Sukkah 26
מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שֵׁילָא אָמְרוּ: חָתָן פָּטוּר, וְהַשּׁוֹשְׁבִינִין וְכׇל בְּנֵי הַחוּפָּה חַיָּיבִין.
In the name of Rabbi Sheila they said: A groom is exempt from the mitzva of Shema, but the groomsmen and all the members of the wedding party are obligated.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא: כּוֹתְבֵי סְפָרִים תְּפִילִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת, הֵן וְתַגָּרֵיהֶן וְתַגָּרֵי תַגָּרֵיהֶן וְכׇל הָעוֹסְקִין בִּמְלֶאכֶת שָׁמַיִם, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מוֹכְרֵי תְכֵלֶת — פְּטוּרִין מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמִן הַתְּפִלָּה וּמִן הַתְּפִילִּין וּמִכׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה, לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: הָעוֹסֵק בְּמִצְוָה פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּצְוָה.
§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya said: With regard to scribes of Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot, they themselves, and the merchants who sell them, and the merchants who purchase them from the first merchants and sell them to others, and all who are engaged in the labor of Heaven, which comes to include the sellers of the sky-blue dye for ritual fringes, are all exempt from the mitzva of reciting Shema and from prayer and from donning phylacteries and from all mitzvot that are mentioned in the Torah while they are engaged in that labor. This statement comes to fulfill the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili would say: One who is engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוֹלְכֵי דְרָכִים בַּיּוֹם — פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה בַּיּוֹם, וְחַיָּיבִין בַּלַּיְלָה. הוֹלְכֵי דְרָכִים בַּלַּיְלָה — פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה בַּלַּיְלָה וְחַיָּיבִין בַּיּוֹם. הוֹלְכֵי דְרָכִים בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה — פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה. הוֹלְכִין לִדְבַר מִצְוָה — פְּטוּרִין בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה. כִּי הָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא כִּי הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בְּשַׁבְּתָא דְרִגְלָא לְבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, הֲווֹ גָּנוּ אַרַקְתָּא דְסוּרָא, אָמְרִי: אֲנַן שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֲנַן וּפְטוּרִין.
The Sages taught in a baraita: Travelers who travel during the day are exempt from the mitzva of sukka during the day and are obligated at night. Travelers by night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka at night and obligated during the day. Travelers both during the day and at night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka both during the day and at night. Those who travel for a matter of mitzva are exempt both during the day and at night, because they are preoccupied with the mitzva, even if they are not traveling at night, as in this recurring incident involving Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna. The Gemara relates: When they would enter the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival to hear his Festival homily, they would sleep on the bank of the Sura River and not in a sukka. They said in explanation: We are ones on the path to perform a mitzva and are exempt from the mitzva of sukka.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹמְרֵי הָעִיר בַּיּוֹם — פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה בַּיּוֹם, וְחַיָּיבִין בַּלַּיְלָה. שׁוֹמְרֵי הָעִיר בַּלַּיְלָה — פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסּוּכָּה בַּלַּיְלָה, וְחַיָּיבִין בַּיּוֹם. שׁוֹמְרֵי הָעִיר בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה — פְּטוּרִים מִן הַסּוּכָּה בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה.
The Sages taught in a baraita: Guardians of the city who guard during the day are exempt from the mitzva of sukka during the day and are obligated at night. Guardians of the city at night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka at night and are obligated during the day. Those who guard the city both during the day and at night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka both during the day and at night.
שׁוֹמְרֵי גַנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים — פְּטוּרִין בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה. וְלִיעְבְּדוּ סוּכָּה הָתָם וְלִיתְּבוּ? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: ״תֵּשְׁבוּ״ — כְּעֵין תָּדוּרוּ.
Guardians of gardens and orchards are exempt from sukka both during the day and at night. The Gemara asks: And let them establish a sukka there in the garden and reside there. Why are they exempt from the mitzva of sukka? Abaye said: The reason for the exemption is the verse: “In sukkot shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42), which the Sages interpreted to mean: Reside as you dwell in your permanent home. Since preparing a sukka that is a fully equipped dwelling in the orchard far from his house would involve considerable exertion, the mitzva does not apply to him.
רָבָא אָמַר: פִּרְצָה קוֹרְאָה לַגַּנָּב. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּקָא מְנַטַּר כַּרְיָא דְפֵירֵי.
Rava said: A breach summons the thief. If the guardian builds a sukka, thieves will know where the guardian is located in the field and they will enter the field elsewhere. The exemption of the watchman from the mitzva of sukka prevents that situation. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two reasons given? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where he is guarding a pile of fruit, which can be guarded from inside the sukka; therefore, according to Rava, in that case the guard would be obligated in the mitzva of sukka. However, since the sukka in the orchard is not like a fully equipped home, in Abaye’s opinion he would still be exempt in that case.
חוֹלִים וּמְשַׁמְּשֵׁיהֶם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חוֹלֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ, לֹא חוֹלֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חוֹלֶה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סַכָּנָה. אֲפִילּוּ חָשׁ בְּעֵינָיו, וַאֲפִילּוּ חָשׁ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: פַּעַם אַחַת חַשְׁתִּי בְּעֵינֵי בְּקֵיסָרִי, וְהִתִּיר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרִיבִּי לִישַׁן אֲנִי וּמְשַׁמְּשַׁי חוּץ לַסּוּכָּה.
§ It is stated in the mishna: The ill and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. The Sages taught in a baraita: The ill person that they said is exempt from sukka is not only an ill person whose condition is critical, but even an ill person whose condition is not critical, and even one who feels pain in his eyes, and even one who feels pain in his head. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One time I felt pain in my eyes in Caesarea, and the esteemed Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta permitted me and my attendant to sleep outside the sukka.
רַב שְׁרָא לְרַב אַחָא בַּרְדְּלָא לְמִגְנֵא בְּכִילְּתָא בַּסּוּכָּה — מִשּׁוּם בָּקֵי. רָבָא שְׁרָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא לְמִגְנֵא בַּר מִמְּטַלַּלְתָּא — מִשּׁוּם סִירְחָא דְגַרְגִּישְׁתָּא.
The Gemara relates a similar tale: Rav permitted Rav Aḥa Bardela to sleep beneath a canopy in the sukka due to the biting flies [baki]. He permitted this although the canopy was more than ten handbreadths high and in sleeping beneath it he did not fulfill his obligation. Rava permitted Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda to sleep outside the sukka due to the foul odor of the earth [gargishta] floor of the sukka.
רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מִצְטַעