Building a Sukkah in the Public Domain

Jews have always found creative ways to build sukkot. Space was often at a premium, and every possible location would be used to build a sukkah. As one can see already in the Mishnah, it describes sukkot built on wagons, ships, and even animals. However, for many today with large yards, finding a space for one’s sukkah is not such a challenge. But what happens if there is none available? Is it possible to build a sukkah on public land in a public place?

At first glance, it appears this question was addressed by the Rambam, who rules (Hilkhot Shofar, Sukkah ve-Lulav 5:25) that a sukkah built in the public domain is kosher, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orech Chaim 637:3) appears to rule similarly as well. However, the Rema adds a caveat based on the Or Zarua that one should not ideally do this, but if one did, the sukkah remains kosher. To explain this position, the Or Zarua cites an anecdote from the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sukkah 3:1) in which it appears that building a sukkah in the public domain is not without its problems. Talmud states:

“Gamliel the twin made himself a sukkah on the market. R. Shimon ben Lakish passed by and told him, who gave you permission?”

Though we are not told why Gamliel builds a sukkah in the market, a public space, he is rebuked by R. Shimon ben Lakish for doing so. Yet, because R. Shimon ben Lakish never stated that the sukkah was prohibited, the Talmudic anecdote still implies it would be kosher. Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham (Orech Chaim 637:3) goes beyond the ruling of the Rema and questions whether this would be the case.

He argues that a sukkah built in the public domain would only be kosher and not treated as stolen if all the residents of that particular city would relinquish (mochel) their claim to the public domain so that the land would belong solely to the one building the sukkah there. Perhaps, he notes, one could assume that this would take place if the entire city were Jewish, but if non-Jews lived there too, it would be hard to understand why the sukkah would be kosher. In the end, he is willing to allow such a sukkah might be acceptable after the fact (bediavad), but one should not make a beracha when eating in it.

In the centuries since, extensive halachic writing has been dedicated to this question, exploring it from various angles. In a teshuvah written by Rabbi Shaul Nathanson (Shoel U’Meshiv Kammah 1:124), a leading 19^th-century Polish halachic authority, one finds a novel approach to this issue. First, he notes that the Torah itself appears to provide an explicit answer, as the book of Nehemia describes the building of sukkot throughout the city of Jerusalem, many of which were clearly in public locations. He contends this would not have been recorded if the sukkot were invalid, but he also acknowledges one can argue that these sukkot were built at a time when Jews were the sole inhabitants of the city. If so, perhaps it could be assumed they would forgo their claim to the public domain, as described by the Magen Avraham, so that others could build their sukkot there.

In the end, he argues there is an additional halachic argument for why sukkot built in the public domain of Jerusalem would be kosher, an argument that remains relevant today. He explains that unlike other parts of the Land of Israel, which fell under the rule of a particular tribe, “all Jews were partners in Jerusalem” (Avot D’Rebbi Natan, Chapter 35). Because of this, the public domain of Jerusalem had the status of being owned as a legal partnership (shutafut), and a sukkah that is owned in partnership with others is valid.

The logic of the teshuvah would seemingly apply to the public domains in most municipalities today, where all permanent residents are equal partners in the running of the city, the only exception being if there were explicit laws banning the building of such a structure in that particular location.

שו”ת שואל ומשיב מהדורה קמא חלק א סימן קכד

ענין סוכה ברשות הרבים אם יוצאין בה המ”א סי’ תרל”ז ס”ק ג’ האריך במה שנהגו לעשות סוכה ברה”ר =ברשות הרבים= והי’ סוכה גזולה…

והנה טרם יהיה כל שיח הנה לכאורה הדבר מבואר מקרא מפורש בנחמי’ ח’ דכתיב שם ויצאו העם ויביאו ויעשו להם סוכות איש על גגו ובחצרותיהם ובחצרות בית אלקים וברחוב שער המים וברחוב שער אפרים הרי מפורש דעשו סוכות ברחובות שער אפרים ושער המים שהיו שערי רבים ורה”ר וע”כ צ”ל דכל ישראל מחלו ואף דנכרים היו שם והי’ להם גם כן חלק בירושלים ועכ”פ ברה”ר הי’ להם חלק אפ”ה הי’ מועיל מחילה של ישראל וצריך להבין באמת מ”ט דאף דכורש הרשה להם לבנות הסוכה מ”מ כיון שעכ”פ הגוים דרו שם והי’ להם חלק ברה”ר מי מחל להם ועיין תוס’ ר”ה דף י”ג דכתבו דאף דא”י ירושה להם מאבותיהם מכל מקום יש להם חלק במה שזרע ע”ש ואם כן עכ”פ הי’ להנכרים חלק ברה”ר שהרי דרו שם והיו צריכין לעבור שם אמנם באמת המעיין במקרא ימצא כי קדשו את החומה ולא היה דר שם שום עכו”ם בירושלים ואם כן היו שלהם והיו יכולים לעשות להם סוכות והרי סגרו דלתי ירושלים כל יום השבת כמבואר בנחמי’ סי’ י”ג הרי שהיה כלו שלהם ברשיון המלך כורש ואם כן לא היו חלק להנכרי רק להישראל וישראל מחלו ודינו של המ”א מבואר…

