Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 1, 2021 | 讻状讙 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refuah shleima for her beloved husband Rabbi Hayim Herring.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sukkah 25

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rina Goldberg in memory of her mother, Gitel Bat Dovid, Gertrude Kurz z”l whose yahrzeit is on 23 Av. “Our mother was in the first graduating class of the famed Hildesheimer Yeshiva in Berlin. She succeeded in instilling her love of Torah and Yiddishkeit to her two daughters, both of whom are studying the Daf with Rabbanit Michelle. The Siyum Hashas in January 2020 was one of the highlights of my life and I was overwhelmed to participate in the Hadran from the audience.”

Those on their way to perform a mitzva are exempt from sukkah as one involved in performing a mitzva is exempt from other mitzvot. This principle is derived from verses of Shema – how? A groom is exempt from shema as he is preoccupied. Is anyone who is preoccupied with something exempt from shema? Why not? How is the groom unique? The gemara questions why the principle of one who is involved in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva is not learned out from the verses regarding those who were impure when the Pesach sacrifice was meant to be brought in the desert? In the end, it seems both verses are necessary to teach this principle – why? A mourner is obligated in all mitzvot except tefillin on the first day – why? A mourner is obligated in sukkah. Why was it necessary to teach this? A groom and his wedding party are exempt from sukakh – why?

 

讗诇讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐

only within an area of two beit se鈥檃, the area necessary to grow two se鈥檃 of produce? Two beit se鈥檃 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.

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讚讬专讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讬讛 诇讗讜讬专 讜讻诇 讚讬专讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讬讛 诇讗讜讬专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 住讗转讬诐

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鈥檃.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讘转 讘转诇 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讜讻谉 讘谞拽注 砖讛讜讗 注诪讜拽 注砖专讛 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讜讻谉 拽诪讛 拽爪讜专讛 讜砖讘讜诇讜转 诪拽讬驻讜转 讗讜转讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗讝讬诇 讜讗转讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

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鈥檃; 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鈥檃; 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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪砖诪砖讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜砖讜转讬谉 注专讗讬 讞讜抓 诇住讜讻讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖讘转讱 讘讘讬转讱 驻专讟 诇注讜住拽 讘诪爪讜讛 讜讘诇讻转讱 讘讚专讱 驻专讟 诇讞转谉 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讛讘转讜诇讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讞讬讬讘

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: 鈥淲hen you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:7). The Sages interpret: 鈥淲hen you sit in your house,鈥 to the exclusion of one who is engaged in the performance of a mitzva, who is not sitting at home; 鈥渁nd when you walk by the way,鈥 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.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讚专讱 诪讛 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讗祝 讻诇 专砖讜转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 讚讘诪爪讜讛 注住讜拽

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.

诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜拽讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬拽专讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讘砖讘转 讜讘诇讻转 诪讗讬 讘砖讘转讱 讜讘诇讻转讱 讘诇讻转 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘转 讛讗 讘诇讻转 讚诪爪讜讛 驻讟讬专转

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: 鈥淲hen you sit鈥nd when you walk鈥? It comes to underscore: It is in your walking, undertaken for personal reasons and of one鈥檚 own volition, that you are obligated to recite Shema; in walking with the objective of performing a mitzva, you are exempt from reciting Shema.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜谞住 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 谞诪讬 讻讜谞住 讗转 讛讘转讜诇讛 讟专讬讚 讻讜谞住 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讗 讟专讬讚

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.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讟专讬讚 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讟讘注讛 住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐 讚讟专讬讚 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛专讬 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 驻讗专

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鈥檛 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?

讛讻讗 讟专讬讚 讟讬专讚讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讛转诐 讟专讬讚 讟讬专讚讗 讚专砖讜转

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.

