ain ma'avirin al ha'mitzvos - Avnei Nezer's chiddush in when to build your sukkah

The against (Meg 6b) writes that when there is a double Adar, according to R' Eliezer bar Yosi the megillah is read in the first Adar because of the principle of  דְּאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת.  When you have one continuous block of time and can do the mitzvah earlier or later within that same block, there is a din of zerizus to do it earlier, but that's not a game breaker.  In his case, it's not a contiguous block of time.  There are days in between 14 Adar I and 14 Adar II when the megillah cannot be read.  Therefore, we come on to the principle of אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת. 

Based on this gemara the Avnei Nezer (OC 459)  has a chiddush din that when there is a shabbos in between Y"K and Sukkos, a person must build his sukkah before shabbos.  You cannot build the sukkah on shabbos, so we treat the days before shabbos and days after as two separate time periods and apply the rule of אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת.

Is that really true?  The gemara (MK 9a) writes that Shlomo haMelech made a celebration for chanukas Beis haMikdash before Sukkot so as to avoid the problem of מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה.  That year they did not fast on Y"K because of this party for chanukas ha'Bays. The gemara asks: maybe Shlomo just happened to complete the job before Sukkos and that's why he made the celebration then?  How do we know it's because of the issue of מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה?  Answers the gemara: if מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה was not an issue Shlomo would have left a small part unfinished and timed the completion for Sukkos rather than schedule the celebration on Y"K.  (This topic comes up with regards to whether one dan delay a siyum until the 9 days.)

 

According to the Avnei Nezer, if in theory the Mikdash could have been completed either before Y"K or after Y"K, and obviously it could not be built on Y"K itself, wouldn't delaying the completion until after Y"K be a problem of ְאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת, just like delaying building the sukkah? 

 

See more here.  The more more fundamental argument against the Avnei Nezer is that not reading megillah in the intervening days between Adar I and Adar II is a din in megillah; not building sukkah on shabbos is not a din in sukkah, it's just an extraneous problem of melacha on shabbos that gets in the way.

seeing Hashem's goodness

 המאכילך מן במדבר למען ענותך  What kind of suffering could there be in having mon to eat?  The gemara in Yoma (74b) comments  אמר אינו דומה מי שרואה ואוכל למי שאינו רואה ואוכל אמר רב יוסף מכאן רמז לסומין שאוכלין ואין שבעין If you thought of steak when eating the mon, you tasted steak, but the food still looked like mon; therefore, a person was never fully satiated or satisfied.  From here, says the gemara, we learn that a blind person who cannot ever see his food never really feels satiated either.

I saw quoted in the name of the Damesk Eliezer that this is why we daven on Yom Tov שׂבּענו מטובך.  We don't just want Hashem to give us טובה, all that is good for us.  He does that all the time.  The problem is that we don't see His goodness for what it is, as we live in a world of hester.  שׂבּענו מטובך -- we want to be able to see the goodness, not just believe in it, as only then will we feel satiated from Hashem's blessing.

הפּסח נאכל על השׂובע.  The korban pesach was eaten only after one was satiated and full, as a desert.  We have to be satiated and full from Hashem's goodness to truly take away the message of Pesach with us.

R' Aharon Lichtenstein: mitzvos that we happen to do on a chag vs mitzvos that establish the character of the chag

 Y"T fast approaches, but wanted to get this in quickly.  The gemara (Suk 48a) says the Shmini Atzeret is רגל בפני עצמו לענין פז״ר קש״ב  Rashi on the spot comments רגל בפני עצמו  שאין יושבין בסוכה.  

Ramban raises a number of questions on Rashi, among them:

עוד שאינו נקרא רגל בפני עצמו בשביל שאינו בכל מצות הרגל שלו שהרי לולב נוהג בראשון ואינו בשאר הימים בגבולין ורגל פסח נמי חלוק במצה ומרור כדאיתמר לעיל.

How is the absence of mitzvas sukkah proof that Shmini Atzeret is its own regel?  You don't take lulav on the second day of Sukkot onward (mi'doraysa), but it is still the same holiday of Sukkos.  What's the difference between the two?

Rav Zolti in his Mishnas Yaavetz (here) has a defense of Rashi, but I would like to propose answering at least this question with a yesod R' Aharon Lichtenstein has here (parenthetically, the Asif site is really one worth putting on your radar.)  R' Aharon suggests (not enough time to go through his proofs here, so ayen sham!) that there are two types of mitzvos that we do on Yom Tov: 1) there are mitzvos that have a set time in which they have to be performed, and that time just happens to be on a specific chag; 2) there are mitzvos that define the character and nature of the chag.  

For example, R' Aharon writes that blowing shofar is not something that you do on 1 Tishrei that you could just as well do on 3 Tishrei or 5 Tishrei or any other day.  Blowing shofar is what makes 1 Tishrei into "Yom Teru'a."  It defines the day.  Without shofar, you don't have a holiday that is missing a mitzvah -- take away shofar and in effect you no longer have a holiday.  

I would suggest that the same is true of sukkah.  It's not called "Chag ha'Lulav."  It's called "Chag ha'Sukkos."  The reason is not simply because the former is done only for one day and the latter for seven.  The difference is because the former mitzvah defines the nature of the day, the character of the chag.  The latter does not -- it's just a mitzvah that happens to fall out on that particular date.  

This is why according to Rashi שאין יושבין בסוכה is proof that we are dealing with a day that has a completely different character, but the fact that mi'doraysa we don't take lulav during chol ha'moed is not indicative of anything. 

sukkah in the rain

I covered this back in 2009, but figured a little review (with some new addition) doesn't hurt.  We have torrential rains in NY (to quote my wife: the last time it rained this much Noah was putting his zoo together) that are not expected to stop before nightfall.  How does that impact the mitzvah of sukkah?

The Rishonim ask: the gemara (Brachos 49) writes that there is a chiyuv to eat a seudas Y"T with bread, and therefore if one forgets yaaleh v'yavo one has to repeat bentching.  The gemara (Sukkah 27) has another din learned from a gezeira shava of Sukkos to Pesach that one is obligated to eat a kzayis in the sukkah tonight.  Why do we need this latter din when we already know that we have to eat a seudah of bread tonight because it is Y"T?  

A few answers are offered: 1) Tos (Sukkah 27) answers that really on Y"T there is no obligation to eat bread.  The sugya that says you have to is speaking only about the night of Sukkos or Pesach, when we have that gezeira shavah that obligates us.  According to this view, if you leave our yaaleh v'yavo in Y"TNoa bentching you would not repeat. 2) Other Rishonim says the nafka mina is the shiur.  Normally, a person has to eat a k'beitza to be yotzei seudas Y"T.  The gezeira shava elevates the importance of the eating of a k'zayis so that one is yotzei with that. 3) Rosh answers that had we only had the chiyuv to eat because of seudas Y"T, when it rains, you could eat inside.  The gezeira shava teaches us that on the night of Y"T one must eat a k'zayis in sukkah regardless of the weather.

