Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 019

Thursday, October 3 2002

• RE: travelling on Sukkot
• RE: Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Re: travelling on Sukkot
• RE: RE: travelling on Sukkot
• RE: travelling on Sukkot
• RE: travelling on Sukkot
• Re: eating in/out of a sukkah
• Re: RE: travelling on Sukkot
• RE: travelling on Sukkot
• RE: travelling on Sukkot
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• RE: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• RE: travelling on Sukkot
• RE: travelling on Sukkot
• Re: eating in/out of a sukkah
• kiddush-havdalah candle
• Re: travelling on Sukkot
• Re: Mussar and RYBS
• existentialism
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane

On 2 Oct 2002 at 12:10, Feldman, Mark wrote:

> From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
>> I would not question whether one should take vacation when it is
>> available during Chol HaMoed - obviously one who can, should. But
>> not at the cost of not fulfilling the mitzva of Succah. (It is
>> possible to take vacation and stay home too. Again, there is no
>> mitzva to travel on vacation, with the possible exception of walking
>> in Eretz Yisrael). 
> 
> See my previous post.  The choice is between taking a real vacation on
> chol hamoed vs. taking it during the summer and working on chol hamoed
> (no doubt eating one's bagged lunch in succah near work!).

Or taking vacation on Chol HaMoed and not travelling. Again, there is 
no mitzva to travel.

Having said that, I will admit that there were years when we lived in 
the US (and for that matter here - the first year and a half that we 
lived here my employer canceled two Chol HaMoed vacations and tried 
to cancel a third until I told him that I was taking it and he could 
decide for himself whether to fire me over it!) that I did work Chol 
HaMoed Succos. But when I did, you can bet that I didn't eat a 
sandwich at my desk (okay, I had dinner in the Succah's of some of 
New York's finest Kosher restaurants - lunch was a different 
story...). 

>> [RGS:] The mitzvah is not just to eat
>>> in the sukkah (or to eat and sleep in the sukkah) but to live in
>>> the sukkah and that allows leaving the sukkah just like one leaves
>>> one's house.
>> 
>> See both Rav Moshe and Rav Lichtenstein on that one. 
> 
> RAL agrees with RGS on technical grounds.  He just says that in E"Y,
> youth groups--with sufficient effort--should be able to arrange for
> succos for tiyulim, and if they don't make such an effort, they are
> close to naval b'rshus hatorah.  In America, those traveling to New
> Hampshire may find it more difficult.  

Or you can go someplace other than New Hampshire where a Succah is 
available. There's no Kdusha in going to New Hampshire.

(Of course, now with the
> "pop-up succah" there's less of an excuse.)

I wasn't even thinking of that one, but you're right. 

-- Carl (who once drove all night on Motzei Shabbos Chol HaMoed 
Succos and got breakfast in a Succah in Buffalo, New York)

On 2 Oct 2002 at 12:04, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> RMF believes that it is
> halachically assur to go, and RAL disagrees: <<In Iggerot Moshe OC
> II:93, Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l suggests that a pleasure trip would
> not be included in the traveler's exemption from a sukka. This
> inference seems difficult to me. It also seems that Rav Moshe would
> agree in the case under discussion: an educational trip organized for
> a youth group is surely no less permissible than a business trip.>>

I would actually think that a youth group trip would be much closer 
to a pleasure trip than to a business trip. I would think that it 
ought to (at least) depend on the educational component and on 
whether there is a time factor involved (could it be scheduled at 
another time). Business trips most often are scheduled based on a lot 
of people's needs and are difficult to push to another time. When 
going to visit parents or inlaws during the Chagim, the whole point 
is to visit them during the chag. Taking a hike? Not quite the same 
IMHO.... 

> In the case of Great Adventure, given the fact that there is a Succah
> day, if a person davka chooses to go on a non-succah day, he deserves
> a nice mussar schmooze. But if he were incapable of going on the
> Succah day, then he doesn't deserve such a schmooze.

That depends how you're defining "incapable." And whether there is 
some alternate activity that you could do with your family without 
missing out on sitting in a Succah (including eating food that does 
not require a Succah). 

-- Carl

On 2 Oct 2002 at 13:38, Gil Student wrote:

> Carl Sherer wrote:
>> Drank coffee and ate fruits and veggies the entire trip.... After
>> that, we spent the day in Niagara Falls, the night in a motel in
>> Windsor (across the tunnel from Detroit) and then drove to Chicago
>> the next day.
> 
> How is not eating/sleeping so as to avoid the mitzvah of sukkah OK but
> eating bread in a state of petur not OK?  It seems the same to me.

First of all, I didn't say that I didn't sleep. Since all of my time 
in the US was spent in cold climes, I never slept in the Succah until 
I made aliya. 

As to eating, I think there's a qualitative difference between 
temporarily restricting oneself to eating things that are only a 
chumra to eat in the Succah at any time, and eating something that is 
generally m'chuyav in eating in the Succah in order to be able to 
participate in a strictly optional activity. 

If it were during the year and you had no place to wash netillas 
yadayim, and you could find something else to eat, would you find 
something else to eat, or would you rub your hands on a stone 
wall/put on rubber gloves and eat the bread? (And yes, I recall the 
story on Mail Jewish of a prominent Rav and his wife donning gloves 
to eat bread on an airplane - that's different because whatever the 
airline serves you is what's available unless you're going to bring 
your own food). 

-- Carl

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com] on Areivim
> As long as I can remember, all my teachers and seforim have 
> told me that one who wishes to go all week without a sukkah 
> may do so, as long as he avoids those sort of meals which 
> require a sukkah. They usually remember to point out that 
> Hilchos Shabbos and Hilchos Yom Tov require such meals on 
> those days, but that Chol Hamoed doesn't.

There is a difference between (1) not eating any food which is chayav in
succah and (2) traveling and eating bread/mezonos outside a succah.  In case
1, one has not avoided the mitzvah of succah (e.g., he cannot make the bracha
of leisheiv basuccah--eating fruit in a succah is not true kvi'us), while in
case 2, one has avoided the mitzvah (proof: if a traveler does eat bread in a
succah, he makes a bracha).  I do agree that there are also similarities
between the cases.

> In http://www.vbm-torah.org/sukkot/suk-ral.htm R' 
> Lichtenstein quotes several ancient authorities who write 
> about the importance of wearing tzitzis, even though the 
> chiyuv applies only when wearing a 4-cornered beged. But even 
> those authorities do not denigrate a person who simply does 
> not exert himself to get such a beged. They merely recommend 
> that we should go in the positive direction.

That is not true.  See Beis Yosef OC 24:1 citing Menachos 41a (story about
Rav Katina) that Hashem does punish such a person b'idan rischa, and
explaining that this applies in a society where people normally wear 4
cornered garments (so that someone who avoids wearing such garments is
clearly avoiding the mitzvah) but not in our society.
 
<snip>
> R' Lichtenstein writes <<< It is possible that the Ramban's 
> famous expression, "Naval bi-reshut ha-Torah," ... is too 
> harsh to apply to avoiding positive action - perhaps it is 
> limited to one who drifts into negative behavior. But the 
> idea at the base of the Ramban's concept does apply.>>>
> 
> Does anyone know of a precedent where another gadol or posek 
> spoke so harshly about people who eat shehakol outside of the sukkah?

He's not talking about someone eating shehakol outside the sukkah.  He's
talking about someone going on an overnight tiyul and claiming the exemption
of holchei drachim.  There is a difference, as I discussed above.
 
> He asked <<< Did it ever enter the mind of a businessman that 
> strives to scrupulously fulfill mitzvot and, in the course of 
> his business, finds himself in New York's skyscrapers, to eat 
> his lunch in his office because there is no sukka in his vicinity?>>>
> 
> Good question; I wonder if he asked anyone. I had a salad at 
> my desk, and I know others who do similarly. I don't know 
> what's wrong with vacationers doing the same.

But you didn't have a sandwich at your desk.  There's nothing wrong with
vacationers eating salads outside a succah, but that's not what RAL was
discussing.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> So why do we praise the fool who is thirsty, but refrains from a drink
> of water (or a k'beitzah or smaller sandwich, for that matter) simply
> because he is not at "home"?

I don't think we praise such a person.  We praise the person who takes the
bother to find a succah even when all he needs to do is drink some water.
Alternatively: we praise the person who deliberately stays home rather than
find himself in the situation where he needs to drink out of the succah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> If it were during the year and you had no place to wash netillas 
> yadayim, and you could find something else to eat, would you find 
> something else to eat, or would you rub your hands on a stone 
> wall/put on rubber gloves and eat the bread? 

