Re: Uman/Leaving the women behind

RMP writes:
> 
> In Avodah Digest V3#17, RnCL wrote:
> > The Rema writes in Orech Chaim siman 739
> si'if 2 that it seems to him that the reason that these days 
> we are lenient regarding men sleeping in the sukkah is 
> because the mitzvah of sukkah is "ish v'beiso ish v'ishto 
> k'derech she hu dor kol hashana - and in a place where he is 
> not able to sleep with his wife because the sukkah isn't 
> private enough he is patur. Similarly therefore if a man 
> usually eats with his wife all year round, if she is asked to 
> leave the sukkah, and he cannot eat with her, is it not 
> arguable that the mitzvah of the husband has just 
> disappeared? <

 [OC 639, BTW, not 739.]

Sorry can't add.

> 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? 

A straightforward reading of the Rema would seem to suggest that it
wasn't any different, that is the extraordinary thing about this Rema
(although see my discussion of the Taz below).  That is, if a man was in
general accustomed to eating with his wife throughout the year (and that
is clearly the key question), then under this interpretation to eat
without his wife is not tshuvu k'ain tdiru.  Of course most men probably
don't eat every meal with their wives (eg my husband never eats
breakfast or lunch with me, except lunch on shabbas/yom tov) - but many
men may well eat all their festive meals with their wives.  Presumably
also the wife does not technically need to be in the sukkah (eg if there
are overhanging eaves, and she is under that portion and he is not, she
is still eating with him so it is just like it is the rest of the year
for him).

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)?

I guess I am not understanding your question here.  In the case of
sleeping, *he* can indeed be in the sukkah, he just cannot sleep in it
with her, because it is public, and on that basis the Rema says he is
patur.  I read the Magen Avraham as rejecting this Rema precisely on
this ground, ie because he can indeed sleep in the sukkah, just without
her, he still had an obligation, and hence the Magen Avraham prefers the
Rema's other reason, namely that the cold causes sufficient discomfort
for him to be patur.  On the other hand, the Taz deals with this
question head on, and argues a difference between eating and sleeping
because of the obligation to be sameach his wife on the regel making him
a shaliach mitzva -  and seems if anything to extend it to a situation
where the wife is in nida, so he wouldn't exactly be with her k'derech
ish v'ishto and be sameach her and even then he is patur.  But based on
this Taz, we might distinguish between a case where her simcha was
enhanced by eating with him (the asked to leave case) or where it was
not (in the sleeping case they cannot be together for objective tznius
reasons, in the personal discomfort case, she is choosing not to be with
him because that is what makes her happier than being together and
freezing) - although if eating together is the essence of v'samachta ata
u'vitecha (ie the shalmei simcha) at least for those meals might not the
argument that they need to be together be rather stronger?

 Thanks. 
> 
> All the best from
> --Michael Poppers via RIM pager
>

Regards

Chana

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org