讜讛注讜住拽 讘诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪爪讜讛 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬讛讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 讛讬讜 讟诪讗讬诐 诇谞驻砖 讗讚诐 讜讙讜壮 讗讜转诐 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讬 讛讬讜 谞讜砖讗讬 讗专讜谞讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

搂 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: 鈥淭here were certain men who were impure by the corpse of a person and they could not observe the Pesa岣 on that day鈥 (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鈥檚 coffin, which the Jewish people brought with them in the desert. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讬砖讗诇 讜讗诇爪驻谉 讛讬讜 砖讛讬讜 注讜住拽讬谉 讘谞讚讘 讜讗讘讬讛讜讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞讜砖讗讬 讗专讜谞讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讛讬讜 讻讘专 讛讬讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讬讟讛专 讗诐 诪讬砖讗诇 讜讗诇爪驻谉 讛讬讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 讛讬讜 诇讬讟讛专

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 Yitz岣k says: These identifications are inaccurate, because if they were the bearers of Joseph鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 注讜住拽讬谉 讘诪转 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讜 砖讞诇 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讛谉 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 驻住讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讻诇讜 诇注砖讜转 讛驻住讞 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讛讗 诇诪讞专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转

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: 鈥淎nd they could not observe the Pesa岣 on that day鈥 (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.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讚驻住讞 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪讟讗 讝诪谉 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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 Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, say that one is not exempt from performing it. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讞讜抓 诪转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛专讬 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 驻讗专 诪讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讞讝拽讗诇 驻讗专讱 讞讘讜砖 注诇讬讱 讜讙讜壮 讗转 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘转 讗讘诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 驻讟讬专讬

搂 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: 鈥淪igh in silence; make no mourning for the dead, bind your splendor upon you, and put your shoes upon your feet鈥 (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.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讞专讬转讛 讻讬讜诐 诪专

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

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讘住讜讻讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讟注专 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讟注专 讛讜讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 爪注专讗 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪爪讟注专 谞驻砖讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讬转讜讘讬 讚注转讬讛

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞转谉 讜讛砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讛讞讜驻讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讜 诇诪讬讞讚讬 讜诇讬讻诇讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜诇讬讞讚讜 讘住讜讻讛 讗讬谉 砖诪讞讛 讗诇讗 讘讞讜驻讛 讜诇讬讻诇讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜诇讬讞讚讜 讘讞讜驻讛 讗讬谉 砖诪讞讛 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛

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.

讜诇讬注讘讚讜 讞讜驻讛 讘住讜讻讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬讬讞讜讚 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪注专 讞转谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚谞驻拽讬 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讛转诐 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬讬讞讜讚 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪注专 讞转谉 讗讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗谞讗 讗讻诇讬 讘住讜讻讛 讜讞讚讬 讘讞讜驻讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讞讚讬 诇讬讘讗讬 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 转专转讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞转谉 讜讛砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讞讜驻讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛转驻诇讛 讜诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

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.

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 21 – 27 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about various cases where the covering, schach, of the Sukka isn鈥檛 complete and if this...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 25: Sukkahs, a Wedding, and a Funeral

Who needs to sit in the sukkah? Or who is exempt from sitting in one? One who is buys with...
alon shvut women

Walking on the Path

Succah, Daf 25 Teachers: Yehudit Epstein & Dena Rock https://youtu.be/13ev27kQmco

Sukkah 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 25

讗诇讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐

only within an area of two beit se鈥檃, the area necessary to grow two se鈥檃 of produce? Two beit se鈥檃 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.

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讚讬专讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讬讛 诇讗讜讬专 讜讻诇 讚讬专讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讬讛 诇讗讜讬专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 住讗转讬诐

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鈥檃.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讘转 讘转诇 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讜讻谉 讘谞拽注 砖讛讜讗 注诪讜拽 注砖专讛 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讜讻谉 拽诪讛 拽爪讜专讛 讜砖讘讜诇讜转 诪拽讬驻讜转 讗讜转讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗讝讬诇 讜讗转讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

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鈥檃; 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鈥檃; 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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪砖诪砖讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜砖讜转讬谉 注专讗讬 讞讜抓 诇住讜讻讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖讘转讱 讘讘讬转讱 驻专讟 诇注讜住拽 讘诪爪讜讛 讜讘诇讻转讱 讘讚专讱 驻专讟 诇讞转谉 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讛讘转讜诇讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讞讬讬讘

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: 鈥淲hen you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:7). The Sages interpret: 鈥淲hen you sit in your house,鈥 to the exclusion of one who is engaged in the performance of a mitzva, who is not sitting at home; 鈥渁nd when you walk by the way,鈥 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.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讚专讱 诪讛 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讗祝 讻诇 专砖讜转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 讚讘诪爪讜讛 注住讜拽

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.

诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜拽讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬拽专讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讘砖讘转 讜讘诇讻转 诪讗讬 讘砖讘转讱 讜讘诇讻转讱 讘诇讻转 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘转 讛讗 讘诇讻转 讚诪爪讜讛 驻讟讬专转

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: 鈥淲hen you sit鈥nd when you walk鈥? It comes to underscore: It is in your walking, undertaken for personal reasons and of one鈥檚 own volition, that you are obligated to recite Shema; in walking with the objective of performing a mitzva, you are exempt from reciting Shema.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜谞住 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 谞诪讬 讻讜谞住 讗转 讛讘转讜诇讛 讟专讬讚 讻讜谞住 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讗 讟专讬讚

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.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讟专讬讚 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讟讘注讛 住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐 讚讟专讬讚 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛专讬 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 驻讗专

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鈥檛 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?

讛讻讗 讟专讬讚 讟讬专讚讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讛转诐 讟专讬讚 讟讬专讚讗 讚专砖讜转

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.

讜讛注讜住拽 讘诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪爪讜讛 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬讛讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 讛讬讜 讟诪讗讬诐 诇谞驻砖 讗讚诐 讜讙讜壮 讗讜转诐 讗谞砖讬诐 诪讬 讛讬讜 谞讜砖讗讬 讗专讜谞讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

搂 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: 鈥淭here were certain men who were impure by the corpse of a person and they could not observe the Pesa岣 on that day鈥 (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鈥檚 coffin, which the Jewish people brought with them in the desert. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讬砖讗诇 讜讗诇爪驻谉 讛讬讜 砖讛讬讜 注讜住拽讬谉 讘谞讚讘 讜讗讘讬讛讜讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞讜砖讗讬 讗专讜谞讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讛讬讜 讻讘专 讛讬讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讬讟讛专 讗诐 诪讬砖讗诇 讜讗诇爪驻谉 讛讬讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 讛讬讜 诇讬讟讛专

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 Yitz岣k says: These identifications are inaccurate, because if they were the bearers of Joseph鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 注讜住拽讬谉 讘诪转 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讜 砖讞诇 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讛谉 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 驻住讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讻诇讜 诇注砖讜转 讛驻住讞 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讛讗 诇诪讞专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转

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: 鈥淎nd they could not observe the Pesa岣 on that day鈥 (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.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讚驻住讞 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪讟讗 讝诪谉 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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 Pesa岣 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 Pesa岣, say that one is not exempt from performing it. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讞讜抓 诪转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛专讬 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 驻讗专 诪讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讞讝拽讗诇 驻讗专讱 讞讘讜砖 注诇讬讱 讜讙讜壮 讗转 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘转 讗讘诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 驻讟讬专讬

搂 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: 鈥淪igh in silence; make no mourning for the dead, bind your splendor upon you, and put your shoes upon your feet鈥 (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.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讞专讬转讛 讻讬讜诐 诪专

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

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讘住讜讻讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讟注专 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讟注专 讛讜讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 爪注专讗 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪爪讟注专 谞驻砖讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讬转讜讘讬 讚注转讬讛

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞转谉 讜讛砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讛讞讜驻讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讜 诇诪讬讞讚讬 讜诇讬讻诇讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜诇讬讞讚讜 讘住讜讻讛 讗讬谉 砖诪讞讛 讗诇讗 讘讞讜驻讛 讜诇讬讻诇讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜诇讬讞讚讜 讘讞讜驻讛 讗讬谉 砖诪讞讛 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住注讜讚讛

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.

讜诇讬注讘讚讜 讞讜驻讛 讘住讜讻讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬讬讞讜讚 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪注专 讞转谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚谞驻拽讬 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讛转诐 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬讬讞讜讚 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪注专 讞转谉 讗讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗谞讗 讗讻诇讬 讘住讜讻讛 讜讞讚讬 讘讞讜驻讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讞讚讬 诇讬讘讗讬 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 转专转讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞转谉 讜讛砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讞讜驻讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛转驻诇讛 讜诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

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.

Scroll To Top