Clearly, it goes against our "training" to eat the bread because netilayas
yadayim is so engrained in our habits.  That doesn't mean that we're doing
the right thing.  For example, it's often a choice between eating healthy
food (nonfat cottage cheese on 7 grain bread, for me) and less healthy food
(e.g., foods with a high glycemic index--see http://tinyurl.com/1r6o, such as
raisins, or foods which are high in fat)--after all, you don't get enough
calories from eating veggies. 

So if it's a multi-day trip and you're not eating healthy food, your chumrah
with regard to sukkah is a kulah with regard to u'shmartem es nafshoseichem
and with regard to simchas ha'regel (if don't enjoy the snack foods).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 2 Oct 2002 at 14:40, sholom@aishdas.org wrote:

>> -- Carl (who once drove all night on Motzei Shabbos Chol HaMoed
>> Succos and got breakfast in a Succah in Buffalo, New York)
> 
> OK, I'm totally confused on this issue, completely and thoroughly.
> 
> 
> What _is_ the halacha for eating in a sukkah?  Isn't it just to eat
> "achilas kevah" ("a set meals) and/or a k'beitza of bread?

Correct. But you're not fulfilling a mitzva by doing that. You have 
one week a year that you can perform this mitzva and you're giving it 
up... to go walk in the woods???? 

> And, if so, can't a person who is away from a sukkah simply snack and
> graze on yogurts and fruits until he is able l'sheiv b'sukkah?

The initial issue related to one who goes on overnight trips during 
Succos. While in most of North America people do not sleep in the 
Succah because of the cold weather, here in Israel it is common - 
almost universal in many circles - to sleep in the Succah. 

-- Carl

On 2 Oct 2002 at 19:52, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:

> R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< I would not question whether one should take
> vacation when it is available during Chol HaMoed - obviously one who
> can, should. But not at the cost of not fulfilling the mitzva of
> Succah.>>>
> 
> Have we forgotten what the traveller's p'tur is? It means that he can
> be kovea on *bread* or *mezonos* outside a sukkah. In order to eat
> other things, one does not even need to be a traveller!!!

See Igros Moshe OH 3:93.

> In http://www.vbm-torah.org/sukkot/suk-ral.htm R' Lichtenstein quotes
> several ancient authorities who write about the importance of wearing
> tzitzis, even though the chiyuv applies only when wearing a 4-cornered
> beged. But even those authorities do not denigrate a person who simply
> does not exert himself to get such a beged. They merely recommend that
> we should go in the positive direction.

And how many people do you know whom you would consider fruhm who 
don't wear tzitzis? 

> And even if some of us *would* look down someone for not wearing
> tzitzis, isn't that specifically because we perceive tzitzis as an
> unusually easy mitzvah to do? Even in Eretz Yisrael, sukkah is not
> nearly as easy as tzitzis is. Not in the city, and certainly not on
> tiyul.

Sure it's easy. See what Rav Lichtenstein writes about it. Who tells 
you to go on an overnight tiyul and davka MAKE your life difficult?

> R' Lichtenstein writes <<< It is possible that the Ramban's famous
> expression, "Naval bi-reshut ha-Torah," ... is too harsh to apply to
> avoiding positive action - perhaps it is limited to one who drifts
> into negative behavior. But the idea at the base of the Ramban's
> concept does apply.>>>
> 
> Does anyone know of a precedent where another gadol or posek spoke so
> harshly about people who eat shehakol outside of the sukkah?

The problem isn't eating she'ha'kol outside the Succah (and RAL's 
words are mild compared with RMF's). The problem is deliberately 
putting onself in a position where one CANNOT fulfill the mitzva. 
Recall that at the time of the Gemara there was no pleasure travel. 
Would Chazal have extended the traveler's ptur to pleasure travel had 
there been such a thing in their time? Debatable IMHO. 

> He asked <<< Did it ever enter the mind of a businessman that strives
> to scrupulously fulfill mitzvot and, in the course of his business,
> finds himself in New York's skyscrapers, to eat his lunch in his
> office because there is no sukka in his vicinity?>>>
> 
> Good question; I wonder if he asked anyone. I had a salad at my desk,
> and I know others who do similarly. I don't know what's wrong with
> vacationers doing the same.

See above. 

-- Carl

On 2 Oct 2002 at 16:29, Feldman, Mark wrote:

> So if it's a multi-day trip and you're not eating healthy food, your
> chumrah with regard to sukkah is a kulah with regard to u'shmartem es
> nafshoseichem and with regard to simchas ha'regel (if don't enjoy the
> snack foods).

Ain hachi nami. But I would advocate trying to find a Succah if 
you're going to be somewhere overnight. 

-- 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 Sherer wrote <<< I would not question whether one should take
vacation when it is available during Chol HaMoed - obviously one who can,
should. But not at the cost of not fulfilling the mitzva of Succah.>>>

Have we forgotten what the traveller's p'tur is? It means that he can
be kovea on *bread* or *mezonos* outside a sukkah. In order to eat other
things, one does not even need to be a traveller!!!

As long as I can remember, all my teachers and seforim have told me that
one who wishes to go all week without a sukkah may do so, as long as he
avoids those sort of meals which require a sukkah. They usually remember
to point out that Hilchos Shabbos and Hilchos Yom Tov require such meals
on those days, but that Chol Hamoed doesn't.

In http://www.vbm-torah.org/sukkot/suk-ral.htm R' Lichtenstein quotes
several ancient authorities who write about the importance of wearing
tzitzis, even though the chiyuv applies only when wearing a 4-cornered
beged. But even those authorities do not denigrate a person who simply
does not exert himself to get such a beged. They merely recommend that
we should go in the positive direction.

And even if some of us *would* look down someone for not wearing tzitzis,
isn't that specifically because we perceive tzitzis as an unusually easy
mitzvah to do? Even in Eretz Yisrael, sukkah is not nearly as easy as
tzitzis is. Not in the city, and certainly not on tiyul.

R' Lichtenstein writes <<< It is possible that the Ramban's famous
expression, "Naval bi-reshut ha-Torah," ... is too harsh to apply to
avoiding positive action - perhaps it is limited to one who drifts into
negative behavior. But the idea at the base of the Ramban's concept does
apply.>>>

Does anyone know of a precedent where another gadol or posek spoke so
harshly about people who eat shehakol outside of the sukkah?

He asked <<< Did it ever enter the mind of a businessman that strives
to scrupulously fulfill mitzvot and, in the course of his business,
finds himself in New York's skyscrapers, to eat his lunch in his office
because there is no sukka in his vicinity?>>>

Good question; I wonder if he asked anyone. I had a salad at my desk,
and I know others who do similarly. I don't know what's wrong with
vacationers doing the same.

Akiva Miller

In message <3D9A58E5.21563.2470B28@localhost>, Carl M. Sherer 
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>On 1 Oct 2002 at 21:49, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> In message , Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>>>On 1 Oct 2002 at 10:40, Gil Student wrote:
>>>> Maybe not you.  But I know plenty of people who go to the Bronx Zoo
>>>> on a Sunday and bring food sandwiches with them.  Suddenly comes
>>>> Chol HaMoed and I'm not allowed to bring sandwiches along with me
>>>> (FWIW, I brought yogurt but not because I thought I could not bring
>>>> a sandwich)?

>>>But given the option, why not just bring the yogurt and avoid the
>>>issue?

>> How is that better?  Are you not thereby being mevatel the d'orisa
>> mitzvah of benching in precisely the same way as those being discussed
>> use travelling to avail themselves of the ptur relating to sukkah, or
>> wearing non four cornered garments to avail themselves of the ptur
>> relating to tzitzis?
>
>Nope. The d'oraisa of bentching is only if you're full. The Gemara
>says that being makpid on k'zayis and k'beitza is a chumra. Eating a
>sandwich doesn't necessarily make bentching a d'oraisa in any event.
>

Agreed that it is not d'orisa (although we cannot strictly call it a
chumra, you cannot make brachos that you would not otherwise make on
a chumra). But I was referring to the d'orisa mitzvah, because it is
not that difficult to eat until you are full. Choosing not to do so, or
choosing to do so on shehakol foods, is, it seems to me, an avoidance of
the d'orisa mitzvah in the same way as putting yourself in a place where
you are ptur from Sukkah on Sukkos is avoiding the mitzvah of Sukkos.

