What are the Halachic approaches to allowing or prohibiting marital relations in one's Succah?

Note: This question does not ask for the final accepted Halachah, but for the sources for different approaches to this issue - what different Poskim think on this.

For precedence of "onah-to-sukkos" click here .

  • 1
    On what basis was this downvoted? Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 17:01
  • Why would you think otherwise? תשבו כעין תדורו.
    – DonielF
    Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 19:32
  • 4
    Possible duplicate of Onah and Sukkos?
    – DonielF
    Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 19:33
  • 1
    @AlBerko “Too sacred”? At best it’s תשמישי מצוה.
    – DonielF
    Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 21:00
  • 3
    @Maurice on the basis that it was a terrible post. Proof: there's a +7 answer which apparently doesn't address the OPs concerns, so much so that the OP had to edit to clarify and borderline invalidate the answer.
    – Double AA
    Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 21:26

2 Answers 2


The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 135:2 writes that it is permissible.

אבל תשמיש המיטה מותר בסוכה, שהרי עיקר מצוותה איש ואשתו.‏ (...)

But marital relations are permitted in the sukkah, for the underlying principle of the mitzvah is for husband and wife to be together.

  • So not only muttar but actully encouraged Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 19:41
  • 1
    See Arachin 3b, from the sugya there it comes out that a heter for relations is essential for the mitzva.
    – Mordechai
    Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 19:52
  • Again, what does he base his conclusion on? I don't understand שהרי - of course it takes two to tango so why does it override Succah?
    – Al Berko
    Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 20:25
  • 3
    @Al what do you mean by "override"? Commented Nov 13, 2019 at 20:33

One may if it's tzanua and all laws of Orach Chaim 240 are observed. See Chazon Ovadia, Sukkot, pg. 194 (as well as 83 and 130) plus a few more items cited on Halachipedia:

Rama 639:2 writes that reason for those who don't sleep in the sukkah if a married man would sleep alone in the sukkah that wouldn't be a fulfillment of the concept of dwelling in the sukkah like we dwell in our homes during the year. However, he concludes that it is preferable to sleep in a private sukkah with his wife.
Taz 639:9 asks on the Rama that if he is correct the Sukkah should be pasul since it isn't fit to be used for sleeping (Rama 640:3). Rather he defends the Minhag in another fashion. He writes that a married man has a mitzvah to sleep in the same room as his wife to gladden his wife even if she isn't Tahorah. That mitzvah makes him exempt from the sukkah.
Magen Avraham 639:8 has a different justification which is that a person would be pained about not being able to sleep in the same room as his wife and someone who is pained by the sukkah is exempt. He explains that this doesn't render the sukkah Pasul since it is fit for sleeping and he just has a personal external exemption. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Chazon Ovadyah (pg 196) agrees with the Taz.
HaGr"a 639:13 argues with the Rama. Following the Gra, Mishna Brurah 639:18 writes that men are obligated to sleep in the Sukkah without their wives and it’s not pained by not sleeping in the same room as his wife unless it’s the night of Onah.

  • THank you, as the question was about different approaches I brought them into your answer.
    – Al Berko
    Commented Nov 14, 2019 at 18:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .