(To keep things simple, I have put the riddles and answers together, however, please think about the riddles before checking the answers, and this way you may even come up with some new answers. I have included 14 riddles, one for each meal. Enjoy!)
Riddle #1: The Case of the Snoring Brother
Question: Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Yehudah are four brothers, and they all want to sleep in the succah. One of the brothers has an issue, that when he sleeps at night he snores very loudly and makes a קול רעש גדול אדיר וחזק, a loud noise, and even if the other brothers put in ear plugs it still disturbs them, and they can't sleep. During the year the snoring brother sleeps alone, however, on Succos this isn't feasible. Can this brother be asked to sleep inside, so that the other three brothers can sleep in the succah?
Answer: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein said regarding this shailah, that the one who snores should sleep in the succah as he is obligated, and the other brothers should sleep in the house as they are exempt from succah due to being mitztaʼer [uncomfortable]. So ironically, since the brother who snores isn't mitztaʼer, whereas the other brothers are, they should sleep in the house and enjoy the peace and quiet, and the snoring brother can be left to snore peacefully in the succah.
I wonder what the halachah would be if his father also wanted to sleep in the succah, and if perhaps the mitzvah of kibbud av would require the snoring brother to sleep inside so his father could fulfill the mitzvah of succah, or if we would say the same thing and say that the one who snores should sleep in the succah, and everyone else is exempt, including the father.
Riddle #2: Is There A Problem for A Person To Show Off His Lulav and Esrog to Others?
Question: There is a common minhag that some people have, which is that they buy an expensive mehudar lulav and esrog for Succos, and they walk around shul on Succos showing it off to people, is this a problem?
Answer:
Allowed
The Shu”t Mishnah Sochir (1:117) and Afikei Maginim (Orach Chaim, end of siman 154) both say that there is no problem of being haughty and showing off. They bring a rayah from the Gemara in Yoma (70a) which says, that after davening on Yom Kippur finished: כל אחד ואחד מביא ספר תורה מביתו וקורא בו, כדי להראות חזותו לרבים – “Everyone would bring a Sefer Torah from their house, and read from it, to show it off to the public.” Rashi explains, to show how beautiful their Sefer Torah was, and how much effort was put in to it, like it says: התנאה לפניו במצוות לולב נאה, ספר תורה נאה, בקלף נאה וכו' – “make beautiful the mitzvos in front of me, with a nice lulav, nice Sefer Torah, nice parchment etc.” The Netziv (Haʼemek Shailah, Bereishis, Sheilta 3, ois 4) proves from here, that one can show off that he is doing a mitzvah in a mehudar manner, and it is included in the din of hiddur mitzvah.
Rabbeinu Yonah (Avos 2:1) writes: צריך להתנאות במצות, לולב נאה טלית נאה ספר תורה נאה תפילין וכיוצא בהן, בענין שיפארוהו בני אדם וישבחוהו עליהן – “One must beautify a mitzvah, by using a nice lulav, nice Sefer Torah, nice Tefillin etc. in a manner that other people are impressed and praise one for it.”
R' Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 1:389) adds, that on the contrary, doing this is advantageous as it causes others to want to copy and also be mehadar in the mitzvah. And there is no problem in showing off to others that one is being mehadar in a mitzvah.
A Problem
On the other hand, the sefer Ohr HaMeir (Devorim, LeSuccos) and a similar thing can be found in the sefer HaMakneh (Kiddushin, 70a) write, that the roshei teives [beginning letters] of the pasuk: אל תבואני רגל גאוה – “Don't bring me to haughtiness” (Tehillim 36:12) stand for אתרוג, as one who buys an esrog for his own honor and to show off, Hashem says אין אני והוא יכולים לדור בעולם – “Me and him can't live in the world together.” And the reason the roshei teives which spell 'אתרג' are without a vav, is because Hashem leaves such a person. Some bring a rayah from the continuation of the pasuk: ויד רשעים אל תנדני, and they interpret this to mean, the lulav asks that a rosha doesn't use it.
