6

If it is raining enough to make eating in the Sukkah unpleasant (enough to ruin the soup or so), then one is exempt from eating in the Sukkah.

Let's say that someone was on their way out to the Sukkah to eat, when it suddenly started raining. Is there any value to postponing their meal until it stops raining in order to be able to eat in the Sukkah, or once it is raining is it just as good to eat inside?

What if someone was not planning on eating, but then it started raining and they "took the opportunity" to not have to go out to the Sukkah to eat?

Improve this question
7
  • judaism.stackexchange.com/a/13576/759 I don't really follow the question. When it's not raining he should go to the sukkah and when it is raining he should leave. What does eating have to do with anything?
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Oct 14, 2014 at 18:13
  • @DoubleAA leaving the sukkah when it's not raining is not an issur. Eating outside the sukkah when it's not raining is.
    – Y     e     z
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 1:58
  • Both sound like Bittul Aseh's to me, unless you are outside the Sukkah for a specific reason. What Issur would there be?
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 2:04
  • @DoubleAA I was using the term loosely, as I'm sure you knew I was, and meant bittul aseh. But there is no bittul aseh to go for a walk outside your sukkah, and many poskim even conclude that you should go to the beis medrash to learn over your sukkah. Eating, however, has to be done in a Sukkah whenever possible.
    – Y     e     z
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 2:06
  • Going to learn is a valid reason. The Talmud says intense learning need not be done in the Sukkah! You can eat outside the Sukkah if you have a valid reason for being there. Why wouldn't leaving the Sukkah for no reason be a Bittul Aseh?
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 2:09

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I saw an idea in the Meshech Chochma on the haftorah for shabbos shuva. Unfortunately I don't seem to have it printed in my edition at home so I can't quote verbatim. His point was that the mitzvah of Succah is different insofar as even if someone is an oness and exempt from eating in the succah, that fact is that Hashem will not treat it as if he performed this commandment properly, which is what happens with cases of oness by other mitzvos. If you want to be wary of this opinion, than apparently there is what to gain by eating in the sucvah properly. Namely schar mitzvah.

Improve this answer
10
  • "which is what happens with cases of oness by other mitzvos": I thought the general rule (I mean for all mitzvos) is ones Rachamana patreh v'lav k'man d'avad dami (or some such): you're not considered to have done the mitzva. I can't cite a source for that, though.
    – msh210 ♦
    Commented Oct 14, 2014 at 20:23
  • @msh210 The Ritva on Gittin 2b/3a would be a start - he says as much there IIRC.
    – Y     e     z
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 2:02
  • @msh210 מחשבה טובה המקום מצרפה למעשה מחשבה רעה אין המקום מצרפה למעשה מחשבה טובה המקום מצרפה למעשה דכתיב (מלאכי ג) אז נדברו יראי ה' איש אל רעהו וגו' מחשבה רעה אין הקב"ה מצרפה למעשה שנאמר (תהילים סו) און אם ראיתי בלבי לא ישמע ה' הדא דתימא בישראל אבל בגוים חילופא . ירושלמי פאה פרק א׳ הלכה א׳ קרוב לסוף.
    – user6591
    Commented Nov 24, 2014 at 16:41
  • @YEZ ^^^^^ I'm not sure what you are reffering to. If you meant the begining of כתובות, that sugya is oness as far as קיום תנאי is concerned, nothing to do with קיום מצות.
    – user6591
    Commented Nov 24, 2014 at 16:43
  • He says that oness is not as if it was done, just that you are not held accountable for it. I may have meant kesubos, it's been a while. But he says explicitly that oness is not as if you have done something that wasn't done, and only works to have not done something that was done. The application to t'nai is just application.
    – Y     e     z
    Commented Nov 24, 2014 at 20:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .