Menachem gives us the impression that eshel avraham holds that leniencies could be extended to others.
Menachem writes the following :
In fact, there are poskim who clearly write that these leniencies can be extended to others. For example, the Eshel Avraham writes that bochurim may sleep outside the sukkah, since they can rely on the fact that “רובא דעלמא” most people are exempt due to their wives.
Sof tsitut.
Satam menachem velo piresh.
—–
I looked in eshel avraham [OC 639].
He says the following – starting from the rama upon which he comments:
Rama asked why in his areas the minhag was not to sleep in the suka, which seems against the issur min hatorah on sleeping out of the suka ?
Whereupon rama first brings an answer in the name of mordechai that in cold places the person is mitsta’er from the cold , so it is not ke’ein taduru to sleep in suka. Which takes away the isur min hatora to sleep outside.
Rama himself appears reluctant to take this approach, and offers his own.
that married people normally sleep in the same room and since the suka is not private enough for that, there is a problem of ke’en taduru. Which in turn is matir the isur min hatorah on sleeping out of the suka.
Comes eshel avraham and says that at first glance rama’s approach would exclude unmarrieds and those marrieds who are in a different city to their spouse for whatever reason. Which would mean that those people would be subject to the issur min hatora to sleep outside of the sukka.
Whereafter he says that it is possible that the criteria of ke’en taduru is not something which is decided on an individual basis , rather on a communal basis, where the individuals are nigrar after the community when establishing what the ke’en taduru is.
Or on a household basis , where the other members of the household are nigrar after rosh of the household whose spouse is present and therefore his taduru would be out of the suka, so too his dependants’ and guests’ derech of taduru would also be out of the suka , and therefore also their issur to sleep outside would disappear.
He considers those options only as a safek [1] , which would not be sufficient on itself to be meikil in an issur min hatorah.
Nevertheless , since we could also use the mordechai’s approach at least as another safek [2] .
It seems that E’A understood rama’s hesitancy to use mordecha’s approach because of rama’s decision to classify mordechai’s approach as a halachik safek [2] [which, again , on itself ,would be insufficient for rama to be matir an issur min hatora].
But once we accepted mordechai as a halahik safek [2] the way is open to use E’A’s safek [1] as a combination and make it into a sfek sfeika which is powerful enough to be matir an issur min hatorah me’ikar hadin.
However there still is a makom for pious individuals who would refrain of making use of a sfek sfeika to be meikil in an issur min hatorah and therefore continue to refrain from sleeping outside of the suka.
Ad kan divrei Eshel Avraham, be’erech.
—
How menachem insists on somehow comparing this approach of E’A to [the unmodified issur min hatorah of] sleeping out of the sukka with the modified hiyuv miderabanan of hanukah stays an enigma to all concerned.
As said mechaber is talking on lechatchila level , not on the bedi’avad level.
On bedei’avad level both [lighting in or out] are fine.
The preference of mechaber on outside lighting is only on lechathila.
Not on bedi’avad.
.
.
.