makes the blessing. I don’t know what the need for investigation is regarding how one makes a blessing at our sheva brachos.
You say that one can say b’dochak (with difficulty). I hear, b’dochak many things come. It’s not an order. One must conduct oneself according to the details of sukka, one must conduct oneself with daas Torah (Torah perspective), one cannot make new innovations.
Rashi’s Explanation of “Tzaar Chasan”
Speaker 1: Further, it doesn’t say here the word kalla, it says the chasan, from which we infer there’s a kalla. Look in Rashi, I’ll show you.
Speaker 2: Yes, because the Rambam says your language of the Rambam.
Speaker 1: Alright. Because the kalla became… the kalla doesn’t go into the sukka because she doesn’t belong there, because she’s exempt. The chasan must be with the kalla.
Speaker 2: Ah, that’s a good explanation.
Speaker 1: It doesn’t say. Look what Rashi says, I’ll show you. Tzaar chasan (distress of the groom), the Gemara says, Rashi says, “that the place is narrow and he’s embarrassed to play with his bride.” A sukka isn’t a pleasant place to smile…
Speaker 2: “Sachok” means to play, yes? Not to smile. “Schok v’kalus rosh” (frivolity and lightheadedness).
Speaker 1: Yes. Rashi says, because a sukka was… it depends how one sets it up. Perhaps a modern sukka that you make yes. I’m talking about how the sukka was the custom, that the sukka wasn’t a pleasant place for the chasan and kalla to spend time.
Alright. What do I want from all these teachings? One must remember the daas chachameinu z”l (the understanding of our sages of blessed memory), very important.
—
Halacha 4: Messengers on a Mitzvah, Travelers, City Guards, Guards of Gardens and Orchards
Messengers on a Mitzvah – Exempt Both Day and Night
Speaker 1: Shluchei mitzvah (messengers on a mitzvah), people who go out for a matter of mitzvah, they’re sent for a matter of mitzvah. For example, as we learned in hilchos Chol HaMoed there’s such a thing, someone who goes for tzorchei rabim (community needs) and the like, patur min hasukka bein bayom bein balayla (exempt from sukka both day and night), because they’re also the same thing, osek b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah.
Speaker 2: Hey, at night he doesn’t go?
Speaker 1: There’s no difference, he’s also exempt. Just as they learned that when he returns he’s also, because part of the night he didn’t go. Like someone who went on Shabbos for a sick person.
Travelers – Distinction Between Day and Night
Speaker 1: But holchim bayom (those who travel by day), that means he’s not a messenger for a mitzvah but for his own need, he’s patur min hasukka bayom (exempt from sukka during the day), because one wasn’t obligated for that. We haven’t yet learned the thing that says that one is only obligated when it’s the way, at the time when normal people sit at home.
The mitzvah of sukka doesn’t say to change one’s lifestyle, but to replace the house with the sukka. So someone whose order is now to go. Later it says the rule, I don’t know, people like to explain everything with that rule, I’m not a fan, I’m never a fan of rules, on the way when exempt, but at night he doesn’t go.
Speaker 2: Don’t make it a rule that you’re never a fan of rules.
Speaker 1: Yes, in a particular way you’re not open to rules. Sometimes rules are good.
Holchei drachim balayla (those who travel at night) are peturim min hasukka balayla (exempt from sukka at night) v’chayavim bayom (and obligated during the day), because this isn’t like it’s only a law of osek b’mitzvah that one is always exempt, mah she’ein kein just so the exemption is only that what you’re doing now you don’t need to interrupt. So he must at night seek a sukka, or make a sukka and sleep.
City Guards – Day/Night Distinction
Speaker 1: The same thing shomrei ha’ir bayom (city guards during the day), it’s not that he doesn’t have, rounds, I don’t know exactly. We’re not talking that one doesn’t have, perhaps he must go search. Part of the mitzvah is that one must spend.
I don’t know what one must spend, for example a Jew traveling to the Rebbe. If a Jew has a Rebbe, if it’s pnei rabo (face of his teacher), if he’s just a Rebbe who is the king of that community, one may not travel at all. But the mitzvah of going to be megaber (strengthen) pnei hamelech (the face of the king), ask when you can be tested before the king.
Speaker 2: I hear, perhaps it’s indeed a mitzvah.
Speaker 1: In short, then one doesn’t need to sleep in the sukka, true. A messenger on a mitzvah, even at night. One can properly sleep at home. Means on the train, whatever, on the way.
Speaker 2: No, holech haderech (traveler) means even when they’ve stopped.
Speaker 1: A messenger on a mitzvah, they’ve arrived at their place. Let’s say, I travel to a Rebbe, and the Rebbe doesn’t have enough room in his sukka for everyone.
Speaker 2: No, one doesn’t need to.
Speaker 1: Alright, further. Shomrei ha’ir (city guards). Holchei drachim balayla finished. On the contrary, if he goes at night he’s exempt at night, he’s already during the day.
Shomrei ha’ir bayom. I think shomrei ha’ir means he’s osek b’mitzvah. It’s indeed an important thing to guard the city, but if he knew that one says shomrei ha’ir means he has a job to guard the property. If he’s a guard for lives, he’s indeed osek b’mitzvah.
Shomrei ha’ir means a regular order, the neturei karta (guardians of the city), those who guard the city, are peturim min hasukka bayom, chayavim balayla (exempt from sukka during the day, obligated at night). Shomrei ha’ir balayla, peturim min hasukka balayla, chayavim bayom (city guards at night, exempt from sukka at night, obligated during the day).
Guards of Gardens and Orchards – Exempt Both Day and Night
Speaker 1: Shomrei ganos u’pardesim (guards of gardens and orchards), peturim bein bayom bein balayla (exempt both day and night). Why? Im ya’aseh shomer sukka (if the guard makes a sukka), because it’s not relevant, because if he makes a sukka, yeda haganav sheyesh lashomer makom kavu’a v’yavo v’yignov mimakom acher (the thief will know that the guard has a fixed place and will come and steal from another place).
That means, the nature of shomrei ganos u’pardesim is he works always, he doesn’t have day and night. But he says clearly, even if he’s not working now, but he sleeps in a… the point is he sleeps in a… every night somewhere else, the thief is afraid.
With Heaven’s help, sleeping he’s also a guard, but if he sleeps in a certain place, he’s no longer a guard. We’re also talking in a manner that he’s always there, in the ganos u’pardesim.
Speaker 2: Yes, he sleeps there.
Speaker 1: Apparently he sleeps there, but…
Speaker 2: Ah, you don’t mean to say sleep under a sukka, but your way of guarding at night is by not being in a sukka.
Speaker 1: Right, so he sleeps every night somewhere else, whatever, it’s not known where he sleeps, so the thief is afraid to come, because he’ll wake him up and catch him red-handed.
—
Halacha 5: How is the Mitzva of Dwelling in the Sukka Fulfilled
The Rambam’s Foundation: “Kedarka Shehu Dar Beveiso” (As One Dwells in His Home)
Speaker 1: So until now we’ve learned who is exempt from sukka. Now we can learn precisely what the mitzva of sitting in the sukka is.
Yes, says the Rambam, there are details. Come to the mitzvos hayeshiva (the laws of dwelling) by sukka. How does one see the mitzva of sitting in the sukka? Yes, says the Rambam, shehaya ochel veshoseh vedar basukka, he should eat, drink, and dwell, not turn around, dwell in the sukka, kol shivas yom yamim, bein bayom bein balayla, kedarka shehaya dar beveiso bish’ar yemos hashana.
Here, I think, is the emphasis, just as we sit at home. It sometimes happens that a person becomes holech bederachim (traveling). When one sits in a place, one should sit in the sukka.
Speaker 2: No, the Rambam means to say for everything. You’re right about all the things you’re saying, but what the Rambam brings here means to say lechumra (stringently).
Speaker 1: Dar (dwelling) means to say that he dwells. Even when he doesn’t eat and he doesn’t sleep, where do you dwell? Where do you sit? Where do you turn? Where do you turn?
Oseh Sukkaso Keva Uveiso Arai (Making His Sukka Permanent and His House Temporary)
Speaker 1: Every Rambam, bechol shivas hayamim, the seven days of Sukkos, oseh adam es beiso arai ve’es sukkaso keva, the sukka now becomes his main home, shene’emar bassukkos teshvu, it’s a language of dwelling, that the sukka should be your makom kavua (fixed place), your makom yeshivos (place of dwelling).
Speaker 2: Question, what does this mean? How is this halacha expressed? I mean the sukka, I mean the shene’emar goes back to the beginning that ke’ein taduru teduru (as you dwell, so shall you dwell).
Speaker 1: I don’t agree. But it could be that this is also a way of making it keva (permanent).
Keilim in the Sukka – What One Places in the Sukka and What Not
Speaker 1: Kli hana’ah metzoras hana’ah iz basukka, this is how one makes it keva. Kli shtiya, kegon hashishos vechosos, the things with which one drinks, iz basukka.
But things that become repulsive from using them, kegon kedeiros vekeros, chutz lasukka.
Hamenora, basukka. If musad sukka ketana, iz menora chutz lasukka. So it shouldn’t burn, or because it’s also very dirty. I don’t know exactly.
The Rambam here threw in a word by the way not to do. But it could be that kedeiros vekeros (pots and dishes) one also doesn’t put in the center of the house, one puts them on the side, I don’t know, in the sink area.
Speaker 2: Perhaps in the courtyard?
Speaker 1: I don’t know. Okay.
—
Halacha 6: Eating, Drinking and Sleeping in the Sukka – Prohibition of Eating Outside the Sukka
The Rambam’s Language
Speaker 1: Ochlim veshosin veyesheinim basukka kol shiva, bein bayom bein balayla. Ve’asur le’echol seuda chutz lasukka kol shiva. Here he says more specifically, one may not, one may not eat outside the sukka all seven days.
Ela im ken achal achilas arai. Only achilas arai (casual eating). What is achilas arai? Kebeitza pachos heter me’at. He doesn’t say a proper shiur (measure), even a drop more than a kebeitza (olive-sized portion), it’s still called achilas arai.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Shenas Arai – Even Casual Sleep is Forbidden Outside the Sukka
Speaker 1: Ve’ein nisheinim chutz lasukka afilu shenas arai. Different from eating, where it sometimes happens that one doesn’t eat at home, but sleep is after all the place that one does at home, the thing that one does at home. One should not sleep even shenas arai (casual sleep) outside the sukka.
Speaker 2: But look, you’re saying, the whole Torah is based on this idea, but the simple translation of what it says is that there’s no such thing as shenas arai. Sleep means however much a person needs to sleep, and sometimes a person sleeps a little and it’s enough for him. That’s what it says in the Gemara.
