Question:
I understand there is an obligation to say a Berocho - like all Birkos Hamitzvos, but in the MB siman 668 shha"tz sk 11, which in turn is based on the loshon of the Maharshal quoted in the Taz, it says clearly there is an Issur to eat without a Berocho. That language confuses me. Is seems that its still better to be in the Sukkoh even without a Berocho, as we find in countless other cases. Just to explain: The obligation to say a Berocho I do understand, I fail to understnand the expression of issur to be in the Sukkoh without a Berocho. (As an example, acc to the opinions that sleeping requires a Berocho of leyshev, would they hold its ossur to sleep without?) Thank you !
Answer:
The Mishana Berura is saying that being that during the time when the bracha might be in vain, as it is no longer Succos, that it is preferred not to eat in order not to eat, when there might be an obligation to make a bracha, and by not saying it, one violated the takana d'rabonon of making a bracha. The other instances that you are bringing up, are controversial if they need a bracha in the first place, ( even though there are opinions to make a bracha, safek brachos l'hakel). Here the person is putting himself into a full obligation to say a bracha, however the timing is the issue, becaue he already made it the next day, by davening maariv.
Best wishes
