On Eating a Kezayis in the Sukkah on the First Night of Yom Tov | Kovetz Baarot on Maseches Sukkah

On Eating a Kezayis in the Sukkah on the First Night of Yom Tov

HaBachur Moshe Yisraeli

There is room to investigate the nature of the chiyuv to eat a kezayis on the first night of Yom Tov. Does the chiyuv come from the din of sukkah — meaning that the eating itself is not the mitzvah, but rather the eating creates a kevius in the sukkah, thereby fulfilling the “teshvu”? Or does the chiyuv come from the din of Yom Tov — meaning that the Torah commanded a person to eat, and since he must eat, that eating must take place in the sukkah?

There are several nafka minas: a) If it rained and he ate in the house, and the rain then stopped, must he go back and eat a kezayis in the sukkah? If the chiyuv is from the din of sukkah, he must, since he never ate in the sukkah. If it is from the din of Yom Tov, he is already patur, since he ate a kezayis on Yom Tov. b) If he ate in the house while it was raining and forgot Yaaleh V’Yavo, does he have to repeat Birchas Hamazon? c) Are women required to repeat Birchas Hamazon if they forgot Yaaleh V’Yavo? d) Can one be yotzei with stolen bread? If the chiyuv comes from the sukkah, he would be yotzei, because the bread is only being used as a means of fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah — in other words, to fulfill “teshvu.” But if the chiyuv comes from Yom Tov, so that the mitzvah is in the act of eating itself, then one would not be yotzei with stolen bread, just as one is not yotzei matzah that way. This nafka mina is brought in Kovetz Al Yad in the name of Derech HaMelech (Rapoport).

A) The Mishnah says that R’ Eliezer holds that a person is required to eat fourteen seudos in the sukkah, one by day and one by night. The Chachamim say that there is no fixed number, except for the first night of Yom Tov of Sukkos. R’ Eliezer also said that one who did not eat on the first night of Yom Tov can make it up on the last night of Yom Tov. The Chachamim say there is no tashlumin for it, and regarding this it says, “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is lacking cannot be counted.”

The Gemara asks the reason for R’ Eliezer. He darshens “teshvu k’ein taduru” — you should dwell in the sukkah the way you dwell in your home. Just as the normal way in a home is to eat once by day and once by night, so too in the sukkah. The Rabbanan, however, learn the gezeirah shavah of “fifteen-fifteen” from Chag HaMatzos: just as there the first night is obligatory and afterward it is reshus, so too here. What the Rabbanan say elsewhere, that just as in a house a person eats if he wants and does not eat if he does not want, is only their answer to R’ Eliezer as to how they understand “teshvu”; see Mira Dakhya. The Tosafos Yerushalmi adds that according to R’ Eliezer, the gezeirah shavah is “teshvu-teshvu” from Ohel Moed.

The Gemara then asks how R’ Eliezer can say that the missed seudah is made up on the last night of Yom Tov, meaning Shemini Atzeres, when there is no sukkah then. R’ Eliezer had said that fourteen seudos must be eaten in the sukkah. The Gemara answers in the name of Rav Ami that R’ Eliezer retracted.

Rashi and Tosafos disagree what R’ Eliezer retracted from. According to Tosafos, he retracted from requiring a sukkah for the tashlumin, but the requirement of fourteen seudos remains. The Sfas Emes asks that if fourteen seudos are required, then that comes from “teshvu,” and if so they should require a sukkah; he leaves this as a tzarich iyun. According to Rashi, R’ Eliezer retracted from the requirement of fourteen seudos altogether. In the maskanah, only one seudah on the first night is required, and this is learned from the gezeirah shavah of “fifteen-fifteen,” like the Rabbanan.

The Maharshal and Maharsha disagree in how to understand Rashi. The Maharshal explains that in the hava amina, when we understood that fourteen seudos were required, the source was “teshvu,” and therefore a sukkah was required, because the chiyuv came from the sukkah. Once we learn “fifteen-fifteen,” however, we learn from Pesach: just as there the requirement is to eat, here too there is a requirement to eat. The chiyuv, according to this, comes from Yom Tov and not from the sukkah.