The Rema (Yoreh Deah 249:13) writes, if one publicizes that he gave tzedokah he loses out on the reward. The Shach (Nekudos HaKesef) explains in the name of the Rashbah, although we publicize those who do mitzvos, it's forbidden to show off doing a mitzvah, without any purpose. This would mean, if one shows off because he was zoche to do such a special mehudar mitzvah then he fulfills זה קלי ואנוהו, if however, he shows off that he is very wealthy and can afford such a nice esrog and lulav, then he loses out on reward for the mitzvah.
If we say this, it could be that there is no machlokes, and it all depends on one's intentions.
Riddle #3: If A Siren Sounds on Succos Is It a Bad Sign (סימן קללה)
Question: The Mishnah in Succah teaches, that if it rains on Succos it's a bad sign, and it is comparable to a slave who is asked to bring a cup of water to his master, and his master then takes the cup of water and throws it back in his face. The question is, do we say the same thing if a siren goes off on Succos and one must leave his succah and enter a saferoom?
Answer: I think we can't compare the two cases for a number of reasons:
i) The Mishnas Yosef (13:204) was asked about a case where someone's sechach blew off on Succos and the sho'el [asker] wanted to know if this was a bad sign. The Mishnas Yosef answered: We can't add on to what Chazal tell us, and the only thing they told us was bad was rain, therefore, there is nothing to be worried about.
Based on the above, a siren is not rain, and we can't add onto what Chazal say, therefore, there is no bad sign.
ii) Secondly, when a siren sounds, although one should go into a saferoom, if one has enough bitachon (and boruch Hashem in Eretz Yisrael many people seem to) then he can stay in the succah and trust in Hashem.
It is known that one year when a siren sounded on Succos the Steipler continued to sit in the succah, and people even came to his succah for protection. The Steipler held: שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע – one who guards a mitzvah will know no bad.
Therefore, when it rains and halachah dictates that one leaves the succah it is bad sign, however, when a siren sounds, although because of hishtadlus some people leave the succah, since if one has enough bitachon and firmly holds שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע he can stay, it's difficult to consider it a bad sign.
iii) The Rambam (Pirush HaMishnayos, Succah end of Perek 2) writes: “If rain falls 'at the beginning of Succos' it is a sign that Hashem doesn't want our deeds.” The poskim argue about why the Rambam stresses the "beginning of Succos”. R' Chaim Berlin (cited in Shu”t Vayechi Yaakov, Orach Chaim, siman 36) learns that the Rambam is teaching us that only on the first night of Succos when there is a chiyuv to eat in the succah is there a bad sign, however, during the rest of Succos when there is no strict chiyuv to eat in the succah, just if one wants to eat then he must eat in the succah, there is no bad sign if it rains.
However, the Shu”t Tirosh Veyitzohr (siman 113) and Shu”t Afraksta Deanya (4:375) learn that the Rambam stresses “the beginning of Succos” as he coming to say that rain is only a bad sign if it wasn't raining in the lead up to Succos, and then suddenly on first night Succos it starts raining. If, however, in the lead up to Succos it was raining, and then it continues to rain on Succos it is not a bad sign. This is also the opinion of the Bikkuray Yaakov (639:39) and Mateh Ephraim (Eleph HaMagen, Kuntros Achron, pg. 129a, ois 19).
Based on the above, if the siren sounds during Succos but not on the first night, according to R' Chaim Berlin there is nothing to worry about.
And even if it sounds on the first night, if there have been sirens in the lead up to Succos, then according to the Shu”t Tirosh Veyitzohr (siman 113) and Shu”t Afraksta Deanya there is also nothing to worry about. However, the question is, what exactly this would entail, would it mean a week before, a month before, tzorich iyun.6
However, it's important to stress, that even if a siren sounding on Succos may not be a bad sign, it certainly isn't a good sign, and one should have hirhuray teshuvah, and spend some time thinking about how he can better his ways.
Riddle #4: Davening Neitz Vs. Shaking Arbah Minim by the Kosel HaMaravi
Question: Reuven woke up every early on Chol HaMoʼed Succos, and he was in doubt as to whether he should go to the shul near his house and daven in the neitz minyan, and fulfill zerizin makdimim lemitzvos, or if perhaps he should travel to the Kosel HaMaravi, where according to some opinions the mitzvah of arbah minim is de’O'raisa the entire Succos. What would you tell him to do?
Answer: R' Yitzchak Zilberstein answered: Davening neitz has great advantages and is mentioned in halachah. According to the Rambam it is the lechatchilah manner of tefillah, and anything after that is tashlumin. Therefore, certainly davening neitz is better than going to the Kosel HaMaravi in order to fulfill one opinion that holds that taking the arbah minim over there is de’O'raisa.
We can add, that the mitzvah of arbah minim is not yet obligatory on a de'O'raisa level, and there is no chiyuv to travel to the Kosel HaMaravi to bring oneself into a place where the chiyuv is de’O'raisa. However, davening neitz is a chiyuv which is upon the person once he wakes up. Therefore, he should daven neitz and if possible, later on in the day he should go to the Kosel HaMaravi.
Riddle #5: Yichud in the Succah
Question: The Gemara (Succah 25b) says that a choson and the members of his wedding party are exempt from the mitzvah of succah during the seven days of the wedding celebration, because they are obligated to perform the mitzvah of rejoicing in the chupah and not in the succah. The Gemara asks that they should simply make the chupah inside the succah.
Abaye answers that the chupah is not made in the succah because of the problem of yichud. There is a concern that the choson might leave the succah to fulfill his needs, and his kallah will be left alone with one of the members of the wedding party.
Rava says that the chupah is not made in the succah because of the distress of the choson. According to Rashi, this means that the choson will be embarrassed to express his happiness with his kallah when others are able to see him through the open wall of the succah. According to the Meiri, this means that the succah is too narrow for him to be able to invite all of his friends.
Why does Abaye say that there is a problem of yichud? The halachah is that when a woman's husband is in the city, the prohibition of yichud does not apply, because he might walk in at any time (Kiddushin 81a). In this case, the choson certainly is in the city, as he walked out of the succah merely to fulfill his needs. Why should yichud pose a problem?
Moreover, according to Rashi's explanation, when Rava says that the choson is exempt because of his distress, he means that the choson is distressed that he cannot express his happiness with his kallah because others can see him through the open side of the succah (an ordinary succah, in the times of the Gemara, had only three walls). If the succah has only three walls and people are able to see inside of it, why does Abaye say that there is a problem of yichud? There is no prohibition of yichud when the place is visible to others.
Answers:
i) The Maharsham (in Mafteichos to Teshuvos, Even HaEzer 2:76) writes that when Abaye says that the choson is exempt from the mitzvah of succah because of the concern for yichud, he does not mean the prohibition of yichud. There certainly is no prohibition of yichud when the choson goes out of the succah and his friend is left with his kallah, because the choson is still in the city and people can see into the succah through the open side. Rather, Abaye means that there might be a suspicion of yichud. The choson -- if he goes out and leaves his kallah alone in the succah -- might have misgivings about his kallah and suspect her of being with another man. In order to prevent the choson from having such suspicions, he is exempt altogether from the mitzvah of succah.
ii) Alternatively, perhaps Abaye means that there is a prohibition of yichud, even though the husband is in the city. The Gemara in Kidushin (81a) says that even when the husband is in the city, a man who is very friendly with the wife is prohibited to be alone with her. In this case, some of the members of the wedding party (Shoshvinim) are very friendly with the kallah, and thus there is a concern for yichud even when the choson is in the city. (He’oras, in the name of R' Elyashiv)
Riddle #6: Shaking Arbah Minim With One's Teeth
Question: If a person rachmonah litzlon doesn't have any arms, may he fulfill the mitzvah of arbah minim by holding them with his teeth?
Answer: The Shaarei Teshuvah (Orach Chaim 651:11) writes in the name of the Mahari Molkoi that if one has no hands or arms, he may take/shake the lulav with his teeth, as it doesn't say in the pasuk: ולקחתם ביד – “you shall take them with your hand”.
However, the Shaʼarei Teshuvah disagrees, and says it needs more looking into if one can do this, and surely it is not considered דרך לקיחה, the normal manner of taking.
The Shu't Halachos Ketanos (Vol. 1, siman 77) was asked about this and he answered: במדומה לי שרשום בזכרוני שאין לקיחה אלא ביד שנאמר ויקח את כל אשר לו מידו וכו' או אפשר שטעות הוא בידי “I seem to recall it being a problem, and that one must take with his hands like it says in the pasuk, ‘take all that which is his with the hand etc.' however, I could be mistaken.”
The Chida (Birkay Yosef, Orach Chaim 651:5) writes that if one has no arms and hands then he may use his teeth, since it doesn't say “hand” in the pasuk. And like we find in Hilchos Chalitzah (Even HaEzer 169:31) that a woman who has no hands may do chalitzah with her teeth.
Riddle #7: Should Women Sit in the Succah?
Question: Should a woman sit in the succah? Should she make a berachah when doing so? And what berachah does she get if she doesn't sit in the succah the entire Succos?
Answer: Although women are exempt from the mitzvah of succah as it is a time bound mitzvah, the Magen Avraham writes that women are accustomed to sitting in the succah and fulfilling the mitzvah as if they were commanded. The Levush writes that women have the minhag to sit in the succah and to shake the arbah minim and make a berachah the same as the men.
The sefer Minhagei Chasam Sofer (Perek 8, ois 11) brings that all the Chasam Sofer's sons, daughters, son-in-laws and daughter-in-laws ate with him in the succah the entire Succos.
According to the Chacham Tzvi (siman 17) women don't make a berachah on time bound mitzvos, he cites various proofs. As is well known, his grandson the Divrei Chaim of Sanz followed this very strongly and paskened that women shouldn't make a berachah on time bound mitzvos.
In Shu”t Divrei Yatziv (siman 274), the Klausenberger brings from the Divrei Chaim, that women shouldn't sit in the succah altogether, and he writes in his name: “If a woman doesn't sit in the succah, I give her a havtocha [guarantee] that she will have good sons.”
The Minchas Elozor also held that women shouldn't eat in the succah, as is clear in Darchei Chaim VeSholam (siman 778).
It is said over in the name of R' Naftoli Tzvi of Ropshitz (cited in Divrei Pinchas, siman 1, ois 99) that he jokingly brought a source for the minhag of the talmidim of the Divrei Chaim and a source for his havtocha that if women don't sit in the succah they will have good sons, from Avraham Avinu.
It says in Parshas Vayeira (Bereishis 18:4): והשענו תחת העץ – “and they rested under the tree”, and it then says, והוא עומד עליהם תחת העץ ויאכלו – “he served them under the tree, and they ate.” The Medrash Rabbah (14:2) says that Avraham Avinu made for the malachim a succah. The pasuk continues: ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך ויאמר הנה באהל – "The malachim asked, where is Sarah your wife? And he answered, in the tent”, i.e. she is inside like the minhag of the Sanzer Chasidim who don't sit in the succah. The malachim then said: “Amazing, so happy to hear, שוב אשיב אליך בעת חיה ולשרה בן, in this zechus your wife will merit a child, like the havtocha of the Divrei Chaim.” (Otzer Pelois HaTorah)
Riddle #8: The Same Set of Arbah Minim, In One Place Good, In Another Disqualified
Question: How can there be a case where the set of arbah minim are mehudar, however, one only fulfills the mitzvah if he stands in a particular place, and if he stands somewhere else, he doesn't fulfill the mitzvah?
Answers:
i) The Rema (Orach Chaim 649:5) rules that one may take the arbah minim of his friend without asking, on the rest of the days of Succos (i.e. not the first day), as we say ניחא ליה לאיניש למיעבד מצוה בממונו "a person is happy for a mitzvah to be done with his money”, and the one who takes it is considered a borrower (as opposed to a thief). The Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 34) says: This only applies if one takes and uses the arbah minim in the place he found them, however, it is forbidden to take them from the shul to his house, or vice versa.
ii) The Mishnah in Succah (34b) teaches that an esrog of maʼaser sheini is kosher for the mitzvah only Yerushalayim, as in Yerushalayim one is allowed to eat it. So in Yerushalayim one is yoitza, but nowhere else.
iii) The Biur Halachah (588) says that one can't fulfill a mitzvah in the restroom as it's a bizoyan [disgrace], therefore, if one would take the arbah minim in such a place, even if they are mehudar he wouldn't fulfil the mitzvah.
Riddle #9: Visiting One's Rebbe On Yom Tov
Question: A beraisa (cited in Succah 27b) relates that Rebbi Ila'i once went to greet his Rebbi, Rebbi Eliezer, during Succos. Rebbi Eliezer asked him why he left his home when the Torah requires that one stay home and rejoice with one's wife on Yom Tov.
The Gemara asks that the requirement to stay home with one's wife during the Yom Tov conflicts with the requirement to travel to one's Rebbi on Yom Tov. Rebbi Yitzchak says that the requirement to visit one's Rebbi is learned from the words of the Shunamite woman's husband, who asked his wife, “Why are you going to him (the prophet Elisha) today? Today is not Rosh Chodesh and not Shabbos” (Melachim II 4:23). This pasuk teaches the requirement to visit one's Rebbi on Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos. Accordingly, Rebbi Ila'i was justified in going to visit Rebbi Eliezer during Succos.
What is the Gemara's question? The pasuk from which the requirement to visit one's Rebbi is derived mentions only Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos. It makes no mention of Yom Tov, and thus it does not provide a source for the obligation to visit one's Rebbi on Yom Tov.
Answers:
i) The Ritva (Succah 27b, and in Rosh Hashanah 16b) addresses this question. He says that the mitzvah to visit one's Rebbi includes three parts. First, when one's Rebbi is in the same town, he is required to visit his Rebbi every day. Second, when one's Rebbi is outside of the town but within the techum Shabbos (2000 Amos), he is required to visit his Rebbi only on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh. Third, when one's Rebbi lives beyond the techum Shabbos of one's town, he is required to visit his Rebbi only on Yom Tov (he travels before Yom Tov or during Chol HaMo'ed when there is no prohibition of techum).
In the case of the Shunamite woman, Elisha lived outside of the town but within the techum Shabbos, and thus her husband mentioned only Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos. When Rebbi Yitzchak teaches this halachah, he does not mention the requirement to visit one's Rebbi every day when the Rebbi lives in the same town, because everyone is heedful of that requirement (since it requires minimal effort). He mentions the halachah only with regard to Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos, because when the Rebbi lives in a different town, a person tends to neglect the requirement to visit him.
ii) The Maharsha explains that if one is required to visit his Rebbi on Rosh Chodesh, then certainly one is required to visit his Rebbi on Yom Tov, even though the pasuk does not specifically mention Yom Tov. (The Maharsha does not address why Yom Tov is not mentioned in the pasuk.)
iii) The Turei Even in Rosh Hashanah (16b) and the Vilna Gaon (Seder Olam Rabah, chapter 3) point out that it is odd that the pasuk mentions Rosh Chodesh before Shabbos. It should mention Shabbos first, because Shabbos comes more frequently than Rosh Chodesh. It must be that the word "Shabbos" in the pasuk refers to Yom Tov (as the Torah itself refers to Yom Tov as "Shabbos," as in Vayikra 23:16).
iv) Although ideally one should visit his Rebbi every day (in order to learn Torah from him), it is not always possible to do so, because a person is occupied with his work throughout the week. Therefore, the mitzvah to visit one's Rebbi requires that he visit him only when he is not working. This is evident from the pasuk in Melachim. The husband of the Shunamite woman mentioned specifically Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, days on which a woman does not perform melachah (Shabbos, because of the prohibition of melachah, and Rosh Chodesh, because of the custom for women to refrain from melachah on that day), because only on those days would she be obligated to visit Elisha. This implies that on days on which a man does not perform melachah (Shabbos and Yom Tov), he should visit his Rebbi. A woman, however, is not free to visit the Rebbi during Yom Tov, because on Yom Tov she is occupied with cooking and other responsibilities. A woman has time to visit the Rebbi only on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh. (Eitz Yosef, in the name of the Iyei HaʼYam)
v) The Chanukas HaTorah (Rosh Hashanah 16b) explains that since it is inappropriate for a woman to visit the Rebbi when his talmidim are there (see Kiddushin 81a), the only time she would be obligated to visit him is when the talmidim are not there. Thus, the husband of the Shunamite woman asked her why she was going to the prophet when it was not Rosh Chodesh or Shabbos -- days on which the talmidim are not with their Rebbi, but are home. The pasuk implies that she has no obligation to visit the Rebbi on Yom Tov, which must be due to the fact that on Yom Tov, his talmidim visit him. Hence, the pasuk indeed teaches that one is obligated to visit his Rebbi on Yom Tov!
vi) R' Yonasan Eibshitz (Yaʼaros Devash 1:12 and elsewhere) explains that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash (when Elisha lived), everyone would go to greet the presence of the Shechinah in Yerushalayim. They would visit the Rebbi only on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, when there was no requirement to go to Yerushalayim. After the Churban, the practice was instituted to visit the Rebbi in place of going to Yerushalayim, because a Talmid Chacham reflects the presence of the Shechinah. (See also Aruch LaNer, and Malbim to Melachim II 4:23, who give similar explanations.)
vii) The Noda B’Yehudah (Orach Chaim 2:94) suggests the opposite approach. When the pasuk mentions Rosh Chodesh and Shabbos, it includes Yom Tov as well. It refers to all days that have additional kedushah, days on which an additional korban (the korban mussaf) is offered. Due to the holiness of those days, the Rebbi has a heightened ability to influence his talmidim, and his talmidim are more receptive to his influence. Hence, a talmid should visit his Rebbi on those days. However, a talmid is not obligated to visit his Rebbi on all of those days, lest he give more honor to his Rebbi than he gives to the Shechinah (which he visits only on the Shalosh Regalim). The Gemara in Kiddushin (33b) teaches that it is not proper for the honor of the Shechinah to be less than the honor of one's Rebbi, and thus the obligation to visit one's Rebbi can apply only as much as, but not more than, one is obligated to visit the Shechinah. Therefore, the Gemara says that one is obligated to visit his Rebbi on each of the Shalosh Regalim.
Based on this, the Noda B'Yehudah explains that today, when the Beis HaMikdash has not yet been rebuilt, there is no obligation to visit one's Rebbi during Yom Tov (unless, of course, one goes with intent to learn Torah from him), since there is no obligation to visit the Shechinah at the Beis HaMikdash. The honor given to one's Rebbi should not be greater than the honor given to the Shechinah.
Accordingly, The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch -- who record only the halachos that are relevant in practice in when the Beis HaMikdash is not standing -- omit this halachah. The Ramban, though, mentions this halachah (Hilchos Talmud Torah 5:7), because he includes all of the halachos that are relevant when the Beis HaMikdash is standing. (See also Maharatz Chiyos to Rosh Hashanah 16b, Chidushei Ge’onim in the Ein Yaakov, and Einei Shmuel for other approaches. See also Divrei Shalom 2:25).
Riddle #10: If A Baʼal Teshuvah Has Friends Who Make Fun of Him for Sitting in the Succah Is He Considered Mitztaʼer
Question: If one is a ba'al teshuvah, and his friends and family make fun of him when he sits in the succah, is he exempt based on the halachah that mitzta’er is exempt from the succah, or should he stay strong and put up with them and stay in the succah?
Answer: R' Yerachmiel Fried shlita asked this question to R' Shlomah Zalman Auerbach (cited in Madanay Shlomah pg. 193) and he answered based on Rabbeinu Yonah (Yesod Teshuvah, printed at the back of Shaʼarei Teshuvah) that he is obligated to stay in the succah. Rabbeinu Yonah writes: “If one gets made fun of for keeping mitzvos, he shouldn't stop out of embarrassment, he should be brazen and continue to fulfill them, and ignore those who mock him. For example, if one is invited somewhere where they don't normally eat shalosh seudas, he shouldn't be embarrassed and he should ask for a kezayis of bread to fulfill the mitzvah, the way Hashem wants”. Based on this, R' Shlomah Zalman said, the baʼal teshuvah must stay in the succah.
R' Fried argued back, that perhaps Rabbeinu Yonah only applies to a mitzvah where there is no heter of mitztaʼer, however, by succah we find an idea of mitzta’er and we find that if flies are bothering a person, he is considered mitzta'er and exempt, therefore, here as well, the family and friend should perhaps be considered like flies and he should be exempt?
