[Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on
: > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis...

: > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than
: > sleeping and seudas keva...

: 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...

I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a
seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond
the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra
would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it.

: 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.

You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an
aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we
do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much.

: R' Zev Sero wrote:
: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?!  I thought
: > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)...

: 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.

It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur
chal al issur either.

: 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...

: 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.

I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al
kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12,
on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach.

Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof
that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore
calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin,
just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think
we hold like the Ritva anyway.

WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that
he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being
a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha at aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507