The Maharsha objects that it is difficult to say that the gezeirah shavah of “fifteen-fifteen” teaches merely an obligation to eat. Rather, just as there the mitzvah is matzah, here the mitzvah is sukkah. In fact, the Ritva says this explicitly in Berachos 49b: when the Gemara says that on the first night the Torah made it obligatory, this is not merely to exclude the other days. Rather, on Pesach the obligation is a din of matzah, and similarly on the first night of Sukkos one must eat because of the din of sukkah.

Because of this question, the Maharsha explains Rashi differently. Once the maskanah is that there is one required seudah, we can learn from a korban that there can be tashlumin on the last Yom Tov even though there is no sukkah. The Sfas Emes asks on this as well: how can the comparison be to a korban, when a korban does not require a sukkah? But in the hava amina, where there was a chiyuv of fourteen seudos, there was no way to learn tashlumin from korbanos, since there is no concept of making up fourteen korbanos. It comes out that according to the Maharshal in Rashi, the chiyuv to eat on the first night comes from Yom Tov and not from sukkah, while according to the Maharsha it comes from the din of sukkah.

B) Tosafos in Berachos 49b, in the name of R’ Yehudah, write that if rain fell and a person ate in the house, he must later go back and eat in the sukkah. This clearly indicates that the chiyuv comes from the sukkah. If it came from Yom Tov, he already ate in the house, so why should he have to eat again in the sukkah?

Rav Akiva Eiger and the Tzlach infer from the wording of Tosafos that while the rain is actually falling, he is patur from eating the first kezayis in the sukkah. If the rain stops, however, he must go back and eat in the sukkah. Tosafos write: “R’ Yehudah says that the nafka mina is where rain fell and they ate outside the sukkah. If the requirement is for the honor of Yom Tov, that is fine. But if it is because of sukkah, then on the first Yom Tov he must go back and eat in the sukkah after the rain stops, since we learn ‘fifteen-fifteen’ from Chag HaMatzos.”

The Bach, however, understands R’ Yehudah to mean that even while it is raining he must enter the sukkah. The Ran brings opinions that even when rain is falling, one is required to eat in the sukkah, and the Bach identifies this as the view of R’ Yehudah in Berachos. The Maharshal likewise understands R’ Yehudah to require the first kezayis in the sukkah even while it is raining. Still, the simple reading of Tosafos is like the Tzlach and Rav Akiva Eiger: while the rain is falling he is patur, but if it stops he must go back and eat in the sukkah.

C) The Rosh rules that even when it is raining, one must eat in the sukkah on the first night. He writes in Berachos 49b: “But on the first night it is obligatory in every situation, and even if rain is falling he must eat a kezayis in the sukkah, since we learn it from Chag HaMatzos.” This plainly shows that according to the Rosh, the first-night kezayis is a din of sukkah. Otherwise, there would be no reason to force himself into the sukkah while it is raining. It would not be correct to say that the chiyuv really comes from Yom Tov, but that the Yom Tov obligation can only be fulfilled in the sukkah, and therefore he must force himself into the sukkah.

The Korban Nesanel asks on the Rosh: the person is a mitztaer, so why should the first night be different from every other night? And if one answers that this is what the gezeirah shavah comes to teach, perhaps the gezeirah shavah is needed only to teach that a kezayis must be eaten in the sukkah on the first night, as opposed to the other days when only more than a kebeitzah requires a sukkah. He leaves the matter as a tzarich iyun.

It seems possible to answer that we learn the comparison from Pesach completely; a gezeirah shavah is not learned halfway. On the first night the Torah removed the regular exemption of “teshvu.” The Mishnah Berurah in siman 639, se’if katan 35, explains the Rema, who rules like the Rosh and those who agree with him, in this way: “Since we learn from Chag HaMatzos, we learn it completely. Just as there one is obligated in every situation, so too on Sukkos.”

I saw a very surprising statement from the Gra in his sefer Imrei Noam on Berachos 49b. He proposes emending the text of the Rosh so that the Rosh would hold that while the rain is falling one is patur, but if he ate in the house and the rain later stopped, he must go back and eat in the sukkah. The Gra writes that the Rosh said “after the rain had fallen,” and that the Rema mistakenly understood him to mean “while the rain was falling.” He calls that a major error, arguing as follows: if the structure has the status of a sukkah while it is raining, what difference is there between the first night and the other days? And if it does not have the status of a sukkah while the rain is falling, what is gained by eating there? He therefore says that there must be an error in the text of the Rosh, and it should read “after the rain stopped,” like Tosafos.

But this does not fit the Rosh’s words at all. The Rosh explicitly writes that from the first night onward eating is reshus, but on the first night it is obligatory in every situation, “and even if rain is falling he must eat a kezayis in the sukkah.” There is no room to emend that away. Moreover, the Gra himself, in Biur HaGra to siman 639, writes that the Rosh holds like the Smak, that the first kezayis must be eaten in the sukkah even while it is raining. We therefore have to say that the Gra later retracted what he wrote in Imrei Noam and concluded as he wrote in his Biur. His basic question is essentially the same as that of the Korban Nesanel, and we answered it above in accordance with the Mishnah Berurah.

From the continuation of the Gra’s discussion in Imrei Noam it sounds as if there are actually two separate chiyuvim in the first kezayis: one from Yom Tov and one from sukkah. He writes: “But on the first night, even if he already ate, if the rain later stops he must eat again in the sukkah. Although he was already yotzei as far as Yom Tov is concerned, he was not yotzei the first-night eating of sukkah, for which he is obligated to eat a kezayis in the sukkah.”

According to the Gra’s understanding that there are two separate chiyuvim, the nafka minas mentioned above change. The obligation always includes a din of Yom Tov as well. Therefore, if it rained and he ate in the house, it would seem that he must say Yaaleh V’Yavo, and if he forgot it he would repeat Birchas Hamazon. When the rain stops, he must then eat again in the sukkah, again say Yaaleh V’Yavo, and if he forgot it there too, repeat Birchas Hamazon. According to this, Rashi could perhaps be understood in a third way, different from both the Maharshal and the Maharsha: in the hava amina the chiyuv came from sukkah, while in the maskanah there is a chiyuv both from Yom Tov and from sukkah, and the tashlumin on Shemini Atzeres serves the Yom Tov aspect. This does not seem to fit the Maharshal’s wording, however.

The Gra himself rules like the Rashba that when rain is falling one is patur from eating in the sukkah, because at that time the structure does not have a shem sukkah, and therefore there is no reason to force oneself to eat there. See Biur HaGra, siman 639.

Rav Shulchan Gavoah writes that even the Rosh would agree that a person who is suffering greatly, such as an istenis, is patur. His explanation is that eating a kezayis does not involve so much discomfort, and therefore the Rosh requires it. The Rashba and those who agree with him, who exempt a person on the first night when it is raining, hold that just as a person may leave his house even because of some rain, the same applies in a sukkah.

This does not seem to be the meaning of the poskim, and the Rosh’s wording in Berachos also does not sound that way: “But on the first night, in every situation, he is obligated.” Moreover, the entire source is the comparison to Pesach, and by Pesach there is no distinction between an istenis and anyone else. The Rosh himself says, “Just as there it is obligatory in every situation.” It therefore seems clear that according to the Rosh, a person must force himself to eat a kezayis in the sukkah in all circumstances. See also Birkas Yitzchak, who explains why the Rosh did not understand R’ Yehudah in Berachos to mean merely that the gezeirah shavah teaches that one must return to the sukkah after the rain stops, or like the Ran, that it teaches that one must eat more than a kebeitzah. The Rosh understood the gezeirah shavah as obligating the entire matter, and he also explains there why each of the other Rishonim did not understand it like the others.

D) The Rashba was asked in responsum 78 whether one must eat a kezayis on the first night even when it is raining. He answers that, in his view, a mitztaer, or one upon whom rain is falling to the point that the food would spoil, is not required to eat in the sukkah. We say “teshvu k’ein taduru.” The Torah never obligated a person to eat in the sukkah except in the same manner that a person lives in his own home. If it were otherwise, he argues, it would be impossible for the Gemara not to say so explicitly. The Rabbanan’s gezeirah shavah of “fifteen-fifteen” from Chag HaMatzos does not mean that under all circumstances he must eat in the sukkah on the first night, even where there is tzaar. A mitztaer is patur. Rather, where he is not a mitztaer, he must eat in the sukkah on the first night. The burden of proof is on anyone who says otherwise, and “we have neither heard nor seen such a requirement.”

It sounds from the Rashba that this is a din of sukkah and not a din of Yom Tov. He writes that the Torah never obligated him in this way, and then says that where he is not a mitztaer he must eat on the first night. It also sounds as if, when he is a mitztaer, he is entirely patur from the first-night eating, because the Rashba does not say merely that he is patur from eating it “in the sukkah.” If the chiyuv came from Yom Tov, he certainly should not be completely patur; he should at least have to eat in the house because of Yom Tov.

Accordingly, it would seem straightforward that once the rain stops, he would have to go back and eat a kezayis in the sukkah even if he already ate a seudah in the house and ate a kezayis there, because he has still not fulfilled the mitzvah of the day. I later saw that Maor Yisrael, volume 3, in Tabaas HaMelech, writes similarly in the Rashba: it would appear that he must return to the sukkah and eat a kezayis once the rain stops.

The Gra in siman 639 explains the Rashba to mean that when rain is falling, one is patur because the structure does not have a shem sukkah at that time. There is therefore no point in forcing oneself into it. One might suggest that the machlokes among the Rishonim depends on this. The Rosh and those who agree with him hold that the chiyuv is a din on the gavra, and therefore the person can still be required to eat in the sukkah even while it is raining. The Rashba and those who agree with him hold that it is a din in the cheftza, and therefore there is no reason to force the person into a structure that presently lacks the status of a sukkah.

According to this, there is room to ask about the Bikkurei Yaakov’s ruling that if rain is falling on one part of a sukkah but not on another part, one must sit in the dry part. What would be the halachah if rain is falling throughout the sukkah except for an area of six tefachim? That area by itself is not large enough to be a kosher sukkah. Do we say that this sukkah has no shem sukkah and the person is patur? Or, if in this particular case the person does not mind sitting in the six-tefach area, perhaps he is obligated to sit there. One could argue that since the cheftza-based exemption itself begins from the situation of the gavra, he would be required to sit there. Some did not agree with this; v’duk.

See also Chazon Ovadia, in the halachos of sitting in the sukkah, page 123, where the machlokes Rishonim is explained in another way: as a question of “don minah uminah” versus “don minah v’oki b’asra.” Those Rishonim who obligate even a mitztaer or one sitting in the rain hold “don minah uminah”: we learn completely from matzah and obligate him just as by matzah. Those who hold that a mitztaer or one sitting in the rain is patur hold “don minah v’oki b’asra”: we learn the basic obligation from matzah, but apply the local rules of sukkah, and he is therefore patur.

There could be a nafka mina in how we understand the machlokes — whether as gavra versus cheftza or as a question of how the gezeirah shavah works. If the issue is gavra and cheftza, then in a case of rain the sukkah is not considered a sukkah and he should be patur; but from where would we know that a mitztaer is also patur? If the issue is “don minah,” then a mitztaer would also be patur. Yet the Rashba explicitly exempts a mitztaer as well. We therefore have to formulate the position in a way that accounts for both. It is difficult to say that whenever the gavra is a mitztaer, the cheftza itself ceases to be a cheftza — meaning that when there is no gavra there is no cheftza, at least with respect to him.

E) The Rambam quotes the Mishnah as follows: “If rain fell, he goes into the house. From when is he permitted to leave?” and so on. The Mabit, Maamar Mordechai, Zichron Yehudah at the end of siman 183, and Mishnas Yaavetz, siman 64, page 197, infer that since the Rambam makes no distinction between the first day and the other days, he holds that one is patur even on the first night of Yom Tov.

There is, however, some difficulty with this proof from the Beis Yosef in Yoreh Deah siman 198. He writes that when the Rambam changes the formulation of the Mishnah and still does not make a distinction, one may infer from his silence that he holds there is no distinction. But where the Rambam simply repeats the Mishnah’s formulation, the fact that he did not add a distinction is not necessarily a proof. Here the Rambam did not change the wording of the Mishnah. It is true, however, that some Rishonim themselves infer from the Mishnah’s failure to distinguish that one is patur even on the first night.

