Hi I’m back 3.0

*pirsumei nisah
(Auto correct)

I will repeat my simple question, which no one has been able to answer:
Why do you (Yankel, Daas, etc.) insist on attacking Chabad for davka not sleeping in the Sukkah, while ignoring those who DAVKA don’t eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, and DAVKA light the menorah indoors – both of which are seemingly against halacha.

I actually did answer, but I’ll repeat:

Eating outside the Sukkah on Shmini Ateres is indeed k’neged Halacha.

Saying Davka to sleep outside of the Sukkah on Succos is not merely k’neged Halacha; it is backwards.

“Ah, so you don’t know. You mock Chabad for a widespread chassidish minhag of talmidei habaal shem tov and onward, explained by giants such as the Minchas Elazar and others.
And when confronted, you admit that you know nothing about this minhag. All you know is: mock first, question after.“

You’re (deliberately?) misunderstanding me

Just because they did for whatever reason doesn’t mean it should be done for ALL reasons

Menachem is not getting it.
Its not the minhag of not sleeping there which is backwards .

Its THE LOGIC which is backwards.

Its time to be modeh al ha’emet, menachem –

If your infallible rebbi would not have come up with this logic , would you say that on your own ??
what would your reaction be if a satmar hasid or a dye in the wool mitnaged would have come up with that type of logic ??

Would you defend it with the same vehemence ? Or would you have a good laugh and say – Oh well …..

.

I actually did answer, but I’ll repeat:
Eating outside the Sukkah on Shmini Ateres is indeed k’neged Halacha.
Saying Davka to sleep outside of the Sukkah on Succos is not merely k’neged Halacha; it is backwards.

You’re just repeating your point but not explaining. Just because I obey my Rebbe when I don’t understand, it doesn’t mean I obey YOU without understanding.

Why is one minhag against halacha while the other is backwards? And why do you only attack those who are “backwards” but not those who are going against halacha?

The only difference I spotted between how you portrayed both minhagim is that you only put the word “davka” in the second minhag. But we know full well that many chassidim DAVKA eat outside the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres because that is their minhag. Eating INSIDE the Sukkah would be violating their minhag.

Why is this minhag less “backwards” in your mind than the minhag of sleeping outside the Sukkah?

It’s backwards because it takes a mizvah and makes it k’ilu it’s chas v’shalom an aveirah

Just like many consider it an “aveira” (i.e. against their minhag) to eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres and light Menorah outside the front door. Doesn’t that sound just as backwards, if not more?

I honestly think my argument is quite simple and clear, and I’m surprised that I can’t get a simple explanation of why the Chabad minhag is bad but the other minhagim are good.

I honestly think my argument is quite simple and clear, and I’m surprised that I can’t get a simple explanation of why the Chabad minhag is bad but the other minhagim are good

I didn’t say the “minhag” of not eating in the sukkah on SA is good. I actually said it’s bad. I just said not sleeping on the sukkah is worse.

Not sure where lighting indoors came into this; as YB said, it’s a sugya about whether or not Chazal actually changed the tzurah of the mitzvah (which is a d’rabbonon.)

The idea that the R’ma modified the mitzvah is just wrong. He simply codified a very sensible application of mitztaer.

The major difference between the mekatrgim on the purim torah of sukah and menachem is : that menachem specifically agreed in his post that he would listen to his rebbi even when he does not understand him too.

Whereas the rest klal yisrael , the non habad hasidim, would not.

That is an excellent indication of bias.

Menachem declares that he follows ‘the infallible rebbi’ , even without understanding .

Is he then not biased to add ‘understanding’ to something he will anyway follow ?

Is it psychologically easier to follow something you understand and agree with or something you do not ?

MENACHEM TO YB :

If it was the Rebbe who made this diyuk in the Mishna Shabbos and started the minhag of davka lighting indoors – would you agree with it or attack it and anyone who follows it?
—-

If it was your “infallible rebbi” who made this diyuk in the Mishna Shabbos and started the minhag of davka lighting indoors – you ask , what would we say ?

——
I understand that your question is, supposing that all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards were makpid to light only outside and all of them say that manicho al shulhano is NOT A MODIFICATION IN THE WHOLE MITSVA.

I.e. that the mitsva stays the same – only outside.

And now, after undisputed documented 16 centuries of klal israel wide acceptance of that pshat in the gemara , comes the “infallible rebbi” and argues on this 16 century klal yisrael wide acceptance ? And says inside is also acceptable ?

What would we say to him, you are asking ?

