[Avodah] [Areivim] Uman/Leaving the women behind

[Chana Luntz]

Been meaning to post on this since this exchange on Areivim last month
but have not had time:

>
RSB wrote:

> >>My problem is that  is also a family holiday, where you
> have a special
> >>meal with your family etc.
>  It looks like people are forgetting this.
> 

And RSBA responded:

> It is exactly the same with all chassidim. They leave their families  
> (or at least the females) at home and join the rebbe for yomim tovim.
> 
> And even if they live in the same place as the rebbe resides,
> often there  is no time for more than a rushed meal between tefilos
and tishen etc.

I founfd it interesting that the tension articulated in this exchange
between Rav and family seems to go back at least as far as the gemora.
It states on Succah 27b: Tanu Rabbanan, Ma'ase regarding Rabi Eloyi who
went to greet his teacher Rabbi Eliezer in Lud on the festival. [Rabbi
Eliezer] said to him, Eloyi - you are not among those who rest on the
festival because Rabbi Eliezer used to say, I praise the lazy ones who
do not go out of their houses on the festival as it is written
V'samachta ata uvitecha.  But is it so,  as Rav Yitzchak says, from
where do we know that a man is obligated to visit his rav on the
festival as it is written "why are you going to him today it not being
new moon or shabbat" and we can infer from there that on new moon and
shabbat one is obligated to visit one's Rav.  Lo kasha this is when he
can go and come in one day and this is when he cannot go and come in one
day. 

Now the Rambam brings purely and simply that one is obligated to visit
one's Rav on festivals (Hilchos Talmid Torah perek 5 halacha 7) but not
the halacha about going and coming in one day and the Shulchan Aruch
brings neither.

The Noda B'Yehuda asks the question as to why the Tur and Shulchan Aruch
do not bring the obligation to visit one's Rav and concludes that this
is because the obligation is only during the time of the beis hamikdash
(when one was also required to visit the shechina by means of alios
haregel).  But the Aruch HaNer (on Sukka 27b) disagrees with this Noda
B'Yehuda  arguing that the whole ma'ase regarding Rabbi Eliezer had to
have happened when the beis hamikdash was no longer standing.  Rather he
argues that when the beis hamikdash was standing a man was obligated to
go up to Yerushalayim with his wife to fulfil v'samachta ata uvitecha as
per Chaggiga 6a and holds that the reason why the Tur and Shulchan Aruch
omit the mitzvah of visiting one's Rav on the festival is that they hold
that it is a mitzvah to do this on any day, even a regular day (ie they
are effectively cholek on Rav Yitzchak and do not need to bring him).  

On Daf 10a the Aruch L'Ner discusses the fact that the Rambam does not
bring the qualification of returning in one day and suggests that this
is due to the situation described in the gemora there where Rav Chisda
and Rabbah Bar Rav Huna visited the Reish Galusa on succos and held that
they were patur from succah because they were shluchei mitzvah (ie the
mitzvah being that they were visiting their Rav)- which would arguably
seem to have been a case where they were not returning to their home on
the same day.

Returning to the Aruch LaNer on 27b he comments that the pasuk of
samachta ata uvitecha is not written in relation to Yom Tov but rather
in relation to maaser sheni and refers to what he wrote on daf 62b of
Yevamos that women are obligated to come up to Yerushalyim on the
regalim due to the shalmei simcha and then she eats the maaser sheni
there as there is no simcha for him without his wife.

Not that any of this latter commentary seems to provide conclusions as
to what is the halacha given conflicting obligations to visit one's Rav
and to be with one's wife (unlike the Noda B'Yehuda, who would clearly
seem to hold that v'samachta takes precedence b'zman hazeh over visiting
one's Rav) .  I assume that RSB's point is that v'samachta is a d'orisa
obligation and visiting one's Rav is a d'rabbanan one - but on the other
hand the gemora on Sukka 10a seems to suggest that the mitzvah of
visiting one's Rav is doche the obligation to sit in a sukkah, so
presumably that is the basis for arguing (a la the chassidim) that it is
doche v'samachta.

But this whole discussion seems to segue nicely into a question that RET
just posted on Avodah

> A question that came up this past succot.
> 
> Someone was eating in a public succah with his wife.
> As the succah was crowded someone else came and asked the
> wife to leave so that he could eat in the succah as a woman 
> is not required to eat in a succah.
> 
> Is there any requirement for the woman to leave eating in the 
> public succah with her husband so that another man can use her place?
> 

Just a guess from first principles but it seems to me that there are two
separate issues raised by this:

A) in relation to the ownership of a public succah, who has the
authority to decide how it is used, and if a woman is effectively
temporarily koneh daled amos in the sukkah, is putting pressure on her
to relinquish those daled amos a form of gezela or otherwise problematic
even if it is to enable a mitzvah?

B) in relation to the various mitzvah obligations - the assumption of
the asker being that it is very straightfoward.  He has an obligation to
eat in a sukkah, a woman does not, therefore the woman should leave to
enable him to perform a mitzvah, on the grounds that that will maximise
the mizvah observance all round.

But I wonder if B) is true.  The Rema writes in Orech Chaim siman 739
si'if 2 that it seems to him that the reason that these days we are
lenient regarding men sleeping in the sukkah is because the mitzvah of
sukkah is "ish v'beiso ish v'ishto k'derech she hu dor kol hashana - and
in a place where he is not able to sleep with his wife because the
sukkah isn't private enough he is patur.  Similarly therefore if a man
usually eats with his wife all year round, if she is asked to leave the
sukkah, and he cannot eat with her, is it not arguable that the mitzvah
of the husband has just disappeared?

And based on the Aruch LaNer I quoted above, is it not similarly
arguable that by her leaving the sukkah one is nullifying the mitzvah of
v'samachta ata uvitecha- both his simcha and hers?  So is the mitzvah
tally as straightforward as the asker would seem to assume?

> -- 
> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana