Sukkah 25

אלא בית סאתים

only within an area of two beit se’a, the area necessary to grow two se’a of produce? Two beit se’a was the area of the Tabernacle courtyard; it is also the area within which the Sages permitted one to carry on Shabbat in a case where there are partitions but the area was not originally enclosed for the purpose of residence. If one tied the foliage to prevent its swaying in the wind, he clearly established the partition for residence, and there should be no limits on the area in which he may carry.

משום דהוי דירה שתשמישיה לאויר וכל דירה שתשמישיה לאויר אין מטלטלין בו אלא סאתים

The Gemara answers: The reason that it is permitted to carry only if the enclosed area is less than this size is because it is a residence whose uses are for the open air beyond it, i.e., it is used by guards who are watching the fields beyond it rather than as an independent residence. And the halakha with regard to any residence whose uses are for the open air beyond it is that one may carry in it only if its area is no larger than two beit se’a.

תא שמע שבת בתל שהוא גבוה עשרה והוא מארבע אמות עד בית סאתים וכן בנקע שהוא עמוק עשרה והוא מארבע אמות עד בית סאתים וכן קמה קצורה ושבולות מקיפות אותה מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה אף על גב דקאזיל ואתי התם נמי דעביד ליה בהוצא ודפנא

Come and hear proof from another source: With regard to one who established his Shabbat residence on a mound that is ten handbreadths high and its area is anywhere from four cubits to two beit se’a; and similarly, with regard to one who established his Shabbat residence in a natural cavity of a rock that is ten handbreadths deep and its area is anywhere from four cubits to two beit se’a; and similarly, with regard to one who established his Shabbat residence in a field of reaped grain, and rows of stalks ten handbreadths high that have not been reaped surround it, serving as a partition enclosing the reaped area, he may walk in the entire enclosed area and outside it an additional two thousand cubits. Apparently, the stalks are a fit partition although they sway back and forth in the wind. The Gemara refutes this proof: There, too, it is a fit partition due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.

מתני׳ שלוחי מצוה פטורין מן הסוכה חולין ומשמשיהן פטורין מן הסוכה אוכלין ושותין עראי חוץ לסוכה

MISHNA: Those on the path to perform a mitzva are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. The ill and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. One may eat and drink in the framework of a casual meal outside the sukka.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי תנו רבנן בשבתך בביתך פרט לעוסק במצוה ובלכתך בדרך פרט לחתן מכאן אמרו הכונס את הבתולה פטור ואת האלמנה חייב

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that one who is performing a mitzva is exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Sages taught in a baraita that it is written in the Torah that one recites Shema at the following times: “When you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). The Sages interpret: “When you sit in your house,” to the exclusion of one who is engaged in the performance of a mitzva, who is not sitting at home; “and when you walk by the way,” to the exclusion of a groom, who is preoccupied with his mitzva of consummating the marriage and is not walking along the way. The baraita adds that from here the Sages stated: One who marries a virgin is exempt from reciting Shema on his wedding night, and one who marries a widow is obligated.

מאי משמע אמר רב הונא כדרך מה דרך רשות אף כל רשות לאפוקי האי דבמצוה עסוק

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred in this verse that a groom is exempt from the mitzva of Shema? Rav Huna said: The circumstances when one is obligated to recite Shema are like the circumstances when one walks along the way: Just as the walking by the way described in the verse is voluntary and involves no mitzva, so too, all those obligated to recite Shema are similarly engaged in voluntary activities, to the exclusion of this groom, who is engaged in the performance of a mitzva.

מי לא עסקינן דקאזיל לדבר מצוה וקא אמר רחמנא ליקרי אם כן לימא קרא בשבת ובלכת מאי בשבתך ובלכתך בלכת דידך הוא דמיחייבת הא בלכת דמצוה פטירת

The Gemara asks: The verse does not specify the way along which one is walking. Are we not dealing with one who is walking along the way for a matter of a mitzva, and nevertheless, the Merciful One says to recite Shema? Apparently, one is obligated to do so even if he set out to perform a mitzva. The Gemara answers: If it is so that the intention was to obligate even those who are engaged in performance of a mitzva, let the verse state: When sitting and when walking. What is the meaning of: “When you sit…and when you walk”? It comes to underscore: It is in your walking, undertaken for personal reasons and of one’s own volition, that you are obligated to recite Shema; in walking with the objective of performing a mitzva, you are exempt from reciting Shema.

אי הכי אפילו כונס את האלמנה נמי כונס את הבתולה טריד כונס אלמנה לא טריד

The Gemara asks: If so, even one who marries a widow should also be exempt, as he too is engaged in the performance of a mitzva. That, however, contradicts the baraita. The Gemara responds that there is a distinction between one marrying a virgin and one marrying a widow. One who marries a virgin is preoccupied by his concern lest he discover that his bride is not a virgin, while one who marries a widow is not preoccupied.

וכל היכא דטריד הכי נמי דפטור אלא מעתה טבעה ספינתו בים דטריד הכי נמי דפטור וכי תימא הכי נמי והאמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב אבל חייב בכל המצות האמורות בתורה חוץ מן התפילין שהרי נאמר בהן פאר

The Gemara asks: And wherever one is preoccupied is he indeed exempt? But if that is so, then one whose ship sank at sea, who is preoccupied, should also be exempt. The Gemara reinforces its question: And if you say that indeed, that is so, didn’t Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah, including reciting Shema, except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, from which he is exempt, as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries? If a mourner, who is clearly pained and preoccupied, is obligated to recite Shema, then certainly all others who are preoccupied, even one whose ship sank at sea, whose loss was merely monetary (Birkat Hashem), should be obligated. Why, then, is a groom exempted due to his preoccupation and one who lost his property is not?

הכא טריד טירדא דמצוה התם טריד טירדא דרשות

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the cases. Here, in the case of a groom, he is preoccupied with the preoccupation of a mitzva that he must perform; there, in the case of a ship lost at sea, he is preoccupied with the preoccupation of a voluntary act that he chooses to perform.

והעוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא דתניא ויהי אנשים אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם וגו׳ אותם אנשים מי היו נושאי ארונו של יוסף היו דברי יוסי הגלילי

§ The Gemara asks: And is the halakhic principle that one who is engaged in a mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva derived from here? It is derived from there, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “There were certain men who were impure by the corpse of a person and they could not observe the Pesaḥ on that day” (Numbers 9:6). Before proceeding with the discussion, the baraita seeks to clarify with regard to those men who became impure: Who were they? The baraita answers: They were the bearers of Joseph’s coffin, which the Jewish people brought with them in the desert. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

רבי עקיבא אומר מישאל ואלצפן היו שהיו עוסקין בנדב ואביהוא רבי יצחק אומר אם נושאי ארונו של יוסף היו כבר היו יכולין ליטהר אם מישאל ואלצפן היו יכולין היו ליטהר

Rabbi Akiva says: They were Mishael and Elzaphan, who were engaged in carrying the bodies of Nadav and Avihu after they were burned in the Holy of Holies (see Leviticus 10:4). Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These identifications are inaccurate, because if they were the bearers of Joseph’s coffin, they could have already been purified. They were camped at Sinai sufficient time to become purified in time to sacrifice the Paschal lamb. And if they were Mishael and Elzaphan they could have already been purified, as the Tabernacle was erected on the first of Nisan, which was the eighth day of the inauguration, when the sons of Aaron were burned. More than seven days remained until the eve of Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan.

אלא עוסקין במת מצוה היו שחל שביעי שלהן להיות בערב פסח שנאמר ולא יכלו לעשות הפסח ביום ההוא ביום ההוא אין יכולין לעשות הא למחר יכולין לעשות

Rather, they were unnamed people who were engaged in tending to a corpse whose burial is a mitzva, i.e., which has no one else available to bury it, and their seventh day of impurity occurred precisely on the eve of Passover, as it is stated: “And they could not observe the Pesaḥ on that day” (Numbers 9:6). The Gemara infers: On that day they could not observe it; on the next day they could observe it. Although they would be purified at nightfall and would then be eligible to partake of the Paschal lamb, at the time of the slaughter and the sprinkling of the blood they were not yet pure. They asked whether the Paschal lamb could be slaughtered on their behalf. Apparently, they were obligated to perform the mitzva of burial of the corpse although it prevented them from fulfilling the mitzva of sacrificing the Paschal lamb, which is a stringent mitzva. This is the source for the principle that one engaged in the performance of a mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva.

צריכא דאי אשמעינן התם משום דלא מטא זמן חיובא דפסח אבל הכא דמטא זמן קריאת שמע אימא לא צריכא ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דליכא כרת אבל התם דאיכא כרת אימא לא צריכא

The Gemara answers: Both sources are necessary. As, if it had taught us there, in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse, the conclusion would have been that the exemption from sacrificing the Paschal lamb is due to the fact that the time of the obligation of the Pesaḥ had not yet arrived when they were obligated to bury the corpse, and therefore they proceeded to fulfill the mitzva that they encountered first. However, here, where the time to recite Shema had already arrived during the wedding, say no, that the groom is not exempt; therefore, it is necessary to teach that the groom is exempt. And if it had taught us here, with regard to Shema, the conclusion would have been that the exemption from Shema is due to the fact that it is not a stringent mitzva, as there is no karet administered to one who fails to fulfill it. However, there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet administered to one who fails to observe the Pesaḥ, say that one is not exempt from performing it. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.

גופא אמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב אבל חייב בכל מצות האמורות בתורה חוץ מתפילין שהרי נאמר בהן פאר מדאמר ליה רחמנא ליחזקאל פארך חבוש עליך וגו׳ את הוא דמיחייבת אבל כולי עלמא פטירי

§ With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, from which a mourner is exempt, as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries, and it is not proper for a mourner to adorn himself in this manner. This is derived from the fact that the Merciful One said to Ezekiel: “Sigh in silence; make no mourning for the dead, bind your splendor upon you, and put your shoes upon your feet” (Ezekiel 24:17). Ezekiel was commanded to refrain from mourning for his wife in the manner that others do. God said to Ezekiel: You are obligated to don phylacteries even while mourning; however, everyone else is exempt.

והני מילי ביום ראשון דכתיב ואחריתה כיום מר

The Gemara comments: This exemption applies only on the first day of mourning, as it is written: “And I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10). From this verse it is derived that the primary bitterness of a mourner lasts only one day.

ואמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב אבל חייב בסוכה פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל ואמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב מצטער פטור מן הסוכה האי נמי מצטער הוא קמשמע לן הני מילי צערא דממילא אבל הכא איהו הוא דקא מצטער נפשיה איבעי ליה ליתובי דעתיה

On a similar note, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why would he be exempt? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said that one who is suffering due to his presence in the sukka is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, one could have said that this mourner too is one who is suffering and should be exempt as well. Therefore, he teaches us that the mourner is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. These cases are not similar, since this exemption from sukka applies only with regard to suffering that is caused by the sukka itself, e.g., when one is cold or hot or when the roofing has a foul odor. However, here, in the case of a mourner, where he is causing himself to suffer unrelated to his presence in the sukka, he is required to settle himself and fulfill the mitzva.

ואמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב חתן והשושבינין וכל בני החופה פטורין מן הסוכה כל שבעה מאי טעמא משום דבעו למיחדי וליכלו בסוכה וליחדו בסוכה אין שמחה אלא בחופה וליכלו בסוכה וליחדו בחופה אין שמחה אלא במקום סעודה

§ And Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: The groom and the groomsmen and all members of the wedding party who participate in the wedding celebration are exempt from the mitzva of sukka for all seven days of the wedding celebration. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they are exempt? It is because they wish to rejoice. The Gemara asks: And let them eat in the sukka and rejoice in the sukka. The Gemara answers: The celebration of a wedding is only in the wedding home where the newlyweds reside after the marriage ceremony. The Gemara asks: So let them eat in the sukka like everyone else and rejoice in the wedding home. The Gemara answers: There is joy only in the place where there is a meal. Therefore, since the celebration must be in the home of the newlyweds, the meal must also be there.

וליעבדו חופה בסוכה אביי אמר משום ייחוד ורבא אמר משום צער חתן מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דשכיחי אינשי דנפקי ועיילי להתם למאן דאמר משום ייחוד ליכא למאן דאמר משום צער חתן איכא

The Gemara asks: And let them establish the wedding home in the sukka. Abaye said: This may not be done due to the prohibition against seclusion of the bride with a man other than her husband. As the sukka was often established on a rooftop, if the groom went downstairs at any point, the bride could find herself alone in the sukka with a man. And Rava said: The reason is due to the suffering of the groom. Since the sukka is not enclosed on all sides, he will be unable to enjoy privacy with his bride. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where people regularly enter and leave the sukka. According to the one who said that the reason is due to the prohibition against being alone together, there is no room for concern in that case. However, according to the one who said that the reason is due to the suffering of the groom, there is room for concern in that case as well.

אמר רבי זירא אנא אכלי בסוכה וחדי בחופה וכל שכן דחדי ליבאי דקא עבידנא תרתי

Rabbi Zeira said: I married on the eve of the festival of Sukkot and I ate in the sukka and rejoiced in the wedding home, and all the more so my heart rejoiced as I fulfilled two mitzvot: The mitzva of marriage and the accompanying celebration, and the mitzva of sukka. Nevertheless, he did not require others to do the same.

תנו רבנן חתן והשושבינין וכל בני חופה פטורין מן התפלה ומן התפילין וחייבין בקריאת שמע

The Sages taught: The groom and the groomsmen and all the members of the wedding party are exempt from the mitzva of prayer and from the mitzva of phylacteries because they are unable to muster the requisite intent due to the excess of joy and levity; but they are obligated in the mitzva of reciting Shema.