Why doesn't Lubavitch sleep in the Sukkah?

[Torah613]

Originally Posted by ktonton

there is also tzar, but even without tzar, its still assur, because its not kavod yomtov to eat in a room that is soaking wet. you wouldn't entertain a king in such a room, nor serve him food that was sopping wet.

If this post is by some farfetched chance a response to me, I have no idea what you are talking about. I must assume you are responding to one of the other 70 plus posts in this thread.
[A unique chiddush: It is assur to eat in a wet Sukah. For a simple Jew like me, who learns AR's SA - I never heard of this new issur].

[תורת משה]

Originally Posted by ktonton

there is also tzar, but even without tzar, its still assur, because its not kavod yomtov to eat in a room that is soaking wet. you wouldn't entertain a king in such a room, nor serve him food that was sopping wet.

p.s.- nikra hedyot etc...=stupid, doesnt mean assur.

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

If this post is by some farfetched chance a response to me, I have no idea what you are talking about. I must assume you are responding to one of the other 70 plus posts in this thread.
[A unique chiddush: It is assur to eat in a wet Sukah. For a simple Jew like me, who learns AR's SA - I never heard of this new issur].

it isn't a chiddush, bayis chadash mentions it in siman 639 at the logical place, and the mishnah berura quotes him. (sif katan 31)

one could conclude likewise from the alter rebbe's nuliffying personal feeling to the feeling of the majority (640:11)

[noahidelaws]

Ktonton, if you don't like the views of the Rebbeim and accepted minhogei hachasidim on sleeping in Sukka, eating in a wet sukka, and so on, then don't follow them! But don't twist what the Rebbeim say, or contradict them, and call yourself their chossid.

[Torah613]

Originally Posted by ktonton

it isn't a chiddush, bayis chadash mentions it in siman 639 at the logical place, and the mishnah berura quotes him. (sif katan 31)

one could conclude likewise from the alter rebbe's nuliffying personal feeling to the feeling of the majority (640:11)

I have no idea what you see in the Bach, or the MB S"K 31. I am beginning to suspect you don't know either. Likewise from the AR.

If you would care to enlighten us, as to what salient point pertaining the above discussion you found in the places you mention, please do so in a manner that even simple folk like me can comprehend. Otherwise, I will place you in the original chazaka, וד"ל.

[Or maybe someone else here can help out].

[Noah, דאגה ניט, he is contradicting nothing. He is also missing the biggest (valid) question of all (which may have been discussed in the past - I don't remember) - which must be the blind luck of us חסידי שוטה...

No, I will not share the question].

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

I have no idea what you see in the Bach, or the MB S"K 31. I am beginning to suspect you don't know either. Likewise from the AR.

If you would care to enlighten us, as to what salient point pertaining the above discussion you found in the places you mention, please do so in a manner that even simple folk like me can comprehend. Otherwise, I will place you in the original chazaka, וד"ל.

[Or maybe someone else here can help out].

[Noah, דאגה ניט, he is contradicting nothing. He is also missing the biggest (valid) question of all (which may have been discussed in the past - I don't remember) - which must be the blind luck of us חסידי שוטה...

No, I will not share the question].

quoting sharei teshuvah i see.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx...&st=&pgnum=564

see what bayis chadash says four lines up from the start of siman 640

אעפ״י שאין האנס עצמו מצטער בקור מ"מ מאחר שהמאכל מתקלקל פטור

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx...&st=&pgnum=211

לא ואפילו אין האדם מצטער
בכך אלא שהמאכל מתקלקל בכך

באר היטב

אפילו אין האדס מצממר ככך אלא שהמאכל מתקלקלט

» בכך

נ"כ

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx...&st=&pgnum=373

ט"ז

פשיטא
שאס נתקלקל המאכל שלפניו

שפטור

(opposite the third line of sif zain in the machaber)

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx...&st=&pgnum=372

מ"א ט"ו

אפילו אין האלם מצטאר בכך
אלא שהמאכל מתקלקל בכך

all of thse references then go on to discuss the issue of cold in the sukkah, but that seems to me only to define when it is cold enough (as opposed, for instance, to your food freezing) we already know when its raining enough.

also note the difference between the bayis chadash's statement and the later statements, and the rearangement of the word "kor"

note the alter rebbe states this b'pheirush:

תרל"ט ס' כב

אפילו אין האדם מצטער בכך אלא שהתבשיל מתקלקל בכך וכן אם העת
קור שהמאכלים השמינים נקרשים במוכה ען אוכל כל סעודתו בבית "פ :

[Torah613]

Yes, yes I know how to read, and I know all that. And therefore?

