I just finished daf 30, and I'm a bit confused. The notion that there are 7 separate mitzvahs of esrog but only one long mitzvah of sukkah doesn't really seem to answer the question (to my little brain...)
First, according to the opinion that the esrog could be eaten immediately, the fact that the mitzvah is a full day mitzvah did not cause the esrog to be asur until the end of the day, so similarly the fact that sukkah is a seven day mitzvah should not cause it to be forbidden for the rest of the seven days.
So if I understand correctly, if someone built seven sukkahs, one for each day, all seven would be prohibited from use until the end of Sukkos?
I'm really confused about what makes a sukkah a sukkah (no, not the details...). What causes a structure that happens to meet the minimum sukkah requirements to attain this status whereby the wood is prohibited from use? If someone built a sukkah and intended to use it, but never did, could he take down the wood on Chol Hamoed, or did his intention at the start of the holiday convey the prohibited status? Or is it actually using the sukkah on Sukkos that causes it to attain this status?
If someone was out in a field and found a hut that met the requirements for being a sukkah, and he just sat in it and had a meal, does that structure, which may not even have been built as a sukkah, now acquire sukkah status for the rest of the festival? If someone is going out of town for the last days, their sukkah cannot be taken down before they leave? And, if I am understanding this correctly, someone who builds a "car sukkah" by opening their car door and laying the s'chah across the top can no longer close their car door for the remainder of Sukkos, right? Obviously that is not the case. Why not? Closing the car door effectively demolishes the sukkah.
avrohom adler, usa
It seems to me that there is a basic difference between Sukah and Esrog. Sukah is a continual Mitzvah for every moment of all seven days whilst Esrog is a one-time Mitzvah, only once a day. See the MISHNAH on SUKAH 48a that even though one has finished one's meal on the seventh day of Sukos (i.e. in Eretz Yisrael where one does not live in the Sukah at all on Shemini Atzeres) one should nevertheless not dismantle the Sukah. RASHI DH LO YATIR writes that this is because one is obligated all day long to sleep or study inside the Sukah, and if a meal should come one's way, one requires the Sukah to eat it in.
Therefore, according to Rav (end 30b) one may eat the Esrog immediately because
(1) the Esrog was only seperated for use on one day and
(2) even on that day the Esrog is only specified for the Mitzvah until one performed the Mitzvah, but for no longer, because there is no obligation to "shake" the Esrog more than once a day.
In contrast not only is Sukah a 7-day Mitzvah but in addition, even though one has already fulfilled the Mitzvah, one is obliged to use the Sukah whenever one wishes to eat, sleep or learn Torah.
However if someone built 7 Sukos, one for each day, it would seem to me that he should be permitted to dismantle the Day 1 Sukah once Day 2 arrives, for instance. This is because of the reason the aforementioned Rashi gives that one may not dismantle the Sukah since one may still require it for sleeping or learning. According to this, if one has an alternative Sukah available, it should be permitted to undo the first. In addition, RASHI SHABBOS 45a DH AD seems to say more clearly that there is no prohibition against dismantling a Sukah on Chol ha'Mo'ed. However these latter points require further thought.
(1) See SHULCHAN ARUCH OC 638:1 in REMA who writes that the wood of the Sukah only becomes prohibited if one dwelt in the Sukah on one occasion, whilst if one merely prepared the Sukah but did not live there it does not become prohibited, because "Hazmanah Lav Milsa" ("Preparation is not significant").
MISHNAH BERURAH #9 cites MAGEN AVRAHAM who writes that even if the Sukah was not constructed with the intention of being a Sukah, but was merely intended to provide shelter, nevertheless, if it possesses the requirements of a kosher Sukah, and one sat there once, it is henceforth forbidden for the rest of Yom Tov.
MISHNAH BERURAH adds that this only applies if one specified before dwelling there that one intended that it should be the Sukah for Yom Tov, or if one had intention when dwelling there that it should be used henceforth for the whole of Yom Tov. Otherwise, a Sukah does not acquire Kedushah (to be considered the Sukah of Yom Tov) merely because one used it once.
(2) MISHNAH BERURAH proves the above Halachah from what he writes (638:3) that if somebody sat in the Sukah of (a) shepherds (b) "Burganin" (see RASHI SUKAH 8b DH BURGANIN that this is the booth of the city guards) or (c) "Kayatzin" (workers who guard the produce drying in the fields), this remains an ordinary hut, because merely sitting in these huts and eating one's bread does not give Kedushah to the Sukah.
(3) The question about the person who leaves town for the last days of Sukos and wants to knock down his Sukah, is not so simple. I pointed out that Rashi seems to suggest that if not for the fact that that one might still need the Sukah, there would be no prohibition on dismantling it on Chol ha'Mo'ed. Rashi is cited by MISHNAH BERURAH 666:1. I have found that SHEMIRAS SHABBOS KEHILCHASA (ch. 67 note 177) writes that it would seem that one may not dismantle a Sukah on Chol ha'Mo'ed because this constitutes doing Melachah which is unnecessary for Chol ha'Mo'ed. However SHEMIRAS SHABBOS KEHILCHASA notes that the aforementioned MISHNAH BERURAH would appear to suggest that it is permitted.
See PISKEI TESHUVOS (by R. Simcha Rabinovitz Shlita) 638:3 who cites Poskim who discuss whether one may take down a Sukah during Sukos if one is careful with the Kedushah of the walls and the roof-covering, and does not use them for other purposes. It may be that the mere fact that one demolishes the Sukah represents a lowering of its holiness, which is forbidden.
(4) I did not understand what the problem should be with the car Sukah. (See PISKEI TESHUVOS 628:4 DH UMI'KAN who writes that a Sukah made on a car is Kosher if made strongly and see also PISKEI TESHUVOS 638 note 2). If the car has a sliding roof, one could put the "Sechach" on the roof and the car might be a Kosher Sukah even if the door is open, if there is sufficient amount of Sukah walls provided by the rest of the car's structure.
I found that MEIRI writes explicitly in our Sugya (DH ZEH) that even if someone made 7 Sukos for 7 days- each one for it's separate day- they are nevertheless set aside for the Mitzvah and a "Tnai" (condition) does not help to permit benefit from the wood during Sukos.
However RASHBA (DH MEEHU) writes that according to Abaye and Rava ,if he makes the Tnai of "I do not separate myself from them for the whole of twilight ("Bein Hashmashos") on Erev Sukos "this is effective not only for the Sukah decorations but also for the wood of the Sukah. Rashba adds that even if he would say "Whenever I want I may take the wood of the Sukah" this is also effective. He writes that the latter is stated in TOSEFTA BEITZAH 3:7. However Rashba concludes that in theory the above seems correct ,but if a practical case like this came up he would have to think more about the question.
Rif is also lenient. See HAGOHOS HaGRO #2 to Gemara who writes that whilst RASHI DH ABAYE writes that the Tnai is not valid for the wood of the Sukah because he is automatically not allowed benefit from them during "Bein Hashmashos", in contrast Rif maintains that the tnai is effective even for the Sukah of Yomtov, not only a weekday Sukah. Kedushah only applies always to the wood of the Sukah if he did not separate himself from them during Bein Hasmashos.
In summary if someone made one Sukah for every day of the week, according to Meiri and Rashi one cannot make a Tnai on these Sukos and the wood will always possess Kedushah. According to Rahba and Rif the Tnai is effective and at the end of each day the Sukah becomes "Chol" and one may use it's wood.