A Snow-Covered Sukkah

What was the purpose of the sukkah constructed in the photo? It appears from the description there that the sukkah was constructed for demonstration purposes. This may be an issue. The Gemara states clearly that a sukkah built by anyone for shade is valid. (Sukkah 8b) However, there may be an issue if the sukkah was built only for display and not for actual use. In that case, it would be invalid regardless of who built the sukkah. For example, a sukkah retailer built a display model just to attract customers. On Sukkos, may someone use it as his sukkah? It would seem that he may not. Since the sukkah was not built for the mitzvah or for shade, the sukkah is potentially invalid. One would have to lift up the schach and put it down again with the intention of using it for the mitzvah or for shade to render it kosher.

As an interesting sidenote, the Gemara (Sukkah, ibid.) discusses the case of Sukkas Behaima, literally translated as a hut of an animal. If a shepherd built a sukkah for the shade of his animals, it is a kosher sukkah. Once again, the operative requirement is that a sukkah be built for shade (or for the mitzvah). Interestingly enough, Rav Yosef Engel suggests that the case in the Gemara is actually where an animal made its own shelter to seek shade from the hot sun! Assuming the sukkah meets all the other requirements, it is nevertheless kosher, since the shelter was built to provide shade.

It appears from the picture that there is some space between the schach and one of the side walls. If there is a space of 3 tefachim (nine inches) or larger between the schach and both side walls, the sukkah is not kosher. (See Sukkah 4b in regards to lavud.) However, the schach only needs to be close to one of the side walls, not both, as a sukkah with three walls is kosher. (4a)

The schach mat appears to be resting directly on the walls. This is an issue of “maamid.” The Mishna Berura writes that initially only kosher schach should be used to directly support the schach. This is typically accomplished by placing wooden crossbeams on the walls and resting the schach on the beams. However, the Mishna Berura concluded that this is a just a stringency and is not required, according to the letter of the law.

Hitherto, the most obvious issue has been ignored. What is the halacha if one has valid schach but it was blanketed with snow? Snow is a form of water and is not valid for schach since it does not grow from the ground. Does the snow covering the schach invalidate the sukkah?

The Shu’T Ginas V’radim says the answer may depend on a dispute connected to a passage in Sukkah (13b). Can a leafy vegetable serve as a halachic roof to convey tumah? (See previous article.)

Rashi says it can because in its current state it is a valid roof. On the other hand, the Meiri says, on a biblical level, the leafy vegetable cannot serve as a roof. Since it will quickly dry out and become minuscule, even when it is robust and lush it is not considered a roof.

Perhaps according to Rashi we should view the snow in its current state as being just like the leafy vegetable. Right now, it is solid. The fact that it will melt later does not change its current status. This is similar to the lush vegetable that may serve as a halachic roof even though it will wilt later. If that is the case, then the snow is considered an independent covering and invalidates the schach below it. One would not be able to eat in the sukkah until he clears off the snow.

However, the Meiri should be unconcerned with the snow. It will melt eventually. Just as the leafy vegetable is of little halachic consequence because it will soon wilt, the snow is insignificant even now in its solid state because it will melt later. One would therefore be able to eat in the sukkah according to the Meiri without removing the snow first.

The Aruch HaShulchan says that one should definitely not recite the blessing of “Leishev b’sukkah” when a sukkah is covered with snow.

The last issue which is not readily apparent from the picture is that wooden blinds were used for the schach. The issue of blinds and mats for schach deserves its own article. However, for the purposes of this article, it will suffice to note that Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, ruled that at least some wooden venetian blinds are biblically invalid to be used as schach.

Perhaps one more issue can be noted in reference to the photo. A sukkah must be sturdy enough to stand the entire holiday of Sukkos. If the snow will eventually cause the schach to fall into the sukkah in a matter of days, then it is invalid even on the first day of Sukkos. However, from the story behind the photo, it seems like the snow was there for some time.

Whether or not the sukkah was actually valid, it definitely served as a springboard to discuss the laws of sukkah. A potential issue that was not discussed is at what point is one exempt from sitting in the sukkah because it is too cold? We still have the rest of the mesechta to discuss that.

The following disclaimer applies to this article as well as all other articles that appear in this column: Please do not rely on this article for practical halachic guidance.

The author would like to thank “Crystal A Murray” for permission to use this photo. (He probably didn’t realize I would dissect it.) Here is the link to the picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/crystalwriter/3267239836