Building the Sukkah
[4] (Halacha 671)
Question: What is the halacha regarding a sukkah that was built in a manner unfit for sleeping — is it valid for eating in it?
Answer: The Yereim wrote1, cited in the Mordechai2: 'But if he built it from the outset in a place where it is fitting to be distressed regarding eating or drinking or sleeping, such as where he would fear thieves in it — not only does he not fulfill his obligation with this, but even if there is danger and distress regarding sleeping, and regarding eating there is no distress or danger, he does not fulfill his obligation, for we require [it to be] like your dwelling, and this is not like your dwelling, since he cannot fulfill in it all the needs of eating, drinking, and sleeping without distress, and from the outset it is not a sukkah since it stands for distress.' And so wrote other Rishonim3.
And so wrote the Maharil4: 'And one should build the sukkah in a place where he can be there regularly, whether to eat there or to sleep there, such as not in a place of filth and stench or in a place where there is danger from bandits and thieves. For then, even the obligation of eating in the sukkah he does not fulfill, since he cannot sleep there.'
And so ruled the Rema5, and this is his wording: 'And if he built it from the outset in a place where he is distressed regarding eating or drinking or sleeping, or where he cannot do one of them in the sukkah because he fears bandits or thieves when he is in the sukkah, he does not fulfill his obligation with that sukkah at all, even regarding the matters in which he is not distressed, for it is not like a dwelling in which he can carry out all his needs.'
Except that the Chacham Tzvi6 disagreed with this and wrote: 'What is written in the Mordechai .. that if one built a sukkah from the outset in a place fitting to be distressed regarding sleeping he does not fulfill his obligation at all, even regarding eating — this does not appear correct to me at all, for "you shall dwell like your dwelling" does not refer to the manner of the sukkah, in what way it is built, but rather to the manner of dwelling, in what way it shall be, and about this it says that it shall be like a dwelling; and indeed if one builds two sukkahs, one for eating and the second for sleeping, even though the one for eating is unfit for sleeping, nevertheless he fulfills the obligation of eating in it .. And the proof from the aforementioned Mordechai itself requires a proof; on the contrary, since we hold that we require a sukkah to be a temporary dwelling, and like R. Akiva who built his sukkah atop a ship even though the wind is present there and uproots it, as indeed it was uprooted, and presumably it is not the way to sleep there since the wind is present there at all times and it is easily uprooted, and a person does not sleep in such a dwelling, and even so R. Akiva built it in order to eat there — we learn from this that even though it is unfit for sleeping in it, he fulfills the obligation of eating in it. And it appears to me that the essence of the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbanan — whether we require four amos or seven tefachim suffice — is on this reasoning: whether we require that the sukkah be fit for sleeping as well, and therefore we require four amos .. or whether it being fit for eating suffices, and therefore seven tefachim suffice .. and we hold like the Rabbanan. And regarding "the native-born" we say that "every native-born" teaches that all of Israel may fulfill their obligation with one sukkah — Rashi explained that it implies one sukkah for all of Israel, that they dwell in it one after another; and there is no doubt that even regarding eating they are fit to eat one after another, that is, that a thousand or ten thousand eat at once and afterward another thousand or ten thousand; but regarding sleeping, since the essence of the mitzvah of sleeping in the sukkah is a man and his wife, it is impossible for two men and their wives to sleep in one sukkah, and if with a partition dividing it, it is not one sukkah but several sukkahs — and according to the aforementioned reasoning of the Mordechai they would not fulfill even the mitzvah of eating; rather it is certainly not so, and for whatever it is fit, he fulfills his obligation with it, as above.'7.
But the Acharonim8 challenged the Chacham Tzvi, [holding] that his words are against all the Rishonim and Acharonim, and they rejected his proofs, and ruled like the words of the Rema.
★ ★ ★
The Rema further discussed in a responsum9, cited in the Darkei Moshe10, regarding a sukkah built in a manner where thieves can steal from it, and this is his wording: 'And it never entered the mind of the Mordechai and the Hagahos to invalidate a sukkah from which thieves can steal, for if so, all the sukkahs in the world would be invalid, since we require every sukkah to be a temporary dwelling, and even in a guarded courtyard it is not guarded from thieves who come and go .. Rather, at the outset one should say that the Mordechai and the Hagahos spoke only regarding a place where he fears to sleep in the sukkah because of thieves and bandits, as is evident from the language of the Mordechai; but regarding the openness whereby they can steal from it — of this the Mordechai did not speak, for by day he himself guards the sukkah, and at night he brings the money into his house. For the sukkah need not be one in which his money is guarded, since the Merciful One is particular only about his dwelling and not about the guarding of his money .. And a proof to this from the fact that we validate a sukkah that holds his head and most [of his body], and it is known that he cannot guard his money there but only sit in it in a cramped manner. And another proof from what we say in Tractate Sukkah: all of Israel are fit to dwell in one sukkah, as it says "all of Israel dwelt in sukkahs," and it is known that among all of Israel it is impossible that there not be thieves among them, and it is not guarded from thieves who would steal money ..'. And so wrote the Magen Avraham11.
And in halacha the Alter Rebbe wrote12 like the words of the Rema, and this is his wording: 'In what case are these words said? Where the distress came upon him by chance after he built the sukkah there; but if he built a sukkah in a place where it is known to him that he will afterward be distressed in it, such as if he built in a place where the wind is present and prevails there — and even if he built in a place where he will have no distress regarding eating but will have distress regarding sleeping, such as if he built in a street where he cannot sleep there peacefully because of the fear of thieves and bandits — this sukkah is invalid, and he does not fulfill his obligation in it even regarding eating, even though he has no distress at all in it, because any sukkah in which he cannot eat and drink and stroll and sleep peacefully without any distress is not called a dwelling at all, since it is not similar to his house in which he can carry out all his needs peacefully. But one who built a sukkah in a street and does not fear for his life to sleep there at night, even though he fears that his utensils in the sukkah may be stolen — this is valid, for it is fit for him as a dwelling since he does not fear to sleep in it, and his utensils he can bring into the house at night ..'.
If so, a sukkah in which one cannot sleep is invalid for eating; however, the fact that thieves can steal from it does not invalidate it.
