Across the tri-state area, many are watching the forecast with concern as the first night of Sukkot approaches, wondering whether rain may interfere with the mitzvah of sukkah. That is a significant halakhic concern. It may also be an opportunity to learn a crucial lesson about the essence of the Jewish soul, and about a key theme of Sukkot itself.

Rain on the First Night

One is exempt from the commandment of sitting in the sukkah while it is raining (Mishnah, Sukkah 2:9; Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 639:5). On the first night of Sukkot, however, eating in the sukkah constitutes an affirmative obligation, derived by the Talmud from the parallel obligation to eat matzah on the first night of Pesach (Sukkah 27a; Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 639:3). Accordingly, greater efforts are made to negotiate the situation.

The Rema rules that on the first night one must eat in the sukkah even in the rain (Orach Chaim 639:5). The Chafetz Chaim notes in his Mishnah Berurah, however, that some Rishonim do not distinguish between the first night and the rest of the festival, and one eating in the rain therefore does not recite the blessing of leishev ba-sukkah. He cites later authorities who write that it is proper to wait until midnight in anticipation of the possibility that the skies will clear, so that one may eat in the sukkah with the blessing and fulfill the mitzvah according to all views. Others hold that waiting so long is not advisable, since keeping the entire family, adults and children, waiting for their meal is the greatest diminishment of the joy of the festival; still others mention waiting only an hour or two (Mishnah Berurah 639:35).

The Exception: Needy Guests

Nonetheless, the Chafetz Chaim rules as well that when poor guests, who have presumably not eaten the entire day, are present, one should not delay (Sha'ar HaTziyun 639:67). The concern is the prohibition of "You shall not delay in paying [a monetary commitment]" (Deut. 23:22), known as bal te'acher. The Talmud teaches that one who has pledged charity violates this prohibition immediately when a poor person is before him (Rosh HaShanah 6b); in the Chafetz Chaim's view, a poor guest at one's table is such a case.

The same concern shaped the Chafetz Chaim's conduct at his own Friday night table. Growing up, I heard many times from my father that the Chafetz Chaim advised against singing "Shalom Aleichem" before Kiddush, pointing out that that song is for the angels, and angels do not get hungry, but human beings who would be waiting for the song to finish before eating certainly do. In later years, I saw that there was a substantial literature discussing this position, although there was a significant dispute surrounding the context.

R. Asher Weiss records a version he heard from his son-in-law, R. Binyamin Beinush. His grandfather, the Av Beit Din of Pittsburgh, spent a Shabbat in the home of the Chafetz Chaim. On Friday night, upon arriving home, the Chafetz Chaim made Kiddush immediately and washed for the meal. When his guest asked whether he was not accustomed to sing "Shalom Aleichem" before Kiddush, the Chafetz Chaim responded with that distinction between angels and humans. He therefore made Kiddush immediately so as not to delay the guests from eating. After breaking bread, the Chafetz Chaim returned to sing the zemirot as accepted (Leket Minchat Asher, Zemirot Shabbat 1, citing his shiur on Parashat Va-Yera 5774; see also Minchat Asher, Devarim 48).

Similar accounts appear elsewhere (Chafetz Chaim al HaTorah, Deut. 15:8, in footnote; R. Moshe Meir Yashar, HeChafetz Chaim, Chayav U-Fa'alo III, pp. 553-555). R. Zev Zicherman speculates that these concerns may be connected to a reported practice of the Chatam Sofer not to sing "Shalom Aleichem" at his Friday night table (Otzar Pela'ot HaTorah, Gen., pp. 247-251).

However, some reports have the Chafetz Chaim expressing this concern specifically if there are needy guests at the table. R. Avraham Kahana Shapiro relates in the name of the Chafetz Chaim that one who has a poor guest, and delays his meal rather than hurrying to feed him, violates bal te'acher immediately (Responsa Devar Avraham II, 1, in gloss). This is the position of the Sha'ar HaTziyun cited above.

In the Mishnah Berurah's treatment of the Friday nightmeal, the formulation is broader. The Shulchan Arukh rules that upon coming home one should hurry to eat (Orach Chaim 271:1), which the Mishnah Berurah understands as hurrying to make Kiddush. One who is not hungry, however, may wait to make Kiddush until he is, as he has already remembered Shabbat in his prayers in the synagogue, and presumably it is preferable to make Kiddush over a meal that one will appreciate. However, this would only apply if he is the only one impacted by that decision. Where domestic peace is at stake, or he has guests in his home, and especially a poor guest, he should not delay in any way; since they are dependent on him, he may not keep them waiting because he wishes to fulfill the mitzvah in its choicest manner (Mishnah Berurah 271:1). The language parallels the sukkah ruling closely: the host's wish to perform a mitzvah in its optimal form does not justify making dependent guests wait.

Whether bal te'acher truly applies is itself a matter of discussion. The Devar Avraham explains why people were not generally careful about this: it is as if the Sages set a time for this charity, namely that when the host eats he will feed the poor, and until he himself eats, the time of obligation has not arrived. R. Weiss suggests more simply that one who conducts himself in the ordinary way does not violate bal te'acher at all. One who delays for an insignificant period of time due to normal functioning presumably has not committed this transgression (see also Chazon Ish, Yoreh De'ah, Hilkhot Tzedakah 153:5; Le-Reakha Kamokha II, 196).

The discussion bears on the scope of the practice as well. The Devar Avraham and the Sha'ar HaTziyun speak of poor guests. The Mishnah Berurah in 271:1 extends the principle to other guests, and even to members of the household, singling out the poor guest for emphasis. The Chafetz Chaim's explanation to his visitor likewise speaks of guests simply as hungry, and the visitor on that occasion was a rabbi, not a needy traveler. Whether the practice applies to any guest, or only to the needy, depends on whether it rests on bal te'acher or on a broader attentiveness to the hunger of whoever sits at the table (see R. Moshe Sternbuch, Mo'adim U-Zemanim VIII, 1:13, and Ta'am VeDa'at, Gen., p. 68).

The parallel to the sukkah is direct. In both cases, a practice that enhances the observance of the evening, whether waiting for the rain to stop or greeting the angels before Kiddush, is set aside so that hungry guests are not kept waiting.

Two Aspects of Hospitality

These rulings rest on a distinction between two components of hakhnasat orchim. The Maharil distinguishes between charity and hakhnasat orchim, characterizing feeding the hungry as charity and hakhnasat orchim as primarily an effort of social bonding, aimed toward inviting guests for the purpose of honoring them rather than sustaining them (Maharil, Likkutim 60). Many later authorities understand hospitality to the needy as a fulfillment of both categories (see Ahavat Chesed 3:1; Shenei Luchot Ha-Brit, Pesachim, Perek Ner Mitzvah #67). Either way, there are two distinct elements to the mitzvah: to attend to the material needs of the guests, and to honor them with attentive company.

When the guests are needy, the charitable element comes to the fore, and with it the obligations of charity, including the prohibition of delay. The element of honor can accommodate a leisurely pace; the element of sustenance cannot.

An additional element merges the concept of charity with that of hakhnasat orchim, even when the guest is financially secure. The mishnah teaches that one who is traveling from place to place is permitted to avail himself of charitable funds; according to R. Eliezer, he must reimburse these funds once he returns home, while according to the Rabbis, "he is a poor person at that time" (Pe'ah 5:4). The implication is that all who are away from their homes are considered "needy" due to their dislocation (see Yesh Nochalin 2:7).

Hospitality and the Joy of the Festival

The Sukkot ruling carries added significance, as the festivals are a time when hosting guests, particularly needy ones, takes on an added dimension. Maimonides writes: "One who closes his door, and eats and drinks, he and his children and his wife, and he does not feed and give drink to the poor and the low of spirit, this is not a joy of mitzvah, rather it is a joy of his belly (simchat kereiso), and this joy is a disgrace to them" (Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:18, and Hilkhot Chagigah 2:14; see also Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 529:2 and Mishnah Berurah 529:17). Failing to express hospitality at this time thus constitutes an invalidating flaw in one's festival observance.

On Sukkot, this theme takes on particular prominence. The Zohar teaches that the exalted guests, the ushpizin, who visit the sukkah each night of the festival, receive their portion only when the host gives it to the poor (Zohar III, 103b-104a; see Mishnah Berurah 529:17, citing the Zohar on the severity of failing to share one's festival meal with the poor). The sukkah is, by its nature, a dwelling defined by the guests it welcomes.

R. Yitzchak Sorotzkin suggests that this element was equally at play in the story of Abraham. The angels appeared to him on Yom Tov as a response to his pain at not having guests, a pain particularly exacerbated by the relationship between hospitality and proper festival celebration (Rinat Yitzchak, Gen. 18:1).

Seen in this light, the host who proceeds with the meal on a rainy first night is not simply trading one value for another. The welfare of his guests is itself part of the festival's joy, and a sukkah meal postponed until midnight while needy guests go hungry would risk becoming as self-centered as the "joy of his belly" that Maimonides describes.

The Model of Abraham

The Talmud teaches that hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine presence, deriving the principle from Abraham, who turned from a Divine visitation to attend to three passing travelers (Shabbat 127a; Gen. 18:1-3). The Meiri characterizes Abraham's request that God wait as reflecting the fact that involvement in hospitality would necessarily distract the mind and make continued engagement with the Divine presence challenging. Nonetheless, the importance of attending to the dignity of the displaced justifies the compromised attention (Beit Ha-Bechirah, Shavuot 35a).

As R. Avraham Pam emphasizes, the most impressive detail may be the fact that Abraham noticed the guests in the first place (Atarah Le-Melekh, pp. 20-21). He was engaged at that time in welcoming the Divine presence, and was completely consumed with spirituality. At such a time, any physical need would seem trivial and unimportant. For Abraham to assume awareness of the needs of another at that time required both a constant cognizance of his sacred mission of chesed and a magnificent power of empathy; he was a true embodiment of R. Yisrael Salanter's famous dictum, "the physical needs of others are my spiritual needs."

The host in a rainy sukkah faces a version of the same test. Waiting for the skies to clear is a spiritual aspiration, an effort to fulfill the first night's mitzvah in its complete form. The Chafetz Chaim's ruling asks the host to look up from that aspiration long enough to notice who at the table is hungry.

Bringing the Guests In

An interpretation of the term "hakhnasat orchim" is cited in the name of the Chafetz Chaim: the word hakhnasah is also indicative of "absorption," a bringing in not only of the guests physically but of all of their needs, concerns, and deficiencies (cited by R. Yitzchak Farkash, Birkhat Yitzchak, Va-Yera #13). When such an approach is employed, the actual feeding of the guests is not the focus but rather a natural outgrowth of the overall attention they are receiving.

If rain falls on the first night of Sukkot this year, the decision whether to wait may depend, at first glance, on who the guests at the table are. Another look reveals that the more significant question is who the hosts are.