Analysis: Arukh HaShulchan, O.C. 202:13-20 - The Case of the Missing Sukkah

Sugya Map

• Issue: The halachic status of a sukkah that lacks one or more walls, specifically focusing on the minimum required for validity. This extends to the requirement of lechatchila (ideal) versus bedi'avad (post-facto) and the permissibility of using such a sukkah.
• Nafka Mina:
  • Whether one fulfills the mitzvah of sukkah with a structure lacking full enclosure.
  • The implications for blessings and subsequent actions (e.g., eating, sleeping).
  • The definition of "dwelling" and its relation to the sukkah's physical form.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Sukkah 4:1, 5:2
  • Gemara Sukkah 23a, 30b, 31a
  • Rif, Rosh, Tur, Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 202)
  • Arukh HaShulchan (O.C. 202:13-20)

Text Snapshot

The Arukh HaShulchan, in O.C. 202:13, grapples with the fundamental requirement of a sukkah's walls:

"וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, חַיָּב לְבָרֵךְ וְלִישַׁבּ בָּהּ, דְּהָא שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת הֵן כְּגוּפָא דְּסוּכָּה. וּמִיהוּ, הַמּוֹצֵא סוּכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ רַק שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, הַלָּלוּ אֵינָן דְּפָנוֹת כְּלָל, כְּמוּבָן מִן הַגְּמָ׳ בְּסִימָן ר"כ, וְלָכֵן אֵין לִשְׁתּוֹת וְלֶאֱכֹל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רַק שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, וְאִם אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהַפְסִיד, יִתֵּן בְּתוֹכָהּ מְחִצָּה שְׁלִישִׁית, וַאֲפִילוּ מֵחֲמַת גּוּפָהּ, וְיִהְיֶה מֻתָּר לְבָרֵךְ וְלִישַׁבּ בָּהּ. וְלֹא יִתְפַּלֵּל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רַק שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, דְּתְּפִלָּה דּוֹמָה לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת, וְאִם אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהַפְסִיד, יִתֵּן לָהּ מְחִצָּה שְׁלִישִׁית, וְיִהְיֶה מֻתָּר."

• Leshon Nuance: The phrase "כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, חַיָּב לְבָרֵךְ וְלִישַׁבּ בָּהּ" is striking. It implies that two walls inherently fulfill a certain level of obligation. However, this is immediately qualified by "וּמִיהוּ, הַמּוֹצֵא סוּכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ רַק שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, הַלָּלוּ אֵינָן דְּפָנוֹת כְּלָל." This apparent contradiction highlights the complexity: two walls can be considered sufficient in one context, but not in another, depending on the origin of the sukkah's construction. The Arukh HaShulchan then introduces a practical solution: "יִתֵּן בְּתוֹכָהּ מְחִצָּה שְׁלִישִׁית."

Readings

The Rambam: The Conceptual Minimum

The Rambam, in Hilchot Sukkah 4:1, lays down the foundational principle: "סוּכָּה הַנַּעֲשָׂה בְּשְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֵן, הֲרֵי זוֹ סוּכָּה כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה בִּדְפָנוֹת שְׁלשָׁה, וְהָיָה גַּג, הֲרֵי זוֹ סוּכָּה כְּשֵׁרָה."¹ The Rambam's assertion that "two walls" suffice "wherever they are" is broad, suggesting a basic structural sufficiency. This implies that the essence of enclosure is achieved even with a partial structure. His phrasing “הֲרֵי זוֹ סוּכָּה כְּשֵׁרָה” is definitive, implying an active fulfillment of the mitzvah.

The Rosh: The Practical Enclosure

The Rosh, in his commentary on Sukkah 4:1 (which often reflects the Rif's understanding), offers a more nuanced perspective, linking the sufficiency of two walls to their placement and the presence of a third, even if temporary. He states, "וְכֵן סוּכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, הִיא סוּכָּה כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת בְּרִיחַ בֵּין הַדְּפָנוֹת. אֲבָל הַמַּסִּיק, שֶׁאִם הִיא בִּדְפָנוֹת שְׁלשָׁה, אֲפִילוּ אֵינָן מְחֻבָּרוֹת לַגַּג, הֲרֵי זוֹ סוּכָּה כְּשֵׁרָה."² The Rosh's emphasis on the connection to the roof ("אֵינָן מְחֻבָּרוֹת לַגַּג") in the case of three walls suggests that the enclosure must be functional. For two walls, the lack of explicit mention of roof connection might imply that their inherent structure, combined with the roof, creates a sufficient conceptual space. However, the later clarification regarding three walls, even if not fully attached, points to the intent and form of enclosure being paramount. The Arukh HaShulchan’s understanding seems to lean towards the Rosh's emphasis on practical enclosure, especially in the context of lechatchila and bedi'avad.

---

¹ Rambam, Hilchot Sukkah 4:1. ² Rosh, Sukkah 4:1, s.v. "סוּכָּה הַנַּעֲשָׂה בִּשְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת".

Friction

The core tension lies between the Gemara's statement in Sukkah 23a: "רבי יוחנן אמר: כל שיש לה שתי דפנות כשרה"³ and the implied, or later articulated, necessity for a more complete enclosure, especially for certain actions. The Arukh HaShulchan wrestles with this directly in 202:13-14. He notes the apparent contradiction: if two walls suffice, why then is a sukkah with only two walls, especially if they are "found" rather than deliberately constructed as such, problematic for eating and drinking?

The Gemara (Sukkah 30b) discusses a sukkah that has two walls, and the third is a machitza (partition) – what if the machitza is not attached? Rav Ashi says it is permissible to sit in it and bless. However, the Gemara then brings a baraita (Sukkah 31a) that states: "הַמּוֹצֵא סוּכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, וְאֵינָהּ מְחֻבֶּרֶת, וְאֵינָהּ מְחֻבֶּרֶת לַגַּג, אֵין לוֹ לְהִתְכַּסּוֹת בָּהּ."⁴ This baraita seems to negate the sufficiency of two walls, particularly if they are not connected.

The Arukh HaShulchan's resolution, building on the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 202:3), is crucial. He distinguishes between a sukkah where two walls were intentionally constructed to form the primary structure, and a sukkah where one finds a pre-existing structure with only two walls. In the former case, two walls are indeed considered sufficient ("כל שיש לה שתי דפנות כשרה"). This aligns with the initial statement of Rabbi Yochanan. The issue arises when one finds a sukkah with only two walls, implying a less intentional or complete construction. In such a scenario, the Arukh HaShulchan asserts, "הַלָּלוּ אֵינָן דְּפָנוֹת כְּלָל."⁵ This isn't about a deficiency; it's about a fundamental lack of what constitutes a "wall" in the context of forming a recognized sukkah space.

The nafka mina is practical: for eating and drinking, and even for prayer, the Arukh HaShulchan insists on a third partition, even if it's a makeshift one ("מְחִצָּה שְׁלִישִׁית, וַאֲפִילוּ מֵחֲמַת גּוּפָהּ"). This implies that while the basic obligation might be met with two walls, the full spectrum of sukkah activities, particularly those requiring a sense of dwelling and protection, necessitates a more robust enclosure. The distinction between "dwelling" (lishayv) and "eating/drinking" (le'echol v'lishtot) becomes a critical differentiator. The latter requires a higher degree of enclosure than the former.

---

³ Sukkah 23a. ⁴ Sukkah 31a. ⁵ Arukh HaShulchan, O.C. 202:13.

Intertext

Sukkah 4:1 Mishnah and Gemara

The Mishnah in Sukkah 4:1 states: "סוּכָּה שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ כְּסוּת, הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא סוּכָּה. הָיְתָה גְּבוֹהָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְהִיא מִדָּתָהּ, הֲרֵי זוֹ סוּכָּה. הָיְתָה רְחָבָה מִשִּׁבְעָה טְפָחִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ סוּכָּה."⁶ This Mishnah focuses on the roof (ksut) and the height and breadth of the structure, but not explicitly on the number of walls. The Gemara, however, as we've seen, delves into the wall requirement. The tension between the Mishnah’s silence on wall count and the Gemara's detailed discussion highlights the interpretive layers. The Arukh HaShulchan’s analysis directly bridges this gap, explaining how the Gemara's discussion of walls informs the Mishnah's requirements. The requirement for a ksut is a prerequisite for any sukkah, but the nature of the walls is what's debated.

Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 202:3

The Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 202:3, encapsulates this discussion: "סוּכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁתֵּי דְּפָנוֹת, הֲרֵי זוֹ סוּכָּה. וְאִם הָיְתָה בִּדְפָנוֹת שְׁלשָׁה, אֲפִילוּ אֵינָן מְחֻבָּרוֹת לַגַּג, הֲרֵי זוֹ סוּכָּה. וְאִם הָיְתָה רַק בִּדְפָנָה אַחַת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה פְּרוּצָה מִלְּמַעְלָה, אֵינָהּ סוּכָּה. הַמּוֹצֵא סוּכָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְחֻבֶּרֶת, וְאֵינָהּ מְחֻבֶּרֶת לַגַּג, הַלָּלוּ אֵינָן דְּפָנוֹת."⁷ The Arukh HaShulchan is essentially expanding upon this. The Shulchan Aruch states the rule that two walls make a sukkah, but then immediately adds the caveat about "the one who finds" (הַמּוֹצֵא) a sukkah without connection, implying that this distinction is critical. The Arukh HaShulchan clarifies why this distinction matters and what the practical implications are for different activities within the sukkah. The Shulchan Aruch’s statement, "הַלָּלוּ אֵינָן דְּפָנוֹת," is the very phrase the Arukh HaShulchan builds upon to explain the difference between intended construction and found structures.

---

⁶ Mishnah Sukkah 4:1. ⁷ Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 202:3.

Psak/Practice

The Arukh HaShulchan's detailed analysis leads to a clear, albeit nuanced, practical directive.

1. Two Walls (Intentionally Constructed): A sukkah deliberately built with two walls and a roof is considered a valid sukkah, and one fulfills the mitzvah by dwelling in it and reciting the blessing. This is the bedi'avad minimum for basic dwelling.
2. Two Walls (Found/Unconnected): If one finds a structure with only two walls, and these walls are not firmly connected or part of a clear, intentional construction, they are not considered valid "walls" for the purpose of establishing a sukkah.
3. Eating/Drinking/Prayer: For these more involved activities, even if the basic two-wall structure is deemed valid for dwelling, a greater degree of enclosure is required. The Arukh HaShulchan advocates for the addition of a third partition ("מְחִצָּה שְׁלִישִׁית"), even a temporary one, to create a more complete space. This is the lechatchila ideal for significant engagement within the sukkah.

The meta-heuristic here is that the intent and completeness of the enclosure dictate the level of halachic validity and permissible activity. The Arukh HaShulchan prioritizes practical function and the spirit of "dwelling" over a minimalist interpretation of the law when significant engagement is involved.

Takeaway

The definition of a sukkah's walls is not static; it hinges on intentionality and the nature of the activity within. While a minimal structure can suffice for basic dwelling, robust engagement demands a more complete enclosure, demonstrating the layered nature of halacha l'maaseh.