There was a story with an avreich who lived in Ashdod. In the particular area where he lived there were all sorts of interesting characters. Close to his apartment there was a park, where Ethiopians would hang out at night, make lots of noise, get drunk etc. The avreich’s succah was in the courtyard, and he would happily eat and sleep in the succah and wasn’t particularly scared of these characters. However, every night he would come home after learning with his chavrusah at 2 am, and his ten-year-old son would be long in bed. This son wanted to sleep in the succah, and wasn’t scared to do so, however, his parents were. The avriech argued that he wouldn’t leave the son alone at home when going out to a family simcha, and they would make sure to get a babysitter. Therefore, how could he leave him alone in the succah – when all sorts of interesting characters are roaming the streets. The avreich wanted to know if his son was exempt from sleeping in the succah, or if perhaps the son has a din of what the Mishbah Berurah (640, s.k. 5) brings that it’s forbidden to actively give food to a young child outside the succah, and putting him to sleep inside would be in violation of this.
Is the Father Exempt from the Mitzvah of Chinuch If He Himself Is Mitzta’er [Uncomfortable]?
Certainly, if the father is able to learn in the succah that would be the best option, and would override going out to learn with a chavrusah until 2 am (it’s true he may lose out on the quality of learning, but it would still be the best option, as he has an obligation of chinuch). If, however, the father is unable to do so for whatever reason, then perhaps this would depend on whether the father has a chiyuv [obligation] chinuch in a case when he is mitzta’er in the succah.
There is a famous story with R’ Chaim Ozer Grodinsky, that one year he was ill on Succos, and he ate inside his house. However, one time a guest arrived, and he sat with him and accompanied him in the succah. He explained: That although an ill person is exempt from succah, based on the principle of תשבו כעין תדורו – one should dwell in the succah like he does in his house, he still has an obligation of hachnosas orchim [hosting guests] and for that mitzvah there is no heter of mitzta’er. Therefore, although in terms of Hilchos Succah he may have been exempt, in terms of Hilchos Hachnosas Orchim he was obligated to sit in the succah.
Based on the above, R’ Avrohom Ganichovsky is mechadesh [issues a novel ruling], that even though one who is mitzta’er is exempt from the mitzvah of succah, if a father is mitzta’er he still has an obligation to be mechanech [educate] his son with the mitzvah of succah, and even if the father finds it uncomfortable to eat and sleep in the succah, if the only way the son will do it is by the father joining him, he is obligated to do so.
The Opinion of the Mishnas Yosef that the Sleeping of the Son in the Succah, Overrides the Father’s Obligation to Learn in the Succah
Based on the above, what’s the halachah if a father wants to learn in the succah at night, however, the light bothers the son who is trying to sleep there. Should the father stay in the succah and the son sleep inside, or should the son sleep in the succah and the father learn inside? On the one hand the father’s obligation is de’O’raisa and the sons is derabonon, on the other hand perhaps it’s forbidden to put a child to sleep outside the succah (מדין ספייה).
The Shu”t Mishnas Yosef (6:117) rules that since there is a chiyuv derabonon [rabbinic obligation] of chinuch, it’s forbidden to positively put the child to sleep outside the succah. Similarly, it’s forbidden to instruct him to put himself to sleep outside the succah. Consequently, since there is an obligation on the father to put out the lights so that his son can go to sleep, the father is now mitzta’er as he can’t learn in the dark, and it is like a case of the lights going out in the succah where one is allowed to go inside (see Rema 640:4).
The Mishnas Yosef adds: Perhaps it’s better to put the son to sleep in the succah, and once he is sleeping to take him out until he (the father) is ready to go to sleep, and then bring him back. However, this depends on whether one who is sleeping fulfills the mitzvah of succah. Tzorich iyun.
R’ Chaim Kanievsky Disagrees – Learning Wins
However, R’ Chaim Kanievsky (see BeSimchas Yisroel, Perek 21, 17) maintains that the father wins as he has a mitzvah de’O’raisa to be in the succah, whereas the son only has a chiyuv derabonon. Therefore, the father should sit and learn in the succah, and the son should go to sleep inside as he is mitzta’er as he can’t fall asleep with the light on.
R' Chaim adds: Once the son falls asleep in the house, as he was uncomfortable in the succah, even when the father eventually turns the light off, there is no need to wake up the son and tell him to go to the succah. It’s like one who goes inside due to the rain, where the halachah is, that even if it stops, he may stay inside (see 639:7).
Conclusion
If the father comes home early so that his son can sleep in the succah, the father will want to learn in the succah. If the light doesn’t disturb the son, then the father is obligated to return early, or alternatively pay a babysitter so that he can fulfil the chiyuv of chinuch of putting his son to sleep in the succah. If, however, the light disturbs the son and he can’t sleep, then anyway when the father comes home early the son will be exempt from succah, therefore, there is no need for him to come home early.
(Based on a Teshuvah written by HaRav Yom Tov Sanger shlita)
