<html><body>
<p><font size="2">In Avodah Digest V3#17, RnCL wrote:</font><br>
<font size="2">> The Rema writes in Orech Chaim siman 739</font><br>
<font size="2">si'if 2 that it seems to him that the reason that these days we are</font><br>
<font size="2">lenient regarding men sleeping in the sukkah is because the mitzvah of</font><br>
<font size="2">sukkah is "ish v'beiso ish v'ishto k'derech she hu dor kol hashana - and</font><br>
<font size="2">in a place where he is not able to sleep with his wife because the</font><br>
<font size="2">sukkah isn't private enough he is patur. Similarly therefore if a man</font><br>
<font size="2">usually eats with his wife all year round, if she is asked to leave the</font><br>
<font size="2">sukkah, and he cannot eat with her, is it not arguable that the mitzvah</font><br>
<font size="2">of the husband has just disappeared? <</font><br>
<font size="2">[OC 639, BTW, not 739.] Under this argument, what should the husband do when his wife leaves the sukkah of her own accord because of personal discomfort? and would the answer be different if she had never entered the sukkah because of personal discomfort? If his mitzva doesn't disappear in either or both of these situations, why should it disappear because she was "asked to leave"?! and wouldn't it be more sensible to limit the RMA (as seems pashut IMHO from his words) to situations where *he* can't be in the sukkah, such that "baiso" goes where he goes (and see MA 639:8)? Thanks. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2">All the best from</font><br>
<font size="2">--Michael Poppers via RIM pager</font><br>
</body></html>