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

Yes, yes I know how to read, and I know all that. And therefore?

you're not allowed to eat in the sukkah when its raining, even if there is no tzar. (as you alluded to with your quote of sharei teshuva's understanding of the mishnayic mashul about this.)

"ain tzarich" or any of the other lashonot in this case are quite similar to the cases in brachot where it also says that one does not need to make a bracha, and the interpreation is that you're not allowed to make that bracha.

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by ktonton

you're not allowed to eat in the sukkah when its raining, even if there is no tzar. (as you alluded to with your quote of sharei teshuva's understanding of the mishnayic mashul about this.)

"ain tzarich" or any of the other lashonot in this case are quite similar to the cases in brachot where it also says that one does not need to make a bracha, and the interpreation is that you're not allowed to make that bracha.

we only call someone a chassid shoteh when he is, in persuit of a chumra or hiddur, oiver on an issur, and that is the exact lashon used by sharei teshuva (although it is advisable to consider why he's the only one of the major poskim i've seen who uses that lashon). so its not my chiddush.

[Torah613]

The Bach does not say what you say, especially in the quotes you brought before, same with the MA, same with the MB (unless the quotes hint at some hidden code). They also do not mention an issur.

The גזירה שוה - אין צריך, אין צריך, is especially intresting and a gevaldig chiddush. Forgive me for not accepting it blindly. But you can say even better, as everyone knows that פטור means פטור אבל אסור...

[Torah613]

Originally Posted by ktonton

we only call someone a chassid shoteh when he is, in persuit of a chumra or hiddur, oiver on an issur,

I don't know abou the precise loshon חסיד שוטה (though I highly doubt that is correct either), but the expression הדיוט - which is the wording of the Gemoro and Poskim in the issue being discussed here - has nothing to do with being oiver an issur.

And no, I was not alluding to the Shaarei Tshuva several posts back.

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

The Bach does not say what you say, especially in the quotes you brought before, same with the MA, same with the MB (unless the quotes hint at some hidden code). They also do not mention an issur.

The גזירה שוה - אין צריך, אין צריך, is especially intresting and a gevaldig chiddush. Forgive me for not accepting it blindly. But you can say even better, as everyone knows that פטור means פטור אבל אסור...

yet the reply to that would be to assert that women are forbiden from listening to shofar, benching lulav, etc.

Second, as i mentioned, the reference is more strictly in this case to sharei teshuva, he certainly is of the opinion that it is assur. (which can be gleaned from his using the term chassid shoteh)

also see biur halacha:

זה הכלל היא דוקא במקום שיש ט צד איסור כמי

במצטאר דהוי חילול י"ט

[Torah613]

... and the hemshech haloshon gives the answer and the heter.

You have not yet proved the narrow meaning that you give to the expression chossid shotah (in general), and have not proved that the שבות יעקב did not use the expression חסיד שוטה as a figure of speech, and have not explained how (according to your "diyuk") he can go beyond the Poskims expression of (merely) הדיוט (unless he has his own shita...nun nu).

Frankly, this jumping from argument to argument, from assertion to assertion, seeking what may be lucky enough to stick, makes me nervous.

Whatever.

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

... and the hemshech haloshon gives the answer and the heter.

You have not yet proved the narrow meaning that you give to the expression chossid shotah (in general), and have not proved that the שבות יעקב did not use the expression חסיד שוטה as a figure of speech, and have not explained how (according to your "diyuk") he can go beyond the Gemoro's expression of (merely) הדיוט.

Frankly, this jumping from argument to argument, from assertion to assertion, seeking what may be lucky enough to stick, makes me nervous.

Whatever.

but thats only when the hetter is only based on tzar, in the case of the food spoiling (when its cold or in the rain) the lack of tzar is irrelevant, as mentioned elsewhere.

[Torah613]

You probably meant to write: "as asserted and unproven by me" elsewhere (actually earlier in this thread).

[Not that I have any idea what you are trying to say anyway].

[תורת משה]

Originally Posted by torah613

you probably meant to write: "as asserted and unproven by me" elsewhere (actually earlier in this thread).

[not that i have any idea what you are trying to say anyway].

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

... and the hemshech haloshon gives the answer and the heter.

You have not yet proved the narrow meaning that you give to the expression chossid shotah (in general), and have not proved that the שבות יעקב did not use the expression חסיד שוטה as a figure of speech, and have not explained how (according to your "diyuk") he can go beyond the Poskims expression of (merely) הדיוט (unless he has his own shita...nun nu).

Frankly, this jumping from argument to argument, from assertion to assertion, seeking what may be lucky enough to stick, makes me nervous.

Whatever.

do you realize that his hemshech halashon refutes your attempted use of his hetter, by using an example where spoilage due to rain is litteraly impossible? (how can water spoil water?)

and i might cite your assertions elsewhere that "examples" mean "only this" ie only water in this case.

[Gevurah]

Having seen hundreds of posts on this topic and thousands of web pages and hours of discussion..... it is quite peladik how this has been such a focal point and how there simply is no desire for comprehension at all by the opposition.

[Torah613]

Originally Posted by ktonton

do you realize that his hemshech halashon refutes your attempted use of his hetter, by using an example where spoilage due to rain is litteraly impossible? (how can water spoil water?)

and i might cite your assertions elsewhere that "examples" mean "only this" ie only water in this case.

The BH is saying (in his hemshech haloshon)that one can be machmir if one is not מצטער, as we see by R' Gamliel. I see that as allowing eating in a sukah when it is raining, if one is not מצטער, as then there would not be an issur, and therefore hedyot would not apply.
[Also important to point out, that the whole yesod of that BH, based on the Olas Shmuel - is far from muskam. I do not think the AR would hold of it either].

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

The BH is saying (in his hemshech haloshon)that one can be machmir if one is not מצטער, as we see by R' Gamliel. I see that as allowing eating in a sukah when it is raining, if one is not מצטער, as then there would not be an issur, and therefore hedyot would not apply.
[Also important to point out, that the whole yesod of that BH, based on the Olas Shmuel - is far from muskam. I do not think the AR would hold of it either].

Thats what i thought it might have said at first, but one has to bear in mind the particulars of the example. if the example would have said that he was eating meat, for instance, then it might have been valid, but the quote at least mentions a pitcher of water, and it should be noted that water cannot spoil nomatter how much rain falls in it. (unless its acid rain but even then it is unlikely that the pH should become as low as vinegar, so we need not count that possibility... not that we have any reason to assume that the amorayim were so aware of the phenomenon. they did not live in an industrial society, or near a major sulfer dioxide vent, such as a volcano.)

I think that rather the example is saying that "if there is no possibility of tzar, ie the food cannot spoil in this condition". hence the connection to what he says eariler. This means that in the cold, one might be allowed to eat icecream, and in the rain water, or perhaps some other food that is highly resistant to water damage, maybe a hotdog without its bun.

Because water can't spoil in rain, i don't think that you can make a kal v'chomer from water to other foods.

[Torah613]

This is hilarious. You are totally misunderstanding the BH, and the example he brings from Rabbi Gamliel - which has nothing to do with eating it the rain (whether eating steak, drinking water or anything else).
Hint: Look up the עולת שמואל (you can find it on http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1305) - or at least the Mishna that brings R' Gamliel...
[What kal vechomer??].

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

This is hilarious. You are totally misunderstanding the BH, and the example he brings from Rabbi Gamliel - which has nothing to do with eating it the rain (whether eating steak, drinking water or anything else).
Hint: Look up the עולת שמואל (you can find it on http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1305) - or at least the Mishna that brings R' Gamliel...
[What kal vechomer??].

your assertion is that it is not assur to eat in the rain if you are not mitztaer, olat shmuel brings nothing to support your point.

which means in this case you have no point at all.

how does sitting out in the rain (withe guests and possibly children) and eating spoiled food not constitute chillul yomtov? (which means its assur to be machmir, as stated by the biur halacha there.)

[Torah613]

You are completely missing the point. I brought the OS so that maybe you can understand the BH properly. Apparantly I was wasting my time.
Be well.

[ktonton]

Originally Posted by Torah613

You are completely missing the point. I brought the OS so that maybe you can understand the BH properly. Apparantly I was wasting my time.
Be well.

No, the point as I said, is that the issue of eating in the rain is independent of tzar, as I cited sources to support. You asserted that these sources don't mean its assur, so I cited a source (biur halacha) that asserts that not only is it assur to eat b'makom tzar, but it also brings out my point that there is a broader issue. Why is one pattur on account of tzar? because tzar constitutes chillul yomtov, which is why one is patur in those instances without tzar, because they constitute an inherent chillul yomtov.

The issue here is chillul yomtov, the source you cited only comes to point out that one is still allowed to be machmire about, for instance, about drinking water only in the sukkah.

[Torah613]

After all the misunderstandings, distortions and outright mistakes in your previous posts (as is evident to the discerning reader), you can keep the last word ... as you obviously don't begin to know and understand the sugya with the various approaches.