If one is stuck without a succah and he finds a sample succah that was built on the street before Succos in a place where they were selling succah’s before Succos, may one use such a succah?
R’ Yitzchok Zilberstein (Chasukei Chemed, Succah pg. 39) discusses a case where there was an exhibition in Chutz La’aretz where they were showing houses and huts used by different people in different countries. For example, they showed an iglu which is a hut people use in cold countries, they showed a hunter’s hut which is used by people who live in the jungle, and they showed a succah which is a hut that Jews sometimes use.
Seemingly, in both of the above cases, such a succah would be no good, as it wasn’t covered with sechach, לשם מצוות סוכה שם צל או ל – “for the sake of shade or for the mitzvah of succah”, and it would seem that in order for such a succah to be kosher, the sechach needs to be removed and replaced with intention to be used, לשם צל או לשם מצוות סוכה – “for the sake of shade or for the mitzvah of succah”.
However, when R’ Zilberstein asked R’ Chaim Kanievsky about whether such a succah may be used or not, he ruled that such a succah is kosher and may be used.
Gemara in Yevamos
The Gemara in Yevamos (104a) says: “A shoe from an Ir Hanidachas (a city which is obligated to be destroyed) or a shoe made for an old person (for him to be buried with) may not be used for chalitzah, and if it is used, the chalitzah is no good.”
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 635:1) rules that even if one doesn’t put on sechach for the sake of the mitzvah of succah, as long as it is done “lesheim tzel” it’s good enough. The Rishonim argue about what “lesheim tzel” means. Rashi learns that it means that the sechach needs to be put on with the intention of sitting in its shade, and not for reasons of privacy. The Ran learns, that the sechach shouldn’t be put on in a manner where it makes the succah look like a house, or storehouse. And Rabbeinu Tam learns, that it means that the sechach shouldn’t be made so thick that it protects those underneath it from the rain.
Some even say that lechatchilah [ideally] the sechach should be put on with intention of “lesheim tzel”, and not just with intention of fulfilling the mitzvah of succah.
The above is meduyak in the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (626:1). This is also how R’ Chazkel Abramksy was noheg when he would put on sechach. He would say that he is doing it for the sake of “lesheim tzel” and not for the mitzvah of succah (Sefer HaSuccah, Miluim to siman 11:1).
On the other hand, the Shu”t Chelkas Yo’ev (28) writes, that if one does it for the sake of the mitzvah of succah it’s good and there is no need to have intention “lesheim tzel”. See Shu”t Even Yisroel (7:64) who speaks about this at length, and suggests that it’s a dispute between the Rema and the Rambam.
The reason the above shoes are no good, is that when performing chalitzah one must use a shoe that is made for walking in, and the above shoes are לאו להילוכא עביד – not designed to be walked in.
The Gemara then asks: “The shoe that Beis Din uses which is specially designed for chalitzah should also be no good, as it is not made for walking in? The Gemara answers: אילו מסגי ביה שלוחא דבי דינא מי קפיד עליה דיינא – “If a messenger of Beis Din would walk around with such a shoe, would anyone mind?” Meaning: It’s true that it’s not designed for walking in, but if one would use it for walking in no one would mind. When it comes to the shoe of an old person, however, he would mind (as it is specially made for him to be buried in), therefore, although the shoe of Beis Din may be used, the shoe of the old man can’t.
We see from the above Gemara, says R’ Chaim Kanievsky, that even though the shoe belonging to Beis Din isn’t designed for walking in, since Beis Din aren’t particular if one uses it, it is considered “a shoe designed for walking”. Therefore, in our case as well, presumably the one who built the succah for the exhibition, or for the succah shop, doesn’t mind if someone uses it, therefore, it’s considered as if the succah was built for the sake of the mitzvah of succah.
Why Is this Better Than Using Bundles Which Were Put on Top of a Succah to Dry Out?
The Mishnah (Succah 12a) says: “Bundles of straw, wood, or zeridin shouldn’t be used for sechach (if they are tied together)”. The Gemara explains: Sometimes in the summer a person comes home in the evening with these bundles, and he throws them on top of a hut (he has up all year round for his animals) to dry out. Subsequently, he changes his mind (on Succos) and decides to use them for sechach, and it’s a problem as there is a din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי – that one must make a succah, and it’s not enough to do something which automatically causes one to have a succah.
The question is, why don’t we apply the same argument as above, and say that when putting bundles out to dry one is also happy if they get used as a succah on Succos, therefore, such a succah is kosher?
R’ Zilberstein explains: In this case, the bundles were placed on top of the huts to dry, without any intention of them being used as sechach. In the case of the exhibition succah and the sample succah – the succah was built with intention of having sechach on, it just wasn’t done with intention of the mitzvah of succah, therefore, it helps that one who did it is happy for the succah to be used on Succos.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav
R’ Zilberstein points out that the above ruling of R’ Chaim doesn’t seem to fit with Shulchan Aruch HaRAv (Orach Chaim 626:1) or the Chelkas Yo’ev. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav writes: “One can only fulfil the mitzvah of succah with a succah which was only made for the sake of shade אלא לצל בלבד )). If, however, it was also made to live in, or it was also made with the intention of storing things inside and to protect oneself from the elements – it’s not considered a succah. Rather, it’s considered a house, as a house is designed for such things. Such a succah is no good as the Torah tells us to build a succah and not a house – therefore, it needs to be made for shade only”.
Chelkas Yo’ev
Similarly, the Shu”t Chelaks Yo’ev (Mahadurah Tinyona 3) writes: “If a person covers his succah with sechach with intention to use it for Succos, and then after Succos to use it as a place to live in – even though the intention of using it for Succos came first – since he had both intentions, it’s not clear that one can fulfil the mitzvah of succah with such a succah.”
According to the above, our cases of the sample succah and exhibition succah would be no good, as even if they are made with intention to be used on Succos, they are also made with intention of being used as something else.
In the case of the chalitzah shoe, there is no requirement that the shoe be designed lishmah [for the sake of] for walking in, all we require is that it not be specifically designed not to walk in. Once we have that, it’s a valid shoe, and even if is designed with two different intentions it’s valid. Therefore, as long as Beis Din aren’t particular about someone using it, it’s good enough. However, by succah it says: חג הסוכות תעשה – “Make for yourself a succah”, make a succah to protect yourself under its shade, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and Chelkas Yo’ev understand that this must be the only intention, therefore, if it is made with other intentions as well, the succah is no good.