Guessing , the same as the gedolim said to moshe mendlesohn in his time …..
.

.

Yankel, I thought we were having a nice Torah discussion. Why do you need to pepper it with nasty insults?

I understand that your question is, supposing that all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards were makpid to light only outside and all of them say that manicho al shulhano is NOT A MODIFICATION IN THE WHOLE MITSVA…

You are now saying that Chanukah is different than Sukkah, because with Chanukah it was always accepted to light indoors, so in recent generations, even though the sakana stopped, it’s not an issue to davka light indoors.
But with Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, and suddenly in the 1950s the Rebbe began allowing people to do otherwise.

But, we know that that’s not true (as brought in Shulchan Aruch, and many more places), so your entire idea falls apart.

They modified the takanah, and now the takanah is that you can light in or outdoors. Both are valid ways to do it and none is making a bracha levatala.

Where’d you get this from? It doesn’t say this in Gemara or Shulchan Aruch. In both it clearly states that ner chanukah must be lit outdoors, except in times of danger.

Any posek will tell you the same.

Aha, so now the poskim are infallible? You can’t provide me with any logic that explains that Gemara or Shulchan Aruch permit lighting indoors when it’s not a time of danger, yet because recent poskim allow it, it’s allowed!?
(Earlier poskim may have lit indoors because of the dangers in Europe, etc.).

one can have the benefit of being surrounded by mitzvot on all sides- mezuza, tzitzit and ner. Or other benefits.

So it makes sense to davka violate the halacha in Shulchan Aruch by lighting indoors, losing pirsumei nissa, because then you get mitzvos on all sides (didn’t the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch know about mitzvos on all sides when they permitted it ONLY in times of sakanah!?).
But it’s crazy to say to not sleep in the Sukkah because you don’t want to be mezalzel in the holiness of Sukkah.

Az Nidbiru has many teshuvos where he argues that it’s forbidden to light menorah indoors nowadays. Are you ready to read his seforim, and if you accept his logic, begin attacking all those who “stupidly” follow their “infallible” poskim and light menorah indoors?

Unless you give me reasoning in your own logic, logic that you would even accept from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, why we may DAVKA disregard the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch about lighting the menorah and Shemini Atzeres – I will believe that you have a personal bias against Chabad.

menachem specifically agreed in his post that he would listen to his rebbi even when he does not understand him too.
Whereas the rest klal yisrael , the non habad hasidim, would not.
That is an excellent indication of bias.

Shocker! As a Lubavitcher, I will constantly defend my minhagim and my Rebbe. What a surprise.

Nu, what’s worse? To be biased and always defend your derech, or be biased and always attack someone else’s derech?

@Menachem

Most Poskim point to these very words , ‘besha’at hasakana manicho al shulhano vedayo’, and explain that this was a MODIFICATION.
Takana originally was to put it outside. Outside only.
And if you could not and were an oness , then you are patur legamrei.

Then hahamim reconvened , because of the sakana , and modified the mitsvah that one can also put it on shulhano and be yotseh that way.
After this MODIFICATION, one can be yotseh inside also even for other reasons.

Is it better to light outside after the modification ? That is a separate argument. Maybe the inyan of mezuza takes precedence. Other inyanim, etc…

However – No posek will say that someone who lights inside nowadays is making a braha levatala.

As opposed to before this modification by hahmei gemara in their berayta, lighting inside would be a braha levatala.
=========

I am not sure why menachem insists on comparing sukka and hanukah, when their halachik difference is so clear ?
.

Menachem – there are no insults.

There is an argument , however and we cannot hide behind victimhood to win an argument.
==

Does Oz Nidberu say that lighting inside nowadays is a bracha levatala ??

==

What I wrote, is the CONSENSUS of the poskim .

Hanukah ‘s mitsva of lighting was modified. By Hazal themselves.
Before this modification, lighting inside was a bracha levatala. After the modification it is not levatala anymore.

The only mahloket haposkim is the following : After the modification is there a PREFERENCE to light outside or is there no preference anymore.

Whereas sukka there was NO MODIFICATION, for the simple reason that the torah itself states that the dinim min hatorah are INELIGIBLE FOR MODIFICATION.

.

Sources to explain the practice of lighting indoors when there’s no sakana:

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=53183

The רמ”א says that everybody lit indoors (although he does say it would be better to light outdoors, according to the MB’s explanation).

The MB himself says better to light by the window if that will better display the menorah to the public

Menachem, your comparing this to not sleeping in the sukkah is completely off base.