-
Footnotes:
1 סי' תכא ↩
2 סוכה רמז תשמ ↩
3 תוס' רי"ד סוכה י, ב והרמב"ן במלחמות ה' סוכה ג, ב מדפי הרי"ף. וכתבו האחרונים (שו"ת אבני נזר או"ח סי' תעט) שכן מוכח מרש"י סוכה י, א ↩
4 מנהגים הל' סוכות אות ד ↩
5 שו"ע או"ח סי' תרמ ס"ד בהג"ה ↩
6 סי' צד ↩
7 כתב השע"ת סי' תרלט אות [א*]: 'וכתב ברכ"י בשם מר זקינו הרב שהביא תשובת רבינו האי גאון שכתב וז"ל שאלת אחים או שותפים שאין להם מקום לעשות סוכה גדולה ועשו סוכה קטנה שאינה מספקת לכולם והשיב לענין אכילה יכול כ"א לבדו לאכול זא"ז אבל לענין שינה זה ישן לילה אחת וזה לילה אחת, ואם חביבה עליהם המצות תע"ב אם זה ישן מקצת הלילה וזה מקצת ואם שומרי גנות פטורים מכ"ש מי שאין לו מקום לישן בסוכה עכ"ל ומזה ראיה למ"ש לקמן סי' תר"מ אות ה' בשם החכ"צ וזרע אמת (ח"א סי' צא) עיי"ש'. [אך לכאורה יש לחלק שרבינו האיי דיבר בסוכה הראויה לשינה מצד עצמה אלא שמחמת קוטנה אין מקום שינה לכל האוכלים, ואינו דומה לסוכה שאינה ראויה כלל לשינה. (וכן מוכח מהחיד"א עצמו שהגם שהביא תשובה זו, אך הכריע דלא כחכ"צ כמבואר בברכ"י סי' תר"מ ס"ק ו). וק"ל]. והמשנ"ב שם ס"ק כ כתב שבדיעבד יצא י"ח, (וראה בשעה"צ אות כה) ↩
8 ראה שו"ת מים רבים (להר' רפאל מילדולה) ח"א סימנים צג - צד. ובמעשה רוקח, וקרית חנה בסי' תרלט (הובאו בילק"מ). שו"ת אבנ"ז שם. שו"ת בית הלוי ח"ג סי' נג אות ב. ערוה"ש סי' תר"מ ס"ח ↩
9 סי' כט ↩
10 או"ח תר"מ ס"ק ד ↩
11 ס"ק ז ↩
12 שו"ע או"ח סי' תרמ ס"ו ↩
[5] (Halacha 672)
Question: We learned that a sukkah unfit for sleeping is invalid for eating as well; if so, according to this what is the halacha in cold places where one cannot sleep in the sukkah?
Answer: The Levush wrote1: 'That which most of the world has the custom to sleep outside the sukkah — we already said above2 that they rely on this: that they fear because of the cold .. for not every person has pillows and blankets that he can bring into the sukkah, and even if he has, not every person can trouble himself every night to bring them there and in the morning to clear them out, and there is no greater distress than this; therefore, what the Mordechai wrote — that one who builds his sukkah in a place fitting to eat and drink there, but it is unfit to sleep there because he fears bandits or thieves, and he ate there — does not fulfill his obligation even regarding eating, since we require a sukkah to be like your dwelling .. it appears to me that nowadays, when most do not have the custom to sleep in it, such a sukkah is not invalidated, since in any event they do not sleep in it. However, one may distinguish and say that nevertheless we require that it be fit to sleep in, so that it be like a dwelling, and even though he does not sleep in it, as we say elsewhere: "whatever is fit for mixing, the mixing does not hold it back", and likewise we require [something] fit for the addition of water — so too let us say here that we require it to be fit to sleep in even though he does not sleep in it; therefore one should be stringent. And I wrote this because many householders build their sukkahs in the streets and marketplaces in an exposed place that is not fit to sleep there, and even the eating they do not eat there in tranquility because of the passersby, and they are not concerned since they do not sleep there but eat there hurriedly and leave it immediately — that they do not act well, and one should protest against them.'3.
That is, at first the Levush wrote that a sukkah unfit for sleeping is not invalidated, since in any case most do not sleep in the sukkah; but in his conclusion he wrote that this does not constitute a cause for exemption, and even a person who does not actually sleep in the sukkah — his sukkah must be fit in principle for sleeping. According to this, a sukkah built in a cold place, even though he is exempt from sleeping in the sukkah on the grounds of being distressed since he has no pillows and blankets or ability to store them properly — nevertheless, since the sukkah is built in a manner where there is a possibility to sleep in it [such as with a blanket], the sukkah is valid.
And we find among the commentators that they disagreed regarding these approaches that the Levush wrote, and explained them in various ways, as follows:
The Rema wrote4 that if one built the sukkah in a manner where he is distressed regarding sleeping, he does not fulfill his obligation; and the Magen Avraham wrote5: 'Or regarding sleeping. Meaning, in a place where there is no cold.'
And the Acharonim disagreed in the interpretation of the words of the Magen Avraham. The Yad Efraim wrote like the words of the Levush at the beginning of his words, that when they are exempt from sleeping there is no need for the sukkah to be fit, and this is his wording: 'For the matter of being distressed regarding sleeping is already explained in the Shulchan Aruch because of the wind or because of the flies; only there is a difficulty, for above .. it is explained that because of cold they have the custom to be lenient regarding sleeping, and if so, what does it matter that he built it in a place where he cannot sleep because of the wind, since in any event there is no obligation to sleep and to be distressed by the cold? To this the Magen Avraham wrote that it deals with a place where there is no cold, and he is obligated to sleep, and he built it in a place where he cannot sleep because of the wind etc. — then he does not fulfill his obligation, and this is simple.'
And so the Pri Megadim explained at first, but afterward he retracted, and this is his wording: '.. in the cold places we are lenient regarding sleeping, and we are obligated to eat there, and he fulfills his obligation regarding eating, and it is called like your dwelling, since it is impossible otherwise. And according to this, even if he built it in a street and the like, in a manner where in any event it is impossible to sleep there, he fulfills his obligation regarding eating and the like, since a sukkah in the cold places is made only for eating and not for sleeping. And this is what the Magen Avraham wrote "in a place etc." — but in a place etc. he is permitted to build the sukkah. And in the Levush he was stringent, for one may say we require [it to be] fit for mixing, see there. However, in note 7 [the Magen Avraham] agreed with the Levush, and one must say here [it should be understood] according to its plain sense, meaning etc., and in a cold place he fulfills his obligation regarding eating since it is impossible otherwise — it is like your dwelling etc.'6.
That is, the Pri Megadim rejected the understanding of the Yad Efraim, since the Magen Avraham in note 7 cited the Levush, who held that even when they do not sleep, it must be fit for sleeping. Therefore he explains that when there is a possibility to build it in a manner where he can sleep and he did not do so, this holds it back; but in a case where the cold is great and there is no possibility at all to sleep there, this does not hold it back when it is unfit for sleeping because of the cold.
But the Machatzis HaShekel interpreted in another manner: 'That is to say, the words of the Rema are the words of the Mordechai, and above .. [the Rema] cited in the name of the Mordechai that they are not careful to sleep in the sukkah; if so, why should the sukkah be invalid when it is not fit for sleeping? To this he wrote that the reasoning of the Mordechai .. is that in the cold places one is distressed by the cold if he sleeps there, and if so, in any event it is called fit for sleeping, that is, if he has pillows and blankets, as the Magen Avraham wrote there in note 7 ..'.
And the Bikkurei Yaakov wrote7: 'And it appears more [correct] what the Machatzis HaShekel answered on this, that cold is called like a distress that comes by chance since he can protect [himself] by means of pillows and blankets, and therefore even if he has no pillows and blankets the sukkah is not thereby invalidated for eating. And therefore it appears to me that one who built a sukkah near a river, in a manner where even by means of pillows and blankets he would be distressed when he sleeps in it — then when he eats in it he should not recite "leishev basukkah," and likewise in the cold places where he cannot sleep in it at night even with pillows and blankets.'
[And in the view of the Alter Rebbe it is possible that he held like the Machatzis HaShekel, for he cited the Levush in siman 639 se'if 8, who explained that the exemption is because he has no blanket or ability to store [it], and in siman 640 se'if 6 he did not mention the inability to sleep because of a cold place. And this still requires study.]
If so, in practice, even those exempt from sleeping in the sukkah, and likewise according to the Chabad minhag not to sleep in the sukkah8 — nevertheless the sukkah must be fit for sleeping, and even in very cold places it is called fit for sleeping, since it is possible to sleep by covering with a blanket9.
-
Footnotes:
1 או"ח סי' תרמ ס"ד ↩
2 סי' תרלט ס"ב ↩
3 ראה בשו"ת אבנ"ז או"ח סי' תפ שהאריך לדון בדברי הלבוש ודברי אדה"ז ↩
4 סי' תרמ ס"ד ↩
5 ס"ק ו ↩
6 וצ"ב כוונתו. בשיטת היד אפרים ניתן לבאר שהוי כעין תדורו כמ"ש האבנ"ז שם: 'כשהזמן קור שא"א לעשות סוכה שלא יהי' קר, נאמר להיפוך. כשם שאם הי' לאדם סיבה שלא יוכל לישן בבית. מ"מ לא הי' מונע מלבנות בית לאכילה ושתי', כמו"כ חייב לעשות סוכה לאכילה ושתי' אף שאינו יכול לעשות לשינה, לפי"ז כשהעת קור אינו מחויב לעשות סוכה ראוי לשינה'. משא"כ דעת הפרמ"ג במג"א שגם במקום הקור צ"ל ראוי לשינה לולא הקור. וראה מ"ש ערוה"ש סי' תרלט סי"א, ותר"מ ס"ט. ושואל ומשיב מהדורה רביעאה ח"א סי' כט. וראה גם ביכורי יעקב שם ס"ק י אלא שסיים שדברי הפמ"ג הם דוחק ↩
7 שבהערה קודמת ↩
8 ראה סה"ש תרצט ע' 295. לקו"ש חכ"ט ע' 211 ואילך. אג"ק חי"א ע' תיד ↩
9 בשו"ת שואל ומשיב מהדורה רביעאה ח"א סי' כט דן במקרה שאדם בנה סוכה במקום שעפ"י חוק המלך אסור לישן שם, וכתב: 'דע"כ לא כתב המרדכי רק אם מצד המקום אינו ראוי לשינה כגון שהוא פתוח וגלוי ומתיירא בשביל זה בשביל לסטים אבל כאן המקום מצד עצמותו ראוי הוא לישן רק שמצד חק המלך שלא ידור שם כ"א הבעה"ב בשביל זה לא מקרי אינו ראוי לשינה דהמקום בעצמותו ראוי ותדע דאטו נימא כיון שהמלך גזר שבעליה הסמוך לא ידור אדם שיש לחוש לשריפה ח"ו לא יהי' מקרי דירה וע"כ דליתא דבעצמותו ראוי וה"ה בזה' ↩
[6] (Halacha 924)
(Continuation of Halacha number 672)
Question: Is it permitted to use wooden boards [=planks] for the s'chach? (1)
Answer: The Mishnah in Tractate Sukkah1 says: 'One may cover with boards — these are the words of R. Yehuda, and R. Meir forbids.'
And the Gemara brings that Rav and Shmuel disagreed as to what the dispute between R. Yehuda and R. Meir is: 'Rav said: the dispute is regarding boards that have four [tefachim in width], for R. Meir holds of the decree of a ceiling, and R. Yehuda does not hold of the decree of a ceiling; but regarding boards that do not have four, all agree it is valid. And Shmuel said: regarding [boards] that do not have four is the dispute, but [boards] that have four, all agree are invalid. [Boards] that do not have four — and even less than three — behold, they are merely reeds! Rav Pappa said, this is what he means to say: [boards] that have four, all agree are invalid; less than three, all agree are valid — what is the reason? They are merely reeds. Where they disagree is from three to four. One master holds: since they do not have the measure of a "place," we do not decree; and one master holds: since they leave the category of "lavud," we do decree.'
And in explanation of the decree of a ceiling in the words of R. Meir, Rashi wrote: 'R. Meir, who invalidates, holds of the decree of a ceiling: if you validate them, one will come to say, "what difference is there to me between covering with these and sitting under the beams of my house," for it too is roofed with boards — and that is certainly invalid, for the Merciful One said "sukkah" and not his house of all the days of the year.'
If so, we have seen in the words of the Gemara that there is a prohibition to cover with something similar to the ceiling of the house, out of concern that a person will come to sit under the ceiling of the house itself since it resembles boards — and the ceiling of the house is certainly invalid; except that the Tannaim disagreed as to what thickness of boards was prohibited, but according to all opinions boards that are less than three tefachim are permitted.
