Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 014

Friday, September 27 2002

• Tzedokkoh tatzil mimoves explanation
• RE: Avodah V10 #12
• RE: Why teach the other opinions
• Re: Bowing during the Avodas Yom Kippur
• Re: 3 year cycle
• Re: Birchat kohanim/hoshanot/ naanuim
• Re: Birchat kohanim/hoshanot/ naanuim
• Re: Bowing during the Avodas Yom Kippur
• Re: Birchat kohanim/hoshanot/ naanuim
• Ashtei Osor
• Re: Ashtei Osor
• Re: Ashtei Osor
• Re: Traveling on succot
• Re: Re: Traveling on succot
• Re: Traveling on succot
• Is anyone familiar with "drashot haranach(resh alef nun chet)"
• Re: Bowing during the Avodas Yom Kippur
• Re: Re: Traveling on succot
• RE: Traveling on succot
• Traveling on sukkot

The following thought came to me...

We know that 'oni choshuv kimeis' (a poor person is considered as
deceased). I understand that to mean that since money is required to do
many / most things in life, so if someone doesn't have it, it is like
he is not alive, because he cannot accomplish things, just as a dead
person cannot .....

When someone gives tzedokkoh to an oni, therefore, they are bringing him
to life, taking him out of the category / situation of oni choshuv kimeis.

We know that 'kol midosov shel Hakodosh boruch hu midoh kineged midoh'
(all measures of Hashem are appropriately corresponding - measure for
measure). Therefore, it is logical that someone who saved an Oni from
death, should himself be saved from death......

Comments ?

Is the above stated anywhere ?

Mordechai

"Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
>Wouldn't it qualify as "noyei sukkah" that are muktzah (i.e. can't be taken
>down) throughout Sukkos?

Why would the velcro straps be considered noyei sukkah? If anythingthey are
the defonos (walls).

> My understanding is this: If there would be a community that was otherwise
> Shomer Mitzvos, and accepted certain C decisions, and over a period
> of time was successful at integrating them into their Shomer Mitzvos
> lifestyle, then it would be very hard to pin them down, and explain how -
> or whether - they are beyond the pale.

I can think of several otherwise O communities, both here and in the US,
which have "egalitarian minyanim", either as the norm or as an acceptable
alternative.

What about O communities which don't hold by "negia" or "yichud"?

Akiva

From: Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu>
> Yes. I was ba'al sha'harit at the Yorkville Synagogue (rav J.D. Bleich) ...
 
> I also saw something strange: the ba'al mussaf, a Vizhnitzer 'hoosid, did not 
> crouch when doing his hishta'havayah, but rather layed down flat, a more 
> literal form of pishut yadayim veraglayim. Textually, he seems right, because 
> the technical term is pishut yadayim veraglayim, however, culturally and 
> mimetically, we are used to crouching. Anybody know meqorot that discuss this 
> alternate form of hishta'havayah and the relative merit of each?

ISTR an extensive discussion of nefilat apayim in SA Yoreh Deah where it
talks about Hilchot Avodah Zarah, paralleled by the discussion in Orach
Chaim by Tachanun, particularly in MB.

Basically, IIRC, there's a mitzva not to bow on a "figured pavement",
or a stone floor (mosaics as well, I guess).  When we bow for nefilat
apayim, we make two distinctions to separate ourselves from the issur,
usually two out of these three: going down on knees rather than flat,
going down on a carpet/cloth rather than directly on the floor, turning
the head aside rather that flat down on the floor.

Was there a carpet on the bimah?  Did the hhazan turn his head aside, 
or go flat?

On 25 Sep 2002 at 15:23, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:20:30PM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> :>: I have heard some people claim that the 3 year cyclw was to split 
> :>: each of our present sedrot in 3...
> 
> :> Ha'azinu was never split.
> 
> : Including Shvii? (I know that the Shira was never split - there are 8-
> : 9 psukim at the end after the Shira). 
> 
> But remember the context: would the last 9 pesukim make 7 aliyos for
> the next two weeks?

