A succah is huktsa, set apart, for its mitzvah usage and therefore cannot be dismantled on Succos. See here in the Shulchan Aruch.

To clarify, although the words used in the shulchan aruch are to not to derive enjoyment from the succah, the intention is to not destroy it's form as a item used for a mitzvah. See the Mishna Berurah there #4 don't use it in a way that destroys it. This point is exemplified in the Ramma who brings to not even pull off a splinter of wood for a toothpick. One may however benifit from the succah in a way that does not destroy it's form, such as leaning on it, or placing something upon it, M.B. ibid. This point is further clarified by the words of the Tur with the Beis Yosef's explanation where only a standing succah is muktzah an a deoraisa level, whereas a fallen succah is only muktzah on a rabbinic level.

In the linked page, you will see that the Ramma and Mishna Berurah in #6 dispel the misconception that a stipulation, tnai, would help.

However, the entire discussion seems to revolve around taking the succah apart for a different personal use. I am wondering if one can, with or without a stipulation, dismantle a succah for the express purpose of rebuilding it in a more convenient place? Perhaps this issue was brought up when the pop-up succos became popular?

I am aware of an interesting idea from Reb Shlomo Zalman brought in Halichos Shlomo at the end of chapter 7. There he contends that a person can make his temporary dwelling to be not a succah for express mitzvah purposes, but rather a halachicaly acceptable shady dwelling with which he can be yotzeh his mitzvah, which can then be dismantled. However I am searching for a different angle.

  • I don't see anything on that page about a prohibition on dismantling. Only about a prohibition on using.
    – msh210
    Sep 21, 2015 at 4:55
  • @msh210 see the edit which clarifies the issue at hand.
    – user6591
    Sep 24, 2015 at 13:50

1 Answer 1


Piskei Tshuvos in siman 638 #3, brings some sources that discuss this. It is a machlokes. The שואל ומשיב is stringent. His opinion is brought in פסקי תשובה. In עיקרי הד׳ט is an opinion to be lenient, he compares this to removing tzitzis from one beged to place on another. He also quotes להורות נתן who deals with this issue at length and ends up allowing it when it is necessary, and gives a warning to remember not to use the succah parts for any personal use whatsoever while it is dismantled.

You must log in to answer this question.

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