R' Shlomah Zalman answered back, that the case of friends and family mocking and the case of flies are not comparable. The flies physically annoy a person, and it's true that if the friends and family would physically hurt him for sitting in the succah he would be exempt, however, here, היא רק הפרעה נפשית שמלעיגים עליו והוא צריך שלא להכניע ללעגם ושלא יפריע לו - it is a spiritual pain, being caused by them laughing at him, and he should be strong and ignore them, and he shouldn't let it affect him. R' Shlomah Zalman adds: On the contrary, he should laugh at them and say, “you are laughing at me, however, the truth is I am right, and I am doing mitzvah, and you are just wasting time.” Therefore, there is no heter of mitztaʼer.
Riddle #11: Why Is It Okay to Use An Elephant for the Wall of a Succah, מן המותר בפיך Surely It Is Not?
Question: The Gemara in Shabbos (28b) learns from the pasuk: והיה לאות על ידך וגו למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך that tefillin are only kosher if they are made using skin from a kosher animal, as the pasuk says, בפיך – "in your mouth”, from which we learn, that it must be made from an item that is המותר בפיך "permissible to the mouth”, i.e. kosher.
The Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 586:3) is mechadesh, that just like tefillin can't be made from non-kosher animals, so too by all mitzvos, it is forbidden to make them from something non-kosher. The Magen Avraham learns there is a hekesh from tefillin to all mitzvos.
The difficulty is, the Gemara in Succah (23a) teaches that if one ties down an animal, it may be used as a wall of a succah. Surely, we see from here that even an item that is not kosher may be used for the fulfilment of a mitzvah? (The Noda B’Yehudah, Mahadura Tinyona, Orach Chaim, siman 3 asks this question)
Answers: The poskim mention a number of answers:
i) The din of מן המותר בפיך is only said by mitzvos where the Torah specifies that they should be done with items that can be eaten, however, the Torah allows using wood for succah walls, therefore, it must there is no din of מן המותר בפיך, therefore, one may use even an elephant. (Shu”t Toras Chesed, Orach Chaim 60, s.k. 3 and Yeshuos Malkoi, Hilchos Shofar 1:1)
The Sefer Zerah Avraham (siman 71) refutes this, as the Bach (Orach Chaim 32) writes that although one may use a cloth to wrap up the parshiyos of the tefillin, if one uses parchment it must come from a kosher animal (although it doesn't need ibud lishmah). We see that although one may use cloth, and one doesn't need to use something from an animal, if one does use an animal, it must be kosher.
ii) The main part of the succah is the sechach and not the walls, therefore, the pasul of מן המותר בפיך doesn't apply to them (Pischei Teshuvah, Orach Chaim 586:3)
iii) R' Meir and R' Yehuda who hold that an elephant can be used as the wall of a succah, don't hold that the din of מן המותר בפיך is learnt out from tefillin to everywhere else. (Shu"t Toras Chesed, Orach Chaim 60, s.k. 3)
Riddle # 12: If A Fridge Is Used as One of the Walls of a Succah, May One Take Food Out from It on Succos?
Question: The halachah is (Orach Chaim 638:1) that the wood used for the succah is forbidden all eight days of Succos, both the wood used for the walls and the wood used for the sechach.
If one decides to use a refrigerator as one of the walls (or part of a wall) of his succah, is he allowed to open it to take food out on Succos, or is it a problem of using the walls of a succah and it must be avoided?
Answer: It would seem that there is no problem, as the issur to use the walls/sechach of the succah during Succos is only in a manner where it removes the wood/sechach from its purpose (מבטל תשמישו), however, when using the refrigerator, it still serves as a wall, therefore, it would be okay.
The Taz says clearly, that any benefit which isn't mevatel the wood from being a wall or sechach is okay on Succos.
The poskim use this heter for one who wants to lean on the walls of a succah as well. If one isn't allowed to use the wood used for sechach or walls over Succos it should be forbidden to lean on the walls of the succah, yet it's clear that this is not true? It must be that if the benefit doesn't affect the wood being used as the wall or sechach, then it is okay. (See Minchas Pitim, Hashmotas, Orach Chaim, siman 638; Mishnah Berurah 638:4; Shu”t Avnei Nezer, siman 34 and others.)
Riddle #13: If One Leaves His Succah On Succos Without a Good Reason, Is He Being Mevatel the Mitzvas Aseh of Sitting in the Succah?
