[Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit

[Akiva Miller via Avodah]

I suggested distinguishing:

> C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on
> doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2],
> having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in
> this category on the first night after one has eaten his
> kezayis, but I'm not sure.)
>
> D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than
> sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional
> korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough
> to be sure.

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more
> than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D).

To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest
of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the
first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional
kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways:

- On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus
is halachically significant.

- On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it
definitely is a petur.

- Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on
the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum
shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that
would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it
would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.)

That's why I put it in (D).

On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked:

> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself?

Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass
those who are unable to do so.

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?!  I thought
> it was a separate issur (miderabanan).  Because she's *not*
> a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's
> even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than
> chenek.  Min hatorah I would think that even according to
> the Rambam there is no issur with her husband.  It being
> derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it.

Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged:

> Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to
> chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa.
> Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the
> groom starting at eirusin.

It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the
kiddushin.

By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294:

> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says
> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos":
> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a
> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an
> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a
> bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur
> to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur
> is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like
> we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which
> are mid'rabanan...."

RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he
is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas
Hamitzvah.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151027/48b5a75a/attachment-0004.htm>