[Avodah] Sukkah on Shabbos

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:22:37PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
:> 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....

I may not be sure what I mean either. I'm repeating a thought I heard
decades ago. You could well have found a chink in my understanding.

The notion that not eating matzah all Pesach is a mitzvah qiyumis (which
is a different paradigm than machsheres, but not mutually exclusive) is
recorded in the name of the Gra (Maaseh Rav 175). The Gra made a point of
making a 3rd se'udah on acharon shel Pesach for the qiyum of this mitzvah,
even though he didn't hold y"t requires 3 meals in general. (However,
since the rav who spoke is meyuchas to several chassidishe rabbeim,
it is quite likely he was relying on a different source.)

The Baal haMaor asks why there is no berakhah on eating matzah after the
first night, which also presumes some kind of mitzvah in eating matzah,
beyond avoiding chameitz. The Meiri (91b) simply says there is no mitzvah,
therefore there is no question. That seems to be what one would get from a
diyuq halashon in the Yad, Chameitz uMarzah 6:1 as well. The Sedei Chemed
(ChM 14:10) in contrast actually discusses a minhag to make a berakhah.

Just for defining a mitzvah makhsheres, which I pulled in from shiur,
not that Shabbas haGadol derashah:
:> 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.

Every conditional qum va'asei. There are plenty of issurim that are
non-conditional. I'm not suggesting that the issur geneivah is a mitzvah
machsheres, since you can choose not to own things, but if you do,
you have to follow choshein mishpat.

That was the point of my speculation about Kant's hypothetical imperative
as opposed to a categorical one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha at aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous