[Avodah] Tayshvu K'ein Taduru

Fri Oct 30 05:57:52 PDT 2009

As I understand it, the mitzvah of sukkah exists on three levels, and all of them are d'Oraisa:

1) There is a Chiyuv D'Oraisa to eat bread in the Sukkah on the first night, whether he wants to or not.

2) After the first night, if he chooses to eat a Seudas Keva, he has a Mitzvah Chiyuvis, on a d'Oraisa level, to eat it in the Sukkah.

3) If he chooses to eat a Seudas Arai, he has a Mitzvah Kiyumis, on a d'Oraisa level, to eat it in the Sukkah.

The first of these has a distinct source, namely the gezera shava to Matza, so let's set that aside. This thread has no questions about it.

In this thread I want to analyze the distinctions between the second and third levels. My understanding is that they *both* derive from the same source, namely the pasuk "Basukkos Tayshvu" (Vayikra 23:42), which Gemara Sukkah interprets with the famous "Tayshvu K'ein Taduru".

I find it odd that both levels would come from the same phrase, but someone explained the logic to me: Because people *always* eat their Seudas Keva at home, therefore Tayshvu K'ein Taduru teaches that it must *always* be in the Sukkah. And because people *don't* always eat a Seudas Arai at home, Tayshvu K'ein Taduru *also* teaches that this *isn't* always eaten in the Sukkah.

I have several problems with that explanation.

The smallest of my questions is that if Tayshvu K'ein Taduru teaches that eating a Seudas Arai in the Sukkah is optional, then from where do we know that we get s'char if we choose to do so? In other words, if Tayshvu K'ein Taduru teaches that the Mitzvah Chiyuvis doesn't exist for a Seudas Arai, then from where do we learn that the Mitzvah Kiyumis *does* exist? Maybe there's no Mitzvah Kiyumis at all, and it is merely a Hanhaga Tova?

My guess is that the above might be answered by referring to the exact language of the pasuk - "Basukkos Tayshvu Shiv'as Yamim" - which suggests that one should literally stay in the sukkah for seven full consecutive days, whether eating or not. But that's just my guess; I wonder if anyone else says such a thing.

That brings me to my next point. In trying to research this topic, I found that the Torah Temimah brings seven different gemaras on the one phrase "Basukkos Tayshvu". As far as I could tell, none of them address my question. (Just to remind you, "my question" is the source for the distinction between Level 2 and Level 3.)

But one of them does come close. Torah Temimah Vayikra 23:167 brings Gemara Sukkah 27a: "Tayshvu K'ein Taduru - Just as in one's Dira, if he wants to, he eats, and if he doesn't want to, he doesn't eat - so too in his Sukkah, if he wants to, he eats, and if he doesn't want to, he doesn't eat."

That's a pretty interesting gemara. Neither "keva" nor "arai" appear, neither in reference to the dira, nor to the eating. It seems to draw a distinction to Level 1, but makes no distinction at all between Levels 2 and 3.

It makes me wonder if Levels 2 and 3 are d'Oraisa at all. Is it possible that there really is no pasuk anywhere that requires a Seudas Keva (after the first night) to be eaten in the Sukkah? Is it possible that this chiyuv is actually a d'Rabanan?

And now I come to my last point. The claim has been made that a Seudas Keva is always eaten at home, and therefore it always has to be in the sukkah. Well, actually, people do sometimes eat a Seudas Keva on the road, and that's why exceptions are made for Holchei D'rachim. Okay, so a Seudas Keva is *almost* always eaten at home, and so it has to be in the sukkah, because "we leave the diras keva, and enter the diras arai."

But is that really so? Let's think back to the recent discussions about Shmini Atzeres in chu"l. There are a variety of conclusions on what the Halacha L'Maaseh is, but I'd like to cite one of the arguments which was used in those discussions. Consider this statement: "Presuming the weather is good enough, it is not out of the ordinary to eat a seudas keva in the backyard instead of in the house." It seems to me that no Rishonim or Acharonim disagreed with that statement. (They might disagree with the halacha, but they don't seem to disagree with this statement of common eating practices.)

Remember the context: There was a fear that eating in the Sukkah after Sukkas has ended might look like Bal Tosif. In other words, no one would do such a thing unless there was a chiyuv forcing him to do it. This fear was knocked out by the observation that in actual fact, people DO leave their Diras Keva to eat elsewhere. And in fact, it happens not-too-infrequently. It happens often enough that when we see someone leaving his Diras Keva, to eat a Seudas Keva in a Diras Arai, we *don't* automatically presume that he is doing something unusual.

So I am back to "square one". I seem to have proven that people DO sometimes eat their Seudas Keva in a Diras Arai. It may not happen very often, but it happens often enough that no one raises an eyebrow over it. And it happens for reasons as ephemeral as nice weather. So what's the distinction between Seudas Keva and Seudas Arai? Why can't I choose to eat my Seudas Keva outside the Sukkah, just like I sometimes eat my Seudas Keva in the backyard?

In my research for this post, I found myself drawn to Orach Chayim 639 and Gemara Sukkah 26-27 on several occasions. But each time I only found discussions of what counts as Keva, and what counts as Arai. (For example, there are many discussions about sleeping, and about drinking wine.) But I never saw the distinction itself clarified. There seems to be a pervasive presumption that Seudas Keva MUST be in the sukkah, but this presumption is taken as an axiom. I never saw it proven, and that's what I'm looking for.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
The Art Institutes
Get Info on our Media Arts Programs - Film, Audio, Web & More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=atw78iknBsbBu6rf9vVQHwAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAIRl-z4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhBQAAAAAA=