Monday, September 20, 2010

Mitzvah to Build a Sukkah

Maybe I should welcome myself back. I haven't posted in awhile mainly due to a combination of summer, work and laziness. (I won't say what was the ikkar and what was the tafeil). I will bli neder try and post more consistently this year but as always I make no promises.

The members of my chaburah asked me to give a shiur during the Yom Kippur break. I spoke about the mitzvah of building a sukkah. Just as a side note, I found that giving the shiur invigorated and energized me for the rest of the day.


There are a number of mekoros which seem to indicate that there is a mitzvah to build a sukkah.


1) Rashi Makkos 8a. Both the Avnei Nezer (459) and Netziv in Ha'Emek Sheilah Parshas Zos Haberacha point out that Rashi seems to hold there is a mitzvah to build a sukkah. The gemara says that if you chop wood and kill someone you are chayav golus even if you are chopping wood to build a sukkah. Rashi writes that chopping the wood is not a mitzvah but building a sukkah is.

2) The Shi'iltos (V'Zos HaBeracha) writes it is a mitzvah to make and sit in the sukkah. The Netziv is medayeik that making a sukkah is also a mitzvah. The m'kor is from the possuk "

3) The Yerushalmi (quoted by Tosafos Sukkah46a) says one makes a beracha on making the sukkah. It would seem from here that it is a mitzvah to build a sukkah. The Minchas Elazer points out that the Bavli in Menachos 42a disagrees and holds there is no beracha on making a sukkah and therefore the Bavli will tell you there is no mitzvah to make a sukkah. However, one could argue that the machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi is whether one makes a beracha on a mitzvah that is not finished. Since the complete mitzvah is sitting in the sukkah the Bavli will hold you don't make a beracha.

4) The gemara says one makes a She'hechiyanu on building a sukkah. The Aruch LaNer says that this only makes sense if you hold building a sukkah is a mitzvah. However, one could argue that the SHehechiyanu really goes on the sitting in the sukkah but we make it by the asiyas sukkah since you need toi build a sukka to be able to sit in it.

5) The Chasam Sofer (Yora Deia 471) and Minchas Elazar hold there is no mitzvah to build a sukkah

Nafka Mina

1) The Netziv says the klal of Mitzvah Bo Yoseur M'Bishlucho applies to building a sukkah. Furthermore, if one plans on using his friends sukkah there would still be a kiyum mitzvah to build your own.

2) The Rema based on the Maharil paskens (Hil Sukkah 655) that one should build a sukkah right after Yom Kippur because Mitzvah HaBa'ah L'Yodcha AL Tachmitzena.

3) The halacha is that a sukkah built by a non Jew is kosher but the poskim write that one should try and add on to it. The Moadim U'Zmanim says the reason for this is because it is a mitzvah to build a sukkah.

4) Genrally speaking, the Shehechiyanu we recite on the first night goes on the Zman and on building/sitting in the sukkah. If one sat in a neighbors sukkah the first days and then built his own sukkah on Chol HaMoed does one make Shehechiyanu. The Mikroei Kodesh says that if you hold there is no mitzvah to build a sukkah then there is no question-of course there is no Shehechiyanu. The Shehechiyanu is only going on the yeshivas sukkah and the zman of sukkos both which were covered on the first night. If you hold there is a mitzvah to build a sukkah then you can start to ask. 

12 comments:

micha said...

One could argue that we lemaaseh don't make a shehechiyannu on building the sukkah because we bedavqa hold it's only a hekhsher mitzvah.

I'm raising a general procedural issue within lomdus: When do you say "this hava amina only makes sense if the mitzvah in question were in category X" and when do you say "we reject that hava amina because the mitzvah is not in category X"?

Same thing with machloqesin -- does the Rambam's shitah show me something about the mitzvah, which I should assume according to everyone? Or is the Raavad choleiq over this very issue?

Or nusach -- Ashkenazim say "onim veomerim beyir'ah. Sepharadim say "onim be'eimah, ve'omerim beyir'ah". Do I assume they only differ about the adjective, but both are placing a comma between "onim" and "omerim"? Or do I say that Ashkenazim are using the Tanakh's idiom of "onim veomerim"? Does one nusach reflect on the general meaning of the tefillah according to everyone, or is this the whole point of the machloqes?

In all these cases, I've heard rabbanim give many examples in each direction, and never a rule telling me why they chose either "shows something about the mitzvah" or "that's why it was rejected".

-micha

micha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chaim B. said...

>>>However, one could argue that the SHehechiyanu really goes on the sitting in the sukkah but we make it by the asiyas sukkah since you need toi build a sukka to be able to sit in it.

Is there a she'hechiyanu on baking matzah?

Chaim Markowitz said...

>> One could argue that we lemaaseh don't make a shehechiyannu on building the sukkah because we bedavqa hold it's only a hekhsher mitzvah

The problem is the gemara the Mechabeir says we don't make shehechiyannu on building the sukkah because we wait until we make it on the zman as well. Also, the Biur Halacha says the Pri Megadim says it is a machlokes Rishonim if you make shehechiyannu on building the sukkah do you make another shehechiyannu on the zman. But everyone seems to hold the shehechiyannu on building the sukkah is good.


>>I'm raising a general procedural issue within lomdus: When do you say "this hava amina only makes sense if the mitzvah in question were in category X" and when do you say "we reject that hava amina because the mitzvah is not in category X"?

I would answer if it is muchrach and another possibility doesn't really fit or make sense.


>>> Is there a she'hechiyanu on baking matzah?


I don't know is there? Maybe the fact there isn't a rayah to teh Aruch LaNer. Baking matzah is only a hechsher so no she'hechiyanu. Building a sukkah is a mitzvah so we do say she'hechiyanu

micha said...

But we don't.

All the lomdus aside, you can build the Sukkah motza'ei YK, and you're telling me there is a chiyuv to say Shehachiyanu on it we fulfill nearly 4 days later????

-micha

Chaim Markowitz said...

>>>All the lomdus aside, you can build the Sukkah motza'ei YK, and you're telling me there is a chiyuv to say Shehachiyanu on it we fulfill nearly 4 days later????


Yes exactly. Forget about any lomdus for a second. Straight out halacha. If one makes a shehechiyanu on building a sukkah does he need to do al cheit for making a beracha l'vatala? The answer is no. The Shehechiyanu works. Look at the Mechabeir in Siman 641 and the Biur Halacha.

The only halachic question to figure out is do you make another shehechiyanu on the zman by kiddush.

Chaim Markowitz said...

>>>All the lomdus aside, you can build the Sukkah motza'ei YK, and you're telling me there is a chiyuv to say Shehachiyanu on it we fulfill nearly 4 days later????


Yes exactly. Forget about any lomdus for a second. Straight out halacha. If one makes a shehechiyanu on building a sukkah does he need to do al cheit for making a beracha l'vatala? The answer is no. The Shehechiyanu works. Look at the Mechabeir in Siman 641 and the Biur Halacha.

The only halachic question to figure out is do you make another shehechiyanu on the zman by kiddush.

micha said...

I'm looking at the Taz, who says the reason why lekhat-chilah there is no berakhah is because "mitzvah she'ein asiyaso gemar mitzvah... sheharei tzarikh leisheiv ba". IOW, there is no separate mitzvah of building a Sukkah. Similarly the MB s"q 1.

So, while there may be a dispute as to whether shehachiyahu appropriate hechsher mitzvah, I don't see grounds for saying the berakhah indicates that there is a distinct qiyum in the act of building itself.

-micha

Chaim Markowitz said...

>> I'm looking at the Taz, who says the reason why lekhat-chilah there is no berakhah is because "mitzvah she'ein asiyaso gemar mitzvah... sheharei tzarikh leisheiv ba". IOW, there is no separate mitzvah of building a Sukkah.

look at point #2 that I made. However, one could say the opposite. Why do you need a reason that you don't make a beracha because "mitzvah she'ein asiyaso gemar mitzvah". Just say it isn't a mitzvah to build a sukkah. the answer is that really building a sukkah is a mitzvah and requires a beracha except that there is a technical reason we don't make a beracha-because "mitzvah she'ein asiyaso gemar mitzvah"

Chaim B. said...

>>>Baking matzah is only a hechsher so no she'hechiyanu. Building a sukkah is a mitzvah so we do say she'hechiyanu

The Al"N wrote that you say she'hechiyanu because building is a mitzvah. You argued that, "The SHehechiyanu really goes on the sitting in the sukkah but we make it by the asiyas sukkah since you need toi build a sukka to be able to sit in it." I was asking l'shitsacha, why is there no bracha on baking matzah -- you need to bake matzah in order to eat it (there is no she'hechiyanu)?

Re: saying she'hechiyanu when building a sukkah during chol hamoed -- perhaps even if building is a mitzvah, this is true only if done for the sake of the chiyuv of yeshivas sukkah. Since after the first night there is no chiyuv of yeshiva (just eat fruit), there is no chiyuv of building.

micha said...

Thinking more about it... Milah is a chiyuv, even though the qiyum isn't complete until after peri'ah.

That appears to be the Taz's mashal -- building is a chiyuv in and of itself, but only part of what one is meqayeim by sitting there.

But one difference -- it isn't me'aqev. Many people sit in sukkos, and are meqaymim the mitzvah, without ever lifting a finger toward building one.

So I think both "mitzvah to build a sukkah" as well as labeling a "hekhsher mitzvah" is different than the Taz's shitah.

As for shehechiyahu during ch"m, if it's the same mitzvah as the one of sitting in the sukkah, then I think it would also depend on whether the person sat in a sukkah before ch"m.

-micha

Chaim Markowitz said...

>>> I was asking l'shitsacha, why is there no bracha on baking matzah -- you need to bake matzah in order to eat it (there is no she'hechiyanu)?

It's not so much a kasha on me as it is a kasha on anyone who holds building a sukkah is not a mitzvah. What's the diff between sukkah and matzah? Incidentally Tosafos on 46A holds you say shehechiyanu on asiyas lulav as well.


>>> Since after the first night there is no chiyuv of yeshiva (just eat fruit), there is no chiyuv of building.

I like this sevara.