|
Sukkah:
A State of Mind
Rabbi Ron-Ami Meir, Yeshivat Darche Noam
Printer Friendly Version
"Mitz'ta'er": A Definition
Comparing Sukkah to Tefilin
A Second Approach
Tying it All Together
"Mitz'ta'er": A Definition
The Talmud in Tractate Sukkah 25a cites the Amora,
Rav, as declaring that a mourner is fully obligated
in all of the mitzvot of the Torah (with the exception
of one, based on a special verse.) Next, Rav states
that a mourner must dwell in the Sukkah during the
Festival of Sukkot. This second halacha prompts
the Gemara to exclaim: "That's obvious!" In other
words - after Rav's initial statement - obligating
a mourner in all the mitzvot - why would we have
thought that he would be exempt from the mitzvah
of Sukkah?
Had Rav not stated this second halacha, answers
the Gemara, we may have actually thought that a
mourner is exempt from Sukkah. Why? A fundamental
principle in Hilchot Sukkah is that one who is suffering
from being in the Sukkah - a "mitz'ta'er" - is exempt
from the mitzvah; we may have thus thought that
a mourner, in his grief, falls into this category.
According to the Gemara, Rav's special stress on
the mourner's obligation to dwell in the Sukkah
clarifies that the exemption of mitz'ta'er only
applies to suffering that develops " on its own".
The discomfort of the mourner in the Sukkah does
not develop "on its own"; rather, the mourner, says
the Gemara, "is bringing the suffering on himself,
and he therefore has the obligation to place his
mind at ease and calm down [to allow himself to
live in the Sukkah.]"
Rashi explains that suffering that "develops on
its own" relates to discomfort stemming from the
Sukkah itself. Typical examples include: discomfort
from the heat of the sun beating down on the Sukkah,
the cold temperature in the Sukkah, or a bad odor
emitted by the structure's leafy "schach" roof.
Since a mourner's sensitivity is not directly related
to the Sukkah's temperature or odor, he must put
himself at ease so that he can perform the mitzvah.
Why should a mourner find the Sukkah so difficult
to tolerate? Rabbeinu Asher ("Rosh") explains that
such a person prefers the dark, secluded atmosphere
of a house rather than the pleasant-open air atmosphere
of the Sukkah. Far from being objectively unpleasant
- the Sukkah is "too pleasant" an environment for
the mourner! In other words, it's the mourner's
delicate and unique emotional state that transforms
the Sukkah into a troubling place.
Comparing Sukkah to Tefilin
Sukkah is not the only mitzvah in which the halacha
stresses the mental/emotional situation of the Jew.
The Gemara in Menachot (36b) rules that a person
donning Tefilin must not take his mind off the mitzvah,
and proves this by learning a "Kal V'chomer" from
the requirement of the High Priest (Kohen Gadol)
to mentally focus on his "Tzitz" headdress. Rambam
codifies this ruling in his Mishna Torah, stating
that a person in discomfort, or one whose mind is
not at ease, is exempt from the mitzvah of Tefilin
- since it is forbidden to become distracted from
the Tefilin while donning them.
In response to the above halacha, Rabbeinu Manoach
(cited by Kesef Mishna) states: Even though with
all other mitzvot, we require a person to put his
mind at ease and perform the mitzvah, Tefilin are
different: it's forbidden to wear them while mentally
distracted. Kesef Mishna understands this comment
as an implicit challenge on the Rambam: How can
Rambam exempt a "mitz'ta'er" from Tefilin, if, after
all, the Gemara in Sukkah states that such a person
must calm down with the aim of fulfilling the mitzvah
of Sukkah?!
To this challenge, Rabbeinu Manoach responds: The
mitzvah of Tefilin is different: Since it is characterized
by a special "distraction" prohibition, we don't
insist that he put his mind at ease. Why? As much
as he calms himself down, he won't escape the fact
that there is a special prohibition of being distracted
while donning Tefilin.
In other words, we cannot simply say in the case
of Tefilin: "Let him calm down and perform the mitzvah."
Once a Jew has become preoccupied and distracted,
the halacha is wary of permitting him to don the
Tefilin ; the very real possibility exists that
he will again lose his concentration. No such halachic
prohibition - and therefore no such cautious approach
- exists in the law of Sukkah.
A Second Approach
Another prominent scholar - R. Joel Sirkes in his
work "Bayit Chadash" (Bach) - also grapples with
the apparent contradiction in the halacha. In contrast
to Rabbeinu Manoach's approach, Bach understands
the person in Rambam's Tefilin scenario as being
in a different mental state than the one in the
Sukkah scenario: Rambam, notes Bach, is dealing
with a person who is simply unable to put his mind
at ease. Even if he succeeds at doing so for a moment,
he quickly reverts to being a "mitz'ta'er". He therefore
never escapes the status of someone who is distracted
and therefore exempt from Tefilin. In contrast,
the "mitz'ta'er" of the Gemara in Sukkah is someone
- whom - with sufficient effort, can calm down.
Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Responsa "Tzitz Eliezer")
notes that according to Bach - were the person in
Rambam's Tefilin scenario to ask whether he is obligated
in Sukkah - we would tell him that he is not. This
would be our answer to him, despite the fact that
his discomfort does not stem from the heat of the
Sukkah, nor the odor emitted by the schach.
At first glance, Bach's approach seems to contradict
the Gemara Sukkah (27a): "You must dwell in Sukkot
for seven days" says the Torah. Given the principle
that we must treat the Sukkah like our home for
a week, we need only live in it as long as the it
allows us similar conditions we are accustomed to
in our homes. Since we would not live in a house
that has a leaky roof, or an apartment that is uncomfortably
cold - we are not expected to live in a Sukkah under
cold or rainy conditions. A person whose discomfort
stems mainly from his own mental or emotional state,
and not from the Sukkah, however, is not exempt
from the mitzvah to dwell in the Sukkah. (The Gemara
quoted earlier, as explained by Rashi reinforces
this.) How could Bach, then, suggest that a person
unable to put his mind at ease - is exempt from
both Tefilin and Sukkah? It is not the Sukkah, but
his own mental state, that is standing in the way!
Tying it All Together
In order to understand Bach's ruling, Rabbi Waldenberg
notes that the question of what exempts a "mitz'ta'er"
from Sukkah is a major disagreement between the
Rishonim. Rashi, Rosh, and Mordechai all rule that
a person is exempt from Sukkah only when the discomfort
stems from the Sukkah itself. This is the view accepted
by Remah in the Shulchan Aruch. The Maharik, in
contrast, states that a "mitz'ta'er" is exempt from
Sukkah even if the discomfort is mainly a product
of his emotional state. Maharik cites our Gemara
Sukkah (25a) - and notes that it was prepared to
exempt the mourner as a "mitz'ta'er" - but required
him instead to put his mind at ease and dwell in
the Sukkah.
In other words, Maharik reads that Gemara differently
than we suggested earlier: That "sugyah" did not
intend to definitively rule out a mourner's state
of mind as a relevant factor in defining "mitz'ta'er":
It simply concluded that when the discomfort derives
from the Sukkah itself, there's not much the halacha
can demand of the Jew: if the Sukkah is too hot
or wet, then the conditions do not allow for the
mitzvah of dwelling in the Sukkah to be fulfilled.
If however, the mourner's state of mind is the issue,
the halacha asks him to try to "get a hold of himself"
before availing himself of the exemption of "mitz'ta'er."
It follows, therefore, that both Maharik and Bach
- confronted with a person who is unable to relax,
would rule that that he is exempt from Sukkah in
the same way as such a person is exempt from - and
even forbidden to wear - Tefilin.
Rabbi Waldenberg suggests that underlying the contrasting
approaches towards the Gemara - are two contrasting
views of the source of the exemption of "mitz'ta'er".
The mainstream view - Rashi, Rosh, Mordechai, Remah
- understands the verse "You must dwell in Sukkot
for seven days" as the basis of the exemption; we
must treat the Sukkah like our home for a week,
we need only live in the Sukkah as long as it allows
us similar conditions as a regular home. As noted
earlier, one whose discomfort stems mainly from
his own mental or emotional state, and not from
the Sukkah, is not exempt from the mitzvah to dwell
in the Sukkah.
The opposing view - that of Bach and Maharik - bases
itself on the verse in Vayikra Chapter 23, which
states that we must dwell in Sukkot "So that your
generations [after you] know that I caused the Children
of Israel to dwell in Sukkot when I took them out
of the Land of Egypt." This, says Bach explicitly
- indicates that the Torah wants us to experience
a special religious/historical awareness while dwelling
in the Sukkah. A severe "mitz'ta'er" simply cannot
attain this consciousness, and is therefore exempt.
It's irrelevant, according to this view, whether
the unsettled state of mind is a result of the heat
of the Sukkah, etc, or a personal state of anxiety
not rooted in the Sukkah. This explanation helps
explain, as well, why Bach equated between the two
issues of Sukkah and of Tefilin. In Shmot Ch. 13,
the Torah states that we must wear Tefilin "so that
the Torah of God should remain on your lips." Here,
as in the mitzvah of Sukkah, a special awareness
is required while performing the mitzvah. It is
this special state of mind that exempts the "mitz'ta'er."
|
Back to:
Sukkot Home Page
Holidays Index
Shiurim Main
Index
|