F) The Rambam also writes at the end of the second perek of his Peirush HaMishnayos that rain falling at the beginning of Sukkos is a siman kelalah. Rav Chaim Berlin explains that during the other days this is not a siman kelalah, because there is no obligation to eat; if one wants, he eats, and if he wants, he does not. On the first Yom Tov, however, he must eat in the sukkah, and the rain prevents him from doing so. That is why it is a siman kelalah.

Rav Y. Topik uses this as a proof that according to the Rambam, the obligation to eat the kezayis comes from the din of sukkah. If it came from Yom Tov, then even the first night should not be a siman kelalah, because he could fulfill the eating obligation in the house. It would not be correct to answer that the chiyuv comes from Yom Tov, but because he is required to eat, the meal automatically must be in the sukkah, and therefore the rain is a siman kelalah. On Shabbos during Sukkos there is also, according to the Rambam, a Torah obligation to eat bread. If so, rain in the middle of Sukkos should also be a siman kelalah. There is also a mitzvah to eat meat and drink wine throughout all seven days, and that eating would seemingly also have to be done in the sukkah.

One could answer that the special rule of a kezayis of bread is different. Ordinarily bread creates kevius at the shiur of a kebeitzah, and the first-night halachah extends that concept to a kezayis. Meat and wine, however, do not have an ordinary shiur of kevius at all, and perhaps the first-night halachah does not create one.

But there is another way to explain the Rambam, different from Rav Chaim Berlin and those who follow him. Perhaps rain specifically at the beginning of the Chag is a siman kelalah because we have not yet had a chance to sit in the sukkah and already Hashem is driving us out of it. If we have already sat in the sukkah for a day or two and only then rain falls, it is not a siman kelalah. According to that approach, there is no proof from here that the Rambam holds that the first-night kezayis is a din of sukkah.

G) It seems possible to bring another proof that according to the Rambam the kezayis is a din of sukkah. In Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah 6:12, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to eat on Erev Pesach so that one will eat matzah that night l’teavon. In Hilchos Yom Tov 6:16, however, he writes only that it is proper for a person not to make a seudah on Erev Yom Tov from Minchah onward. This clearly implies that on Erev Sukkos, which is treated like the other Yamim Tovim, there is no actual prohibition on eating and no requirement to enter the night with an appetite, as there is on Erev Pesach.

If the eating on the first night of Sukkos were a din of Yom Tov, it is difficult to understand why this should be permitted and why it should be different from Erev Pesach. But if the chiyuv comes from the sukkah, and the entire purpose of the kezayis is to fulfill “teshvu,” the distinction makes sense. The mitzvah is not in the act of eating itself; the eating is there to fulfill “teshvu.” It therefore makes no practical difference whether he enters the Chag hungry, as long as he can eat a kezayis. Still, it is proper not to make a seudah beforehand, since there is a mitzvah involved in the eating.

The Yerushalmi raises this very question: must the kezayis be eaten l’teavon or not? One way to understand the Yerushalmi’s safek is that since the essence of the mitzvah is not the eating itself but fulfilling “teshvu,” perhaps the kezayis does not need to be eaten l’teavon. On the other hand, since there is nevertheless a mitzvah involving eating, perhaps it should be eaten l’teavon. One could also explain that the Yerushalmi is unsure whether the kezayis is a din of Yom Tov or a din of sukkah. But if it is a din of sukkah, it certainly should not require eating l’teavon.

The Or Zarua rules stringently. Since the Yerushalmi leaves the matter in doubt, he goes l’chumra. The Maharil also rules like the Or Zarua that one may not eat on Erev Sukkos because the nighttime eating must be l’teavon. The Rema, in Darkei Moshe, initially writes that this seems to him to be a chumra without a reason. Matzah is different: if one eats after chatzos, he may not eat the matzah that night l’teavon. But with sukkah, the mitzvah is not the eating itself such that it must be eaten l’teavon. Even if one sits in the sukkah without eating, he has still fulfilled the mitzvah of sukkah. The Rema therefore initially concludes that there is no need to be concerned, and that one who wishes to be machmir may be machmir, while one who is meikel loses nothing. He then adds that he later found the Or Zarua who rules like the Maharil and brings the Yerushalmi. The Rema therefore retracted, as can be seen in siman 639, se’if 3.

