[Avodah] Sukkah on Shabbos

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:47:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
:> I was thinking more technically, that since it's framed as a lav, beis
:> din simply lacked the legislative power to override it.

: But from where are you deriving that it is *framed as a lav*?

If this was after the earlier post which you quoted:
: > Correct what I said from the formal asei vs lav to chiyuv vs
: > issur. That is the whole gezeirah shavah tes-vav tes-vav --
: > the first night parallels a chiyuv of akhilas matzah, the
: > rest of Sukkos it parallels not eating chameit...

then I miswrote. It's clearly an asei.

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.

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

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.

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.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha at aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507