Speaker 1: Yes, further, says the Rambam, mutar lishtot mayim vele’echol peiros chutz lasukka. Earlier we spoke about a proper thing that’s called eating, one may up to a kebeitza. That’s eating bread, I don’t know what mezonos, but small things, like fruits, one doesn’t need to check if the fruit is the shiur of a kebeitza. One may eat outside the sukka, and that’s also called achilas arai.
Harei Zeh Meshubach – One Who Doesn’t Drink Outside the Sukka Even Water
Speaker 1: But… mi sheyachmír al atzmo velo yishte chutz lasukka afilu mayim, harei zeh meshubach. A whole thing. You see, not only Pesach is relevant to being harei zeh meshubach, also Sukkos has harei zeh meshubach.
Speaker 2: Very good. Harei zeh meshubach. Is it a good deed? Or is the person a praiseworthy person?
Speaker 1: No difference.
Discussion: Reb Chaim Brisker’s Approach – “Lo Yishte Chutz LaSukka”
Speaker 1: The language of the Rambam is not to drink. About this, you know what Reb Chaim Brisker said that if someone doesn’t have a sukka, Reb Chaim argued that there’s no point at all in not drinking outside the sukka, because I’m drinking already in the sukka, or you’re also not drinking. How will you go into the sukka?
But you see, yes, in the Rambam it says the language of negation. Not to drink outside the sukka.
Speaker 2: Only in the sukka?
Speaker 1: Okay, I hear. Do you understand what I’m saying?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
—
Halacha 7: Obligation of Eating on the First Night of Yom Tov
The First Night – Obligation to Eat in the Sukka
Speaker 1: Okay, further is this learning is the obligation of all seven days. But achila miyad yom tov harishon basukka iz chova (eating on the first yom tov in the sukka is an obligation). All other days it’s a menorah (optional) for whoever is hungry, but the first day is an obligation.
That means as we learned like a mitzvas lo sa’aseh (negative commandment), when one may not eat. What one may not eat, except for the kebeitza, or achilas arai, or achilas shena shena arai, and so on. Now one can learn it, eating on the first night is indeed an obligation.
I have a Torah that the rest of Sukkos one already knows that the sukka is your place, and now you have a reason, you’re hungry, but first he must try it once. But the first night one tries it. That’s according to your approach, if you’re a bit inclined to the idea that a sukka becomes his home.
Shiur – Even a Kezayis of Bread
Speaker 1: Anyway, one continues, further, afilu achal kezayis pas, yatza yedei chovaso. The thing that one must eat on the first night is not necessarily achilas keva (a fixed meal) like a kebeitza, more than a kebeitza, but even a kezayis of bread, he fulfills his obligation. Because he has already established himself.
It’s a question, what is… the obligation is an obligation of eating, eating. It’s not an obligation. It’s like every shiur of eating, every shiur of eating. Although the shiur of establishing is a kebeitza, but the shiur of eating is so.
There are indeed those who argue about this, he brings here the Ran and others who indeed argue that one must eat a kebeitza. But the Rambam doesn’t understand it that way. The Rambam says that because it’s a mitzvas achila (commandment of eating), like Pesach at night, matza, like everything is a kezayis.
Ah, there too he said the same language, “mishe’achal kezayis, yatza yedei chovaso”, which perhaps is there also to exclude this? You shouldn’t think that one needs a kevius seuda (establishing a meal), or achilas pras, I don’t know, there are other larger measures. It’s enough that he showed that this is his place where he eats. Listen, it’s enough that he eats a measure of mitzva of a kezayis. Even though it still doesn’t mean… it wouldn’t have been forbidden outside. One novelty.
A nice point, I say, according to the Rambam it’s clear. The one who says that one must eat a kebeitza, that the Ran indeed says that one must eat a kebeitza, because if not there’s no eating that’s obligated in sukka at all, one can think.
Mikan Va’eilach Reshus (From Here On It’s Optional)
Says the Rambam, “mikan va’eilach”, after the first night, after one has eaten the kezayis of bread, it’s optional. “Ratza le’echol seuda vesoed basukka, ratza eino ochel kol shiva”. Ah, this fits very well with Reb Chaim Brisker. “Ela peiros achlilos chutz lasukka”. If he doesn’t want to eat any achilas keva, he only wants to eat snacks, the seven days he’ll only eat to sustain himself, whatever, he’ll only eat fruits, he may eat like the eating of matzos on Pesach. Like Pesach, where the… if one wants to eat, the Rambam, he said, if he’ll only eat pancakes. Only the first night is the obligation. Also by sukka there’s the thing that the first night is the obligation.
Halacha 10 – His Head and Most of His Body in the Sukka and His Table in the House
So he says the Rambam, “mi shehaya rosho verubo basukka”. So until here is the main law… Yes, I think the next halacha also has the law of sukka. I don’t know why this halacha comes in. It’s another side decree like it was in sukka.
He says, what does sitting in the sukka mean? He says, sitting in the sukka isn’t just a person standing and eating, but it must be an established… also the way of sukka. Mi shehaya rosho verubo basukka veshulchano betoch beiso, o chutz lasukka, ve’achal, harei zeh asur. It’s not yotzei (fulfilling), but it’s forbidden. One may not do it, it’s forbidden. Why? Because he’s eating. He’s eating outside the sukka. He’s eating now achilas keva, right? One may not. It’s forbidden miderabbanan (rabbinically).
Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s forbidden in the sukka.
Speaker 1: Yes, it’s forbidden miderabbanan, but I’m saying it’s forbidden in the prohibition of eating outside the sukka. There is indeed a prohibition of eating outside the sukka. It’s a bitul lav haba michlal aseh (nullification of a negative commandment derived from a positive), I don’t know exactly what… Vecha’ilu lo achal basukka. It’s viewed as if he didn’t eat in the sukka. Ad sheyihye shulchano betoch hasukka. Why? Gezeira shema yimashech achar shulchano. Afilu besukka gedola. Even in a large sukka where there’s actually room, granted he said how strong the reason is, his table stands outside, and the Chacham said, a person will follow his table, and he’ll go out to eat outside the sukka. Therefore lechatechila (initially) one shouldn’t eat in such a manner at all, one may not, one doesn’t fulfill as if, as if one doesn’t fulfill. Whatever that means. Yes? Yes.
Halacha 11 – Reading in the Sukka, Studying Outside the Sukka, Praying
Says the Rambam further, let’s learn what else one must do in the sukka. That is, we learned that one must eat and sleep, and dwell in the sukka. Kol shivas hayamim korei betoch hasukka. When one learns Torah, or reads, yes, as you say.
Speaker 2: No, korei means reading from the Torah, we’ll see.
Speaker 1: Korei means reading, lehotzi mipiv (to articulate), reading from the text. Aval keshehu me’ayen umedakdek bema sheyikra, but when he wants to be more analytical, it means to do the part of iyun (in-depth study) of thinking into what one has learned, like he says shlish baTalmud (a third in Talmud), thinking into the learning, ya’ayen, this should be done chutz lasukka. Should one or may one?
Speaker 2: He may, yes.
Speaker 1: Why? Kedei shetehei da’ato meyusheves alav. In the sukka there are indeed, as we learned, there are flies, there are things, and one needs to have yishuv hada’as (settled mind) to be able to think. If one needs more yishuv hada’as, then yes, he may go out from the sukka. Rashi says, because the wind and air outside the sukka is good for expanding his mind.
It could be for this there’s the sukka that the Rambam said at the beginning which sukka, one makes huge huge sukkos for the reason, that one can indeed learn inside. Let me not need to, you want to walk, you want to go wherever it’s pleasant for you to learn. Okay, very good.
Discussion: Mispacel – Ratza BaSukka, Ratza Chutz LaSukka (Praying – He Wishes in the Sukka, He Wishes Outside the Sukka)
Umitpalel, says the Rambam, praying, different from learning, which is lechatechila, as long as one doesn’t need great yishuv hada’as, one should do it in the sukka, but praying, ratza mitpalel basukka, ratza chutz lasukka. Interesting. Why? I don’t know, it wasn’t in the Rambam. Everything you need to know why. What’s wrong with going by a drama?
Speaker 2: But praying is always the order that one does in shul, not at home.
Speaker 1: But he doesn’t say that. You’re coming into the definition that I haven’t yet seen anywhere, that there’s a distinction of things where the custom to do at home isn’t the custom. It doesn’t say in the Rambam all these things. It says things that one can’t do in the sukka, like being analytical. It doesn’t say because all year I’m not analytical at home. It says because it’s harder to be analytical in the sukka, therefore one may not. Praying, he says, it doesn’t say in the Gemara. There was a question among the Geonim, there were some who thought that one must make a sukka in shul and make and pray in the sukka? To this says the Rambam, no, one doesn’t need to. He doesn’t explain. I don’t clearly understand what the inquiry is. There is indeed the concept to pray where one learns. The iyun stands outside. The reading, you know, I don’t know if it has the power to transfer to that. Anyway, in short, there are places, there are Jews who specifically pray in the sukka. Perhaps they hold differently than the Rambam, one must understand.
So I say, I mitpalel (praying) here means even tefillas tzibbur (communal prayer). There were those who thought that the shul must make a sukka and one should pray there in the sukka. The Rambam doesn’t agree. But the Rambam says ratza, ratza… What does ratza mean? That he may, but he would be allowed. What’s the prohibition? It’s something nice, it seems. He doesn’t go into the details of praying with a congregation or not, these sorts of things. It doesn’t say, it doesn’t say. Okay.
Speaker 2: Ah, perhaps ratza means that he can with this… That’s an answer, not to pray with the congregation in shul, but to pray with you at home.
Speaker 1: It’s also legitimate like… like one can write to him, but it doesn’t say that either. Okay. I want to do that it doesn’t say. I could insist that it shouldn’t say. Yes. Okay, wonderful. Yes, let’s finish already, yes?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, let’s try. Okay. Descending rains, if it rains, is that a mitztaer (discomfort)?
Speaker 2: I don’t know. It doesn’t say.
Halacha 12 – Descending Rains
Okay, we learned indeed that one only needs to be in the sukka when it’s comfortable, and a mitztaer is exempt. Yoredei geshamim, it’s raining, it starts raining, “harei zeh nichnas letoch habayis” – one may go inside into the home. I’m not obligated to stay. He goes in.
It says indeed “me’eimasai hu mutar lefanos?” No, here he says “mutar” (permitted), yes. “Me’eimasai hu mutar lefanos?” From when does this become permitted? Okay, because that means that a little bit of rain that doesn’t bother him, he shouldn’t leave yet. But such a thing I didn’t understand. Mitztaer one doesn’t say the measure of mitztaer. Here it looks like the mitztaer gets a measure of mitztaer.