And the Beis Yosef wrote2: 'And the poskim ruled like Shmuel and in accordance with R. Yehuda. And the Rosh3 wrote that the Raavad ruled like R. Meir and like Rav, and it all comes out to one manner.' And see the Ritva there.
That is, in practice the Rishonim ruled that the invalidation is only regarding boards with a width of four tefachim.
However, several of the Rishonim wrote that since in their times they built the houses with boards less than three, it is not fitting to cover with boards even if they are less than three, as the Yereim wrote4, and the Hagahos Maimoniyos cited it5: 'From the fact that it teaches "like a house" we understand — and not like an actual house — we learn that he may cover it as thick as he wishes, provided that it appears as a sukkah; but with boards, even less than three, which are merely reeds, since all the houses are roofed in this manner and it does not appear as a sukkah, it is invalid, for it is not "like a house" but an actual house.'
And so wrote the Orchos Chaim6 [and the Kol Bo7]: 'And in a place where they have the custom to roof with thin boards, it is forbidden to cover with them because of the decree of a ceiling; and so is the law with these mats of reeds — even though it is large — in those places where they have the custom to gather them on the roofs like a ceiling, one may not cover with them. And there was an incident in the city of Narbonne with a certain sage who covered with thin boards less than three, and the country reviled him and said, "we have never in our days seen such," and it was nearly removed on Chol HaMoed, except that no other valid s'chach was available to him; and likewise these thin woods that are grown and woven, which are called "kleidas" — one may not cover with them, for they are made from the outset for ceilings, and there is regarding them the decree of a ceiling.'
And the Meiri8 wrote: 'And the sages of Narbonne would protest by way of instruction in these times not to cover with boards even those less than four, for the way of our Rabbis was to roof the houses only with boards of four, and there was regarding them no decree of a ceiling; but now that the custom is to roof the houses even with less than four, there is regarding them the decree of a ceiling, and likewise they would protest against those "kleidas" that are woven from palm branches, and likewise regarding a mat woven of reeds called "kanitz," for regarding all of these it is customary to roof the houses with them, and one should be careful of the decree of a ceiling, even though they validated a large mat; and an incident already occurred among them with some of the prominent people of the city, and the great ones of our early [sages] together with the rest of the sages of the city and its elders rebuked them greatly, out of the way of distancing from that which is unseemly, until they compelled them at the conclusion of the first Yom Tov to dismantle [it] and to cover with the customary materials.'
And the Maharach Or Zarua9 wrote: 'However, such as what Rabbi Shimon, the brother-in-law of Rabbeinu Tam, did — he covered [it] nicely with boards that do not have four by four, and fastened it with fine nails — this certainly does not appear [proper] to validate, because of the decree of a ceiling. For many people cover with it, and on the contrary, with boards that are even less than three in width, now most of the world covers. And perhaps in the days of the sages of the Talmud they did not have this custom, and one should be stringent not to cover with them.'
And the Rema wrote in the Darkei Moshe10: 'And in the Hagahos Maimon it is written that if one covered with boards, even less than three, it is invalid, for it is like an actual house, since nowadays everyone roofs their houses with boards that do not have three.'
If so, we have seen that by the law of the Gemara it is permitted to cover with thin boards less than four tefachim; but several of the Rishonim wrote that at a time when they make a ceiling of thin boards, one should not cover with thin boards even if they are less than three tefachim, [and it is to be noted that some wrote11 that from the words of the other Rishonim who did not write this decree it appears that they were not concerned about this and held that even in a place where they make a ceiling of thin boards less than three, it is nevertheless permitted to cover with them].
And in the next halacha we will see an additional concern in covering with boards, also regarding times and boards that are not customarily made into a ceiling.
Footnotes:
1 יד, א ↩
2 או"ח סי' תרכט ↩
3 סוכה סי' כח ↩
4 סי' תכא ↩
5 הל' שופר סוכה ולולב פ"ה אות א ↩
6 הל' סוכה אות טו ↩
7 סי' עא ↩
8 סוכה טו, א ↩
9 שו"ת סי' קצד ↩
10 או"ח סי' תרכט אות ט ↩
11 וראה ערוך השולחן או"ח סי' תרכט סל"ב: 'כתב רבינו הב"י בסי"ח בדין נסרים שנהגו שלא לסכך כלל בנסרים עכ"ל והמנהג הוא מעיקר הדין שהרי עתה נהגו לקרות בתים מנסרים פחותים מארבע ומשלש א"כ פשיטא שיש כאן גזירת תקרה ולכן לא שמענו מימינו לסכך בנסרים אפילו בקצרים כמ"ש בסי"ג וכן בלאטע"ס ובכל מין עץ ולכן אותן המסככים בנסרים קטני קטנים מצויירים אין דעת חכמים נוחה מהם וכ"ש שאין לסכך בשינדלע"ן אמנם במקום שא"א שאין להשיג במה לסכך בהכרח לסכך בנסרים פחות מרוחב ד' אך לא יקבע אותם במסמורות דבכה"ג בית גמור הוא ופסול מן התורה [עמג"א סקכ"ב וא"ר סקט"ו בשם אגודה שפסק כמ"ש]: ↩
12 ראה יביע אומר ד סי' מט 'משאר פוסקים משמע דמכיון שבזמן חכמי הש"ס לא נהגו לעשות מהם תקרה, ולא גזרו ע"ז, גם עתה אין לנו לגזור שלא לסכך בהם'. וראה גם משמרת מועד (קארפ) על מסכת סוכה שם ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupBuilding the Sukkah
[1] (halacha 95)
Laws of Building the Sukkah [A]
Question: May one place the sechach before the walls?
Answer: One who builds a sukkah must first build the walls properly (two walls and the third a tefach) and only afterward place the sechach, as the Rama wrote in siman 635: 'And one should not make the sechach before he makes the walls.'
The reason for the matter: Regarding building the sukkah the Torah states 'חג הסכת תעשה לך שבעת ימים' ("You shall make the festival of Sukkos for yourself seven days") and Chazal said1 'you shall make — and not from that which is already made,' meaning that the fitness of the sukkah must be accomplished in a manner that it is fit at the time of my making it, and not that the sukkah be built in an invalid state and afterward an act is performed that renders it valid on its own. And regarding our matter, the law in the sukkah is that one must place the sechach for shade, that is, a roof that provides shade, and if so, in a case where a person places sechach without walls, it does not have the status of a roof — a tent, but rather merely branches that create shade, and afterward, when he builds the walls, the branches become a roof — sechach, but there will be the problem of 'you shall make and not from that which is already made,' because the sechach became sechach due to the walls coming into existence and not because the person placed them as a roof — sechach. Because I placed it as sechach.
Question: He transgressed and placed it — what is the status of the sukkah?
Answer: In a case where he placed the sechach before the walls, the poskim are divided. According to the view of the Levush2 this sukkah is invalid even after the fact, however the view of the Bach3 is that after the fact the sukkah is valid.
And in practice, le'chatchilah we are concerned for the view of the stringent ones, and therefore he should lift all the sechach slightly (a tefach) and place it back for the purpose of sechach4.
However, in a pressing situation, when there is no possibility to lift the sechach, such as when the festival has begun, he may rely on the poskim who deemed it valid after the fact5 (and especially if there was one wall before he placed the sechach6, and all the more so if there were 2 walls7).
Question: A pergola that has a frame upon which the pergola beams rest — may one place the sechach before making the walls?
Answer: The Rama wrote there: 'And if he made a tefach adjacent to the sechach, it is permitted to cover with sechach before he makes the rest of the walls, like in the case of hollowing out a grain stack.' And the reason for the matter is that since there is a tefach, the sechach is already called a tent, and according to this, in a pergola that has a frame a tefach wide (8 cm) he may place the sechach on this frame even though he did not make walls.
Notes:
1 סוכה יא, ב ↩
2 בסי' תרכו ס"א וסי' תרלה, והט"ז בסי' תרלה ס"ק ד, א"ר ס"ק ד, בן איש חי ↩
3 הביאו המג"א ס"ק ד. וכ"כ במקור חיים. כנסת הגדולה (שכנה"ג הגה"ט), ברכי יוסף ס"ק ב, מועד לכל חי (להגר"ח פלאג'י) סי' כא סי"ב. ערוך השלחן ס"ה. שדי חמד אסיפת דינים מערכת סוכה סימן ב אות ב. ולהעיר מהצמח צדק בחידושים על הש"ס עמ"ס סוכה (דף רט) שנראה שנוטה לשיטת הב"ח ↩
4 וכ"כ אדה"ז בסי' תרכט ס"כ וסכ"ח לגבי סכך פסול ↩
5 וכ"כ בילקוט יוסף מועדים דין סוכת גנב"ך ס"ד. שו"ת שבט הלוי ח"ז סי' נו ↩
6 כיון שהפרי מגדים במשבצות זהב ס"ק ה כתב שיתכן שבדופן אחד מותר לכתחילה ↩
7 שלדעת כמה פוסקים (ראה בצמח צדק שם. ובשדי חמד שם) זה מועיל לכתחילה ↩
[2] (halacha 96)
Laws of Building the Sukkah [B]
Question: When is the time for building the sukkah?
Answer: The Rama wrote in siman 6241 'And the meticulous ones begin building the sukkah immediately on the night following Yom Kippur in order to go from one mitzvah to another mitzvah.' And in siman 625 he wrote 'And it is a mitzvah to prepare the sukkah immediately after Yom Kippur, for a mitzvah that comes to one's hand should not be left to sour.'
And the Pri Megadim2 explained the reason that the Rama wrote this ruling twice, that his intent is that on the night following Yom Kippur he should begin a little, and the next day he should prepare all of it if possible.
And in Sefer HaMinhagim it is brought: On the night following Yom Kippur one occupies oneself, or at least speaks, about the matter of making the sukkah. And in a sicha the Rebbe said3 that we see that most of the Jewish people, 'and I am among them,' are not careful with this in practice (to begin building), but rather fulfill their obligation by speaking about it4.
However, the day after Yom Kippur, after the tefillah, we must hasten to build the sukkah, as the Alter Rebbe also wrote5: 'And it is a mitzvah to prepare the sukkah and build all of it immediately the day after Yom Kippur after leaving the synagogue — a mitzvah that comes to one's hand should not be left to sour.'
Question: As part of the alacrity, is one permitted to build the sukkah on erev Shabbos?
Answer: The Darchei Moshe6 wrote in the name of the Maharil7 that part of the alacrity and not leaving the mitzvah to sour is that even though the next day is erev Shabbos, it is incumbent upon us to build the sukkah.
Except that the Pri Megadim wrote there8 that since the Sages forbade doing melacha on erev Shabbos after midday, therefore on erev Shabbos after midday one could say that it is forbidden to build the sukkah, unless he does so by means of a non-Jew (since leaving the mitzvah to sour takes precedence over the law of 'a mitzvah is better performed by oneself than through one's agent').
However, the Magen Avraham9 and the Alter Rebbe10 ruled that this prohibition is not from midday but from the time of mincha ketanah.
And in addition the Alter Rebbe wrote11 that the entire prohibition is only with ordinary melacha, but if he does it for the need of Shabbos or it is something that is a mitzvah, its law is like something done for the need of Shabbos and it is permitted until the onset of Shabbos12.
And if so, in practice one may build the sukkah on erev Shabbos the entire day until before the onset of Shabbos, however we must first attend to the needs of Shabbos and only afterward build the sukkah13.
Notes:
1 ס"ה ↩
2 בסי' תרכה באשל אברהם ס"ק א ↩
3 מוצאי יו"כ התש"נ אחר קידוש לבנה (תו"מ התש"ן ח"א ע' 105) ↩
4 ובהערה שם נתבאר עוד ביאור לכפל ההלכות ברמ"א ואכמ"ל ↩
5 סי' תרכה ↩
6 בסי' תרכה אות א, הובא בעטרת זקנים ↩
7 הל' סוכה סי' א ע' שנט ↩
8 הביאו המשנ"ב סי' תרכה ס"ק ב ↩
9 בסי' רנא ס"ק ד. ומטה אפרים סי' תרכה ס"ט ↩
10 שם ס"ב ↩
11 שם בס"ג ↩
12 וראה גם בהליכות שלמה פ"ז דין יג ↩
13 שו"ע אדמו"ר הזקן בסי' רנ ס"א - ג. וכף החיים סי' תרכד ס"ק לה ↩
[3] (halacha 97)
Laws of Building the Sukkah [C]
Question: Does each person need to have his own sukkah?