>> If anything, is it not worse (assuming that, unlike R Gil, you really
>> feel like sandwiches rather than yogurt)?

>Why would it be worse? Am I restricted to eating the thing I want to
>eat the most? (By the way, on Pesach tiyulim, we usually do take
>Matza and cold cuts :-).

The reason I felt it was worse was this. If you are *really* challishing
for a sandwich (or loads of sandwiches), and you refrain from eating
sandwiches purely because you are avoiding benching, then it is clear
that what you are doing is effectively avoiding (or throwing off)
the mitzvah. If, on the other hand, you don't really like bread much
(and maybe you only eat a k'zayis on shabbas because of the mitzvah)
then, a) the d'orisa obligations is less clear cut (ie you may struggle to
genuinely eat and be satisfied on the bread; and b) it is not that you are
avoiding bread/mitzvahs, but you are choosing to do/eat something that
brings you enjoyment, and as a by-product you are making it impossible
to for you to simultaneously fulfil a d'orisa mitzvah. The latter seemed
to me to be more defensible than the former, although I can see arguments
to the contrary.

Regards
-- 
Chana Luntz

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
>> 1.  Message to children: explain the halachic inyan of not working
>> on chol hamoed 

> Only if you take off EVERY Chol HaMoed unless you have a demonstrable 
> davar ha'aveid (not - this year I'll use my vacation for Chol HaMoed 
> and next year I'll use it in August). 

That's what I happen to do.  Nevertheless, according to some poskim, it
doesn't have to be that way.  Some poskim hold that you can take vacation
during the summer despite the fact that when it comes to Succos, you don't
have any vacation days left and thus you would be fired if you took
additional vacation (i.e., there is a davar haaved).

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> Or you can go someplace other than New Hampshire where a Succah is 
> available. There's no Kdusha in going to New Hampshire.

But often the places where a succah is available are citified areas, not
conducive to menuchas hanefesh (i.e., very unlike New Hampshire).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I asked <<< Have we forgotten what the traveler's p'tur is? It means
that he can be kovea on *bread* or *mezonos* outside a sukkah. In order
to eat other things, one does not even need to be a traveler!!! >>>

R' Carl Sherer suggested <<< See Igros Moshe OH 3:93. >>>

I did, and I'm confused. He is clearly saying that one cannot rely
on Holchei Drachim if his reason is merely Taanug B'Alma, but then he
somehow makes a logical leap to say that it is Asur to go to a place
where there is no sukkah, if it is merely for Tiyul and Taanug. Where
did he get that from? Why didn't he say something like "But a practical
solution is to go, but not be kovea seudah on hamotzi or mezonos"?

Simlarly, in reference to Rav Lichtenstein's article, I asked <<< Does
anyone know of a precedent where another gadol or posek spoke so harshly
about people who eat shehakol outside of the sukkah? >>>

R' Moshe Feldman answered <<< He's not talking about someone eating
shehakol outside the sukkah. He's talking about someone going on an
overnight tiyul and claiming the exemption of holchei drachim. >>>

That's not at all obvious from his article. He writes <<< It is obvious
that the exemption for travelers only applies when it clashes with
fulfilling the mitzva. In other words, when the traveller only has two
options before him - either staying at home and fulfilling the mitzva
of sukka, or travelling and forgoing it. >>>

Now I ask, why are those the only two options? Can't the traveler go and
avoid hamotzi? Let us say that when the traveler is going for a mitzvah,
he is allowed to eat hamotzi outside the sukkah, but for an optional
tiyul he must restrict himself to other foods.

R' Moshe Feldman wrote <<< See Beis Yosef OC 24:1 citing Menachos 41a
(story about Rav Katina) that Hashem does punish such a person b'idan
rischa, and explaining that this applies in a society where people
normally wear 4 cornered garments (so that someone who avoids wearing such
garments is clearly avoiding the mitzvah) but not in our society. >>>

The end of Rav Moshe Feinstein's teshuva (cited above by RCS) brings
that same gemara. To apply it to our situation, I think it would only
apply to people who normally or frequently are kovea their meals on
bread or mezonos, and then specifically avoid doing so in order to be
patur from sukkah. It could well be that there are many people who fall
in this category, especially on Chol Hamoed.