The רמ”א says that everybody lit indoors (although he does say it would be better to light outdoors, according to the MB’s explanation).

The רמ”א says that everybody slept outside the Sukkah (although he does say it would be better to sleep in the Sukkah).

Sources to explain the practice of lighting indoors when there’s no sakana:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=53183

Thank you for sharing this source – it perfectly supports my point, and it’s a great opportunity to wrap up my argument:

To summarize: My intention was not, ch”v, to attack the minhag of lighting the menorah indoors (which I myself do) or of eating outside the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres.

My point is that our holy leaders have sometimes supported or encouraged customs that seem not to align perfectly with Shulchan Aruch. In some cases, because Shulchan Aruch explicitly forbids it (like Shemini Atzeres); in others, because the leniency mentioned there applies only in narrow circumstances (like Chanukah); or because the Shulchan Aruch acknowledges the common practice but struggles to support it (like sleeping outside the sukkah).

In such cases, later poskim may attempt to be melamed zchus on the minhag or bring dochakdikeh proofs to explain how it could be allowed or even encouraged.

Obviously, no one today would feel comfortable inventing such sevaros on their own. As Yankel correctly pointed out: if someone today decided we should suddenly stop lighting indoors based on their own reading of the Shulchan Aruch and complicated pilpulim (including those brought in the kovetz), no one would listen. The same applies to Shemini Atzeres and sleeping in the sukkah.

But once these practices were supported by the rabbanim of a particular community, we accept them—even if we don’t fully understand the sevaros used to justify them.

This is why I don’t criticize a Sanzer chossid who eats outside the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (even if I find his halachic arguments weak).

This is why I light menorah indoors, even if the pilpul needed to justify it is dochakdik.

And this is why I sleep outside the sukkah.

All three practices rely on trusting our rabbeim to instruct us the right mesorah, even when we don’t fully grasp the reasoning.

Yet Yankel only calls the third case “infallible rebbes.”
__ __ __

All of this is stated explicitly in the wonderful kovetz that Daas brought!

After offering extensive pilpulim to show that the halacha might not be as it appears in the Shulchan Aruch (and in my opinion, these are even more dochakdik than those brought for sleeping outside the sukkah), he concludes:

“Even if we don’t accept this explanation for lighting indoors, it is still clear that someone who follows the path of our holy Rabbeim and lights indoors is on a more secure path than those who treat our Rabbeim as if they were mistaken ch”v, due to not understanding their reasoning…
I am therefore puzzled by what I saw in Yerushalayim where some had the practice to light outside. I don’t know who gave this directive, but it is clear that he did not have greater authority than the Or Zarua and all our rabbeim who followed him. Even though there was no danger in their time to light outside, they still lit indoors. And anyone who deviates from the minhag – ידו על התחתונה. He is being motzi laaz on our fathers and rabbeim, ראשונים כמלאכים.”

Yankel, does the author of this kovetz consider his rabbis “infallible”? Maybe start a thread about him.

And this is why I sleep outside the sukkah.

I don’t blame you.

But it is a tayna on the one who recently wrote a poor and backwards sevara and influenced his chassidim (yourself included) to pretty much disregard a mitzvah

@Menachem

…. the non modifiable mitsva of Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, PROVIDED THERE ARE NO COLD OR MARRIAGE ISSUES, and suddenly In the 50’s someone claimed otherwise ….

===

Please Menachem , bold letters means –
do not ignore !
pay extra attention to !

===

Repeat:
The minhag was, that whenever there were no cold/marriage issues, to sleep in the sukkah !

For uninterrupted 3300 years , from Sinai onwards.

Quite an old minhag, I would say. Supported by the hiyuv min hatorah to do so.
In the form of the non-modifiable mitsva of sukka.

=== 

I’ll be honest – I don’t sleep in the sukkah. When I moved to my current home, I went out into the Sukkah at night, before Yom Tov, and there was a raccoon there. I also have skunks and foxes that like to stay in my yard, and they can easily get into the sukkah.
I discussed this with my Rav, and he told me that if there are animals there that can potentially transmit diseases (all 3 animals can transmit rabies), then I definitely have reason to sleep inside the house.
I do eat in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres.
When someone says “eating in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres goes against my minhag”, that is just ridiculous. A minhag that goes against halachah is a minhag shtus, and has no validity. There may be valid reasons to sometimes not follow something (as I noted above re: sleeping in the sukkah), but claiming it’s a minhag isn’t one of them.
Maybe the next time a Chabadnik asks me if I put on tefillin, I’ll say, “It’s not my minhag to do that, and you know all about following minhagim that go against halachah!”