If you're going to put it that way, how could Nitzavim, VaYelech or 
v'Zos HaBracha be split? None of them has enough psukim for 21 
aliyos.

-- Carl

On 24 Sep 2002 at 17:22, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> Are there any shuls out there that are minhag ashkenaz but do hoshanot
> after hallel during chol hamoed in order to speed up the davening?

Almost universal here except on Shabbos. I don't think I've ever seen 
it done otherwise here. 

RYBS also did it that way IIRC.

-- Carl

Reb Joel Rich wrote:
> Is it the universal custom for the kahal to say the ribbono shel olams or
> is there a custom only for those who have dreams that they're concerned
> about to say it?

Gur 'Hassiedim don't say 'em at all, so much for 'universal minhag'.

> Are there any shuls out there that are minhag ashkenaz but do hoshanot
> after hallel during chol hamoed in order to speed up the davening?

Yes; the Bialystorker Synagogue in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, but for a 
different reason. It is rumored that the previous rav, rav Yitz'hak Singer 
(pronounce: Zinger) zal, wanted to introduce some nusa'h Sfard minhaggim. 
THIS IS A RUMOR I heard when asking about that practice in that shul (where I 
am a member) but I never approached rav Singer about it.

> Why does the shatz only do 2 naanuim at hodu and the kahal does 4?

Ask somebody who davens nusa'h Ashkenaz ;-).

Arie Folger

Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu> stated:
>Since rav Bleich insists on maintaining
>his shul minhaggim except when he thinks it violates halakhik principles 
>(nixes 'Oseh hashalom as a final brakhah of 'amidah vehemently, for 
>example,
>because it is not matbe'a shetavu 'hkhamim bevrakhot),

I like him already <g>.

This change to the end of Sim Shalom was totally unknown to me until I 
came on aliya, and I must say that I have successfully resisted it up 
till now.

-----------------------
Mo'adim lesimha
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

> Are there any shuls out there that are minhag ashkenaz but do hoshanot
> after hallel during chol hamoed in order to speed up the davening

Yes, my shul is minhag ashkenaz and, up until around 10 years ago,
used to say hoshanos after musaf. However, as the shul became more
and more crowded, RTHW decided to say hoshanos after hallel due to the
great tircha d'tzibura involved in everyone having to put away their
arba minim after hallel and then having to get them again after musaf
(in a shul in which there was hardly room for all of the mispallelim,
let alone room for all of the arba minim). So, it wasn't really a matter
of speeding things up but rather due to the tircha d'tzibura.

However, on Hoshana Raba, we revert to the original minhag and say
hoshanos after musaf.

(On a related note, I'd like to express my appreciation (to the Yeshiva
of Manahattan Beach, IIRC) for the hoshanos wristband card that allows
me to hold the arba minim with both hands with the greatest of ease.
This is one of the token gifts that I actually look forward to receiving
in the mail.) (Another would have to be the charoses that I get every
year from Telshe; tasting it certainly reminds me of the bitter avdus
that our forefathers endured in Mitzrayim.....)

KT and GM
Aryeh

[Thread bounced from Areivim. -mi]

In this mornings Mussaf - "Uvayom Hashlishi Porim Ashtei Osor..."
Someone asked, when do we use Echod Osor and when Ashtei?
And what is the source of the word "ashtei"?

Reb Seth?

A Gutten Moyed..
SBA

SBA <sba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> In this mornings Mussaf - "Uvayom Hashlishi Porim Ashtei Osor..."
> Someone asked, when do we use Echod Osor and when Ashtei?
> And what is the source of the word "ashtei"?

Ashtei osor and ashtei esreh are as commonly used in the T'NaKh as ahad
osor and ahat esreh. No one knows of any difference in meaning.

However, the forms with ashtei are found in the oldest Semitic languages,
such as Akkadian and Ugaritic; the younger languages, such as Aramaic,
Arabic, and Ge'ez do not have these forms. So it is likely that the
forms with ashtei have a more classical, poetic connotation, like the
other poetry in the T'NaKh is written with classical and poetic forms.
But no one knows for sure what the difference would be to the ears of
one of Bnei Yisroel in Biblical times. And the fact that different forms
are used of course opens the gates for d'roshos to be made.

Actually, the fact that Hebrew has an "irregular" form like ashtei osor
(versus the other numbers in the teens, which are formed the same way
as each other) is not too surprising from the linguistic point of view.
One has to go no further than the Germanic languages, where eleven and
twelve (or elf un tzvelf) are formed on a different basis than the other
teens. There are sociolinguistic factors at work that make it common
that the numbers for 11 and 12 are not formed as are the higher teens.

Seth

From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@yahoo.com>
> Ashtei osor and ashtei esreh are as commonly used in
> the T'NaKh as ahad osor and ahat esreh.  No one knows
> of any difference in meaning. ...

Further to the subject of 'Ashtei Osor' - I would appreciate if
those who understand these things would have a look at the Ibn Ezra
on Bamidbor 7:72 - where he discusses it and quotes 
his sefer Moznayim (?). 
Also the IE on Yonah 1:6.

If someone could enlighten me - in a simple clear English it would be
much appreciated.

Yasher Kochachem.
SBA

[Thread bounced from Areivim. -mi]

> The debate I had over this issue was 23 years ago.... Well before my 
> black hat.... And I still have a very hard time legitimizing a set of 
> priorities that does not hold that the mitzva of Yeshivas Succah has 
> to come ahead of the Bnei Akiva tiyul.

I'm confused. There are two separate si'ifim in SA OC 640: one deals
with shiluchei mitzvah and one deals with holchei d'rachim. Where in the
sif regarding travelers does the SA (or MB) limit the p'tur in any way
(other than the day/night issue) and add the concept of shiluchei mitzvah
to the issue regarding travelers?

Isn't the SA to be understood simply that one is _patur_ from sukkah
while traveling, l'chatchilah, (but, "hamachmir, tavo alov brachah")?

KT and GM
Aryeh 

On 26 Sep 2002 at 9:25, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
> I'm confused.  There are two separate si'ifim in SA OC 640: one deals with
> shiluchei mitzvah and one deals with holchei d'rachim.  Where in the sif
> regarding travelers does the SA (or MB) limit the p'tur in any way (other
> than the day/night issue) and add the concept of shiluchei mitzvah to the
> issue regarding travelers? ...

1. What's a holech drachim? I understand holech drachim to be someone who
is going somewhere for a purpose (see the example at the end of the s'if
about someone who is going to collect his bills). Someone who is going
for the sake of going - and not to a particular place where he must go
(whether or not for tzorchei mitzva; going for business is implicitly a
tzorech according to the SA) - can go elsewhere where he will not have
the problem (at least at night).

2. There's a distinction between day and night. Most of you in chu"l
seem to think of the mitzva of Succah as being to eat in the Succah.
But that's a small part of it. Here in Eretz Yisrael, most males sleep
in the Succah (at least in my Chevrah). Am I allowed to put myself in a
situation where I cannot sleep in a Succah because (and only because)
I want to have a good hike and don't want to have to drive for three
hours in the morning to get there? IMHO, that doesn't pass the smell test
(or as my 17-year old put it - "it's not rauy").

Someone I know once asked RSZA whether the eighteen minute test
for determining whether one needs to go find a minyan applies
in Yerushalayim. This person lives in an outer neighborhood of
Yerushalayim. Would he have to drive more than eighteen minutes
to find Ma'ariv at Zichron Moshe after the last Ma'ariv in his own
neighborhood? (Typically, the last Ma'ariv in fruhm neighborhoods here is
somewhere around 11:00-11:30 in the winter and 11:30-12:00 in the summer;
at Zichron Moshe I have found Ma'ariv at 3:00 A.M.). RSZA said no. What
would you say about me if I relied on that heter to purposely miss all
the Ma'ariv's in my neighborhood and then say, "since it takes me more
than eighteen minutes to drive to Zichron Moshe I don't have to find a
minyan for Ma'ariv." See anything wrong with that behavior?

3. What does it mean to say that I'm patur l'chatchila but ha'machmir
tavo alav bracha? To me, it means that if the trip is - for example -
a two hour plane flight, I should limit my food intake to things that
are not chayav in a Succah, but if there is nothing available to eat
other than cake, then I can l'chatchila eat cake. And by the way, where
does it say "l'chatchila" in that s'if?

4. The reason given for the ptur is "taishvu k'ein taduroo;" if I would
go the rest of the year, I can go during Chol HaMoed Succos. But I'm not
talking about someone who routinely goes on overnight hikes - this sort of
thing is ONLY done during Chol HaMoed Succos and Chol HaMoed Pesach (and
often only during Chol HaMoed Succos). Where is the k'ein ta'duroo here?

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

R' Carl:
> 1. What's a holech drachim? I understand holech drachim to be someone 
> who is going somewhere for a purpose (see the example at the end of 
> the s'if about someone who is going to collect his bills). Someone 
> who is going for the sake of going - and not to a particular place 
> where he must go (whether or not for tzorchei mitzva; going for 
> business is implicitly a tzorech according to the SA) - can go 
> elsewhere where he will not have the problem (at least at night). 

I guess I would define "holech drachim" in its simple meaning:  "one who is
traveling."  I don't feel the need to limit it as you do.  Of course, I
agree with you that it might be better to take a pleasure trip to a place
where one knows he will have a sukkah available, but that, IMHO, falls under
the rubric of "hamachmir, tavo alov brachah."

R' Carl:
> 2. There's a distinction between day and night. Most of you in chu"l 
> seem to think of the mitzva of Succah as being to eat in the Succah. 
> But that's a small part of it. Here in Eretz Yisrael, most males 
> sleep in the Succah (at least in my Chevrah). Am I allowed to put 
> myself in a situation where I cannot sleep in a Succah because (and 
> only because) I want to have a good hike and don't want to have to 
> drive for three hours in the morning to get there?

Yes, IMHO.

R' Carl:
> IMHO, that doesn't pass the smell test (or as my 17-year old put it -
> "it's not rauy"). 

OK, perhaps its "not rauy" - for a ba'al nefesh.  Again: "hamachmir, tavo
alov brachah."

R' Carl:
> Someone I know once asked RSZA whether the eighteen minute test for 
> determining whether one needs to go find a minyan applies in 
> Yerushalayim. This person lives in an outer neighborhood of 
> Yerushalayim. Would he have to drive more than eighteen minutes to 
> find Ma'ariv at Zichron Moshe after the last Ma'ariv in his own 
> neighborhood? (Typically, the last Ma'ariv in fruhm neighborhoods 
> here is somewhere around 11:00-11:30 in the winter and 11:30-12:00 in 
> the summer; at Zichron Moshe I have found Ma'ariv at 3:00 A.M.). RSZA 
> said no. What would you say about me if I relied on that heter to 
> purposely miss all the Ma'ariv's in my neighborhood and then say, 
> "since it takes me more than eighteen minutes to drive to Zichron 
> Moshe I don't have to find a minyan for Ma'ariv." See anything wrong 
> with that behavior? 

I think you're mixing apples and oranges. "purposely miss[ing] all the
Ma'ariv's in my neighborhood and then say[ing], "since it takes me more
than eighteen minutes to drive to Zichron Moshe I don't have to find a
minyan for Ma'ariv" is a lot different (IMHO) than getting on a plane
with one's family for a pleasure trip during chol hamoed.

R' Carl:
> 3. What does it mean to say that I'm patur l'chatchila but ha'machmir 
> tavo alav bracha? To me, it means that if the trip is - for example - 
> a two hour plane flight, I should limit my food intake to things that 
> are not chayav in a Succah, but if there is nothing available to eat 
> other than cake, then I can l'chatchila eat cake. And by the way, 
> where does it say "l'chatchila" in that s'if? 

It doesn't say "l'chatchila" in that s'if, but from the fact that
it doesn't say "b'dieved" tells me that when it says "patur" it means
exactly that: "patur" (which means, IMHO, l'chatchila.) I think that the
phrase "hamachmir, tavo alov brachah" is similar to the expression of
"harei zeh meshubach" when describing a person who doesn't even drink
water outside of a sukkah. The same way that one can go to work each
day and eat his lunch (consisting of those foods that are not chayav in
a sukkah) at his desk, so too one can, if he so desires, eat bread and
mezonos while he is on the road traveling.

R' Carl:
> 4. The reason given for the ptur is "taishvu k'ein taduroo;" if I 
> would go the rest of the year, I can go during Chol HaMoed Succos. 
> But I'm not talking about someone who routinely goes on overnight 
> hikes - this sort of thing is ONLY done during Chol HaMoed Succos and 
> Chol HaMoed Pesach (and often only during Chol HaMoed Succos). Where 
> is the k'ein ta'duroo here?

If one's family takes a chol hamoed trip every chol hamoed, I think that
constitutes a pattern to make it "k'ein ta'duroo."

(This relates to a conceptual problem that I have always grappled with.
If we are supposed to live in the sukkah "k'ein taduroo" (like our home),
than why can't I eat a bread sandwich at work? During the year, I don't
go home to eat lunch but instead I stay at work and eat it there; so too
on Sukkos I should be able to eat a sandwich at my desk? Similarly, if I
go to HP during the summer, I will eat whatever I want while I am there
(even though I am not in my house. So to, if I go to HP on Sukkos, why
should I care if there is a sukkah constructed on HP's premises or not?

One answer (that I heard on a R' Reisman tape) is that, on Sukkos,
we are supposed to live in the sukkah and live in the sukkah "k'ein
taduroo" (like our home) and we are supposed to make the sukkah our home
_even_more_ than_ our_ real_ home is during the rest of the year.

(Personally, I don't find this answer satisfying, so I am anxious to
hear if anyone has any other suggestions.)

KT and GM
Aryeh

Where is it found? Who wrote?

moadim lsimcha,
Joel Rich

On 26 Sep 2002 at 17:00, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu> stated:
>>Since rav Bleich insists on maintaining
>>his shul minhaggim except when he thinks it violates halakhik principles 
>>(nixes 'Oseh hashalom as a final brakhah of 'amidah vehemently, for 
>>example, because it is not matbe'a shetavu 'hkhamim bevrakhot),

...
> This change to the end of Sim Shalom was totally unknown to me until I 
> came on aliya, and I must say that I have successfully resisted it up 
> till now.

Huh? I've NEVER heard it used here (it goes against the Gra among 
others), but in Boston it seemed to me like everyone other than RYBS 
used it. 

-- Carl

On 26 Sep 2002 at 14:48, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
...
> I guess I would define "holech drachim" in its simple meaning:  "one who is
> traveling."  I don't feel the need to limit it as you do.  Of course, I
> agree with you that it might be better to take a pleasure trip to a place
> where one knows he will have a sukkah available, but that, IMHO, falls under
> the rubric of "hamachmir, tavo alov brachah."

Rav Moshe zt"l apparently would disagree with you. See Igros Moshe OH 
3:93 where he is mechalek between one who goes "l'mischar v'ka'yotzei 
she'hu tzorech mamash" and "tiyul v'ta'anug b'alma." 

> R' Carl:
>> 2. There's a distinction between day and night....
>>                                               Am I allowed to put 
>> myself in a situation where I cannot sleep in a Succah because (and 
>> only because) I want to have a good hike and don't want to have to 
>> drive for three hours in the morning to get there?

> Yes, IMHO.

See above. Rav Moshe refers to going on a tiyul as "ain la'zeh shum 
tzorech" and "aino klum." 

> R' Carl:
>> IMHO, that doesn't pass the smell test (or as my 17-year old put it -
>> "it's not rauy"). 

> OK, perhaps its "not rauy" - for a ba'al nefesh.  Again: "hamachmir, tavo
> alov brachah."

Not just for a ba'al nefesh. Rav Moshe asks, what if a person likes 
to sleep under the stars and would leave his house during the year 
for that purpose? Does that mean he can also leave the Succah to go 
sleep under the stars?

