hashra'as haShechina in the sukkah; we cannot control the rain; the true bracha given to Zevulun and Yisachar

1) About 15 years ago I mentioned a diyuk the Meshech Chochma makes in parshat Re'ei. The Torah says to make aliya la'regel on Pesach and Shavuos to the place "asher yivchar Hashem l'shakein Shemo sham." However, when it describes the same mitvzah of aliya la'regel on Succos, it says to go to the place, "asher yivchar Hashem," but leaves out the words, "l'shakein Shemo sham." Why the difference?

Meshech Chochma answers that on Pesach and Shavuos we are judged respectively on wheat crops and fruit. The Torah adds the words, "l'shakein Shemo sham" to remind us that unlike what the other nations think, there is no power other than Hashem that can influence what will happen to the crops.  It's the Shechina in the makom mikdash that makes things happen.  However, on Sukkos, when we are judged on how much water and rainfall will occur, we don't need a similar reminder. Even the nations realize that Hashem and only Hashem controls the rain.  When we daven for geshem, we do so realizing our complete dependency upon Hashem.

When the winds are howling and the rain is coming down in buckets like during the nor'easter that happened on the first days of Sukkos, we are reminded of just how puny man's might is.  When it comes to the force of rain, man is impotent in the face of yad Hashem.

I saw a different explanation for this diyuk noted by M.C., one that is worth keeping in mind as we take advantage of the final opportunities to eat in the sukkah. On Sukkos we are zocheh to have Hashem's presence manifest in each and every one of our sukkot. A person has to make aliya to the place "asher yivchar Hashem," but if you are looking for the place where Hashem reveals himself "l'shakein shemo sham," then you wouldn't necessarily have to go to Yerushalayim. For a place of hashra'as haShechina on Sukkos you need look no further than your own backyard.

2) In our local Sefardic shul they will have a tikun all night tonight for leil Hoshana Rabbah. The day is a big day.  But there is an even bigger day.The Ben Ish Chai on Koheles comments on the pasuk

תן חלק לשבעה וגם לשמונה כי לא תדע מה יהיה רעה על הארץ (11:2)

that seven is a reference to the seventh day of Sukkot, to Hoshana Rabbah, and eight is a reference to Shmini Atzeret. The word גם is always interpreted by Chazal as a ribuy -- it adds something, it expands on what was previously said. With all due respect to Hoshana Rabbah, which really is a big day, וגם לשמונה, it's just a warm up to Shmini Atzeret, a day that has a ribuy, a day that is even bigger than the previous day . 

Chazal tell us that "yom ha'geshamim" is as great or perhaps even greater than the day of mattan Torah. The Kotznitzer Maggid writes that yom ha'geshamim is Shmini Atzeret, the day when we start saying tefilas geshem (see here.)

3) Hopefully Hashem will respond to all our tefilos and bakashos both for geshem and for all that we asked for during these Yamim Tovim, but it's worth keeping one thing in mind. The Torah tells us in the final parsha of v'Zos haBeracha that  Yissachar/Zevulun were blessed with tremendous wealth thanks to their sea trade. עַמִּים֙ הַר־יִקְרָ֔אוּ שָׁ֖ם יִזְבְּח֣וּ זִבְחֵי־צֶ֑דֶק כִּ֣י שֶׁ֤פַע יַמִּים֙ יִינָ֔קוּ וּשְׂפֻנֵ֖י טְמ֥וּנֵי חֽוֹל (33:19) Rashi offers one short comment here:

 כי שפע ימים ינקו – יששכר וזבולן, ויהא להם פנאי לעסוק בתורה. 

The first half of Rashi comes to clarify what the subject being blessed is. It is not the עַמִּים֙ הַר־יִקְרָ֔אוּ, who come to visit the Mikdash (as you might have understood), but rather it is Yisachar and Zevulun.   Rashi could have made that point with just 2 words, כי שפע ימים ינקו – יששכר וזבולן. However, Rashi continues:  ויהא להם פנאי לעסוק בתורה. Says the Sifsei Chachamin: Just promising that Zevulun will be prosperous, will be successful in business, will get riches, is not enough. מה ברכה יש בזה? That is not a very "Jewish" bracha. The real bracha is ויהא להם פנאי לעסוק בתורה. All the riches, all the success, is just a means to that end. 

Sanzer Rav - you fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah even while eating inside because of the rain

We are anticipating a nor'easter here in NY, which may mean a washout for some of the sukkah meals.  I can't find the Divrei Chaim's (Sanzer Rav) derashos online to post a link, but here is a link to the Mishnas Sachir quoting him.   Don't think, he says, that because it is raining and you have to eat inside that you've lost the mitzvah of sukkah.  The mitzvah is תשׁבו ־ כּעין תדורו. Just like you would leave your house if it was leaking inside, so too, you can leave the sukkah.  That gufa -- going inside -- is exactly how to fulfill the mizvah of sukkah in that circumstance.  B'poel you might not be in the sukkah, but you are still fulfilling what the mitzvah requires and therefore are still enveloped by its kedusha.

sukkot as a time of mechila

Rav Bakshi Doron, in his sefer on the Moadim, points out that it's clear from the Midrash Tanchuma that the message of Sukkot is not, "Whew! the Yamim Noraim are over, now let's celebrate." Aderaba, the Midrash frames Sukkot as an extension of the mechila process of Yamim Noraim:

 ביום הראשון, וכי ראשון הוא, והלא יום חמשה עשר הוא, אלא מאי ראשון, ראשון לחשבון עונות, ר' מני ור' יהושע דסכנין בשם ר' לוי משל למה הדבר דומה למדינה שהיתה חייבת ליפס למלך, והיה המלך משלח לגבותה, ולא היתה נותנת לפי שהיה השטר גודל, כך פעם ראשון, ופעם שני, והיה משלח ולא היו נותנין, מה עשה המלך, אמר לבני פלטין שלו [עמדו ונלך עליהם], עד הן הולכין כמו עשרת מילין, שמעו בני המדינה, מה עשו, התחילו גדולי המדינה לילך לאנפטי של מלך, אמר להם מי אתם, אמרו לו אנו בני מדינה פלונית ששלחת לגבותינו, אמר להם ומה אתם מבקשים, אמרו לו בבקשה ממך עשה עמנו חסד שאן לנו מה ליתן, אמר להם אני מניח לכם מחצה, עד שהוא בא יצאו (בריוני) [בינוני] המדינה וקדמוהו כמו (עשר) [חמשה] מילין, אמר להם מי אתם, אמרו לו אני בני מדינה פלונית, אמר להם ומה תבקשו, אמרו לו בבקשה ממך רחם עלינו, אמר להם כבר הנתי מחצה, ובשבילכם אני מניח מחצה על מחצה, עם שהוא [מהלך] יצאו כל בני המדינה, אמר להם ומה אתה מבקשים, אמרו לו אדונינו המלך אין לנו מה ליתן, רחם עלינו, אמר להם כבר הנחי מחצה, ומחצה על מחצה, ובשבילכם אני מניח את הכל, אלא מכאן ואילך ראש חשבון הוא,

 

Now comes the nimshal:

 

המלך זה [מלך מלכי המלכים] הקב"ה, בני המדינה שלו אלו ישראל, שהן מסגלין עונות של כל השנה כולה, מה הקב"ה עושה, אומר להם עשו תשובה בראש השנה, והם נכנעים ובאים ביום הכפורים, והם מתענין ועושין תשובה, והקב"ה מוחל להם את הכל, ובסכות כלם נוטלים את לולביהם ביום טוב ראשון ומקלסין להקב"ה והוא מתרצה להם ומוחל להם, אמר להם הרי ויתרתי לכם כל עונותיכם הראשונות, [אבל מעכשיו ראש חשבון הוא, שנאמר ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון, וראשון לחשבון עונות]. אמר להם הקב"ה בעולם הזה אמרתי לכם שתעשו סוכה לשלם לי גמולי שעשיתי לכם, שנאמר [בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים וגו'] כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל (ויקרא כג מב מג), ואני מעלה עליכם כאילו אתם גומלים לפני, ולעולם הבא אופיע עליכם במלכות, ואגן עליכם כסוכה, שנאמר וסוכה תהיה לצל יומם מחורב וגו' (ישעיה ד ו).

 

Here's what strange.  On the one hand, we are told that Hashem forgives everything on Y"K:  והם נכנעים ובאים ביום הכפורים, והם מתענין ועושין תשובה, והקב"ה מוחל להם את הכל 

 

Yet the very next line tells us that it is on Sukkot that Hashem gives mechila: ובסכות כלם נוטלים את לולביהם ביום טוב ראשון ומקלסין להקב"ה והוא מתרצה להם ומוחל להם

 

If we were forgiven on Y"K, what is the mechila of Sukkot for? 

 

R"H, aseret y'mei teshuva, Y"K, are all described in the mashal as days when the King is coming to collect his due.  Malchus is being imposed from without, willy-nilly.  The town is not exactly happy to roll out the welcome wagon, but has no choice other than to do what it must to assuage and pacify the King. 

 

(The mashal to forgiveness of a debt is interesting because the Aruch haShulchan notes 607:7 that the term mechila that we use for forgiveness actually is only found with respect to forgiveness of a debt, and is borrowed from there: ושם "מחילה" לא מצינו בתנ"ך, וגם השורש לא ידענו, רק בלשון המשנה הוא לעניין תביעת ממון, שמוחל ואינו תובע, ושייך לעון.)

 

No one wants to carry around a burden.  When that weight is lifted, there is a sense of relief. 

 

Sukkot is a different experience entirely.  It is when we willingly welcome the King and throw a parade thrown in his honor.  It's not a celebrating getting rid of a burden, but rather is a celebration of our relationship with the King as a positive, meaningful experience.  That leads to a different type of mechila.

 

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.