The large-scale deployment of soldiers to the north of Israel brought renewed focus to what many families have faced since the start of this war, as married active-duty and reservists are once again saying goodbye to their wives and children. While some families have been able to establish routines for when the husband is away, for other couples, deployment remains a source of significant stress.
Much of the psychological research on this topic concentrated on American military service members deployed during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, and, as one might expect, separation often contributed to various challenges for these couples. For example, both partners experienced significant psychological distress related to concerns about the war and its effects, with the wife typically experiencing higher distress (Allen et al., 2011); couples may display avoidant coping strategies that raise tension between them (Blow, et al., 2017); and there is potential for decreased communication between the spouses (Zamir, et al., 2020), among various other documented difficulties. Of course, not all couples experience the same types of stressors or are impacted to the same degree, and studies have sought to understand what factors may contribute to more resilient outcomes for these families (Lewis et al., 2012).
Chazal’s sensitivity to this reality, that a couple’s separation can lead to substantial distress, plays a role in a long-standing halachic controversy related to Sukkos. The Torah commands us (Vayikra 23:42) that we should reside (“teishvu”) in the sukkah for seven days. The Gemara in several places elaborates that this means teishvu k’ein taduru, that how we reside in the sukkah should be similar to how we dwell in our homes.
From this principle in the Gemara, we learn what we are meant to do in the sukkah – the sukkah is where we eat, drink, sleep, learn, and relax. This principle is also understood in the opposite way, namely that there are limitations on the obligation to reside in the sukkah if conditions are such that one is unable to live in the sukkah as he would in his own home. Perhaps the best-known application of this halacha is in the case of rain – just as a person would not remain in a room in his home with rainwater pouring in, a person is exempt from sitting in a sukkah when water is coming through the schach. One category of this type of exemption is that of “mitzta’eir,” translated as a person in discomfort or pain; if sitting in the sukkah contributes to significant enough discomfort, a person would be exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah.
With this background, we can now turn to the halachic debate. Notably, the following discussion is not meant to advocate for a specific halachic position; however, a careful look at one of the arguments provides an insight into the sensitivity that our mesorah has regarding the separation of couples. The Rema explains (Orach Chayim 639:2):
And nowadays what is practiced to be lenient in the sukkah, such that only the scrupulously observant sleep in the sukkah – there are those who say that it is because of the cold, for it is uncomfortable to sleep in the cold places. [However,] it seems to me that this is because the mitzvah of sukkah is a man and his household, a man and his wife, and in a place where he cannot [be in the sukkah] with his wife, that he does not have a suitable sukkah, he is exempt; and it is good to be stringent, and to be there with his wife, just as he resides all year, if he can have a suitable sukkah.
The Rema offers an explanation that the reason many men do not sleep in the sukkah is because in most cases, the man is not able to be joined by his wife in the sukkah. He states that a preferred solution to this problem is to have a sukkah that is suitable for his wife, but if that is not possible, his understanding seems to be that this exemption is intrinsic to the laws of sukkah – if the mitzvah is teishvu k’ein taduru, and spouses typically share a room for sleep, sleeping in the sukkah without one’s wife would not be in fulfillment of this halacha. Magen Avraham seems to add another dimension to the Rama’s explanation, that the separation between a husband and wife would be categorized as a mitzta’eir, and would thus lead to an exemption from sleeping in the sukkah. Ta”z suggests an additional reason, that there is a mitzvah to make one’s wife happy on the holiday, and sleeping separately from her would be a violation of this obligation. He adds that this reason would still apply in cases where she is in a state of ritual impurity.
What emerges from these Acharonim, especially Magen Avraham, is that the regular proximity to one’s spouse, even if physical contact is prohibited, is comforting, and losing that proximity is discomforting – and this discomfort might be sufficient to exempt a person from sukkah! This pain of separation is even more present on the holiday during which there is a special emphasis on couples rejoicing with one another.
As the Rambam writes, an essential part of the fulfillment of simchas yom tov is to support those who are without, and as a community, this is an opportunity to recommit ourselves to supporting these families who are separated as a result of the war. This support may come in the form of inviting these families for a yom tov meal, sending them food or money to ease their daily burdens, or any number of other forms of care. Additionally, as we pray to Hashem for the safe return of the hostages and the security of our soldiers, we may also take a moment to appreciate the mesiras nefesh of these couples and families who are sacrificing so that hopefully soon, all of Klal Yisrael will be able to celebrate the chag together.