> R' Carl:
>>           ... Would he have to drive more than eighteen minutes to 
>> find Ma'ariv at Zichron Moshe after the last Ma'ariv in his own 
>> neighborhood? ...                                                RSZA 
>> said no. What would you say about me if I relied on that heter to 
>> purposely miss all the Ma'ariv's in my neighborhood and then say, 
>> "since it takes me more than eighteen minutes to drive to Zichron 
>> Moshe I don't have to find a minyan for Ma'ariv." ...

> I think you're mixing apples and oranges.  "purposely miss[ing] all the
> Ma'ariv's in my neighborhood and then say[ing], "since it takes me more than
> eighteen minutes to drive to Zichron Moshe I don't have to find a minyan for
> Ma'ariv" is a lot different (IMHO) than getting on a plane with one's family
> for a pleasure trip during chol hamoed.

Ah, but if you get on a plane with your family, then when you are not 
travelling, you are likely to be in a place that you can find a 
Succah in which you can be m'kayem the mitzva. Not the case I was 
positing that one should not do. Although, again, according to Rav 
Moshe there appears to be a requirement of some tzorech. I would 
assume that visiting your inlaws counts :-) 

> R' Carl:
>> 3. What does it mean to say that I'm patur l'chatchila but ha'machmir 
>> tavo alav bracha? To me, it means that if the trip is - for example - 
>> a two hour plane flight, I should limit my food intake to things that 
>> are not chayav in a Succah, but if there is nothing available to eat 
>> other than cake, then I can l'chatchila eat cake. And by the way, 
>> where does it say "l'chatchila" in that s'if? 

> It doesn't say "l'chatchila" in that s'if, but from the fact that it doesn't
> say "b'dieved" tells me that when it says "patur" it means exactly that:
> "patur" (which means, IMHO, l'chatchila.)  I think that the phrase
> "hamachmir, tavo alov brachah" is similar to the expression of "harei zeh
> meshubach" when describing a person who doesn't even drink water outside of
> a sukkah.  The same way that one can go to work each day and eat his lunch
> (consisting of those foods that are not chayav in a sukkah) at his desk, so
> too one can, if he so desires, eat bread and mezonos while he is on the road
> traveling. 

Leaving aside the issue of whether one should be working on Chol 
HaMoed, if one does work there's a tzorech there. That's not the case 
where one "feels like" going on a trip. 

...
> If one's family takes a chol hamoed trip every chol hamoed, I think that
> constitutes a pattern to make it "k'ein ta'duroo."

No. How can you make a pattern out of something you shouldn't be 
doing in the first place? Rav Moshe says "Assur." 

> (This relates to a conceptual problem that I have always grappled with.  If
> we are supposed to live in the sukkah "k'ein taduroo" (like our home), than
> why can't I eat a bread sandwich at work?  During the year, I don't go home
> to eat lunch but instead I stay at work and eat it there; so too on Sukkos I
> should be able to eat a sandwich at my desk?  

Maybe because there's no tzorech to eat a sandwich - you can eat 
something that doesn't require you to have a Succah instead. Why 
davka a sandwich? 

> Similarly, if I go to HP
> during the summer, I will eat whatever I want while I am there (even though
> I am not in my house.  So to, if I go to HP on Sukkos, why should I care if
> there is a sukkah constructed on HP's premises or not?

According to Rav Moshe, it would seem you have no heter to eat 
something that would normally require a Succah just so that you can 
go to Hershey Park!

> One answer (that I heard on a R' Reisman tape) is that, on Sukkos, we are
> supposed to live in the sukkah and live in the sukkah "k'ein taduroo" (like
> our home) and we are supposed to make the sukkah our home _even_more_ than_
> our_ real_ home is during the rest of the year.
> 
> (Personally, I don't find this answer satisfying, so I am anxious to hear if
> anyone has any other suggestions.)

I think Rav Reisman's answer was intended to be more hashkafa than
halacha. Personally, I find Rav Moshe's answer compelling as to halachic
reasoning. And yes, I have driven plenty of interstates during Succos,
but you really can get by with foodstuffs that don't require a Succah.

-- Carl

This issue is thoroughly discussed in a shiur by RALichtenstein:
<http://www.vbm-torah.org/sukkot/suk-ral.htm>

Kol tuv,
Moshe

For RCS wishes to limit the ptur of traveling on sukkot to business
and for a mitzvah. While many would concur, Rav Aviner doesn't.
This discussion actually is relevant to the discussion of the nature
and desirability of leisure activities.

Rav Aviner (in mikedem lebet el, vol 2, p.58) argues as follows: Also,
he doesn't differentiate between eating and sleeping on a tiyyul -
both are muttar

1) In the gmara and rishonim, there is no limitation of this ptur for
business (the closest is in rashi, succa 26:1, who mentions that during
the year one travels on business, the tora did not require him to abstain
from traveling - a very reasonable reading is that business travel is
a dugma bealma

2) Travel and vacation is considered something necessary for their well
being, no less than any other need such as parnasa. This is enshrined in
halacha - see sa oc 536:1 9 (and mishna brura) where for the sake of tiyul
on hol hamoed one is allowed to work with an animal, something that is
not allowed without cause, and tiyul is quasi equated with a zorech moed.

3) The notion of tiyul is also part of the mitzva of vesamachta behagecha
- see sima 416:1 and rama, that one is mearev eruve techumin only for
a demvar mitzva, then gives examples - the rama adds o sheroze letayel
beyom tom o shabbat bepardes sheyesh bo simcha - that he wants to take
a walk on a yom tov or a shabbat in an orchard that causes happiness,
that is called a dvar mitzva.

4)The mian source for being machmir is rav moshe feinstein - who
distinguishes between pleasure and business - he argues is a milta
ditemiha, without a remez in the talmudim - is the passuk basucot teshvu
(from which the talmud derives that one can sometimes not sit in a sukka)
only written for merchants?

5) One source that is used by those who are machmir is the rama, who
requires merchants who go to the surrounding farms to collect debts
to go home every night- first, see below what I bring from the aruch
hashulchan. Rav Aviner argues first that the rama's language is that
"yachmiru al atzman" and that yesh lehakel - meikkar hadin it is mutar.
Furhtermore, it is not similar, because he can do his work and go home,
as at night he is not collecting debts - however, for a tiyyul, that
will destroy the entire tiyyul.

6) Mishna brura 640: sk 9, talks about eyno nimna milinsoa leeyze inyan
umaniach et beto vehu hadin lesukka - the criteria is leeyze inyan.

Therefore, Rav Aviner concludes that it is muttar to go for a tiyul on
hol hamoed, and to eat achilat keva and sleep outside the sukka, if one
is not easily available, although, hamachmir tavo alav bracha.

(I suggest that the fact that this didn't pass the "smelll test", as
phrased by RCS, is that many today have a lower estimation of the value
of vacation, and don't conceive of it as a dvar mitzva)

With regard to eating in the office, see the Aruch Hashulchan OC 640.
The MA says that if you have your business in the city where you live,
even though you sometimes eat at the business, as you sometimes go home,
you should eat in a sukka. The Aruch Hashulchan says that the guiding
principle is that if this is an activity where sometimes you go home,
and sometimes eat out, on sukkot you should be machmir and go home
(to a sukka). He understands the Rama's position on collecting debts -
someimes the businessman comes home, sometimes he doesn't - on sukkot
he therefore should try to come home. He then brings down in the name of
the MA that even if one lives outside of the city where one is working,
one should eat in a sukka, and the Aruch Hashulchan doesn't understand
this except perhaps as middat hasidut- as this is a case of teshvu keeyn
taduru. There is clearly a notion of being machmir (the yerushalmi brings
down that rav hUna on a trip wouldn't even drink water outsdie the sukka),
but htis is middat hasiddut. This would seem to imply (according to the
AH) that if one works sufficiently far away that you never come home
for lunch, you should be able to eat lunch in the office - although I
haven't seen a posek who says that - whether that is because of ikkar
hadin or the notion of hamachmir tavo alav bracha means that the advice
given is now always lehumra.

Meir Shinnar

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]