[Avodah] Sukkah on Shabbos

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> IIUC, you're saying that the asei deOraisa "basukos teishevu 
> shiv'as yamim" is to eat akhilas qeva in the sukkah, which is 
> a mitzvah qiyumis. And then there is a derabbanan not to eat 
> outside the sukkah, which is (e.g.) the issur in the Rambam I quoted.
> 
> AIUI, the asei deOraisa is that one must *only* eat akhilas 
> qava in the sukkah, a mitzvah makhsheres. And thus in 
> parallel to the issur chameitz
> -- if one wants to eat baked goods, it must only be unleavened.

I am not sure what you mean by a mitzvah makhsheres here.  But what does
seem clear to me is that the issur chametz is just that, an issur, it is not
a mitzvah machsheres or mitzvah qiyumas or anything else that falls within
the language of an aseh.  The aseh is a separate mitzvah, to eat matza on
the first night.  I think that the mitzvah that Sukkah most closely
resembles (and I think this is born out in many discussions) is that of
Tzitzis.  Tzitzis too is an aseh, that one does not have to do, there is no
requirment to wear a four cornered garment, one can get by without one, but
if one wants to wear a four cornered garment it must have tzitzis.  

> This isn't really learned *from* the gezeirah shava as much 
> as the point being compared. Both have a mitzvah makhsheres, 

But that means you have to characterise an issur as a mitzvah makhsheres,
which seems to be a complete redefinition of a bone fide, normal issur.

> and Pesach has a chiyuv version on the first night (the 
> "15"), so too Sukkos has a chiyuv version on the first night.
> 
> So, RnCL asked where we see the g"sh discussed WRT sukkah 
> after the first night:
> 
> There is a machloqes Abayei veRava (nr the bottom of Sukkah 
> 34a) why the Torah had to say "ha'ezrakh" to explicitly 
> exclude women from the chiyuv.
> Abayei: to counter "'teishevu' - ke'ein taduru" implying that 
> wives should join their husbands. Rava - to counter the g"sh 
> 15-15, where women are chayavos.

????

I cannot find this discussion on 34a, but I will repeat what I wrote in my
previous post, because it seems to parallel what you wrote in the post
above, but with some differences - which I have noted in my commentary :

I wrote:
:The reason I say this is because of the gemora on Sukkos 28a. 

Note I quoted Sukkos 28a (it actually continues on 28b), while you quote
34a, but it seems to be roughly a discussion of pretty much the same ground,

: The gemora is discussing the Mishna which states that, inter alia, women
are exempt from :the mitzvah of Sukkah.  The gemora states that this is
based :on "hilchasa" - ie a halacha Moshe m'Sinai.

Note, I wrote hilchasa.  Now indeed the gemora there initially appears to
learn this out from "ha'ezrach" (the reference you quote above), but (as I
read it) changes its mind and decides that actually it is a hilchasa -
however, it does not really matter whether it is actually a question from
haeztrach or from a hilchasa, the challenge is the same. 

 : The gemora then questions - why do we need this :halacha Moshe m'Sinai at
all "Sukkah mitzvas aseh she hazman grama"? Now if you were right, the
gemora : could not have asked this question - because obviously if it was
really a form of lav, or framed as a lav, you can't call it a *mitzvas aseh*
shehazman : grama - and the reason for the need for a halacha Moshe m'Sinai,
or a derivation from a pasuk, would be obvious.

:Now it is true, the gemora gives a *second* reason why you need a halacha
Moshe m'Sinai which relates to the gezera shava - but first of all, the
first :reason it gives, has nothing to do with that - it says that since the
mitzva is tashivu k'ein tadiru then just as a man lives with his wife, af
sukkah 
: ish v'ishto, and hence you might have thought women were obligated
(kmashmalan).

Now I did not bother in my discussion to mention that Abaye gave the first
reason and Rava gave the second reason, as it did not seem necessary, but
indeed that is the case.  I am not sure if the reason for your reference is
because we usually posken like Rava over and above Abaye, and so you were
rejecting the first reason (whereas I took it as an explanation in learning,
were we did not need to decided between the two).

:OK, then it moves onto a second reason, which relates to the gezera shava -
on the basis that just as women are obligated to eat matza on first night
:Pesach, so too they should be obligated in sukkah, so hence you need the
halacha Moshe m'Sinai to counteract this.

:BUT, the reason that women are obligated in the mitzvah of matza is derived
(see  Pesachim 43b) from the connection between eating matza on the first
:night and not eating chametz, ie precisely this nexus that you are trying
to make with Sukkah is indeed made with pesach, and the lav aspect then
drags :in the aseh aspect vis a vis women, making them obligated.

:If you were correct, the gemora does not need to make any real reference to
the gezera shava - all it would need to do is make exactly the same kind of
:linkage that is made over there by Pesach - ie just as eating matza on
first night is linked to the lav of eating chametz, and hence women are
obligated, :so too, the eating in the sukkah is linked to the lav of not
eating outside the sukkah, and so women should also be obligated - hence we
need a halacha :Moshe miSinai.

:But the gemora does not say that.  It's assumption appear to be squarely
that we are dealing with an aseh only, and at most we have an aseh linked to
:another aseh where women are obligated.

Going  back to your post:
> It would seem therefore that the *chiyuv* of Sukkah even 
> after the first night is deOraisa, even if the chiyuv is a 
> makhsheres, not absolute.
> Because otherwise, why would we need a pasuq to reassert that 
> women are peturos of mitzvos asei shehazman gerama.

Or a hilchasa, but yes the logic is correct, I agree that the obligation, ie
the aseh of Sukkah even after the first night is d'orisa, just as the aseh
of tzitzis is d'orisa - which is why one would have thought that mitzvos
aseh shehazman grama would have come into play, and Abaye and Rava are each
giving different reasons why it is that the fact that it is a mitzva aseh
shehazman grama rule is not automatically applied here.  Abaye's reason is
that the nature of the mitzvah of Sukkah would lead us to believe this is an
exception to the general rule, and Rava's reason is that there is a link to
Pesach, and Pesach is a case where we see that there is a mitzvah aseh she
hazman grama and yet women are obligated.  What is that mitzva aseh she
hazman grama? - eating of matzah on first night!  Just as there is a mitzvah
aseh by pesach that women are obligated in on the 15th, so too, might one
have thought that women would be obligated in *this* mitzva aseh, hence you
need either the pasuk or the hilchasa.

But there is no need to suddenly stretch to discussing the issur chametz -
especially when that would seem to involve calling it something that it is
not.
 
> BTW, I just realized something. We discussed a couple of 
> months back the topic of Kant's categorical imperative. 
> Briefly: There is the hypothetical imperative: something 
> that's a good idea if you desire to accomplish something. If 
> I want to cease being thirsty, I should get a drink. But 
> morality is the categorical imperative -- something that is a 
> good idea regardless of any hypotheticals. Thus, "Act only 
> according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will 
> that it should become a universal law." An unconditional requirement.
> 
> Matzah the first night is a categorical imperative; matzah 
> the rest of Pesach is a hypothetical imperative.
> 
> In general, this is true of all of the mitzvos Rav Dovid 
> Lifshitz (probably following R' Shimon Shkop) classified as 
> mitzvos makhshiros.
> They are mitzvos that are the only way to do somehting permissibly --
> eg: if you wish to eat meat, you must have it shechted.

Yes, but I have never heard the issur chametz described that way.  If you
want to describe the issur chametz that way, would you not need to describe
all of the other issurim relating to food that way too? As in - if you want
to eat, you can, you don't have to, but you mustn't eat basar b'chalav or
treifos or whatever.  That would seem to make all of these, according to
you, a mitzvah makhshiros.  Doesn't that rather broaden the list of mitzvos
makhshiros beyond anything useful.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha