[Avodah] Sukkah on Shabbos

[David Riceman]

Chana Luntz wrote:
> Yes, but the point I was trying to make was that neither my husband 
> (who was
> eating what is for him a ridiculously big breakfast so he would not be
> hungry when he was out and about at lunch time) nor the family at legoland
> were living "as you would live if this was your house".  One does not take
> one's house with one when one travels
There are two issues here.  One is whether one travels with one's house 
(or to a place without a house).  The second is whether one can use a 
sukkah the way one uses one's house.  You distinguish these two issues 
clearly below.  Your description of the man sitting with children on his 
knees while the rest of his family waited outside struck me as 
addressing the latter issue.

The first question is related to the question of whether people ate 
picnics in the times of Hazal (see more about that below).  It is the 
second that I was addressing with the comment about size of houses.
> Me
>> I just acquired a copy of Damesek Eliezer 
>> last week,
>> so I'll point you to 640:4:11 (the very last comment, on the 
>> Rama's remark
>> "v'ein hamitztaer patur ... ").
>>     
> RCL
> Since I don't have it, it would be helpful if you provided more information.
>   
The Rama says that a mitztaer may leave the sukkah only of doing so will 
alleviate his distress.  The DE understands the Gaon to say that this is 
an example of Teishvu k"ein Taduru, "ain adam dar b'makom shemitztaer", 
and if he'd undergo the same discomfort in his house it follows that the 
distress is tolerable and he is fulfilling TkT in the sukkah.

I was deducing the converse, that if he's not mitztaer then the defining 
rule is the "house" he's in now, not the house he lives in the rest of 
the year.  Admittedly not an inarguable deduction.
> But I agree that is a different issue from whether there is yeshivu k'ein
> tadiru even if you take your sukkah with you and whether the ptur of holchei
> drachim should apply.  And I guess the further question as to whether, if
> one of the pturim (such as holchei drachim or osek b'mitzvah) applies to
> you, and you eat in a sukkah anyway, should you not be saying the bracha?
>
> Me:
>> Hazal compare someone eating outside to a dog; but certainly no one I
>> know has a visceral response to someone eating an ice cream cone while
>> strolling, or to someone eating at a picnic. So I wonder whether the
>> halacha was codified when people ate meals only in their homes except
>> in extreme situations.
>>     
>
> I confess like other posters I had understood this to mean while walking in
> the shuk, while standing up etc, not sitting at formal picnic tables in the
> open air in family units.
>   
See Berachos 42b-43a.  If people ate picnics why would the brayysa have 
to specifically mention holchim baderech, and why would the din be so 
obscure that talmidei d'Rav didn't recall it?

David Riceman