Not me. I have bread at my meal when required to, but otherwise it
depends on whether the food "goes with" bread or not. Which usually
means either sandwiches, or where there is some kind of gravy. My dinner
tonight, for example, was a piece of broiled fish, and some vegetables;
why add bread to that? Even on Chol Hamoed, if I went out of my way to
have bread at breakfast, I see absolutely no reason to go out of my way
to have any at lunch.

Akiva Miller

I asked <<< why do we praise the fool who is thirsty, but refrains from
a drink of water (or a k'beitzah or smaller sandwich, for that matter)
simply because he is not at "home"? >>>

R' Moshe Feldman responded <<< I don't think we praise such a person. We
praise the person who takes the bother to find a succah even when all
he needs to do is drink some water. >>>

Yes, that's how I understand the Mishna (Sukkah 2:5), but the Mechaber
(639:2) put a whole different spin on it, and I've seen his words
elsewhere as well. Here's how I translate it; if you have an alternate
explanation of his spin, please share it.

Mechaber 639:2: "... And one who is machmir on himself, and doesn't
drink even water outside the sukkah, harei zeh m'shubach..."

Now, how *could* have said, "And one who is machmir on himself, and goes
to the sukkah even to drink water, harei zeh m'shubach." But that's
*not* the way he wrote it. Anyone know why? This has been bugging me
for decades.

Personal note: Because the Mechaber puts this spin on it, praising the
one who avoids drinking outside the sukkah, for many years (when my job
was a good 15-20 minute drive from the nearest sukkah) I would allow
myself to get moderately thirsty and hungry before caving in to eat or
drink some shehakol at the office, but would not allow it to become a
real interference with my simchas yom tov. In recent years my tolerance
has gone way down, and I don't refrain much from such things any more.

Akiva Miller

R. Sholom asked, <What _is_ the halacha for eating in a sukkah? Isn't it
just to eat "achilas kevah" ("a set meals) and/or a k'beitza of bread?
And, if so, can't a person who is away from a sukkah simply snack and
graze on yogurts and fruits until he is able l'sheiv b'sukkah?>

The SA just summarizes the Tur, who quotes the halokho and the Rambam:
That the sukkah is only _required_ for akhilas q'va', and akhilas 'arai
is muttar outside the sukkah, and akhilas 'arai is "kabbeitza mippat" or
less. All other items are muttar to eat outside the sukkah, but someone
who is mahmir on himself and doesn't even drink water outside the sukkah,
harei zeh m'shubbah. The latter is word for word from the Rambam, who
is brought by the Tur.

Regarding the issue of akhilas q'va' with substances other than bread,
the R'Mo brings the view that there is no possibility of q'va' without
bread (as I said in my shiur, that is true in the R'mo's time, but the
g'moro says that there can be q'va' with other things). The MB mentions
that several aharonim think that there can be q'va' with wine.

I believe that Carl's note reflects the fact that people try their best
to eat in the sukkah more along the lines of the Rambam's comment, but
he would admit that you could snack away. However, the thread was based
on the question of voluntarily putting yourself in a position where you
are potur from the mitzva by traveling. If you hold there is an issue
there, then it certainly seems reasonable that a person would try to be
m'qayyem the mitzva as much as possible by eating in the sukkah whenever
he could, even if not required to according to the quality and quantity
of his comestibles.

Seth Mandel

>If one wished to prepare a proper short-term avukah for such occasions,
>one could stick a number of small Chanukah or birthday candles in
>an appropriate holder and light the entire mass. [Try this out first
>before Yom Tov in order to prevent any surprises, and be sure to catch
>the drippings on a ceramic or metal plate]

Errr, you're talking motzei shabbos, but one would have to put the plate 
there over 25 hours earlier, before Shabbos -- or else m'vatel kli 
me'hachano, no?  Or am I really misunderstanding this?

-- Sholom

RAM:
> My dinner
> tonight, for example, was a piece of broiled fish, and some vegetables;
> why add bread to that?

While I agree that most people are not kovea on bread, many people often eat
mezonos at meals.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> These are great examples of why it is odious to define Mussar on the
> basis of RYBS. His attitude towards Mussar is utterly patronizing,

Patronizing, unfortunate, narrowminded?! WADR, it is the view of the
halachist who sees all values as eminating from Halacha, as opposed to
other value structures such as Chasidus or Mussar . WADR, a questionnable
set of adjectives.