Answer: A. Now, from the essential law a person fulfills his obligation with his fellow's sukkah, as the Alter Rebbe wrote1: Even though the Torah said 'חג הסכת תעשה לך' ("You shall make the festival of Sukkos for yourself"), 'for yourself' — from that which is yours, meaning that the sukkah should be yours and not your fellow's, nevertheless a person fulfills his obligation with a borrowed sukkah, since once he has entered it with permission it is as though it is his own, and 'for yourself — from that which is yours' was stated only to exclude a stolen one, in the manner that will be explained. And likewise a person fulfills his obligation with a sukkah in which he has a partnership with his fellow...'.
B. However, we find in the poskim2 that there is value and a hiddur for each person to build a sukkah for his family and not to suffice with his fellow's sukkah (of course in a manner where this is possible), and so the Rebbe writes3: that since 'תשבו כעין תדורו' (you shall dwell as you reside) — each person must have a sukkah of his own, similar to the way that throughout the year a person lives in his own dwelling. — And especially since its making is also a mitzvah4, and in such a case 'a mitzvah is better performed by oneself than through one's agent,' and to the extent that Rashbi interrupted even for the making of a sukkah5.
Question: Must each and every person participate himself in building the sukkah?
Answer: Now, as was brought in the previous question from the words of the Rebbe that there is a mitzvah in the making of the sukkah6, and consequently 'a mitzvah is better performed by oneself' — surely a person must occupy himself in building the sukkah.
And the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch wrote7: 'And it is a mitzvah upon every person to occupy himself in the making of the sukkah and in the placing of the sechach, and even though he is a distinguished person, this is his honor, that he occupies himself with the mitzvah.'
However, it should be noted that in the Shaarei Teshuva8 it is written that although a person who was appointed as a leader over the community is forbidden to do melacha in front of three people so that he not be disgraced, nevertheless in the case of the sukkah it is permitted since it is a mitzvah. — But the Rebbe explained9 regarding the conduct of the Rebbe the Rayatz, who was not particular about building the sukkah himself, [and on the night of Shemini Atzeres 5730 the Rebbe expressed10 that my revered father-in-law the Rebbe also did not take a hammer and occupy himself in building the sukkah, and that likewise by his father Rabbi Levi Yitzchak he did not build but rather a craftsman would come to build] that this was because he was a leader over the community, whereas Rashbi, who was not a leader over the community and therefore, although his Torah was his occupation, interrupted for the building of the sukkah.
In any case, one who cannot do everything by himself — the Kaf HaChaim wrote11 'And if it is impossible for him for some reason, he should at least do a little with his own hand, and have the rest done by an agent, and he should say to him, 'You are an agent commanded on my behalf to make this sechach for the purpose of the mitzvah of sukkah.'
And in a similar vein the Rebbe expressed12 that with the moving of a board or a single branch of sechach one can fulfill the mitzvah of making a sukkah. And likewise the Rebbe related13 that when I once mentioned the minhag to begin occupying oneself with the making of the sukkah on the night following Yom Kippur, my revered father-in-law the Rebbe told me to fix a nail or the like, but in practice he was not himself particular about this.
[I heard from a trustworthy person that he saw in a certain year that they left branches for the Rebbe in the sukkah at the home on President Street so that the Rebbe would place them on the sukkah14].
If so, in practice there is a mitzvah in building a sukkah, and that each person himself should be a participant in this at least in a small action such as adding a bit of sechach, fixing a nail and the like, and with this he fulfills the mitzvah of building a sukkah.
Question: When and where does one bind the Four Species?
Answer: It is written in Sefer HaMinhagim15 The meticulous ones bind the lulav in the sukkah and on erev Yom Tov; the meticulous ones bind the lulav themselves'. And in a maamar16 the Rebbe explained the reason for the minhag of the Chabad Rebbeim to bind themselves and in the sukkah on erev the festival, since in the binding of the lulav one 'makes the lulav,' and by doing this in the sukkah before the onset of the festival there is in this an aspect of 'making a sukkah.' Although the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah begins after the sunset of the 15th of Tishrei, but by performing in the sukkah an action that one is accustomed to do at home, this is the beginning of making the sukkah into a dwelling, that is, the mitzvah of 'תשבו כעין תדורו' (you shall dwell as you reside) begins at the onset of the festival, but to turn the sukkah into the reality of a dwelling one can begin before the festival, and the Rebbe the Rayatz related that so his father the Rebbe the Rashab conducted himself, and he also trained him when he was at a young age to stand beside him and hold the lulav and its species. And further17 the Rebbe explains that fulfilling the mitzvah of the Four Species in the sukkah adds completeness to the mitzvah of taking the Four Species, and in the note he writes 'Based on all the above, the Chabad minhag is also understood, that the meticulous ones bind the lulav in the sukkah (erev Yom Tov).
Notes:
1 סי' תרלז ס"ג ↩
2 סידור בית השואבה דינים השייכים למצות עשיית הסוכה אות א, הובא בכף החיים סי' תרכה אות ז ↩
3 לקו"ש ח"כ ע' 267 הערה 10. ובשיחת ש"פ האזינו יג תשרי תשמ"ט בסופה - תו"מ ח"א ע' 97 ↩
4 שו"ע אדה"ז ר"ס תרמא ↩
5 ירושלמי ברכות פ"א ה"ב ↩
6 ראה גם בלקו"ש חי"ז ע' 188 הערה 56 ↩
7 סי' קלד ס"א ↩
8 סי' תרכה בשם באר יעקב חו"מ סי' ח. שו"ת חות יאיר סי' רה ↩
9 בשיחת ש"פ בלק התשל"א - תו"מ חס"ה ע' 23 הערה 127 ↩
10 תו"מ חנ"ח ע' 134 ↩
11 סי' תרכו ס"ק יא, בנטעי גבריאל הלכות סוכה פ"א אות יב ובהערה ↩
12 בסעודת ליל שמ"ע תש"ל - המלך במסיבו ח"ב ע' נב ↩
13 ובליל א' דחג הסוכות התשכ"ט - תו"מ חנ"ד ע' 95 ↩
14 וראה גם במעשה מלך ע' 284 ↩
15 ע' 65 - 66 ↩
16 ד"ה נשא התשמ"א ↩
17 לקו"ש חכ"ב ע' 129, והערה 55 ↩
Sechach Made of Thin Boards
[7] (Halacha 925)
Pilponim (2)
In the previous halacha we saw that the Rishonim wrote regarding thin boards less than four tefachim wide that one may not use them as s'chach, since nowadays a ceiling is made from them.
Question: What is the law regarding boards that are thinner or smaller, which are not customarily used to make a ceiling (or in times when it is not customary to make a ceiling from boards)?
Answer: We find among the Rishonim an additional concern regarding using boards as s'chach, lest one make the s'chach in a manner that prevents rain from penetrating, as Rabbeinu Peretz wrote in the glosses to the Semak1: 'But less than four [tefachim] it is permitted to use them as s'chach; nevertheless one must make the s'chach in a temporary manner so that the rains can fall through it, as the Tosafos in the first chapter explain, and therefore the world is accustomed to cover the sukkah with willow or with reeds or the like, and not with boards at all. And even [boards] less than four [tefachim], where there is no concern of the decree regarding a ceiling, because perhaps one will come to err and use s'chach in a permanent manner such that the rains will not fall there'.
The words of the Semak were cited in the Tur [and in the Beis Yosef]2, and this is its wording: 'And likewise they forbade using boards four [tefachim] wide as s'chach, even if he turned them on their side so that they are not four [tefachim wide], because they resemble the ceiling of a house, and we are concerned lest one sit beneath the ceiling for the sake of a sukkah; and if they are not four [tefachim wide], they are valid, even if they are planed, since they resemble vessels. And the Semak wrote: however, the world is accustomed not to use them as s'chach at all, and this is because perhaps one will come to use them as s'chach permanently in a manner that the rains cannot fall through it'.
And on this basis the Bach wrote: 'And now they are accustomed to cover with the branches of trees and willow upon the laths, and one should not cover with laths; for even though it is not customary nowadays to make a ceiling with laths, and thus there is no concern with them of the decree regarding a ceiling, nevertheless one should be concerned for what the Semak wrote, lest one come to use them as s'chach permanently in a manner that the rains cannot fall through there'.
As a matter of halacha the Mechaber wrote3: 'And likewise they forbade using boards four [tefachim] wide as s'chach, even if he turned them on their side so that they are not four [tefachim wide]; and if their width is not four [tefachim], they are valid, even if they are planed so that they resemble vessels, and they are accustomed not to use them as s'chach at all'.
And in his words it is not explained what the reason for the minhag not to cover [with them] is — whether on account of the decree regarding a ceiling, or out of the concern of preventing the rain that he cited in the Beis Yosef. However, from the wording of the Taz4 it appears that he explained that it is on account of the concern of the Semak, and this is its wording: 'And they are accustomed not to use them as s'chach. So wrote the Tur in the name of the Semak, for the reason that perhaps one will come to use them as s'chach permanently in a manner that the rains cannot fall through there; therefore they were accustomed to cover with willows or with reeds and the like, end of quote. And the stalks of grain after the grain has been threshed from there — it is obvious that this is permitted, and it is the essence of the mitzvah, which is stated explicitly regarding the refuse of the threshing floor; and it appears that they were accustomed not to cover with this as well, on account of the reason of the Semak, that in covering with straw one easily covers with a very thick covering. And it is a plain matter to permit, in a place where willow or other tree branches are not available, that one cover with straw — only that he take care to make it so that the rain can fall through there'.
And the Magen Avraham wrote5: 'And they are accustomed. And in the Hagahos Maimoniyos it is written that it is invalid, since nowadays they roof their houses with boards that are not four [tefachim wide], there is [a concern of] the decree regarding a ceiling (Darkei Moshe). And in a pressing circumstance, where they have nothing with which to use as s'chach, they use boards as s'chach even if they are four [tefachim wide] (Shiltei Giborim, and so it is implied in the Gemara), and the same applies to anything forbidden on account of a decree. And the Bach wrote regarding laths that even though there is with them no decree regarding a ceiling — since they do not roof their houses with them — nevertheless one should be concerned lest he use s'chach so [thickly] that the rains will not fall within it, as the Semak wrote; and therefore one should not use them as s'chach, end of quote. And all the more so with shingles'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe6: 'Boards four tefachim wide one may not use as s'chach, because most ceilings of a house are made from them, and there is a concern lest one sit beneath the ceiling of his house and say: what difference is there for me between using these boards as s'chach and sitting beneath the ceiling of my house, which is likewise made of boards — and the ceiling of the house is invalid by Torah law for the reason explained in siman 626. But it is permitted to use boards that are not four tefachim wide as s'chach, even if they are planed and resemble vessels. And now, in our times, when they roof houses with boards that are not three tefachim [wide], one should invalidate a sukkah covered even with boards whose width is not three tefachim, on account of a decree lest one sit beneath the ceiling of his house made from such boards. But it is permitted to use very short boards as s'chach, which are called (laths or shingles), since it is not customary to make the ceiling of a house from such short boards; nevertheless one must take care to make the s'chach temporary and light in a manner that the rains can fall through it, as will be explained in siman 6317 and therefore the world is accustomed not to use them as s'chach at all, lest they err and use s'chach in a permanent manner such that the rains cannot fall through it'.
Thus the poskim wrote that when it is not customary to make a ceiling from small boards it is permitted to use them as s'chach, but nevertheless the minhag is not to use them as s'chach on account of the concern that they will use them as s'chach in a manner that the rains cannot enter through them.
However, despite the above, in recent generations they were accustomed in several places to use pilponim as s'chach — that is, very thin boards — and in the next halacha we will see what the poskim wrote about this, and how it is proper to conduct oneself.
Notes:
1 מצוה צג אות לב ↩
2 או"ח סי' תרכט ↩
3 או"ח סי' תרכט סי"ח ↩
4 ס"ק כא ↩
5 ס"ק כב ↩
6 סי' תרכט סעיפים כט ל לא ↩
7 ושם בסעיף ה 'אם היה הסכך מעובה כ"כ עד שאין המטר יכול לירד בתוכה פסולה לפי שאין נקראת סוכה אלא א"כ אינה מגינה אלא מן הצל בלבד אבל אם מגינה גם מן המטר אין נקראת סוכה אלא כמין בית היא זו' ↩
[8] (Halacha 926)
Pilponim (3)
Question: As a practical matter, is it possible nowadays to use very thin boards as s'chach, which are not customarily used to make a ceiling?
Answer: In the previous halachos we saw various reasons for rejecting the use of boards as s'chach: 1) that there are boards regarding which the Rishonim wrote there is a problem in using them as s'chach on account of the decree regarding a ceiling. 2) and there are boards regarding which it is explained in the Semak that they were accustomed to refrain from using them as s'chach because of a concern lest they use them as s'chach in a manner that the rains cannot fall into the sukkah.
Indeed we find in several communities, such as in Jerusalem, that they were accustomed to use thin boards as s'chach, and the poskim discussed how to explain the minhag, as follows:
The Tzitz Eliezer wrote1: 'And if so, that the concern in this is only by force of the words of the Semak, it emerges therefore from this that the Bach comes to it not by force of an actual prohibition but only by force of minhag alone, and indeed it is written in this language in the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch siman 629 se'if 18, and this is its wording: and they are accustomed not to use them as s'chach at all, end of quote. And if so, we can apply to this the accepted adage and say "where it is customary, it is customary, and where it is not customary, it is not customary," and all the more so where it was made customary by the great ones for some reason to the contrary; and so the matter came about regarding using blaponim as s'chach, for here in the Land [of Israel], and especially what is known in the holy city [Jerusalem], may it be rebuilt and established, it was made customary by the great ones to permit the matter2, and they also performed the act themselves, for decades, to use them as s'chach l'chatchilah, and not to be concerned with such thin boards lest they come to use them as s'chach permanently — whatever the reason may be [and perhaps because there were not sufficient tree branches available to use as s'chach, or because they were concerned about worms falling from the s'chach of tree branches onto the food in the sukkah; see Responsa Hisorerus Teshuvah siman 99, examine there], and since the matter was made customary in a permissive manner, there is then no need to be concerned for a contrary minhag elsewhere, and it is permitted to continue to conduct oneself to use them as s'chach even l'chatchilah .. And further this I say, that even from the Semak there is no proof to say that he was concerned even regarding something like laths, which is thinner; for one can say that what he was concerned about is only even regarding boards less than four [tefachim], but they have at least three tefachim or close to that (see Darkei Moshe in the Tur) which then lie well and are fit to interlock properly and to join with one another with such adhesion that rains cannot penetrate through them into the sukkah, and therefore he was concerned for this lest one come to use them as s'chach in such a permanent manner that the rains cannot fall there — but not regarding less than this; and it was only the Bach who added to be concerned even regarding thinner ones such as laths, and likewise the Magen Avraham even regarding shingles .. And Israel are holy, they held fast in this to be concerned even regarding such as these, and instituted upon themselves an additional stringency.
And since this is so, then one can further say that you have only that which they were accustomed in this, and what they spoke of is regarding such as are fit at any rate in some manner to join in the said form, and one should not extend the minhag even to those resembling them, since in the end it is only a mere minhag; and all the more so that one should not apply it to such as our blaponim, which our eyes see that even if one brings them close to one another to the fullest extent possible, nevertheless it will not avail, because of their thinness and lightness, that the rains not penetrate — for they will penetrate when they are at any rate plentiful through the gaps; and only if one arranges blaponim one atop the other like a [overlapping] roof-tile upon a brick, then it is possible they will not penetrate further if the wind does not move them — but if we come to be concerned to such an extent, then there is no end to the matter, and even with branches one would then likewise need to be concerned lest they place one atop the other at such a thickness that the rains will not penetrate, and the question will be asked: which s'chach can they use? Rather, certainly to such an extent one need not be concerned. So that it emerges for us that regarding the type of blaponim such as ours, one can say that all agree it is valid to use them as s'chach even l'chatchilah, and in such a way the minhag here to use blaponim as s'chach does not contradict at all the minhag of the world from its very foundation not to use laths and shingles as s'chach'.
Thus it is explained in his words: a) that since it is not forbidden by law but only by minhag, then nowadays it is not customary [to refrain], and therefore one need not be stringent. b) their minhag was only regarding boards that can be joined in a manner that rain does not enter, but not regarding such boards that even if one brings them close, it will not be sealed in a manner that rain does not enter.
[But seemingly: a) in practice this minhag of using thin boards as s'chach is not found in all communities (and apparently it is not customary so in the communities of Anash). b) it is not proven that they indeed spoke only of boards that can be joined in a manner that prevents rain3. And in particular, since the wording of the Semak4 is 'and therefore the world is accustomed to cover the sukkah with willow or with reeds or the like, and not with boards at all', and similarly the wording of the Bach and the Alter Rebbe].
On the other hand, there are poskim who rejected the minhag to be lenient in this, and noted that its source is unclear, as written in Responsa Kinyan Torah5: 'In a manner that I do not know from where this minhag spread in the places of our master, the Beis Yosef, who noted in the Shulchan Aruch "and they are accustomed not to use them as s'chach at all," to do the opposite of this; and as I investigated, the pious ones and men of deeds never made light of acting contrary to the words of our master the Beis Yosef, but rather made the s'chach from reeds and leaves hanging from them, as is explained in the Pri Megadim, Mishbetzos Zahav, at the end of siman 643, who wrote regarding the law of making a sukkah valid without any doubt at all that it be valid according to the minhag of the veteran ones and the pious, etc.: the s'chach specifically from tree branches with leaves — then one fulfills his obligation according to all opinions, for even regarding laths and reeds there is room for doubt regarding them on account of the decree regarding a ceiling, end of quote'.
Thus we have seen that the poskim wrote that they were accustomed not to use wooden boards as s'chach even in a manner where they are thin; and indeed nowadays there are communities that were accustomed to use them as s'chach, and there are those who explained the reason of those who conduct themselves so; but seemingly the plain meaning of the words of the Alter Rebbe, and the minhag of Anash, is not to use them as s'chach l'chatchilah.
--------------
Notes:
1 שו"ת חט"ו סי' כח ↩
2 וראה בדבריו שרבים מגדולי ורבני ירושלים היתירו זה ↩
3 להעיר גם שהמג"א ואדמו"ר הזקן כתבו כלשון הסמ"ק (ולא כמו שהוא בטור) שמשמעו שלא יטעו לסכך בצורה שמונעת שם, (ולא כלשון הטור שמשמע שיטעה לסכך בנסרים אלו בצורה שתמנע גשם) ↩
4 הובא בהלכה הקודמת ↩
5 ח"ו סי' מ ↩