Since the other Rishonim did not give the Rosh's answer (which is quoted l'halacha by the Rama), one can assume that they did not accept his chiddush, and that even on the first night of sukkos one is not obligated to sit in the sukkah in the rain.  

The nekudas ha'machlokes (see the older post for a different hesber): yesh lachkor whether the chiyuv of sukkah on the first night is a mitzvah of achila, like achilas matzah, or a mitzvah of dirah, to live in the sukkah, which you do by eating there.  

If it is a mitzvah of dirah, then when it rains, one should be patur.  You don't live in your house when there is rain pouring through the ceiling -- that's not called dirah.  If it is a mitzvah of achila, then rain makes no difference.  If it rains on leil ha'seder, you still eat a k'zayis of matzah.

There are other issues that may hinge on this same chakira.  If one stole a k'zayis and ate it in the sukkah tonight, is it a mitzah ha'baah b'aveira (R' Baruch Ber's question)?  Is the mitzvah achilas k'zayis, or is the mitzvah sitting in sukkah, and you never stole the sukkah?  The Yerushalmi has a safeik (discussed by Rama as well) whether one must avoid eating a meal after chatzos on erev Sukkos in order to be able to enjoy eating that k'zayis in the sukkah just like you cannot have a meal on erev Pesach in order to relish that first bite of matzah.  Again, the issue seems to be whether the focus is on eating, or on dirah.

Bottom line: even if it rains, to be yotzei the shitas haRosh quoted by Rama you should eat a k'zayis in the sukkah and then continue the rest of the meal inside.

GR"A throws one more wrinkle into the equation.  He holds (Maaseh Rav, also quoted by Chayei Adam) that when it rains on the first night, even if you've eaten your k'zayis to be yotzei the Rosh, if it then stops raining, even at 3:00AM, you have to go out and eat another k'zayis of bread in the dry sukkah.  The M.B. asks why this should be so.  M'mah nafshach: according to the Rosh, you were yotzei with the k'zayis you ate in the rain.  According to the other Rishonim, just like you were exempt because of 'mitzta'ar pature min ha'sukkah' when it rained, you are exempt because of 'mitzta'ar pature min ha'sukkah' from having to wake up at 3:00AM?  

What we see from the GR"A (he has other Rishonim to back it up) is a new chiddush: the gezeira shava does obligate a person irrespective of the weather, irrespective of tzaar, like the Rosh holds; however, a sukkah with rain falling through the roof is not a sukkah.  There is a chovas ha'gavra, but you have no cheftza shel mitzvah to fulfill it with.  Therefore, once it stops raining and you have a livable sukkah, you have to go out and take advantage.

lomdus: maror and bracha on a partial mitzvah

1) Rosh writes that we eat a k'zayis maror because we say a bracha of "al achilas maror" and the shiur achila is a k'zayis.  Shaagas Aryeh asks why the Rosh needs to use the nusach of the bracha to prove his case.  Why doesn't he just say that since the mitzvah is to eat and achila=k'zayis, that must be the shiur?  

R' Hershel Shachter in his Eretz Tzvi suggests that the mitzvah of maror is not a mitzvah of achila, but is a mitzvah of making a zecher l'mikdash to the maror that was eaten with the korban pesach; therefore, absent the nusach ha'bracha, maybe a k'zayis would not be required.

(See Aruch haShulchan 477:3 -- 

מיהו בשני בני אדם שאין להם רק כזית אחד מצה, נראה דמוטב שיאכל אחד מהם כזית ויקיים המצוה כתיקונו, משיאכל כל אחד חצי זית. וכיצד יעשו יטילו גורל.

וזה פשוט שאם יש להם שני זיתים – יאכל כל אחד כזית ל"המוציא" שהיא עיקר המצוה, ולא יאכלו אפיקומן שהוא לזכר בעלמא. ואם יש להם שלושה זיתים – יאכל כל אחד כזית ל"המוציא", והכזית השלישי יחלקו ביניהם לאפיקומן, דלזכר די בחצי זית בשעת הדחק.)

I am not so sure this chiddush fits the shitas haRambam (Ch"M 7:8):

בזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן אחר שמברך המוציא לחם חוזר ומברך על אכילת מצה. ומטבל מצה בחרוסת ואוכל. וחוזר ומברך על אכילת מרור ומטבל מרור בחרוסת ואוכל. ולא ישהה אותו בחרוסת שמא יבטל טעמו. וזו מצוה מדברי סופרים. וחוזר וכורך מצה ומרור ומטבל בחרוסת ואוכלן בלא ברכה זכר למקדש.

Notice that the Rambam calls maror מצוה מדברי סופרים but calls koreich  זכר למקדש.  Seems to be two different gedarim.

2) The Brisker Rav is quoted as explaining that the Rosh holds that there is in fact no independent chiyuv of eating a k'zayis of maror even when there is a beis ha'mikdash.  The mitzvah is "al matzos u'merorim yochluhu," to eat the korban pesach with side dishes of matzah and maror.  

Rambam paskens (7:6):

 ואחר כך כורך מצה ומרור כאחת ומטבל בחרוסת ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת מצות ומרורים ואוכלן. ואם אכל מצה בפני עצמה ומרור בפני עצמו מברך על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו

According to the Brisker Rav, it comes out that even though there is no mitzvah of achilas maror in its own right -- it is just part of the larger mitzvah of "al matzos u'merorim yochluhu" -- one can still recite a bracha on achilas maror.  We see from here that you can recite a bracha on what is only a partial mitzvah.

Birchas Avraham brings two additional proofs to this idea:

a) Tos and BH"G have a machlokes whether you can continue counting sefira if you miss counting one day.  Minchas Chinuch explains that the issue hinges on whether the 49 days of sefira are one mitzvah, in which case if you miss a day you are done, or whether they are 49 independent mitzvos, each day a mitzvah in its own right.

Even though BH"G holds all 49 days are one big mitzvah, we still recite a bracha on counting each individual day, on each part of the mitzvah.

b) If you say the bracha "al netilas lulav" and then pick up the 4 minim each one at a time, you are yotzei.  Rama in Hil Sukka (651:12) writes that if you interrupt in the middle, you would recite a new bracha on whatever min you have left to pick up, e.g. if you picked up 3 of the minim and then interrupted what you were doing before picking up the aravos, you would say a bracha of "al netilas aravah."  Even though the 4 minim are one mitzvah, you can say a bracha on doing part of the mitzvah independently.

I would add one additional case to this discussion.

c) R' Akiva Eiger (Tinyana 13) has a safeik whether one can still recite the brachos on ner chanukah if one remembered to do so only in the middle of lighting.  Many explain the nekudas ha'safeik revolves around whether the additional candles lit for the sake of hidur are part of the mitzvah of hadlaka or whether hidur is its own kiyum.  

Even if hidur is not an independent kiyum but is part of the mitzvah of hadlaka, I would think that it is at best a partial kiyum hamitzvah.  RAK"E must assume, like these other sources indicate, that one may recite a bracha on a partial kiyum.

more on the GR"A's explanation of the date of Sukkos

I wanted to just add a few points to the GR"A we discussed last post.  Given that Bnei Yisrael would have first made sukkos when they left Egypt and went into the midbar, why don't we celebrate the holiday in Nissan?  The Tur answers that if we were to eat outside in Nissan when the weather is nice, it would look like we are just having a nice camping trip or picnic.  Therefore, Hashem put the holiday in Tisrei, when the weather is getting colder, so when we go outside it is obvious that we are doing so l'shem mitzvah.  According to the Tur, there is no inherent connection between Sukkos and 15 Tishei.  In theory any time during the rainy/winter season would be an appropriate time to make the holiday.  However, according to the GR"A that connects Sukkos with the start of the construction of the Mishkan, the date is precise, as the building of the Mishkan started on 15 Tishrei.

According to the Tur, there is also no connection between Sukkos and R"H and Y"K.  The Torah links 3 regalim of Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukkos, since all share a common mitzvah of aliya la'regel, but there the fact that R"H, Y"K, and Sukkos coincide in the same month is by chance alone.  According to the GR"A, Sukkos does have a link with R"H and Y"K, as it is Hashem's forgiveness of the cheit ha'eigel on Y"K which caused the ananei ha'kavod to return.

As we discussed, Sukkos is about our efforts to repair the relationship with Hashem that we damaged through cheit ha'eigel.  My wife pointed out that by sukkah there is a din of ta'aseh v'lo min ha'asuy, that (without getting into technical details) we must construct the roof of schach, not take something some pasul material  that already is on the roof and somehow make it kosher for the sukkah.  It requires is'arusa d'li'tata.  Just as Hashem's declaration of "v'salachti" is not enough for complete kaparah without our efforts to build a Mishkan to repair the damage, so too, a sukkah that comes about without our efforts of construction is not sufficient.

I think this also explains why we commemorate the miracle of the ananei ha'kavod and not the other miracles that occurred in the desert like the mon and the be'er.  According to GR"A, it is not the first occurrence of the ananim which we are marking in celebrating Sukkos, but it is the return of the ananim.  The first occurrence of the ananim, like the mon and be'er, was a gift from Hashem.  It is the second occurrence, it is our efforts to bring back the Shechina, which is what we are celebrating.

Many ask: why do we call it simchas beis ha'sho'eivah when the simcha is in the nisach ha'mayim -- the drawing of the water is just a means to the end?  The Kozhiglover explains that once you are in the Mikdash and standing near the mizbeyach, it's no kuntz and takes no effort to be able to pour the water and do the right thing.  The chiddush is in drawing the water from the ground from outside the Mikdash and bringing it into a holy place.  That require effort, and it is our efforts which are the focus of the chag.

sukkos as a time of kapparah

Can someone please explain to me why before Y"T the local kosher supermarket was charging $10 (bli guzma) for a honeydew melon, but I was able to buy one in a regular supermarket for $2.88?  Now, let me be fair and say that the honeydew in the regular supermarket was smaller, but still, I could buy 3 of them for less than the price of that one melon in the kosher market.  Is this fair business practice?  (And don't even get me started on the price of esrogim.)

In 242 sk"2 M"B writes that if fish sellers drive up the prices, the Rabbis should make a takanah not to buy any fish until the market returns back to the normal level.  

Why do we celebrate Sukkos in Tishrei and not in Nissan?  The well known GR"A explains that when BN"Y sinned with the cheit ha'eigel, the ananei ha'kavod went away.  On Y"K Hashem said salachti ki'devarecha, on 11 Tishrei Moshe announced that they would build a Mishkan, for 2 days they collected donations (ba'boker ba'boker = 2 days), on the 14th the money was turned over to the artisans, and on 15 Tishrei construction commenced.  It was then that the ananei ha'kavod returned; therefore, on 15 Tishrei we sit in sukkah as a zecher to ananei ha'kavod.

R' Mordechai Ezrachi asks: if the ananei ha'kavod went away because of the sin of cheit ha'eigel, why did they not return immediately on Y"K when Hashem said "salachti" and forgave that sin?  Why was the return triggered only by the start of work on the Mishkan?

He answers by quoting Rabeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah (1:42) that it's possible for Hashem to forgive a person for their wrongdoing and absolve them from punishment, but still want nothing to do with that person.  Therefore, the sinner needs not only teshuvah, but needs tefilah as well, to ask Hashem to accept their avodah and restore their relationship to what it was before.

Y"K may have taken away the threat of punishment for cheit ha'eigel, but it did not bring BN"Y back to the same closeness to Hashem that had existed beforehand.  It was the enthusiasm for BN"Y to want to build a Mishkan, the desire for "Shachanti b'tocham," which repaired and restored that relationship, and only then did the ananim return.

This is why, he explains, although a person can fulfill the mitzvah of lulav in seconds -- "m'd'agb'hei nafik bei," just lifting up the 4 minin is enough -- we spend hours before Y"T trying to select the best lulav, the most m'hudar esrog, etc.  

In the midbar, it was the preparation and collection of materials for the Mishkan that showed BN"Ys love for Hashem and their desire to return to the relationship of old.  Today, it is through our preparations for the chag, our extra hidur in its mitzvos, that we try to do the same.  

mitzvah habaah b'aveira by dinim derabbanan

 he Yerushalmi (Shabbos 13:2, 72a in Vilna ed) suggests that if an aveil tears kriya on Shabbos, they are yotzei the mitzvah kriya.  The Yerushalmi then asks: how is this different than a person who stole matzah and ate it on leil Pesach, in which case they are not yotzei the mitzvah?  

The gemara cryptically answers:

אמר לון תמן גופה עבירה. ברם הכא הוא עבר עבירה. כך אני אומר הוציא מצה מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים אינו יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח

By kriya,  עבר עבירה; by matzah, תמן גופה עבירה.  

Whatever exactly that distinction means, the Yerushalmi demonstrates that the cases are not comparable by bringing in another example: surely if a person carried matzah from a reshus ha'yachid to a reshus ha'rabim on Shabbos and then ate it, they would be yotzei the mitzvah of matzah.  The case of kriya is just like this case.

R' Akiva Eiger asks: when you are done carrying the matzah, the aveira is over before you do the mitzvah.  When you tear kriya, the aveira and mitzvah occur simultaneously.  What's the comparison?  How does this latter case prove what the din is by kriya?

So much for trying to understand the answer of the Yerushalmi.  For now, let's back up and take a closer look at the question.  

The Bavli (Sukkah 30) quotes a machlokes whether the psul of mitzvah habaah b'aveira applies only on the first day of Sukkos or on all the days of the chag. 

קא פסיק ותני לא שנא ביו"ט ראשון ולא שנא ביום טוב שני בשלמא יבש הדר בעינן וליכא אלא גזול בשלמא יום טוב ראשון דכתיב לכם משלכם אלא ביום טוב שני אמאי לא א"ר יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה... 