Steve Brizel

<It was RYBS's willingness and ability to do an existential study of the
halachic man that made him something other than the pure embodiment of
one. >

I was just reading a shiur of RYBS in Noraot haRav 3 where he says that
some people might accuse him of being an existentialist. He defends
himself by saying that if it is true it is not based on Sartre but on
chazal !

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 10/03/2002

On 2 Oct 2002 at 22:33, Chana Luntz wrote:
> Agreed that it is not d'orisa (although we cannot strictly call it a
> chumra, you cannot make brachos that you would not otherwise make on a
> chumra). But I was referring to the d'orisa mitzvah, because it is not
> that difficult to eat until you are full. 

Maybe for YOU it's not so difficult - for some of us it rarely 
happens :-) 

>                                         Choosing not to do so, or
> choosing to do so on shehakol foods, is, it seems to me, an avoidance
> of the d'orisa mitzvah in the same way as putting yourself in a place
> where you are ptur from Sukkah on Sukkos is avoiding the mitzvah of
> Sukkos.

One difference I can think of off the top of my head is that a Succah 
is time bound. Eating k'dei svia is not. If I don't eat k'dei svia 
today, I can do so tomorrow or next week or next month. I can't do 
that with a Succah. Once the week is over - no more mitzva until next 
year (and that means I could have a cycle of din in which I have not 
fulfilled the mitzva of Succah beyond the chiyuv of the first night). 
Does that matter? Well, Chazal feared the mitzva of Hoshanos being 
forgotten so much that they rigged our calendar so that Hoshana Rabba 
can never come out on Shabbos. So there's definitely a concept there 
of trying to fulfill a timely mitzva at its proper time, whether it's 
a chiyuv or only a kiyum, even if you have to go out of your way to 
fulfill it. 

> >> If anything, is it not worse (assuming that, unlike R Gil, you
> >> really feel like sandwiches rather than yogurt)?
> 
> >Why would it be worse? Am I restricted to eating the thing I want to
> >eat the most? (By the way, on Pesach tiyulim, we usually do take
> >Matza and cold cuts :-).
> 
> The reason I felt it was worse was this. If you are *really*
> challishing for a sandwich (or loads of sandwiches), and you refrain
> from eating sandwiches purely because you are avoiding benching, then
> it is clear that what you are doing is effectively avoiding (or
> throwing off) the mitzvah. 

Personally, I challish for food, not for sandwiches. From comments 
others have made, I'm sure I'm not the only one on this list who 
feels that way. I made the Pesach comment not because I challish for 
matza either, but because we take matza to eat on Pesach because it's 
one of the few things that is convenient to eat, not junk food, and 
filling. 

>                             If, on the other hand, you don't really
> like bread much (and maybe you only eat a k'zayis on shabbas because
> of the mitzvah) then, a) the d'orisa obligations is less clear cut (ie
> you may struggle to genuinely eat and be satisfied on the bread; and
> b) it is not that you are avoiding bread/mitzvahs, but you are
> choosing to do/eat something that brings you enjoyment, and as a
> by-product you are making it impossible to for you to simultaneously
> fulfil a d'orisa mitzvah. The latter seemed to me to be more
> defensible than the former, although I can see arguments to the
> contrary.

Agreed. 

[Email #2. -mi]

On 2 Oct 2002 at 20:26, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> I did, and I'm confused. He is clearly saying that one cannot rely on
> Holchei Drachim if his reason is merely Taanug B'Alma, but then he
> somehow makes a logical leap to say that it is Asur to go to a place
> where there is no sukkah, if it is merely for Tiyul and Taanug. Where
> did he get that from? 

I think he took the "naval b'rshus ha'Torah" argument that Rav 
Lichtenstein makes and took it a step further. 

>                          Why didn't he say something like "But a
> practical solution is to go, but not be kovea seudah on hamotzi or
> mezonos"?

This is why I suggested that Rav Moshe may not have meant "assur" as 
in "it's assur to turn on lights on Shabbos." But he may have meant 
"assur" so as to avoid the slippery slope, as in "if I matir this, 
people are going to go on tiyulim during Succos to places where they 
know they won't find a Succah." He also may have said it because of 
the issue of sleeping in the Succah - which is a real issue here in 
Eretz Yisrael and other warmer climes (recall that if you don't have 
the ptur of mitztaer, even shainas arai is assur outside the Succah). 
It's not clear to me who the questionner here was. The tshuva doesn't 
say. But the previous tshuva relates to a Ben Eretz Yisrael coming 
into shul in chu"l on Yom Tov Sheini to say Yizkor, which leads me to 
believe that this tshuva may also have been written to a Ben Eretz 
Yisrael (maybe someone knows? RDE?).

> Simlarly, in reference to Rav Lichtenstein's article, I asked <<< Does
> anyone know of a precedent where another gadol or posek spoke so
> harshly about people who eat shehakol outside of the sukkah? >>>
> 
> R' Moshe Feldman answered <<< He's not talking about someone eating
> shehakol outside the sukkah. He's talking about someone going on an
> overnight tiyul and claiming the exemption of holchei drachim. >>>
> 
> That's not at all obvious from his article. He writes <<< It is
> obvious that the exemption for travelers only applies when it clashes
> with fulfilling the mitzva. In other words, when the traveller only
> has two options before him - either staying at home and fulfilling the
> mitzva of sukka, or travelling and forgoing it. >>>
> 
> Now I ask, why are those the only two options? Can't the traveler go
> and avoid hamotzi? 

We've had a couple of people here argue that's not "k'ein taduru." I 
disagree. Yes, I would think that the traveler can go and avoid 
ha'motzi. 

Again, I think the context here is important. In Eretz Yisrael, most 
youth groups - and certainly most DL youth groups - have tiyulim 
(group trips) during Chol HaMoed. Typically two days and a night, 
sometimes three days and two nights. For many years, they were simply 
"m'vater" on the mitzva of eating and sleeping in the Succah. This is 
what I argued was wrong with my friend in Yeshiva over twenty years 
ago (and my mentioning that argument apparently started this thread). 
And RAL was speaking to the people who run those youth groups when he 
posted (I don't know where, if or to whom he actually said the shiur 
over, but those people were clearly the target audience) that shiur. 
Today, AIUI, most dati youth groups with boys (whether separate or 
coed) build a Succah for the overnight of the tiyul. During the day, 
they likely do what you suggest and avoid ha'Motzi and Mezonos. (Of 
course, for the last two years, there are almost no group tiyulim 
during Chol HaMoed in any event, but that's a Matzav-related issue 
and not a halachic one). They started building Succos because they 
were getting harsh feedback about avoiding the mitzva from people 
like Rav Aaron Lichtenstein. 

Let us say that when the traveler is going for a
> mitzvah, he is allowed to eat hamotzi outside the sukkah, but for an
> optional tiyul he must restrict himself to other foods.

How are you defining "optional tiyul?" There are people on this list 
who have gone so far as to make a "tiyul" a fulfillment of oneg Yom 
Tov. While that may be, I would argue that one should nevertheless 
not do it if by doing so one will not be m'kayem the mitzva of Succa, 
particularly where there are other forms of Oneg Yom Tov available 
(whether a different tiyul or a different activity). 

> Not me. I have bread at my meal when required to, but otherwise it
> depends on whether the food "goes with" bread or not. Which usually
> means either sandwiches, or where there is some kind of gravy. My
> dinner tonight, for example, was a piece of broiled fish, and some
> vegetables; why add bread to that? Even on Chol Hamoed, if I went out
> of my way to have bread at breakfast, I see absolutely no reason to go
> out of my way to have any at lunch.

I'm with you. On the other hand, for several years now, I have 
actually tried to be m'kayem (bli neder!) fourteen seudos in the 
Succah during Succos (2 per day for seven days as per the mishna). 

[Email #3. -mi]

On 2 Oct 2002 at 18:04, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
>> Or you can go someplace other than New Hampshire where a Succah is
>> available. There's no Kdusha in going to New Hampshire.

> But often the places where a succah is available are citified areas,
> not conducive to menuchas hanefesh (i.e., very unlike New Hampshire).

So you sleep in a Succah in a cititfied place (Bethlehem? Citified?), 
and go on day trips to the quiet areas. There's always a solution!

-- 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.

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


[ 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         ]