Regarding whether one can fulfill one’s obligation through a sukkah in the public domain. The Magen Avraham (Orech Chaim 637:3) explains at length that a sukkah built in the public domain is to be treated as a stolen sukkah…

Before we begin any discussion about this, it appears that the matter is explained by explicit verses in Nehemia (Chapter 8), as it is written there: “So the people went out and brought them, and made themselves sukkot on their roofs, in their courtyards, in the courtyards of the House of God, in the square of the Water Gate and in the square of the Ephraim Gate.” It is explicit that sukkot were made in the streets of the Gate of Ephraim and the Water Gate, both of which were public gates and in the public domain. Therefore, one must say that the Jews released their claim [to the public domain] and that even the non-Jews living there did the same, for they too had part ownership of Jerusalem. Even here, such a relinquishment [mechila] done by the Jews was effective, and one must understand why this is the case. Though Koresh [the king of Persia] permitted them to build the sukkah in Jerusalem, nevertheless, because non-Jews lived there and had part ownership of the public domain, what right can we assume they relinquished their claim to it? See Tosafot (Rosh HaShanah 13) who wrote that possession in the Land of Israel is passed down from their parents [passed down from non-Jewish parents to their children]. Therefore, they have ownership in [the land] they have sown. If so, non-Jews have partial possession of the public domain because they live there and would need to pass through there. However, if one looks closely at the biblical verses, one will see that when they dedicated the wall, there were no non-Jews living there in Jerusalem, and if so, it was entirely theirs [the Jews]. They were able to make sukkot, and behold, they even closed the gates of Jerusalem every Shabbat, as it says in Nehemia (Chapter 13). The city was theirs in its entirety under the sanction of Koresh, and if so, non-Jews did not have any ownership of it, only Jews, and Jews could relinquish their possession [of the public domain] as explained by the Magen Avraham…

ולפ”ז הדרא קושיא לדוכתא בהך דעשו סוכות ברחובות ושווקים ניהו דהיה של ישראל לבד הא לא היה מועיל מחילה אך לפענ”ד נראה דבר חדש דלפי מה שאמרו בב”ק דף פ”ב דירושלים לא נחלקה לשבטים ועיין בתוס’ שם ד”ה ואין ובמהרש”א ופ”י שם ואני כתבתי על הגליון של הפ”י שנעלם מהם מקורו של התוס’ שהוא בילקוט פרשה וזאת הברכה ובאדר”נ פל”ה דמבואר בהדיא כן ע”ש ולפ”ז כיון שהיו לכל ישראל שותפות בירושלים אם כן הוה סוכת השותפין דאדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו כמבואר בשו”ת הריב”ש סי’ שנ”ז וכן הוא בשו”ע א”ח סימן תרל”ז ס”ב וה”ה בזה ומזה ראיה ברורה דשותפות כשר ובזה נראה לפענ”ד היתר חדש לרה”ר דאף שכל בני העיר משותפים ברה”ר מכל מקום הוה כסוכת השותפין שחצי’ שלו וחצי’ שאולה בידו וכמ”ש הריב”ש שם ובשעה שהוא משתמש היא כלה שלו ואם כן הוה היתר פשוט ודו”ק היטב כי לפענ”ד הוא הערה חדשה ובזה מיושב הא דכתבתי בגליון הש”ע /או”ח/ סימן תרל”ז לתמוה על המג”א…

אחר שכתבתי זאת מצאתי בכפת תמרים למהרמב”ח שכתב בחידושיו לסוכת דף ל”א דמסכך בר”ה הו”ל סוכת שותפין וכמ”ש הריב”ש ולא מנעתי לבי מכל שמחה שזכיתי לכוין לדעתו הגדולה

And because of this, the difficulty has returned once more in that they made sukkot in the streets and markets. This would be fine if they [the public domain] were owned solely by Jews. However, a new answer appears to me according to what is said in Bava Kama 82a that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes. See Tosafot there and the Maharsha and the P’nei Yehoshua. I wrote on the margins of the P’nei Yehoshua that the source of Tosafot was lost to them but appears in the Yalkut Shimoni (Parshat V’zot haberacha) and in Avot D’Rebbe Natan (Chapter 35) where it is explained explicitly thus [that all Jews own Jerusalem]. According to this, since all Jews are partners in Jerusalem, the sukkot built there [in the public domain] would have the status of sukkot owned in partnership through which one can fulfill their halachic obligation [to dwell in the sukkah]. This is explained in the responsa of the Rivash (357) and so too in Shulchan Aruch (Orech Chaim 637:2). From this, there is clear proof that a sukkah owned in partnership is kosher. It appears to me, from this, that there is a new reason to permit a sukkah in the public domain, for all the inhabitants of the city are partners in the public domain, and therefore sukkot built there would have the status of sukkot owned in partnership, in which half is mine and the other half is considered borrowed, as was written by the Rivash. When one uses the sukkah, it is as if it is entirely theirs, and therefore, it is obviously permitted. It appears to me that this is a new idea, which resolves what I wrote in the margins of the Shulchan Aruch regarding my questions on the Magen Avraham…

After I wrote this, I found in Kapot Tamarim of the Maharbach that he wrote in his commentary to Sukkah 31 that one puts Schach on a sukkah in the public domain, it is as if the sukkah is owned in partnership, as was also written by the Rivash. I did not hold back my heart from all the joy I merited in intuiting the opinion of this great rabbi.