  ופליגא דר' יצחק דא"ר יצחק בר נחמני אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא ביום טוב ראשון אבל ביום טוב שני מתוך שיוצא בשאול יוצא נמי בגזול 

Tosfos explains there is no psul on the latter days of the chag because the chiyuv of lulav on those days is only derabbaban:

. הכא דווקא שהוא מדרבנן לא חייש אמצוה הבאה בעבירה

The Yerushalmi (Sukkah 3:6, 15a top of the page) quotes this this second view stama, as if there is no debate on the matter:

רבי יצחק בר נחמן בשם שמואל כל הפסולין אינן פוסלין אלא ביום טוב הראשון בלבד.

And we see from the Rambam that this rule does not just apply to psulei hidur, but to all psulim, even a stolen lulav, as he writes (Hil Lulav 8:9)

כל אלו שאמרנו שהם פסולין מפני מומין שבארנו או מפני גזל וגניבה ביום טוב ראשון בלבד אבל ביום טוב שני עם שאר הימים הכל כשר.

If so, the difference between the din of kriya and the din of matzah should be obvious: kriya is a din derabbanan, matzah is a chiyuv d'oraysa.  You shouldn't need some cryptic answer to distinguish between the cases -- the question shouldn't even get off the ground!

The Kaba d'Kushyasa similarly asks on the Shulchan Aruch: the S.A. paskens (Y.D. 349) that you are not yotzei kriya on a stolen garment (it's just like trying to be yotzei with stolen matzah) -- there is a psul mitzvah habaah b'aveira even though kriya is derabbanan.  Yet the S.A. paskens (O.C. 649) that you are yotzei with a stolen lulav on all the days of Y"T except the first -- there is no psul of mitzvah habaah baveira by dinim derabbanan.  How do you get these two halachos to fit together?

ikar poteil es ha'tafeil -- chakira of the emek bracha

An interesting question to think about:

If a person ate matzah but it was tafeil to some other food so no bracha needed to be recited on it, is a person yotzei the mitzvah of achilas matzah?

A few months from now you can discuss the same question by sukkah: if a person ate bread on leil sukkos but it was tafeil to some other food so it did not require a bracha, is a person yotzei the mitzvah of eating a meal in sukkah?

What's the safeik?  Saying a bracha is not m'keiv the mitzvah?  

The issue is how to understand the din that ikar poteir es ha'tafeil.  The Emek Bracha (and others) make the following chakira: is it that the tafeil is its own achila and should get its own bracha, but the halacha of ikar poteir es ha'tefil tells us that the bracha on the ikar suffices, or does the din of ikar poteir tafeil mean that the achila of the tafeil is not an achila -- it's like you just ate the ikar, and that's why only the ikar gets a bracha.

There are ra'ayos both ways, among them the simple diyuk in the language of ikar POTEIR es ha'tafeil, which implies there is a chiyuv bracha on the tafeil that is being fulfilled, not that there is no chiyuv.  

In any case, the sefer where I saw this question raised wanted to say that the issue by matzah or sukkah hinges on this chakirah.  If the achila of the tafeil is not an achila, then you haven't been yotzei matzah or sukkah; if it is an achila, just the bracha on the ikar suffices, then you would be yotzei.

I leave it to you to mull over whether the chakira fits and what the proofs are one way or the other.

rambam's formulation of mitzvah sukkah and lulav

Rambam hil chameitz u'matzah 6:1

מצות עשה מן התורה לאכול מצה בליל חמשה עשר שנאמר בערב תאכלו מצות. בכל מקום ובכל זמן.

Rambam hil shofar 1:1

מצות עשה של תורה לשמוע תרועת השופר בראש השנה שנאמר יום תרועה יהיה לכם

Now look at how Rambam formulates the mitzvah of lulav in hil lulav 7:13

מצות לולב להנטל ביום ראשון של חג בלבד בכל מקום ובכל זמן

Why doesn't he say something like "mitzvas aseh shel torah..." to take the lulav on 15 Tishrei as it says "ulkachtem lachem..."  like he says by matzah and by shofar?

And look at the Rambam's formulation of the chiyuv of sukkah in 6:7

אכילה בלילי יום טוב הראשון בסוכה חובה. אפילו אכל כזית פת יצא ידי חובתו. מכאן ואילך רשות. רצה לאכול סעודה סועד בסוכה. רצה אינו אוכל כל שבעה אלא פירות או קליות חוץ לסוכה אוכל כדין אכילת מצה בפסח:

Again, no statement like "mitzvah aseh..." to eat in the sukkah on the night of 15 Tishrei, etc.  And the ending of this halacha is even more difficult.  What purpose does the comparison between sukkah and matzah serve -- just tell me the din without the comparison?  Secondly, the pasuk tells us there is a mitzvah of "ba'sukkos teishvu shivas yamim."  There is no parallel mitzvah by matzah, so how are they parallel?

 

where home really is

Sukkos is a remembrance of the ananei ha'kavod that we merited in the zechus of Aharon haKohen, the great oheiv es ha'briyos u'mekarvan la'Torah.  Aharon is all about kiruv rechokim, which is why on this chag even the mayim tachtonim get brought up to the mizbeiach (see Rashi on VaYika 2:13 and this post).  Sukkah is the only mitzvah that envelopes the entire person, from the brain right down to the muddy shoes on your feet.  (You can't wear shoes on har ha'bayis, so aliya la'regel doesn't count.)  Meaning, it is a mitzvah that can envelop any and every Jew, whether you are the brains of our people or just somewhere on the bottom of the pile.   Mekarvan la'Torah, everyone included.

There is one other mitzvah that envelops the entire person, head to toe, and that is the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael.  Coincidence?  Maybe not.  The Tiferes Shlomo asks what happened to the promise in the leshonos shel geulah -- v'hotzeisi, v'hitzali, etc. -- to the promise of v'heiveisi?  True, Klal Yisrael made it to Eretz Yisrael after 40 years, but justice delayed is justice denied, and that was a completely different generation?  He answers with the pasuk describing sukkos: "U'smachtem lifnei Hashem Elokeichem shivas yamim." (Devarim 16:15).  Sukkah is a chovas ha'guf -- what does the pasuk mean that we celebrate "lifnei Hashem?"  The answer is that when you are in the sukkah you are lifnei Hashem, in Eretz Yisrael, by the makom Mikdash.  The sukkah is like a little embassy; it is part of Eretz Yisrael wherever it may be located.  When Klal Yisrael left Egypt "va'yisu mei'Ramses Sukkosa," they headed for Sukkos.  Through being in the sukkah they experienced right then a taste of v'heiveisi, the kedushas Eretz Yisrael.  

ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס סכותה. הנ"ל דהנה כבר הקשו הראשונים על ההבטחה שהבטיחם הש"י להכניסם לא"י מיד הלא לא נתקיים ההבטחה ההיא. גם דרך שלשה ימים שאמרו נלכה ונזבחה כו' קשה מאד היכן הי'. אך הנה אמרו חכז"ל מה חג לד' כשם שחל שם שמים על החגיגה כן חל ש"ש על הסוכה נמצא הסוכה היא בחי' הקדושה של הקרבנות ובחי' א"י בכל מקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבא אליך וברכתיך. לכן כאשר באו בנ"י לסוכות זכו בזה לקדושת א"י והקרבנות כנ"ל:

Things are so topsy turvey in Eretz Yisrael, with so many factions and parties and chugim, but that's how it's supposed to be because yishuv ha'aretz, like sukkah, envelops us as a people head to toe, top to bottom.   

The lesson of sukkos is that what we call home is not really home.  If you had a chance to review Yoma before Yom Kippur you may recall R' Yehudah's opinion (10b) that the lishkas palhedrin did not need a mezuza (m'doraysa) because "dirah baal korcha lo shmah dirah."  Living in galus is, or should be, a dirah baal korcha, a place we are forced to be in against our wishes.  Lav shema dirah -- it's not really a home.  Home is Eretz Yisrael.  For one week a year we remind ourselves of that fact.  We experience through sukkah a taste of kedushas ha'aretz to remind ourselves of where home is.  And if you are in Eretz Yisrael already, then remind yourself k'shem she'chal shem shamayim al ha'chagiga chal shem shamayim al ha'sukkah, that there is yet more holiness that we need in Eretz Yisrael itself so that it becomes the homeland that we need.

a second bite of the apple

Sukkah 46b:

איתמר הפריש שבעה אתרוגין לשבעה ימים אמר רב כל אחת ואחת יוצא בה ואוכלה לאלתר ורב אסי אמר כל אחת ואחת יוצא בה ואוכלה למחר

I'm not interested in the technical details of this machlokes in hil muktzah, whether an esrog set aside for use on a specific day can be eaten on that day after the mitzvah is done or only the next day.  A more minor point: why do Chazal specifically talk about eating the esrog?  Were they so hungry that they needed to take a bite out of it?  Their wives didn't prepare a nice brisket for Y"T?   OK, so you can say it's just an expression and the gemara really means hishtamshus or hana'ah of any kind, but still...

U'likachtem lachem ba'yom ha'rishon pri eitz hadar... u'smachtem lifnei Hashem Elokiechem shivas yamim (Vayikra 23:40)

It was just two weeks ago on Rosh HaShana that we said "zeh ha'yom t'chilas ma'asecha zikaron l'YOM RISHON."  Not that the world was created on R"H, but man was, and our existence gives purpose to everything else.  Had Adam haRishon just made it to Shabbos without sin then the seven days of creation would have been complete in the sense of fulfilling their purpose, and he would have had a great seudas Shabbos, starting with kiddush on the fruit of the eitz hadaas.

But we know that he didn't make it.  He ate from the eitz ha'daas = the esrog (according to some shitos) too soon and the world did not achieve the tikun it needed.

On sukkos we come back to that same "yom rishon" that we spoke about of R"H, we get a second bite of the apple (I know - bad choice of idiom given what we are talking about : )  "U'likachtem lachem ba'YOM ha'RISHON," take it for yourself and seize the opportunity of the "yom ha'rishon" all over again.  This time get it right with the pri eitz ha'dar = the pri of the eitz ha'daas and don't fall for the snake's speech.  

Tiferes Shlomo explains that the gemara speaks about eating the esrog because it is hinting that we get a second bite of the apple, a second taste of the eitz hadaas, the esrog, with the possibility of doing in right this time around.  That is what chag hasukkos is all about.

If we get it right, then we complete the seven days of creation as originally intended, u'smachtem lifnei Hashem Elokeichem shivas yamim.

second night of sukkos: which bracha comes first, sukkah or zman?

Last week I mentioned the question posed to R' Ovadya regarding saying slichos before mincha: why should mincha not come first given that it is tadir?

R' Ovadya answered by citing the Shaagas Aryeh's (#22) view that the rule of tadir only applies when comparing apples to apples, e.g. a d'oraysa against another d'oraysa, or a derabbanan against a derabbanan.  It does not apply when comparing a minhag like slichos to a derabbanan.  

First let's explain this counterintuitive idea a little more, and then we will see how it applies to sukkos:

It's only once a person decides to engage in doing a mitzvah or mitzvos that we look at what is tadir or mekudash to determine which mitzvah takes priority. However, if you are not yet engaged in doing those mitzvos -- you instead choose to be involved in some reshus/mundane activity -- tadir or mekudash does not force you to stop.  The rules of precedence do not come into play.

Viz a viz a mitzvah doraysa, a derabbanan is considered a reshus.  Viz a viz a derabbanan, a minhag is a reshus.  Saying slichos before mincha would not be worse than playing a game of baseball before mincha -- since you are not yet engaged in a mitzvah activity, the rules of precedence do not apply.

Shaagas Aryeh brings the following proof: the gemara (Brachos 51) quotes a machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel as to which bracha to say first in kiddush, the borei pri ha'gefen or the bracha on the kedushas ha'yom.  We pasken like B"H that the bracha on the wine comes first.  

Kiddush ha'yom is a mitzvah d'oraysa, it's mekudash.  How can you say the bracha on wine before doing the mitzvah d'oraysa?  

QED, that putting a reshus before a d'oraysa is not an issue.

The Tzlach takes exception to this proof and writes that the case in the Mishna is where one already davened maariv and was yotzei the mitzvah d'oraysa of kiddush in tefilah -- the case of the Mishna is where both brachos are derabbanan.  Had there been a bracha obligation that stemmed from a mitzvah d'oraysa, it would indeed have to come first.

(This Tzlach gives rise to the famous question he asks l'shitaso: if a man davened maariv and already fulfilled the d'oraysa of kiddush, how can he be motzi his wife who has not?  A discussion among Achronim for another time.)

Coming now to sukkos, on the first night we first say the bracha of sukkah first and then the bracha of zman because we want the she'hechiyanu to apply to both the mitzvah of sukkah and the kedushas ha'yom of sukkos.  However, the S.A. writes (O.C. 661) that on the second night we reverse the order and the bracha on zman comes first and then the bracha on sukka.  Rama tacks on that he concurs.  (Interesting -- the Rama usually tells us when he disagrees with the mechaber; here he goes out of his way to tell us that agrees, as if we would suspect that he doesn't.) On the second night the bracha of zman applies only to the kedushas ha'yom but not to the mitzvah of sukkah, as the she'hechiynu on sukkah can be said even before the chag.  

The Raavyah disagrees.  Raavyah writes that that zman always comes at the end.  He compares it to yakniha"z -- when a Y"T falls on motzei shabbos, we say kiddush and havdalah together and then tack on zman at the end even though the she'hechiyanu has nothing to do with havdalah and really belongs with kiddush.  So too on sukkos, even though zman has nothing to do with sukkah, it still comes at the end.

(One could argue that kiddush and havdalah are inseparable because both are brachos on kedushas ha'yom.  The Rambam, for example, holds that havdalah is a mitzvah d'oraysa that is learned from the same pasuk as kiddush.  Sukkah and kedushas ha'yom do not have that same relationship.)

Noda b'Yehudah (#39) / Tzlach paskens like the Raavyah and l'shitaso offers l'shitaso another reason for zman to come at the end: the bracha on sukkah is a bracha on a d'oraysa and therefore is considered mekudash and takes precedence over the bracha derabbanan of zman.  No different than would be the case if in theory the bracha on kedushas ha'yom in kiddush was d'oraysa, in which case it would take precedence over the bracha on wine.

Just for the record, here's the Rambam's psak (hil lulav 6:12):

ובלילי יום טוב הראשון מברך על הסוכה ואחר כך על הזמן. 

On the one hand, he says ום טוב הראשון implying the second night is different.  On the other hand, when he says ובלילי in the plural, does he mean to include the second night, which is really night #1 if we take sfeika d'yoma into account?  

The Aderet has a brilliant proof that the Raavyah is right.  He dug up a Yerushalmi in Brachos (57b, ch 8 halacha 1):

 יום טוב שחל להיות במוצאי שבת ר' יוחנן אמר יקנ"ה יין קידוש נר הבדלה חנין בר בא אמר בשם רב יין קידוש נר הבדלה סוכה וזמן.

The Ylmi can't be talking about the first day of sukkos on a motzei shabbos because 1) we have a rule "lo AD"U Rosh" that says Rosh haShana cannot start on a Sunday, so neither can sukkos which falls out exactly two weeks later; 2) we have another rule that hoshana rabbah never falls on Shabbos, so sukkos cannot possiblt start on Sunday.  Therefore, the Ylmi is must be speaking about the second day of Y"T and Ylmi holds that zman comes at the end, after the bracha of sukkah.

Amazing bekiyus.

sukkah and Eretz Yisrael

The Mishnayos and gemara frequently use the term "going up" into the sukkah, e.g. the Mishna (2:5) says that Rabban Gamliel and R' Yochanan ben Zakai were brought food and they said "he'alum la'sukkah," bring it up to the sukkah. The simple explanation for the term is that the sukkot in the times of Chazal were built on roofs or balconies. However, al pi derush perhaps Chazal are hinting to us that going into the sukkah is a spiritual aliya (R' Avraham Shapira; see Bnei Yisaschar for a kabbalistic interpretation.)

I would like to suggest that there is an additional connotation to the term that Chazal might have had in mind. The Sefas Emes (5650, see R' Avrohom Schor in Lekach v'Libuv 5760/61) writes that the sukkah has connection to the kedusha of Ererz Yisrael. Similarly, the Radomsker in Tiferes Shlomo asks what happened to Hashem's promise at yetzi'as Mitzrayim to bring Klal Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael? Justice delayed is justice denied -- it took 40 years in the desert passed before we got to Eretz Yisrael!  The Radomsker answers that during those 40 years we had sukkos -- we were in fact living in the avir of Eretz Yisrael. Way back in 2007 I posted that as far as I can figure out (others in the comments disagreed) there are only2 mitzvos you can do while sleeping: 1) yeshivas sukkah; 2) yishuv Eretz Yisrael.  Like they say, half the job is just showing up; all you have to do is show up and be in the sukkah, be in Eretz Yisrael, and you've accomplished something.  Maybe that's why Chazal use the term aliya with respect to sukkah.  When we hear the term "aliya" we think of the mitzvah of going to Eretz Yisrael.  Maybe that's exactly what Chazal intended to remind us of when we enter the sukkah. 
    
The Tur writes that the holiday of Pesach corresponds to Avraham, Shavuos to Yitzchak, Sukkos to Yaa'kov. Pesach marks our formation as a nation. Shavuos marks our getting the Torah.  Yaakov made his sukkot when settled the outstanding feud with Eisav and returned home to Eretz Yisrael.  The three chagim stand for the three essential pillars that define us -- nationhood, Torah, and Eretz Yisrael.         

leishev ba'sukkah on sleeping

The Rosh (Sukkah 4:3) asks why it is that we don't say a "leishev ba'sukkah" on sleeping in the sukkah.  Two answers: 1) If it should happen that you don't fall asleep the "leishav ba'sukkah" would be a bracha l'vatala, so we don't say it; 2) Rabeinu Tam argues that ke'va is defined as having a meal (everything we Jews do revolves around food); sleeping, learning, schmoozing and everything else you do in the sukkah are all tafeil to the seudah and are covered by the bracha of "leishev" done at the meal. 

A possible nafka mina: what if someone ate at a neighbor's house and came home to sleep in his own sukkah (or what if one had nothing to eat)?  According to the first answer, there would still be no requirement to say "leishev" before going to sleep.  However, one could argue that according to Rabeinu Tam the "leishev" on the keviyus in a different sukkah has no connection to your sukkah and a bracha would be required.  Aruch haShulachan even suggests that even though Rama paskens like Rabeinu Tam and we usually only recite a "leishev ba'sukkah" when we have a meal in the sukkah (GR"A disagrees), that is only the case when you are sitting in your own sukkah and all the other activities of the day are tafeil to the meal you ate there.  If you go to visit a friend and sit there for awhile, even if you have no meal, you would need to say a bracha there.

Be that as it may, a question to ponder: what's the difference between the bracha of "leishev" on sleeping, which we avoid lest one fail to doze off and it be a bracha l'vatala, and the bracha of "ha'mapil" that we recite every night before going to sleep?  Why are we not concerned lest a person fail to doze off and that bracha be a bracha l'vatala?

(If you are going to tell me ha'mapil is a birchas ha'shevach, pls be prepared to defend that assertion.  And please don't bother to tell me about Brisker shitos on not reciting ha'mapil -- I'm obviously asking according to Shulchan Aruch psak.)

tzeila d'heimnusah

כְּתַפּ֨וּחַ֙ בַּֽעֲצֵ֣י הַיַּ֔עַר כֵּ֥ן דּוֹדִ֖י בֵּ֣ין הַבָּנִ֑ים בְּצִלּוֹ֙ חִמַּ֣דְתִּי וְיָשַׁ֔בְתִּי וּפִרְי֖וֹ מָת֥וֹק לְחִכִּֽי

Shir haShirim (3:3) compares the beloved one, dodi, an allusion to G-d, to an apple tree in the forest.  It's beautiful shade is desirous to sit under; it's fruit is so sweet.

Rashi quotes the Midrash: All flee from the apple tree because it has no shade. So did all the nations flee from G-d at the giving of the Torah, but I sat and delighted in his shade(see here).

Meaning, the apple tree signifies the unique and special bond between Klal Yisrael and Hashem.

