[Avodah] More Tzaar

[David Riceman]

RMB:

<< I believe you're taking two sides of the same machloqes. If you hold 
that mitzta'er renders the booth a non-sukkah, then you hold that 
mitzta'er is a petur on the first night -- you have no Sukkah to go to!>>

Am I correct in guessing that you haven't actually looked in Har'rei 
Kedem?  Here's my translation of the relevant bit: "R. Moshe responded 
to him that in any case he's obliged.  Everyone agrees that mitztaer is 
obliged to eat the first kezayis on the first night [in the sukka].  The 
person who exempts does so only on the grounds that the sukka is unfit 
as a residence during rainfall; it lacks the status (shem) of sukka and 
lacks the status of residence (dirah)."
   The implication is that according to those opinions which permit 
eating inside there can be no kiyum until the rain stops.  Hence RMS 
woke up his children at that point.
> BTW, I since found in Reshimos Shi'urim, Sukkah pg 92, that RYBS draws
> the conclusion I did from the story. He makes a chiluq between where the
> sukkah and the space within it causes the tza'ar, and when the tza'ar
> is getting to the Sukkah.
Yes, the conclusions there are very different than in Har'rei Kedem.  I 
have to admit I find the argument there less convincing, since the 
reason for not waking a sleeping person is not tza'ar but tircha, 
derived directly from teishvu k'ein taduru.  See the citation from the 
Bigdei Yesha in MB SK 39.

Incidentally we find "tza'ar" used as a synonym for "waking up" used 
transitively, as in Berachos 13b "amar leih R. Nahman l'Daru avdeih: 
bipsuka kama tza'aran, tfei lo t'tza'aran."  Compare OH 63:5 which uses 
both verbs.

David Riceman