Q&A: A Door in a Sukkah
A Door in a Sukkah
Question
Hello and blessings to the Rabbi,
May you be inscribed and sealed for good,
I would like to ask a question in the laws of sukkah regarding a sukkah in the middle of a stairwell, where the sekhakh is placed over the opening of the attic entrance.
I have several doubts about this,
primarily regarding the parameters of the law of "a door in a sukkah."
Secondly, is the bent wall there acceptable because there is a certain thickness in the ceiling right up adjacent to the sekhakh…?
I would be happy if the Rabbi has a practical halakhic ruling on this, and likewise if there are questions I did not ask but ought to ask, I would be glad if you would let me know…
With faithful regards,
Answer
Hello. The thickness of the ceiling poses no problem at all. It is no worse than decorations, which are nullified to the sekhakh even when they are three handbreadths away. I cannot know the measurements there. A bent wall works only up to four cubits, of course. I assume that is fine.
The question is: what is the size of the opening above? Does it have the minimum size of seven by seven handbreadths?
Beyond that, one door is not a problem, since two walls and a handbreadth with a doorway-form are sufficient, and a door is preferable to a doorway-form. The problem is with the second door, because there, as far as I can see, there is no wall of seven handbreadths besides the door. And it seems that the rule of "the edge of the ceiling descends" is also problematic when there is a door underneath it for passage.
However, it seems that this depends on a dispute among the medieval authorities regarding how to understand a bent wall. Some of the medieval authorities understood that the wall stands upright adjacent to the sekhakh (we view the actual wall as though it moved inward), and then perhaps the door does not invalidate it. But that is not likely, because at most the wall with the door moves inward, and nothing has changed.
Beyond that, did the neighbors, the owners of the two apartments, agree to the sukkah? Otherwise it is a stolen sukkah (even though this is theft of land). Especially since this sukkah serves as a passageway for others, and seemingly that itself invalidates it. There is no dwelling here.
Bottom line, in my humble opinion the sukkah is invalid unless one of the doors is locked for the entire festival (without that, it cannot be validated even at moments when it is closed, since it must be fit for all seven days).
And only under very great pressure, if there is absolutely no other option, should they sit there. It is preferable to sitting in the permanent house.
This is my humble opinion.
One more point should be noted: for the third wall we require a handbreadth together with a doorway-form. Is there a handbreadth of actual wall besides the door within the area of the sukkah (parallel to the opening in the roof)?