Page 230 - Chayei Adam LAYOUT sivan 5782

Chayei Adam - K’lal 146 - Laws of the Succah

since it is sufficient to serve as a wall for the succah, it [is sufficient] to serve as a
wall for Shabbos as well. However, this is only under extenuating
16
circumstances. Otherwise, it is proper to be machmir. However, if a succah is
made of less than two complete walls and third formed of a tefach and a tzuras
ha’pesach, it doesn’t help, [even] if one made all the walls with a tzuras ha’pesach.
Although a tzuras ha’pesach is considered a bona fide partition as explained in
17
k’lal 48, nevertheless, for a succah, it doesn’t help, even [if just] for the third
wall, and certainly for the other walls. 18

םדו רשב
to function as a full halachic wall. (Damesek third wall of the succah, it certainly is
Eliezer) considered a private domain by Torah law,
כ
without applying the reasoning that ‘since it is
16. Chayei Adam’s note: See Ran and valid for the succah, it is sufficient for Shabbos
Beis Yosef. as well’. Accordingly, the Rif, Rambam, and
Rava teaches (Succah 7a) that Shulchan Aruch make no mention of this
although on Shabbos, one must properly halacha. The reason why the Tur does bring
enclose an area in order to carry within it, this halacha, is because ordinarily a reshus
since two full walls with a third measuring a ha’yachid must be [somehow] enclosed on the
tefach is considered a sufficient enclosure for a fourth side as well, either by an upright pole
succah, it is also considered a bona fide reshus or crossbeam. In this instance, such an
ha’yachid (private domain) with regards to enclosure is unnecessary since the three
Shabbos. The Ran explains that since the Torah enclosed sides of the succah are sufficient as
allows for such a succah and Succos always has well. (Aruch Hashulchan) See however the
a Shabbos, it must be that it is considered a Aruch l’Ner who defends the Ran’s
reshus ha’yachid on Shabbos as well. The approach. Accordingly, the Chayei Adam
בכ
אכ
Ran and the Rambam omit this ruling of Rava writes that one should not rely on this leniency
and the Ran explains that they understood except under extenuating circumstance.
גכ
Rava to mean that this is sufficient to render
the succah a reshus ha’yachid and one would 17. Siman 5. See there that a properly
therefore be liable for transferring from the constructed tzuras ha’pesach is considered a
street into such a succah, but not to permit bona fide mechitza in hilchos Shabbos as is the
carrying within its walls. The Rosh, however, case with many other halachos as well (such as
takes a different approach and explains that kilayim in that a tzuras ha’pesach is a sufficient
since the halacha follows Rava that one must separation between areas planted with two
construct a tzuras ha’pesach to complete the different species. See, for example, Eiruvin

231