Why is there no similar expression of Divine rejection in conjunction with other mitzvos? On the contrary, we are expected to fulfill the mitzvos even under duress. If it rains at other times of year, we do not say that Hash-m does not want our tefillos in the shul we have to walk to in the rain. Except for cases of onsin, such as serious illness or other incapacity, we say l'fum tzara agra, according to the hardship is the reward. We don't seek out obstacles in performing mitzvos, but when they come our way, we try to overcome them. Why not say that Hash-m is offering more reward for waiting for the rain to stop so that we can return to the Sukkah?
Yisrael Rutman, Pardes Hanah, Israel
Dear Yisrael,
Great to hear from you. Very nice question!
Beur Halachah writes [1] that one is only called a Hedyot if he is doing something wrong, e.g. putting himself in discomfort during the Chag when -- on the contrary -- one is supposed to be comfortable. Moreover, he elaborates [2], the problem with eating in the Sukkah in the rain is that one is forcing Hash-m to accept his divine service when in fact, just the opposite, Hash-m is showing that He is displeased with it. This is not Derech Eretz. But, as you astutely pointed out, one does receive more reward for making the effort to shlep back out into the Sukkah after the rain stops, even though one is technically exempt at that point [3].
I hope this helps!
May you continue to attain greatness in Torah learning and Yiras Shamayim!
Best wishes,
Yishai Rasowsky
Shalom Yisrael,
I hope you are well. As I think more about your question, it is tempting to connect it with the Machlokess about how to understand the actual reason for the Petur from Mitzvas Sukkah while it's raining.
Some maintain that it is only based on the Din of Mitztaer Patur Min ha'Sukkah. Others would argue more categorically that it actually has no status of Sukkah-dwelling at all.
Also, you may remember the Machlokess ha'Poskim whether rain exempts a person from eating in the Sukkah on the first night (Rashba says yes, but Rosh says no; see Orach Chayim 639:5). Furthermore, even assuming that you are not Patur, there is secondary issue of whether you should eat in the rain or wait until the rain stops.
Moreover, some Poskim maintain that the Petur of rainfall applies if it would ruin your food, even if you personally are not Mitztaer.
To conclude, the inference one might draw from the above points is that -- in addition to what we discussed above from the Beur Halachah -- despite one's possibly pure intentions to courageously dwell in the Sukkah in inclement weather, nevertheless, according to some views, one is arguably gains nothing by insisting to do so because it is an inherent Chisaron of Teshvu K'ein Teduru.
Best wishes,
Yishai Rasowsky
Nice reply!
But I'm not sure it answers my question...
So let me rephrase it:
Why do Chazal in the first place say that the rain on Sukkos is a sign of Hash-m's displeasure, any more than in the case of other mitzvos?
Shalom Yisrael!
Sorry, I misunderstood your intention the first time around. Thanks for adding the clarification. The Artscroll brings an explanation from the Gra which seems to help address the issue. He understands that in Chazal's Mashal, the master's cup of WINE represents the harsh judgments decreed on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur; the servant wants to dilute them using a pitcher of WATER which represents love and mercy aroused by the many Mitzvos of Sukos. So, when Hash-m splashes the water back into our face in the form of rain, it expresses that Hash-m is displeased in the specific sense that He does not want to mitigate those judgments (wine) with the mercy (water).
In addition, as you correctly pointed out, typically the signs of Hash-m's displeasure are not related to a person who is blocked from doing a Mitzvah (1) (on the contrary, such a person is credited with the Mitzvah (2)). But perhaps another example where one's inability to do a specific Mitzvah is indicative of Hash-m's displeasure, may be inferred from the Taz (YD 251:6). The Taz explains the statement of Chazal (Megilah 16b) that Torah learning is greater than saving lives.
In his words:
???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????
He writes that it is a indeed a greater Zechus for someone to have the opportunity to learn rather than have to be involved in saving lives. And, as in the case of Mordechai ha'Tzadik, the individual's stature may be diminished in the eyes of his fellow scholars. Accordingly, it may be argued that this means Hash-m is displeased with him (because Hash-m has shown that He does not want him to be learning now). This inference, though, is debatable.
Best wishes,
Yishai