In any event, it is clear from the Rema’s reasoning that the side to say that one does not need to eat l’teavon is based on the idea that the mitzvah is not in the eating itself. The eating is only a means of fulfilling “teshvu.” There is some difficulty, however, in what he writes that even without eating one fulfills the mitzvah of sukkah. If he means this literally — that on the first night he could avoid eating and still fulfill the mitzvah — then this would not prove that the reason no appetite is required is because the eating merely serves “teshvu.” But it is difficult to say that literally. There is certainly a Torah obligation to eat that night: if not because of sukkah, then because of Yom Tov. In that case, the eating should need to be l’teavon because of Yom Tov. Perhaps the Rema’s statement that one fulfills sukkah without eating was not meant in this precise sense.

The Rambam is lenient in this matter and writes only that it is proper not to eat on Erev Yom Tov. It would seem that he is lenient because the issue is a safek derabbanan, and therefore we rule l’kula. The Or Zarua, who is stringent, may hold that although the rule involved is derabbanan, it is not an ordinary derabbanan. It is a rabbinic safeguard for a de’Oraisa mitzvah — to ensure that the Torah-level nighttime eating is done l’teavon — and therefore, even though the Yerushalmi is unsure, we go l’chumra.

Alternatively, the Or Zarua may follow those Rishonim who hold that whenever the Gemara leaves a question unresolved — whether as a ba’aya, a teiku, or the like — we rule l’chumra, while the Rambam rules l’kula. See Sdei Chemed, who writes regarding hiddur mitzvah up to one-third that the Gemara in Bava Kamma 9b leaves unresolved whether the third is calculated milgav or milbar. The poskim who are machmir explain that in matters of hiddur mitzvah it is preferable to take the stringent side. The Rashbam in Pesachim 99b writes that eating l’teavon is also a matter of hiddur mitzvah. Sdei Chemed, in the laws of tzitzis, siman 12, brings that the Rambam rules leniently in the one-third question.

The Mira Dakhya writes that Tosafos brought the Yerushalmi’s question whether the first kezayis must be eaten l’teavon in order to give a practical halachic ruling: that the kezayis should be eaten l’teavon. He writes that this also appears from the Piskei Tosafos.

It seems to me that although the Rosh brings this safek, he did not necessarily intend to rule l’chumra. In the question of whether the one-third for hiddur mitzvah is calculated milgav, which the Gemara leaves as a teiku, the Rosh rules l’kula. The Beis Yosef in siman 656 explains that the Rosh’s reason is safek derabbanan l’kula. If so, the same should apply here.

Still, the Sdei Chemed brings opinions that distinguish between a question that ends with the formal word “teiku” and one that simply remains unresolved. According to them, the one-third question is ruled leniently because the Gemara ends with teiku, while the question of eating l’teavon does not end with teiku but simply remains a ba’aya. Therefore, even though the Rosh rules leniently regarding one-third milgav, he could still rule stringently regarding eating l’teavon.

What I wrote above, that the Rambam rules leniently regarding eating l’teavon on the first night of Sukkos, is correct even though the Yerushalmi’s question does not end with teiku. A proof can be brought from the question regarding darkened flour in Sotah 15b. That question also does not end with teiku, yet the Rambam rules leniently, as the Mishneh LaMelech explains, because the safek there is derabbanan. See Rambam, Hilchos Sotah 3:9. By contrast, in the Yerushalmi’s second safek, whether one needs a kezayis of grain, the Rambam rules l’chumra in 6:7 because that is a safek de’Oraisa.

H) The Rema cited above writes that on Erev Sukkos one should not eat from chatzos onward. The Magen Avraham asks: on Erev Pesach the Rema writes that eating is forbidden only from the tenth hour. Why should Erev Sukkos be treated more strictly than Erev Pesach? The Bikkurei Yaakov answers in se’if katan 24 that on Pesach the meal begins only after the Haggadah and the order of the Seder, while on Sukkos one eats immediately at the beginning of the night. For that reason, Erev Sukkos is treated more strictly. The Ben Ish Chai, Parashas Haazinu, halachah 3, writes similarly.