The mashal used by the Midrash begs the question m'mah nafshach: if the apple tree has shade, then why did everyone flee from it and not want to sit there?  And if the apple tree has no shade, then what does the pasuk mean by "b'tzilo chamaditi?"

The simple pshat in the pasuk "Hashem tzilcha" (Tehillim 121) is that Hashem is like a protective shade over us.  The Besh"T, however, famously interpreted the pasuk to mean that Hashem's relationship to us is like a shadow.  When you stand in the sun and move, your shadow moves with you.  So too, what happens to us in our lives, what happens to our families, even what happens to the cosmos, is effected and is changed by Hashem in response to our behavior.  You want there to be more chessed in the universe?  Act with chessed.   You want there to be more justice in the world?  Act with justice.  Hashem will in turn react and respond by revealing more of these midos in the world.

Sefas Emes explains that all the nations of the world see the apple tree, but they don't see any shade, so they walk away.  They see a world without chessed, and so they think it's a cruel place; they see a world where there is suffering, and they think there is no justice.  What they don't get is that whatever they see is just a reflection of themselves and what they are willing to bring to the table --  Hashem tzilcha.  Klal Yisrael believes the shade is there even if we don't see it at first, and so we come with our emunah, we come with the tremendous desire to connect to Hashem.  When you bring that to the table, then Hashem responds and you will find the shade you were looking for.  

Sukkah is the "tzeila d'heimnusah," the shadow of emunah.  Hashem comes to Avaraham at the Bris bein haBesarim, "Va'yotzei oso ha'chutzah," (Braishis 15:5) he tells him to go outside and count the stars, and promises that his children will be that numerous and great.  "V'he'emin ba'Hashem," Avraham was filled with emunah when he heard the message.  On Sukkos we imitate Avraham Avinu.  Hashem tells us to go outside, leave your house and go sit under the stars that you see through the schach of your sukkah and count them.  Do you believe in the destiny and greatness of Klal Yisrael, or do you believe what you read in the NY Times?  Do you see the shade under the apple tree?  Because if you believe in it, you will find it there. 

Smach Zevulun b'tzeisecha -- taking the happiness of Y"T out with you

1. The navi concludes its description of the chanukas habayis done by Shlomo by telling us, "Va'ayas Shlomo ba'eis ha'hi es ha'chag... shivas yamim v'shivas yamim arb'ah asar yom." (Melachim I 8:65)  Chazal explain that Shlomo celebrated the dedication of the Mikdash for 7 days, and then immediately thereafter celebrated Sukkos for the next 7 days.  In other words, these were two different celebrations that happened to fall out one right after the other.  Why then, asks R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik Sukkos 32), does the navi describe it as a celebration of the chag, singular, and tell us the celebration was 14 days, as if it was one long event?  

R' Tzadok explains that the chanukas haMikdash and the holiday of sukkos are in fact one and the same celebration.  The sukkah is a commemoration of the ananei ha'kavod that surrounded Bnei Yisrael in the desert, and when the Mikdash was dedicated, the navi tells us, "V'he'anan malei es beis Hashem," (8:10) that Hashem's anan descended into the place.  The ananei ha'kavod of the midbar came in Aharon's merit, and it was Aharon's descendants who served in the Mikdash.   Mikdash and sukkah both symbolize the same hashra'as haShechina in Klal Yisrael.  Each one of our sukkos is a mini-Mikdash.  

The Vilna Gaon writes that the reason we celebrate Sukkos in Tishei and not in Nisan is because the ananei ha'kavod departed after the sin of cheit ha'eigel and did not return until 15 Tishrei when Moshe began collecting for the construction of the Mishkan.  In light of R' Tzadok's explanation, it is not coincidental that the clouds returned just then.  The kedusha manifest in Mishkan/Mikdash is the  very same as was manifest by the ananei ha'kavod.

2. On one of the days of Sukkos I suggested that the shalosh regalim correspond to banei, chayaei, and mezonai.  Pesach is the holiday of banai -- the Torah speaks to us of 4 sons.  Shavos is chayai -- chayei olam nata b'socheinu, the Torah.  Sukkos and Shmini Atzeres is mezonai, as it is on this chag that we daven for geshem, which encompasses our material needs.  I found the Sefas Emes alludes to this idea, see 5743 d"h baMishna. 
3. The gemara says Shmini Atzeres is distinct from Sukkos with respect to 6 halachos represented by the siman PZ"R KSh"V.  R=regel.  With respect to what din is it a new regel?  I saw quoted in the name of the Rogatchover that there is a new din of chayav adam l'hakbil pnei rabo ba'regel on Shmini Atzeres in addition to the chiyuv of the same din on Sukkos. 


4. V'Zos haBracha is the only parsha not read on a Shabbos.  R' Tzadok explains that Shabbos is "keviya v'kayma," it's kedusha is set without our having to do anything, unlike the kedusha of Yom Tov which comes through beis din's declaration.  The parsha of each Shabbos, the torah unique to that week, comes down to us like the kedusha of Shabbos, from without.  We hope that we can accept it and absorb it each week when it comes down to us.

The kedusha of Zos haBracha, after a full year of parshiyos, after experiencing a whole cycle of moadim, is a kedushah that comes from within.  At the end of the day, what Torah is all about is not obeying rules imposed upon us from without, but discovering within ourselves that those rules are built into our souls and define who we are. 

Sefas Emes explains that the difference between Shavuos and Simchas Torah is that on Shavuos we celebrate Torah sheb'ksav -- it is the Torah given to is, imposed upon us.  Simchas Torah, Shmini Atzeres, is torah she'ba'al peh, the Torah that comes from within, that we are mechadesh, that is part of who we are.

5. "Smach Zevulun b'tzeisecha..."  Sefas Emes asks: why should Zevulun be happy that he has to go off on business?   I don't know about you, but I don't get much simcha out of riding the subway and dealing with hectic problems at work all day. And it's not just about work.  This is the last few days of Yom Tov, and then we go out -- "tzeisecha" -- out from an intense period of kedusha back to the daily grind, back to the world of chol.  Where's the happiness in that? 



Sefas Emes answers that what the Torah is doing here is giving us advice.  How can we make that transition back to the world that for better or worse we have to be part of a successful one?  By making sure we start off with simcha.  If you are a Zevulun and are stuck going out there, then "smach Zevulun b'tzeisecha," before you go, take a moment to rejoice in what you have before you leave.  Have a simchas Torah, celebrate the dveikus of the chagim, appreciate the experience.  How many people go through three+ weeks of Yom Tov and don't even take a moment to THINK about what is going on?  How many people pause to reflect?  This is the last chance -- take advantage!  Absorb the simcha now, and then it will stick with you, so that even "b'tzeisecha," the Torah will be with you, the dveikus will still be with you.

she'hechiyanu on a new kiyum mitzvah (but not a new ma'aseh mitzvah)

There was a boy called up to the Torah as a bar mitzvah this morning in shul.  My wife asked me an interesting question: would the bar mitzvah have to make a she'hechiyanu tomorrow morning when he takes his lulav and esrog?  My peirush to  question: even though the bar mitzvah boy has been doing the mitzvah of lulav from day #1 of the chag, that was a kiyum of the mitzvah of chinuch.  Tomorrow will be the first day in which he is doing netilas lulav as a kiyum of netilas lulav.  Would you say that the new kiyum mitzvah of netilas lulav obligates him to say she'hechiyanu even though it is the same ma'aseh mitzvah he has been doing all week? 

[Update: take a look at the Tosefes Bikurim at the back of the Aruch LaNer on Sukkah, siman 637.]

Sukkos - chag of bitachon

The Mishna tells us that a dry lulav and a stolen lulav are both pasul. The gemara (Sukkah 29b) deduces from the fact that both cases are lumped together that they are similar.  Therefore, just as a dry lulav is pasul for all 7 days of the chag, so too, a stolen lulav must also be pasul for all 7 days.  The sugya then goes on to explain the source for that din.    

Rashi explains why a dry lulav is pasul for all 7 days:
בשלמא יבש. פסול בדרבנן נמי כיון דמצוה הוא משום זכר למקדש בעינן הדור מצוה

Why does Rashi need to mention in this context that the taking of lulav all seven days is a zecher l'mikdash?  Why is that relevant?  Wouldn't it have been enough to just tell is that there is a psul of hadar that applies to the chiyuv derabbanan of taking lulav for seven days?

I haven't found anyone who explains this and I am stumped.  Maybe you have a hesber?

Had you asked me, I would have said that we should say hoshanos on Pesach.  That's when the farmer has just planted his crops, nothing is growing yet, and so that's the time you want to cry out, "Ana Hashem hoshi'a na, Ana Hashem hatzlicha na."  That's when you want to do nisuch hamayim = shifchi ka'mayim libeich.  Sukkos is chag ha'asif, the harvest season, when the storehouse is full of grain, when you reap the fruits of a years worth of labor.  Why say hoshanos now?

There is no kuntz to davening and having bitachon when you are facing need and crisis.  It's the guy who needs parnasa, who needs refu'ah, who needs help for his children and family, who is davening a 10 minute shmoneh esrei in shul.  The guy who mumbles the words in 3 minutes so he can race out the door to drive to a well paying job in a fancy car and come home to a house in order with everyone in good health and happy is davening a different davening (of course, if he took a moment he might realize that even if he has no needs, he could put in a good word for his friend). What Sukkos comes to teach us is that even that second guy should be davening that 10 minute shmoneh esrei.  Even when times are good, you have to thank Hashem for what you have and recognize that its all from him and that you are completely dependent upon him.  That's why davka now, when the storehouse is full, when the harvest is finished, we say hoshanos, we pour our hearts out in tefilah.  Bitachon and dveikus is not just for when we are lacking, but its even for when we have it all.  "V'ha'boteiach ba'Hashem chessed y'sovivenu. (Tehillim 32:69)  Bitachon, says the Sefas Emes (5645), is the midah of sukkos, which surrounds us and envelops us within. 

Chazal argue whether sukkah is a diras keva or a diras arayei, a permanent structure or a temporary dwelling, and we pasken like the latter, majority view.  It takes a lot of bitachon to put aside your home, your life, and go live in a tent like a nomad, with nothing.  That's the level of bitachon sukkos is all about.  For big tzadikim, this is a diras keva, this is the way they live all year.  For me, for most of us probably, this is a diras arayei, a temporary moment.  We all know that after a week we will be back inside, back to work, back to the same grind.  We can't meditate on this idea of bitachon and live with it for awhile, but we will come back to earth, right?  After walking away from his encounter with Eisav unharmed, Ya'akov builds for himself a bayis -- that new level is where he would be at from now on.  But for his possessions and his flocks, he made sukkos, little temporary huts.  The Torah tells us that he named the place he was at not bayis, but Sukkot -- that was what he thought was most important.  The big tzadikim of course are on a high level all year -- that's what we expect.  What Ya'akov thought was more significant, more of an accomplishment, is that everything else, everyone else, can at least step into that mode for a short while, for a temporary visit.  "Yafeh sha'ah achas b'teshuva u'ma'asim tovim b'olam ha'zeh."  Even if it's only for a week, that week can still make a difference.

V'lakachtem lachem -- you have to take yourself.  The gemara darshens on "v'lakachtem lachem" that "md'agbihei nafik bei," that you just need to lift up the lulav and you are yotzei.   We need to take ourselves and lift ourselves up.  Even for one week, even temporarily.  The effect can last a whole year.

V'osi yom yom yidroshun' -- zu tekiya v'aravah

The Mishna in R"H writes that unlike hallel which is said right after shacharis, tekiyas shofar is delayed until musaf.  The gemara explains that this is a takanah from times when there was a danger of the enemy misinterpreting the gathering of Jews as a rebellion and shofar blast as a call to arms.  Once shacharis passed and it was apparent that this was just a religious service, there was no danger anymore.  If so, asks the Yerushalmi (perek 4 halacha 8), why was their not the same concern with respect to hallel, i.e. that the noise of the singing of hallel would be misinterpreted as an uprising?  The gemara answers (compare with the Bavli) that not everyone is in shul that early (a makor for coming to shul late on Y"T : ) and a small minor gathering would not be misinterpreted as a rebellion.  However, says the Yerushalmi, everyone is in shul for tekiyas shofar (amazing -- it's still true to this very day.) The Yerushalmi ends off with a derasha: "Amar Rav Yonah, ksiv 'V'osi yom yom yidroshun' -- zu tekiya v'aravah."  Explains the Pnei Moshe, on the day of Rosh haShana by tekiyos and the day of Hoshana Rabbah by aravah everyone is in shul to daven together.

Why these two days in particular?  Why are davka tekiyas shofar and the mitzvah of aravah times of 'V'osi yom yom yidroshun?'

Achronim explain that aside from being a kiyum of mitzvas shofar, the tekiyos which we blow during shmoneh esrei of Rosh HaShana are also a kiyum of tefilah.  Sometimes a person cannot even get the words out to daven -- they can just sigh or cry and that's it.  That's the tefilah of tekiyas shofar -- a tefilah without words.  Rosh haShana is an opportunity for our prayers to be heard even if we can't articulate the words.

The four minim represent four types of Jews.  The esrog which has a nice taste and nice smell represents the tzadik who as Torah and mitzvos under his belt.  At the other extreme is the aravah, that has neither taste nor smell and is bereft of ruchniyus.  What zechus does the aravah-Jew have to call upon his his tefilos?  None.  The shape of the aravah resembles closed lips, says the Sefas Emes.  Yet on Hoshana Rabbah, even those closed lips that have no zechuyos to call on can have their prayers answered (see this post as well).

Rosh haShana starts the season of the y'mei ha'din; Hoshana Rabbah ends it.  The bookends are days of tefilah, days when Hashem is there to listen, whether you can get the words or not, whether you come with zechuyos or come with empty hands and just beg to be heard.