Question: If one leaves his succah on Succos, without a good reason, is he being mevatel the mitzvas aseh deʼO'raisa of בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים "You shall dwell in the succah for seven days", or is he not being mevatel anything, just he doesn't gain a mitzvah?
Answer: The Yesod Veshoresh HaAvodah (Shaʼar Halton, Perek 12) writes: מחויב האדם להזהר שלא יצא כל שבעת ימי החג מהסוכה לביתו כלל וכלל אם לא לדבר הכרחי מאוד וכו' כי אם ישהה מעט יותר מבדי צורכו בבית עובר על מצות עשה של בסוכות תשבו וכו' ועל כל רגע ורגע ששוהה בביתו חוץ לסובה על דבר לא הברחי עובר על מצות עשה מן התורה “One is obligated to be careful not to leave the succah all seven days of Succos and to make sure not to enter one's house at all, unless there is a great need etc. as if one remains in his house even slightly longer than necessary he violates (i.e. is mevatel) the mitzvas aseh of "you shall dwell in the succah etc.”. Every single second that one remains in his house and out of the succah, he violates the aseh again and again.”
The Siddur Ya'avatz (ois 1) also writes: “Every second one is in his house without a need he violates an aseh, and every second that one is in the succah he fulfils a mitzvas aseh.”
The Chida (Devash Lepi, Maʼareches 60, ois 23) writes: “There are chasidim who only enter their houses very temporarily (עראי דעראי), and praiseworthy are those who sit in the succah in the same manner that the Yidden dwelled in the Ananay Hakavod, which was as much as possible.”
However, the Aderes (Nefesh David) writes: “The mitzvah of succah is very beloved to me, any weather and wind didn't deter me or drive me out the succah, and I had tremendous enjoyment in fulfilling the mitzvah. I would sit there days and nights non-stop. However, I used to think that perhaps this is wrong, as the mitzvah is, תשבו בעין תדורו – live in the succah like in the house, and one would never live in his house non-stop without leaving. I was always bothered with the words of the Yesod Veshoresh HaAvodah who writes that every second one isn't in the succah he violates an aseh.I don't believe this is what the Torah wants, as the Torah doesn't intend the succah to be like a prison. Throughout the year one dwells in his house, and he comes and goes, without remaining in his house constantly, therefore, certainly included in תשבו בעין תדורו, is to leave the succah at times for enjoyment and for walks, and the ways of the Torah are pleasant (דרכיה דרכי נועם).”
In Halichos Shlomah (Succah, Perek 9, Devar Halachah 18) R' Shlomah Zalman is also bothered with the chiddush of the Yesod Veshoresh HaAvodah and he says that one wouldn't live in his house like this, therefore, it can't be that the mitzvah of succah would require this.
The Shu”t Eretz Tzvi (siman 98) says that the geder [status] of the mitzvah of succah, is the way one would live in his house, and it can't be that one is forced to remain in the succah the entire time. Just like in one's house, he comes and goes, the same is with the mitzvah of succah.
He brings a rayah from one of the piyutim we say on Succos, where we mention that one fulfils the mitzvah of succah, ביצאותיה ובביאותיה – when leaving and when entering. He asks, what mitzvah is there to leave? Based on the above, however, that one needs to live in the succah like his house, leaving the succah at times is also part of the mitzvah, as this makes it תשבו בעין תדורו.
Riddle #14: Must the Mitzvah of ושמחת בחגיך Also Be Without Black Dots?
Question: Everyone knows that an esrog must be clean and not contain any black dots, does the same thing apply to the mitzvah of ושמחת בחגיך, the mitzvah to rejoice on Yom Tov?
Answers: R' Shlomah Zalman Auerbach zt”l used to say, esrog is a mitzvas aseh, and ושמחת בחגיך is a mitzvas aseh, just like by the mitzvah of esrog people make sure it's clean from black dots, the same thing is with the mitzvah of ושמחת בחגיך on Yom Tov, one must make sure this mitzvah is also clean from black dots.
The Meshech Chochmah (Re’eh) writes: Just like by the arbah minim, Chazal darshen (Succah 41b): ולקחתם לקיחה תמה – that the taking should be complete, the same thing is with simcha on Yom Tov, where it says ושמחתם, the simcha must also be תמה, complete, free from any sins.