I started with the "succah-precedence" question but it turned out some other premises are unclear.

  1. One is obligated to provide shelter for his kids (let's say up to 18-22 Rambam Ishut 12:14) .
  2. One is obligated to provide a Succah for his underaged kids as a Mitzvah of Chinuch (to make them used to stay in Succah. Mishnah Succah).

Is a man obligated to provide a Succah for his grown-up sons
(13-22 that live with him, of course)?

(Let's imagine one flies abroad and leaves his sons at home)

  • 1
    Do you have a source for your first assertion? – Joel K Sep 3 '18 at 17:59
  • @JoelK I thought it is pretty much a consensus (deRabanan), isn't it? if not, bring it down to 13-15, that's not the point. OK? – Al Berko Sep 3 '18 at 18:01
  • I don’t know what the consensus is. That’s why I asked. Maybe there’s no responsibility to provide shelter after age 13? – Joel K Sep 3 '18 at 18:03
  • @JoelK As far as I know it is Tnay Ketuba, and some say Tzdekah and some say Gma"CH but all agree one has to provide the living for his kids at least until they start working on their own. – Al Berko Sep 3 '18 at 18:04
  • 1
    @AlBerko That Rambam says nothing to the effect of what you claim he says. “Just as a man is obligated to feed his wife, so is he obligated to feed his young (״הקטנים״) sons and daughters up to six years old. From then on he feeds them until they grow up (״עד שיגדילו״), as per the decree of the Sages.” So you misquote him on several counts: he only discusses food, not all necessities, and he says until they are גדולים, not until they move out. Further, he says that we don’t force him after they turn six. (Con’t) – DonielF Sep 3 '18 at 18:33

Yes; if he can and they need it. See Shulchan Aruch YD 251:3 & 4.

If one's sons aren't financially stable, and he is; he is obligated to support his children until they are because of the mitzvah of tzedaka and kerovim(see Rama ibid.). If he is unable to support himself, and relies on others; then he is exempt and his children are obligated to support him(if they are able; Rama ibid).

This rule is true to the extent that beit din can obligate him to do so, if his sons have no other way of attaining their financial needs and the father is able to support them(ibid.).

  • Please provide a full answer, and bring the source. – Al Berko Sep 3 '18 at 18:54
  • And how those Hilchot Tzedakkah connected to Succah? – Al Berko Sep 3 '18 at 18:59
  • Did you see it inside? He writes it explicitly "in order to teach them the straight path". – chacham Nisan Sep 3 '18 at 19:06
  • This does not really answer the question. If you have a different question, you can ask it by clicking Ask Question. You can also add a bounty to draw more attention to this question. - From Review – Danny Schoemann Sep 4 '18 at 8:46
  • @DannySchoemann The mitzva of tzedaka obligates a man to provide for his children if he can even after the age of six. The halacha sourced above answers it. So, yes; he is obligated because of the mitzvah of tzedaka and beit din can force him to do so if need be. Although he doesn't have to buy them one if they live with him; they can use his(even without his permission and be yotze!). – chacham Nisan Sep 4 '18 at 9:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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