Speaker 2: It doesn’t say in the Gemara anywhere that it’s mitztaer.
Speaker 1: So say various commentators. I think that rain isn’t mitztaer. Earlier you said that it’s not wind, and here is another type of mitztaer from rain.
Speaker 2: No, no, no. It’s an extra type of exemption. Because a sukka is a thing, let’s understand, a sukka is a thing that protects from the sun. It’s not a thing that one sits in it in the rain. This type of sukka doesn’t protect from the rain. Perhaps there’s another type of sukka that protects from the rain, but a normal sukka doesn’t protect from the rain. So, all sukkos, the people who are in the sukka, are they in a sukka in the rain?
Speaker 1: No, they’re not mitztaer.
Speaker 2: There’s a sukka, it’s not pleasant to sit in the sukka. A sukka isn’t a thing that one sits in the rain. Like to say, does one drive in the car when the car doesn’t drive? It’s not driving in the car. Therefore, the Chassidic Jews who sit in the sukka in the rain, they’re not sitting in a sukka at all. It’s not a sukka. It becomes a hedyot (layman) or one of those things. One doesn’t need to speak hedyot. Hedyot is he does a thing that he’s exempt from. I’m speaking now a simple thing: it doesn’t say in the Gemara that rain is laws of mitztaer. Does mitztaer say at all in the Gemara?
Speaker 1: No, that already says in the Mishna.
Speaker 2: And in rain there’s no sukka, one doesn’t sit in sukka in the rain. Understandably, there’s a question, a little rain one can still sit. Okay, one needs to know from when the rain begins, from when does one go out from the sukka.
He says, “misheyiplu letoch hasukka tipot, she’im yiplu letoch hatavshil yifselu” – when it rains already so much that it would spoil the food, then is the exemption of going out because of the rain. Says the Rambam, “afilu tavshil shel pol”, even a dish of beans that becomes spoiled easier, that means with less rain, is also already exempt from sukka.
Paseku HaGeshamim (The Rains Stopped)
The Rambam says, “haya ochel basukkah veyardu geshamim”, so now there is a heter (permission) for him to go inside to eat at home, and when he went inside pasku hageshamim. Now the question is, perhaps he now becomes obligated, because now it’s not raining? But ein mechayev anus lachazor lasukkah ad sheyigmor seudato. The Tur says that as long as one is in the middle of the same meal, one can finish eating at home. What is this? This has nothing to do with the Torah… what is the shiur (measure)? He’s going to run in and run out?
Haya yashen veyardu geshamim balaylah, the same thing, venichnas letoch habayit because of the rain, upasku hageshamim, the same thing, ein matrichin oto lachazor lasukkah kol ota halaylah. We don’t trouble him to return to the sukkah that night, ela yashen beveito ad sheya’aleh amud hashachar. One may sleep at home until morning. Morning is the time when Jews get up. Certainly, he doesn’t mean that one must get up at alot hashachar (dawn). Certainly, that’s an extra thing that Jews get up at alot hashachar.
Halacha 13 – Gamar Me’echol BeYom HaShevi’i
Gamar me’echol beyom hashevi’i bashacharit, now we’re going to say a new halacha. What happens at the end of Sukkot? The seventh day of Sukkot, the last day of Sukkot, before Shemini Atzeret, he finished eating. Essentially there’s no longer any reason to maintain the sukkah. But lo yatir sukkato, he should not take down the sukkah and dismantle the sukkah. Why? Because perhaps he will want to eat later, he’ll be hungry in the afternoon, because it’s still in the middle of the day of yom hashevi’i, and during the day there are still reasons that one might want to go into the sukkah. Perhaps he needs to learn there, as mentioned. And here you see, he will have an obligation. There’s an obligation to have a sukkah all of Sukkot.
But yes, we learned earlier that the pots and things are removed from the sukkah. But once one has finished Sukkot, the vessels… You’re talking about the vessels that are in the sukkah. Yes, but you had vessels, one may put vessels in the sukkah. No, no, the opposite. To remove the vessels that one had before, that the nice vessels one puts in the sukkah, one may not remove. But he doesn’t want to have it for Yom Tov and three.
Removing Vessels from the Sukkah
Speaker 1: It means, not evening, but even early afternoon one may already remove. In the middle of the afternoon, yes. And midday one may already remove the vessels.
It means, this one may not do on Sukkot. Usually it’s a disgrace to the sukkah that one removes the vessels and one knows that the sukkah is not the pasuk.
Unless he doesn’t have room at home where to put his vessels. And therefore he will eat in the sukkah, Shemini Atzeret too. Yes.
Reducing the Sechach
Is he reducing the sechach, may he take down a bit of the sechach? Not may he, he must. He needs to break a bit of the sechach. Why? So that it should be seen that he’s not fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah, he doesn’t want to violate bal tosif (adding to commandments).
Speaker 2: Okay, you’re adding words.
Speaker 1: The not too long words is also not a rule. There’s a problem when one may.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: The Rambam says that it’s not clear, but there’s some sugya (Talmudic discussion) that one may not sit in the sukkah when it’s already a day after Sukkot, because this will look like a concern of bal tosif. Or is it actually an issue the opposite? One must make a reduction. One should make some change, one should take down a bit from the sukkah, one should invalidate the sukkah, or one should sit in the place that’s not under the sechach, and with this one won’t…
What he says is that one should take down a bit. One doesn’t need to break the entire sukkah, or one needs to break a bit, so that it should be seen that there’s no longer an obligation of sukkah.
Speaker 2: Does this invalidate it? Or even to invalidate it?
Speaker 1: No, the sukkah doesn’t necessarily become invalid, it doesn’t say so. If it’s seven [tefachim], it becomes invalid with this. But four by four, perhaps there it becomes invalid, because it’s invalid if he sits in that place. He won’t sit in that place, he’s already made a bit, he’s already shown. He must sit exactly there.
Speaker 2: I mean, why specifically four by four?
Speaker 1: Four by four is a shiur.
Speaker 1: The Rambam, and it’s necessary to explain in the gates of the day, but if he still needs on that day during yom hashevi’i when one is still obligated in sukkah, he needs to eat in the sukkah, for the mitzvah is all seven. But this is obvious, I don’t know why he says this.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Halacha 14: The Blessing of Leishev BaSukkah
Speaker 1: So, says the Rambam, when one must make a blessing. Kol zeman sheyikanes leishev basukkah kol shiv’ah. We learned earlier that there’s no obligation, but when one does go into the sukkah, there are also blessings for when it’s not an obligation. But here it says kol zeman sheyikanes, even when the current entry is not an obligation. But there are blessings on mitzvot that are not obligations. That’s also true.
Veyevarech kodem sheyeishev, veyevarech al Hashem Elokeinu melech ha’olam, asher kideshanu bemitzvotav vetzivanu leishev basukkah. This is what’s asked, the mitzvah is not to eat in the sukkah. There’s an obligation all seven days to dwell in the sukkah. There’s no way out of this one. What is exempt is only on eating in the sukkah. But dwelling in the sukkah is certainly an obligation all seven days.
And the blessing is made kodem sheyeishev, before one sits down just as every mitzvah the blessing is kodem la’asiyato (before its performance).
The Order of Blessings on the First Night of Yom Tov
It’s interesting, because we don’t do this, we say the blessing at the beginning of eating or at kiddush. But the drama, uvleil yom tov harishon, when there’s a mitzvah of kiddush, mevarech al hasukkah ve’achar kach mevarech al hazman. The first blessing one makes the blessing on sukkah, because this one needs to make kodem sheyeishev.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Ve’achar kach mevarech al hazman. Afterwards one makes the blessing on time, meaning shehecheyanu. Umsader kol haberachot al hakos, and all these blessings he does over the cup. Nimtza mekadesh me’umad, unlike usually when kiddush can be made sitting. One makes it standing, because one wants to make leishev basukkah while still standing before one sits down, umevarech leishev basukkah, veyosheiv, and afterwards one sits down, ve’achar kach mevarech al hazman.
Speaker 2: Ah, one needs to sit down so that it should be close to the blessing?
Speaker 1: No, he doesn’t need to. There’s no issue to stand.
Speaker 2: Ah, meaning from now he can already sit down?
Speaker 1: Ah. He says, vechazeh hayah minhag rabotai verabei Sefarad, the rabbis of Spain, that what? Lekadesh me’umad belaylah rishonah shel chag haSukkot, as we explained to make the blessing standing so that one should make the blessing leishev before one sits down. Very good.
The Rambam’s Reasoning in Kiddush Me’umad
So, interesting, because it looks like because essentially one would have to, meaning, perhaps the entire Yom Tov one does this according to the Rambam. For when one stands outside the sukkah, one makes “leishev basukkah,” and one goes in. Because the mitzvah is to go into the sukkah. The mitzvah is not to sit physically, the mitzvah is to be in the sukkah. So one makes it beforehand, just like all mitzvot, one makes over la’asiyatan (before their performance).
The first night when one makes kiddush, it’s a nice thing to make a blessing over the cup. As we learn many times, a blessing with a cup is a nice container for the blessing. He’s going to make kiddush now, so make everything on the cup. He says kiddush, and he says “leishev,” afterwards he sits down, as if the blessing is on the sitting. And “shehecheyanu” one makes afterwards, because it no longer has to do with “leishev basukkah.” So says the Rambam.
The Rambam would have had a problem if one sits down before the blessing, it seems.
Speaker 2: Yes, because he wants to make the blessing over la’asiyatan.
Speaker 1: For kiddush, one sits down, one makes oneself a bit comfortable. A blessing must be over la’asiyatan, right?
The Ra’avad Disagrees
The holy Ra’avad says, he doesn’t know of this custom. “Minhag mekomo eino, lo hayah olam kazeh, vehat’am ki hayeshivah eino ela al da’at ha’achilah.” The Ra’avad holds eating, takes it from the blessing again on the eating, therefore it’s still over la’asiyatan, because it’s before the eating. The problem is that the eating is not necessarily the mitzvah, perhaps the sitting is the mitzvah, this is known. The text is “leishev,” yes.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: The language of the year. I mean that the language of the year which wasn’t. So about this it’s not simple that the Rambam is the custom.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: On one night, the Rambam held that when one sits down one is already comfortable in the sukkah, he already begins to use the sukkah, he already begins to dwell in the sukkah, one will sit there.