I did some more research on the issue, and found that the exemptions for sleeping in the sukkah are not so modern.
The Mordechai on Sukkah states that most people in his area did not sleep in the Sukkah, because it was cold.
The Rema quotes the Mordechai, but rejects the reasoning of the cold – he says it’s because a man shouldn’t be with his wife in the sukkah. However, he encourages couples to have privacy within the sukkah, so they could be there.
The Taz says that if a woman wants her husband to be in the same room as her inside the house, then that is reason enough to sleep inside. The Chasam Sofer agrees withe the Taz.
I also read that R’ Moshe Feinstein did not sleep in the sukkah when he was at his own home – but he lived in an apartment building, and there was a large communal sukkah there, with no privacy. Some have reported that when he was at his daughter and son-in-law, in Monsey, he did sleep in the sukkah.

In short, there are definitely those who hold that there are valid exemptions to sleeping in the sukkah. However, to say that it became a minhag not to do so is just ignorance. Even according to the opinions that there are exemptions, if those don’t apply, then one should sleep in the sukkah. So a single man, in a warm place, really has no reason at all to sleep inside.

DaMoshe and other MO folks: How do you feel about the fact that Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik (as testified by Rabbi Hershel Schachter and others in addition to photographs) was close to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and held very highly of him?

Maybe I’m doing like Chabad, but my reasoning is very different.
I recognize that I SHOULD be sleeping in the sukkah, but I have a reason not to. If that reason went away, I’d be in the sukkah. Chabad won’t, because they claim it’s a minhag not to.
Do Chabad eat all meals in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres? I thought they make kiddush in the sukkah during the day, but eat the meals inside?

Yankel: They all admitted they made a mistake. RJBS and RHS have not.

I did some more research on the issue, and found that the exemptions for sleeping in the sukkah are not so modern.

Of course. This has been mentioned several times.

However, to say that it became a minhag not to do so is just ignorance.

It became a minhag in *Chabad* — that’s my point.

Just as eating outside the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres is not permitted according to the Shulchan Aruch, but became a minhag in other Chassidic communities (not Chabad).

Just as lighting the menorah indoors was only permitted by the Shulchan Aruch in times of danger, yet became a minhag among many Jews (as cited in the kovetz brought by Daas Yochid).

All three of these practices have complex pilpulim to be melamed zchus on the minhagim—pilpulim that wouldn’t stand on their own, but serve as support once these customs were practiced by Gedolei Yisroel in their respective communities.

The reason I brought up the Shulchan Aruch is simply to show that, of the three minhagim, sukkah has the most leniencies in Shulchan Aruch — yet it receives the most criticism in these online forums (I wonder why…).

Even according to the opinions that there are exemptions, if those don’t apply, then one should sleep in the sukkah.

While you might imply that from the Shulchan Aruch, it doesn’t state this explicitly. It doesn’t say that one may only sleep outside the sukkah if they are married or it’s cold—rather, those are offered as *reasons* as to how the leniency came to be.

In fact, there are poskim who clearly write that these leniencies can be extended to others. For example, the Eshel Avraham writes that bochurim may sleep outside the sukkah, since they can rely on the fact that “רובא דעלמא” most people are exempt due to their wives.

Contrast this with the menorah: the Shulchan Aruch explicitly states that lighting indoors is only permitted in times of danger.

P.S. I’m not citing the Eshel Avraham as the source for the Chabad minhag. Regarding Chabad, everything I’ve said until now stands on its own. I’m simply contrasting sukkah to menorah: the Shulchan Aruch does not clearly state that the leniency of sleeping outside the sukkah applies only to married people or in the cold — whereas with menorah, it does explicitly say that the leniency applies *only* in times of danger.

In other words:

Shulchan Aruch regarding sukkah: “And regarding the current practice to be lenient with sleeping – that people do not sleep in the sukkah, except for those who are particularly meticulous about mitzvos – some say it’s because… But it appears to me that it is because…”

Shulchan Aruch regarding menorah: “The Ner Chanukah should be placed at the entrance closest to the public domain, on the outside… And in a time of danger, when one is not permitted to fulfill the mitzvah publicly, he should place it on his table, and that is sufficient.”

I personally think these minhagim (Sukkah, Shemini Atzeres, Menorah) are valid (though I keep the two that I was taught), while DaMoshe thinks they’re all invalid.

Where did DaMoshe comment about lighting the menorah indoors?

