[Avodah] Uman/Leaving the women behind

[MPoppers at kayescholer.com]

In Avodah Digest V3#17, RnCL wrote:
> 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? <
[OC 639, BTW, not 739.]  Under this argument, what should the husband do
when his wife leaves the sukkah of her own accord because of personal
discomfort? and would the answer be different if she had never entered the
sukkah because of personal discomfort?  If his mitzva doesn't disappear in
either or both of these situations, why should it disappear because she was
"asked to leave"?! and wouldn't it be more sensible to limit the RMA (as
seems pashut IMHO from his words) to situations where *he* can't be in the
sukkah, such that "baiso" goes where he goes (and see MA 639:8)?  Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061023/ba6227b0/attachment-0001.htm>