The Custom of Kiddush Sitting
Anyway, says the Rambam, “bazman hazeh shenehagu lishtot yayin”. We see here from the Rambam that the custom all year is to say kiddush sitting. And so it also says in the Rama, and the Mechaber says kiddush sitting, because it looks specifically, because kiddush is part of the meal. The meal is an issue of sitting, yes. So it says explicitly in the Rama, that one may stand, but it’s better to sit.
And for some reason, the Arizal said that one should do it standing, unlike the Shulchan Aruch, and one thinks that the Chassidim and Sephardim who follow the Arizal, even when he goes against the Torah. To make kiddush, sitting goes against the Torah. It’s just a custom. But except the only time that the custom of the Rambam was to make kiddush standing was Sukkot at night, and the Rav even then made kiddush sitting.
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Right. Interesting. I don’t know what the explanation of the Arizal is. How can the Arizal go against all the poskim?
Speaker 2: He needs to look it up, he brings it, he talks about it.
Speaker 1: No problem, he saw in heaven, in his revelations that this is the right way. You know that you have here in heaven, yes?
Speaker 2: He heard about it.
Speaker 1: Yes, but it’s not… he didn’t go against halacha, he went against a custom.
Speaker 2: He does go, again. You just explained to me the reasoning. Kiddush is something that comes as part of the meal. A meal one eats sitting. Meal… kiddush one makes sitting. What is the problem? How can he go differently? It’s very puzzling to me.
Speaker 1: It’s not the only thing that the Ari went against the accepted custom.
Speaker 2: Yes, there are other things.
Speaker 1: As that one said, you’re making the question bigger, not smaller.
Speaker 2: No, one needs to understand this.
Speaker 1: Perhaps I would have imagined that there were those who used to stand, or it was the custom, or in general that his father used to stand. Rabotai verabei Sefarad, and it would have been the custom of all Israel… Sukkot.
On the contrary, the Rambam also assumes that the normal order is to sit at kiddush, and this is the other custom. On this he brings that I don’t go against this custom, because this is how my rabbis also conducted themselves. It’s true, the Rambam here admits that not everyone conducts themselves with this custom. Just as the Ra’avad says, in our place one doesn’t conduct oneself this way, but we always conduct ourselves this way, you understand?
Exactly the opposite, we mean those who follow the Ari. It says acharei aryeh velo acharei isha (after the lion and not after the woman), the main thing is to follow the lion.
Halacha 15: Yom Tov Sheni – Sitting in the Sukkah Without a Blessing
Speaker 1: The Rambam continues, bazman hazeh she’anu yoshvim shnei yamim tovim, we make two days of Yom Tov, we make Yom Tov Sheni, yoshvim basukkot shemonah yamim. Uvayom hashemini shehu yom tov rishon Shemini Atzeret, yoshvin bah, one also sits in the sukkah. Unlike what he said earlier that on yom hashevi’i one already begins to take down the sukkah. That yoshvin bah, yoshvin bah, aval ve’ein mevarech leishev basukkah.
And he’s going to say why? Because one doesn’t make a blessing on something that is a doubt in a mitzvah. His reasoning is, but because all Yom Tov Sheni, every Yom Tov Sheni one makes the blessing, or like all eating matzah.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Vechen, but there’s something different, because here it’s on the side that it’s not bal tosif, no? Perhaps that’s the answer?
Speaker 2: Say, look further, let’s take.
Speaker 1: Chai, tumtum veandroginus, vechen tumtum ve’androginus, shemechuyavin bamitzvah misafek, just as said earlier that the androginus also eats in the sukkah, le’olam ein mevarchin aleha, she’ein chayavin misafek, ve’ein mevarchin misafek.
All the commentators say, it can’t be that this is the reason why this only applies to androginus, because Yom Tov Sheni one always makes a blessing. The Rambam says clearly. It seems that here there’s a special “reason.” Usually one makes a blessing on Yom Tov Sheni so that it shouldn’t be a doubt of Yom Tov Sheni. And here it would be the opposite, because we think it’s still Sukkot, and it’s not Shemini Atzeret. On Shemini Atzeret one doesn’t sit in the sukkah. One must honor the side that it’s already Shemini Atzeret, a regel bifnei atzmo (festival in its own right). One can’t, so one makes it that one sits but without the blessing. So is the halacha.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Further there are people who don’t sit in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret, like us. This is a great dispute of the Acharonim. It’s already not according to the halacha either, not the simple understanding of the Gemara and the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch and all others.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Halacha 16: Gamar Me’echol BeYom HaShemini
Speaker 1: So, the Rambam continues, “gamar me’echol beyom hashemini” – earlier he spoke about a Jew who actually did, who was seven days etc. But it happens with us, when there’s a doubt of the day – “gamar me’echol beyom hashemini, morid kelav umefaneh otah”. He takes out his vessels to prepare for the last day, which is certainly only Shemini Atzeret, and is certainly not from the first days of Sukkot. “Ein lo makom lehorid et kelav”, it’s like this: “im haytah ketanah, machnis bah et hamenorah”.
Making a Recognizable Change in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeret (Doubt of the Day)
But it happens with us when there’s a doubt of the day, so “gamar me’echol beyom hashemini, morid kelav umefaneh otah”, he takes out his vessels to prepare for the last day, which is certainly only Shemini Atzeret and is certainly not from the first days of Sukkot.
“Ve’ein lo makom lehorid et kelav”, it’s like this: “im haytah ketanah, machnis bah et hamenorah”. We learned that in a small sukkah one doesn’t bring in a menorah, because when one puts in the menorah, one shows with this that it’s no longer Yom Tov, it’s no longer the sukkah.
“Ve’im haytah gedolah, machnis bah kedeirot uke’arot vechayotza bahen”. He says, if it’s large, one still shows nothing by putting in the menorah, because in a large sukkah one always puts the menorah. One needs to show something else, one does it by putting in pots and bowls, which usually one doesn’t put there because it’s disgusting, because it’s smeared with food, kedei lehakir pesulah, to show that the sukkah is becoming invalid, it has already finished its mitzvah.
Why Can’t One Actually Invalidate the Sukkah?
Why? He says, hey, why shouldn’t one break it like one did earlier? Earlier one spoke when it’s Chol HaMoed. What Chol HaMoed one may, it seems, do a… it’s not really a melechet binyan (building work), it’s some small work, it seems one may do it, yes, as the law of the laws of Chol HaMoed. One will see that one may build a sukkah on Chol HaMoed. I don’t know, perhaps one may also dismantle a sukkah on Chol HaMoed.
Now it’s already Yom Tov, which is Shemini Atzeret, “ve’eino yachol lifsulah”, one should invalidate it with one of the other ways. Not actually invalidate, but one should show that it’s no longer the same importance, one no longer holds the sukkah so important. Very good.
Halacha 17 — Mi SheLo Asah Sukkah
The Rambam says, “mi shelo asah sukkah, bein beshogeg bein bemeizid, oseh sukkah becholo shel mo’ed”. One may make the sukkah on Chol HaMoed. One doesn’t say, many times one says “haya lo la’asot erev yom tov,” but one doesn’t say. Both may and also must. The mitzvah of sukkah is important enough that one should make a sukkah on Chol HaMoed.
The Rambam says, “afilu besof yom shevi’i oseh sukkah, shemitzvata al kol shiv’ah”. Similar to what we learned by destruction of chametz which is until… okay, one also needs to have seen earlier that one may not break the sukkah, there’s an obligation to have a sukkah, a complete sukkah. He didn’t make a sukkah until now, he makes on Hoshana Rabbah afternoon a sukkah. Fine.
Halacha 18 — The Wood of the Sukkah is Forbidden All Eight Days of the Festival
Okay, we’ll learn how to have benefit from the sukkah. The Rambam says thus: “atzei sukkah asurim kol shemonat yemei hachag”. Which wood of the sukkah? Not only from the sechach which is the main mitzvah, but also from the walls which are weaker in the mitzvah, but they are also a part of the sukkah. They are also wood of the sukkah.
“Ve’ein osin mehem ledavar acher”. One doesn’t have benefit from them for another thing “kol shemonat yamim”, all of Sukkot, also the eighth day.
Why the Eighth Day?
Why the eighth day? “Because the entire seventh day the sukkah is muktzeh until bein hashmashos”. That means, the first days are because there’s still a mitzvah, one may not derive benefit from something that is a mitzvah. It’s muktzeh l’mitzvaso, that is, even on Chol HaMoed.
And the eighth day, why the eighth day? “Because the entire seventh day the sukkah is muktzeh until bein hashmashos”. The seventh day is still the beginning, when the seventh day arrives it’s still muktzeh. “And since it’s muktzeh for bein hashmashos, it’s muktzeh for the entire day”.
Noy Sukkah (Sukkah Decorations)
The Rambam says, “And similarly, the last of the dwelling, things that are hung in the sukkah in order to beautify it”, that is, not only the sukkah itself, but the noy sukkah, one hung up some beautiful flowers or a piece of bread, God forbid, in short, something, an esrog, things, fruits. “And similarly, the last of the dwelling, things that are hung in the sukkah in order to beautify it, one may not benefit from them all eight days”. One may not use them the entire Yom Tov, they become noy sukkah.
The Solution of Making a Tenai (Condition)
But what’s the solution? How does one want to? One wants to? There is a solution. “And he stipulates about them at the time he hangs them and says: I am not separating from them during any bein hashmashos”. So when bein hashmashos arrives, I mean not, I don’t give it over completely to the sukkah, it still remains a… whatever it is.
Then the halacha is different. “And behold they are permitted for whatever he wishes, for he didn’t make them muktzeh and the sanctity of the sukkah didn’t take effect on them and they aren’t considered like it”. Three interesting expressions for the same thing. It’s not muktzeh, and it doesn’t become kedushas hasukkah, and it doesn’t become part of it. That is, he means like the noy sukkah which becomes kamosa, like the sukkah.
Question: Noy Sukkah and Bitul (Nullification) Regarding Sechach
I have a question here, what’s going on? We learned earlier that one may sit under the noy sukkah because it’s batel (nullified) to the sechach. Perhaps in such a case that would indeed be a problem?
No, “from the side it doesn’t become batel” the matter… no, it’s not a contradiction.
But regarding the sukkah itself the tenai doesn’t help, right? Because the sukkah itself is indeed a sukkah, it has become a sukkah. But regarding the noy sukkah he can say “I’m not making this into a sukkah”. The noy sukkah is “I am not separating from them” apparently here. That’s the distinction.
Conclusion
Okay, we have learned all of Hilchos Sukkah, and afterwards the next chapters seven and eight discuss Hilchos Lulav.
Hashem azrenu al devar kevod shemo (May God help us for the sake of His glorious Name).