Menachem has not answered whether according to Oz Nidberu lighting inside is a bracha levatala

I’m not sure what he paskens. But this is irrelevant, because:

A) The question wasn’t whether it’s a bracha levatala, but whether it’s permitted/encouraged lechatchila or considered a major kulah. According to you, we never accept directives from Gedolei Yisroel to establish a minhag based on something that appears to be a massive kulah.

B) Regardless of what Oz Nidberu rules, the question remains on you: Why do you accept recent poskim “twisting” the Shulchan Aruch to mean something that seemingly doesn’t align with the straightforward reading?

Is it because you consider them “infallible”? As Rav Ahronson wrote (and you choose to ignore), whether or not one accepts his pilpul, we are to follow the practice of the Gedolei Yisroel, even if it seems not to fit the plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch. Is this your new opinion? If yes, why is Chabad different?

the takanah was MODIFIED, like Rav Ahronson [brought to us by daas yochid] clearly writes .
Like the consensus of the Poskim.
Opposed by Menachem

You’re so quick to argue that you completely misunderstand my view.

I don’t oppose this pshat in menorah at all. I myself light the menorah indoors. I’m simply pointing out the obvious — that this is clearly not the poshute pshat in the Shulchan Aruch.

I don’t follow this minhag because I was personally persuaded by the pilpul. Rather, I follow it because that was the practice of my Rabbeim, just as Rav Ahronson wrote at the end of his kovetz, which I quoted earlier. The pilpul only serves as extra support after the minhag was established by Gedolei Yisroel.

I’m only questioning the minhag *leshitascha*, where you claim we don’t accept a pshat dachuk in Shulchan Aruch just because it was the practice of our Rabbeim.

How many times must I repeat this simple point for it to be understood?

Menachem , whose otherwise healthy sense of logic is nebach taken captive by his preconditioned blind acceptance of anything which passes his infallible rebbi’s lips.
We should bestow upon him the top prize for mental acrobatics. Under duress.

You really can’t help yourself, eh Yankel? And then, when you fill your posts with this kind of rhetoric and I get tired of responding, you complain that I’m afraid to answer you and that “shetikah kehoda’ah.”

MS, you’ve got it backwards. The reason people “mock” Chabad is because some of their haskafos and hanhagos are outside of the pale.

Sukkah is perhaps the most concrete example because of its clear twisting of halacha.

We are going in circles here.

What led me to believe that people are unjustifiably going after Chabad regarding sukkah is the fact that the sukkah minhag “twists” Shulchan Aruch much *less* than Shemini Atzeres and menorah do — as I’ve explained many times.

I’ll quote from the Shulchanaruchharav site how he explains the minhag Chabad, MS, you can tell me if it’s wrong:

“The Chabad practice is not to sleep in the Sukkah due to that one is unable to be conscious of the holiness of the Sukkah during sleep, and this causes one painful, and anyone who is in pain upon dwelling in the Sukkah is exempt from the Mitzvah”

In another article:

“The reason behind the custom is due to another aspect of the exception of Mitztaer/distress, which exempts one from sleeping in the Sukkah, and was not listed above. This aspect of Mitztaer is explained as follows: The Sukkah contains a sublime level of holiness, or G-dly revelation, called Makifim Debina. Chabad Chassidus emphasizes the study of Chassidus which internalizes the knowledge of the above level of Divinity. One who has knowledge of this holiness contained in a Sukkah, will naturally be disturbed to perform any action that is unbefitting of the holiness it contains. Now, since during sleep one is unable to be conscious of the holiness of the Sukkah, as well as the act of sleep in it of itself can be viewed as a disrespect to the holiness of the Sukkah, therefore there is distress involved in sleeping in the Sukkah. Accordingly, since sleeping in the Sukkah causes one spiritual pain, he is exempt from doing so, as anyone who is in pain upon dwelling in the Sukkah is exempt from the Mitzvah. This reason especially applies to those Tzaddikim and Chassidim who are on a level that they could feel the holiness of the Sukkah, and therefore simply cannot fall asleep. Furthermore, it even applies to those who do not feel this level of holiness, if they are nevertheless distressed over the fact that they know it contains this holiness, and are disturbed to act in a disrespectful way towards it, such as to sleep in it. Furthermore, it even applies to those who are not disturbed to sleep in the Sukkah due the holiness of the Sukkah, but simply due to the fact that this is the custom of their Rebbe, and they are distressed to not follow in their Rebbe’s custom. As stated above, if none of these reasons, or other exceptions, are applicable, and one hence finds no disturbance at all in his sleeping in the Sukkah, then he is obligated to do so.”