We're all certainly acquainted with the notoriety surrounding the matter of the Lubavitch community and the law of sleeping in the Succa. The Lubavitcher Rebbe's detailed disquisition (now bound in ליקוטי שיחות חלק כט, available here) has widely been lampooned for its supposed amateurishness in addressing this politically contentious issue, and selected passages have even been excerpted by campaign operatives with the intent of evoking derision and ill will.
But what indeed was the gist of the Rebbe's words? Don't expect too many people to know. All those footnotes? Forget about it. So for the benefit of all ye plebeian hordes, there follows a short recapitulation of the Rebbe's reasoning:
a) Why did the Rayatz avoid sleeping in a Succa?
b) Perhaps due to the clause of מצטער which exempts Succa-goers from exposing themselves to physical discomfort.
c) But the Rayatz surely would have paid no heed to some minor irritation if it would interfere with properly observing the Mitzva of Succa?
d) The spiritual luminance -- the אורות המקיפים דבינה -- present in a Succa is so lofty that anyone attuned to incorporeal matters would assuredly be unable to sleep in its presence. A perfectly reasonable excuse to avoid any abode under similar conditions, as Yaakov famously exclaimed.
e) This is ultimately satisfactory, but why would the spiritual aspects of Succa clash with the legal aspects of Succa, leaving one with no choice but to make recourse to a היתר; doesn't perfect harmony exist between the world of Halacha and Kabbala?
f) Perhaps following the logic of 'Rogotchover' who claimed that no positive law exists mandating sleeping within a Succa to fulfill the Biblical commandment; rather, since there is merely a law banning all sleep from occurring outside a Succa, it could be argued that the use of a היתר in such circumstances would subsequently not depreciate from the execution of the Torah's requirement, leaving the demands of the esoteric Light and the letter of the law fully reconciled.
g) But all Halachic authorities are in express dissent with the approach of the 'Rogotchover'?
h) Bearing in mind that even during the Temple era the Rabbis arranged their schedule to exclude any amount of time for sleeping in the Succa (with the use of another היתר) it transpires that fulfilling the dictum of Succa is satisfied by ensuring that all meals occur within its perimeter (for eating is the chief Halachic definition of "dwelling"). Ergo, avoiding sleep in the Succa is not at variance with one's legal duty.
i) But what of the Chassidim who aren't personally aware of the present luminance?
j) 1) A Chassid should assiduously imitate his Rebbe's behavior. 2) The Chassid experiences צער either from his lack of spiritual attunement or from failing to live up to his Rebbe's standards, thus invoking yet again the article of מצטער.
עשרת...
* * *
While it's my firm opinion that anyone's spiteful objection to the logic of characters A-I merely exposes his hatred, jealousy, and prejudice; J is another matter entirely. Many have legitimately wondered where there was Halachic precedent for invoking psychological ills as a suitable fit for the Halachic מצטער.
So it comes as no surprise to myself that a parallel may be found in the following responsum penned by Rabbi Shimon Sofer, grandson of the illustrious "חתם סופר", in his work שאלות ותשובות התעוררות תשובה. R. Shimon was troubled by his own custom of avoiding any bread, including Matza, for all but the 2 Sedarim due to personal dread of Chametz. As we shall see, this 'stringency' is in direct violation of a Biblical requirement; but the logic he uses to diffuse the trouble is especially interesting:
a) Why did the Rayatz avoid sleeping in a Succa?
b) Perhaps due to the clause of מצטער which exempts Succa-goers from exposing themselves to physical discomfort.
c) But the Rayatz surely would have paid no heed to some minor irritation if it would interfere with properly observing the Mitzva of Succa?
d) The spiritual luminance -- the אורות המקיפים דבינה -- present in a Succa is so lofty that anyone attuned to incorporeal matters would assuredly be unable to sleep in its presence. A perfectly reasonable excuse to avoid any abode under similar conditions, as Yaakov famously exclaimed.
e) This is ultimately satisfactory, but why would the spiritual aspects of Succa clash with the legal aspects of Succa, leaving one with no choice but to make recourse to a היתר; doesn't perfect harmony exist between the world of Halacha and Kabbala?
f) Perhaps following the logic of 'Rogotchover' who claimed that no positive law exists mandating sleeping within a Succa to fulfill the Biblical commandment; rather, since there is merely a law banning all sleep from occurring outside a Succa, it could be argued that the use of a היתר in such circumstances would subsequently not depreciate from the execution of the Torah's requirement, leaving the demands of the esoteric Light and the letter of the law fully reconciled.
g) But all Halachic authorities are in express dissent with the approach of the 'Rogotchover'?
h) Bearing in mind that even during the Temple era the Rabbis arranged their schedule to exclude any amount of time for sleeping in the Succa (with the use of another היתר) it transpires that fulfilling the dictum of Succa is satisfied by ensuring that all meals occur within its perimeter (for eating is the chief Halachic definition of "dwelling"). Ergo, avoiding sleep in the Succa is not at variance with one's legal duty.
i) But what of the Chassidim who aren't personally aware of the present luminance?
j) 1) A Chassid should assiduously imitate his Rebbe's behavior. 2) The Chassid experiences צער either from his lack of spiritual attunement or from failing to live up to his Rebbe's standards, thus invoking yet again the article of מצטער.
עשרת...
* * *
While it's my firm opinion that anyone's spiteful objection to the logic of characters A-I merely exposes his hatred, jealousy, and prejudice; J is another matter entirely. Many have legitimately wondered where there was Halachic precedent for invoking psychological ills as a suitable fit for the Halachic מצטער.
So it comes as no surprise to myself that a parallel may be found in the following responsum penned by Rabbi Shimon Sofer, grandson of the illustrious "חתם סופר", in his work שאלות ותשובות התעוררות תשובה. R. Shimon was troubled by his own custom of avoiding any bread, including Matza, for all but the 2 Sedarim due to personal dread of Chametz. As we shall see, this 'stringency' is in direct violation of a Biblical requirement; but the logic he uses to diffuse the trouble is especially interesting:
שו"ת התעוררות תשובה ח"א סרס"ג (ח"ד סמ"א)
נסתפקתי אי יאות עבדי המחמירים שאינם אוכלים מצות כל הפסח רק כזיתים המחוייבים לאכול בשתי לילות הראשונות, מחמת שיראים שלא התנהגו באפיית מצות כראוי לשמרם מחימוץ וממשהו חמץ, ולפי מה דמבואר במגן אברהם (סימן קפ"ח ס"ק ט' וסימן תע"א ס"ק ה') דלאכול כזית פת בשבת ויום טוב בלילה וביום הוא דאורייתא, האם יש להחמיר בזה לבטל מצות התורה.
ועלה בדעתי לפי מה דאיתא בשולחן ערוך אורח חיים (סימן רפ"ח סעיף ב' וסעיף ג') דמי שרגיל לישב בתענית תמיד ואכילתו מזיק לו אין צריך לאכול בשבת ויוכל להתענות שתכלית האכילה הוא העונג והשמחה וכיון שמצטער באכילה מתבטל מעונג ושמחה על ידי זה ולכן אינו מחוייב לאכול. וכן נהג הרב ר' יהודה החסיד ז"ל. ואם כן הכי נמי בנידון דידן דכיון דאם יאכל מצה, כל היום עולים בלבו הרהורים וירא אולי לא היו כשרים כראוי ולבו נוקפו מזה כל היום ומצטער על ידי זה מחמת ספיקתו, פטור מאכילה. ואפילו מתענה כל היום מטעם זה אינו צריך לישב תענית לתעניתו כמי שמתענה בשבת ויום טוב תענית חלום שמחוייב לישב תענית לתעניתו כדמבואר שם בשולחן ערוך (סעיף ד') דהתם הוא הטעם מפני שביטל עונג שבת, אבל זה לא היה מחוייב מעיקרא לאכול דאדרבה כיון שאכילתו צער הוא לו פטור מאכילה. וקצת ראיה לזה ממה דאיתא ברמ"א הלכות ראש השנה (סימן תקצ"ז סעיף ג') דכשמתענה תענית חלום בראש השנה אינו צריך לישב תענית לתעניתו כיון שלמקצת רבותינו מצוה להתענות בראש השנה וברשות התענה, וספיקא להקל כי למיתב תענית לתעניתא אינו אלא מדרבנן.
Do you see the analogue?
