Page 133 - TzurbaFlipUSA_Neat

According to the explanation of Rava, the Me’iri (ibid) To summarize, we have seen three explanations given
and Rabeinu Manoach hold that since sleeping (and to the custom not to sleep in the Sukkah: A discomfort
sometimes even eating – Me’iri) in the Sukkah is an due to the cold climate. B concern of monetary loss
opening for thieves to loot the houses during Sukkot, due to thieves. C the union of husband and wife,
therefore in places that this might happen they are which in itself has three explanations: 1 the obligation
permitted to sleep in their homes. This only applies is only when they could both sleep in Sukkah. 2 the
when there is a serious chance of being robbed, but Mitzvah to gladden one’s wife precedes and therefore
during the daytime where the risk is minimal, there overcomes the mitzvah to sleep in the Sukkah. 3
is no permit to sleep outside the Sukkah (Rabeinu sleeping separately causes discomfort and thus they
Manoach). are exempt.
Husband and wife Of course, these exemptions are only to be used in
great need with a ruling of the local Halachic authority.
The last reason given for this exemption has to do with
married couples. The Rema (DM OC 639:3) suggests
that since the mitzvah is to dwell in the Sukkah the The Kashrut of the Sukkah
way we are used to living at home, and at home a
married couple sleep in the same room, likewise in However, these exemptions raise a serious question.
the Sukkah a husband must sleep alongside his wife. The Rema (OC 640:4) rules according to the
In the Rema’s times people often did not have a private Mordechai (Sukkah 2:740) that if someone builds
Sukkah, and even in our times, in many places around a Sukkah in a place that will definitely cause him
the world people share a Sukkah , therefore the wives discomfort and therefore exempt him, the Sukkah is
9
cannot sleep there. Hence the husbands are exempt.
not Kosher. This means that even if the discomfort
There are other suggestions how to explain the reason is only during one activity (eating or sleeping), the
of husband and wife. The Taz (OC 639:9) holds that Sukkah cannot be used for the other one.
it is based on the rule that someone who is in the Since, as we mentioned above, many communities
middle of one mitzvah is exempt from performing did not sleep in the Sukkah because it was unworthy
other mitzvot that clash with the first one (see Sukkah of sleeping (for any of the three reasons), it seems
25a-26a), and this also applies regarding the Sukkah that their Sukkot were invalid for use even for other
(Shulchan Aruch OC 640:7). Since a husband has activities such as eating. So how could we bring down
an obligation to gladden his wife during Yom tov those reasons as exemptions for sleeping, when
(Shulchan Aruch OC 529:2) he is in the midst of a seemingly they render the entire Sukkah invalid!?
mitzvah, and sleeping in the Sukkah clashes with this,
11
hence he is exempt . There are a few answers to this question , but we will
10
focus on that of the Aruch Hashulchan (OC 639:11,
Another suggestion given by the Magen Avraham 640:9). He explains that there are two basic rules
(OC 639:8) is as follows: The exemption is due to that must precede the ruling of the Rema mentioned
discomfort, but not due to the cold weather; rather above.
by the separation of husband and wife. Some explain
that the Rema (ibid) hinted in his words both to The first rule is that the Sukkah is invalid only if it
the explanation of the Taz, and to that of the Magen is unworthy of sleeping at all, for instance a Sukkah
Avraham. which is smaller than the minimum size. However, if
9 It is common in certain places to build a Sukkah only by the Shul, either for purposes of room or of money.
10 However, see Nishmat Adam (part II-III 147:1) who rejects the T”Z since the obligation to gladden the wife is by buying her a gift, and not nec-
essarily by keeping her company. However, see Sukkah 27b “praised are the lazy ones who stay at home during Yomtev… (because they gladden their
wives)” which seems to be in accordance with the T”Z.
11 See further Mg”a (640:6) and his commentators (Pm”g, mch”s’ lv”s, Yad Efrayim), and also the MB and Shaht”z.

ןנברמ אברוצ הכוס תוכלה · 131