T) R’ Yehudah of Lunel writes that the tashlumin is on the seventh day, Hoshana Rabbah, when there is still a sukkah, and not on the night of the eighth day, Shemini Atzeres. This clearly proves that in his view the kezayis is a din of sukkah. He cannot explain the Gemara’s discussion like Rashi. Rather, it appears that he understands it like the Ritva, who explains the Gemara’s question as follows: R’ Eliezer said that a person must eat fourteen seudos in the sukkah, so why should there be tashlumin only for the first night of Yom Tov? The Ritva even brings a girsa that states this explicitly: “Why specifically the first night of Yom Tov? R’ Eliezer said that a person must eat fourteen seudos,” and so on.

The Ribbavan holds that the tashlumin takes place on Shemini Atzeres and that he eats it in the sukkah. He writes that one eats minei targima rather than a regular seudah in order to avoid bal tosif. This too shows that the obligation is a din of sukkah.

Tosafos Rid likewise holds that the tashlumin is on Shemini Atzeres and is eaten in the sukkah. This clearly indicates that the obligation comes from the sukkah. Since he is only making up something that was missing, there is no problem of bal tosif.

After all of the above, we have learned that the Rishonim are overwhelmingly of one view: the first kezayis is a din of sukkah. According to the Rosh, R’ Yehudah in Berachos as understood by the Maharshal and Bach, the Smak, and the Ran in the name of other authorities — all of whom hold that even while rain is falling one eats a kezayis in the sukkah — it is certainly a din of sukkah. The same is true of the Raavad, as brought by the Beis Yosef; the Rambam; the Rashba; R’ Yehudah in Berachos as understood by Rav Akiva Eiger and the Tzlach; the Or Zarua; the Pri Megadim; and the Ritva in Berachos, as shown above.

According to the Maharshal’s understanding, Rashi would be a lone view against all these Rishonim. Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz, however, does hold that the obligation is a din of Yom Tov. On the words “he makes it up on the last Yom Tov,” he writes: “On Shemini Atzeres, and although he is not in the sukkah, he has nevertheless eaten fourteen seudos on Yom Tov, and this is what the tashlumin accomplishes.” According to the Maharsha’s understanding, Rashi agrees with the other Rishonim listed above.

11) If the obligation were a din of Yom Tov, with the essence of the mitzvah being the eating itself, there is another question: why did Chazal not establish a brachah on this eating? The Baal HaAderes writes in his sefer Over Orach, os 140, that perhaps no brachah was established on something that is not explicit in the Torah. Chazal may have considered a clearly rabbinic mitzvah more appropriate for a brachah than something received by tradition but not stated explicitly in the Torah. He leaves this as a tzarich iyun.

According to what we have explained, however, the question is answered well. Since the mitzvah is not in the act of eating itself, but the eating is there in order to fulfill “teshvu,” no separate brachah was established on the eating. Instead, Chazal established the brachah of “leishev basukkah,” because that is the actual mitzvah. Even according to what we wrote above, that the Or Zarua requires the eating to be l’teavon, there would still be no reason to establish a separate brachah over that aspect.

12) Regarding the practical nafka mina of whether one must eat in the house when rain is falling, and whether one who did eat in the house and forgot Yaaleh V’Yavo must repeat Birchas Hamazon, the simple conclusion would seem to be as stated earlier: if the chiyuv is a din of sukkah, he is patur; if it is a din of Yom Tov, he is obligated.

There is still room to question this according to those poskim, including Maran z”l, who hold that the required seudos of Shabbos and Yom Tov are derabbanan. Would there still be a rabbinic obligation to eat in the house while it is raining, since the rabbinic requirement does not simply disappear? Or perhaps Chazal did not establish their requirement in a situation where the first night of Sukkos already has a Torah-level eating obligation. According to those poskim who hold that the seudos of Shabbos and Yom Tov are de’Oraisa, it does not seem reasonable to say that when he cannot eat in the sukkah, the ordinary Yom Tov eating obligation somehow returns as a separate chiyuv.

In any event, l’halachah we rule that one does not repeat Birchas Hamazon for forgetting Yaaleh V’Yavo on Yom Tov, except on the first night of Pesach and the first night of Sukkos. These questions therefore do have practical nafka minas.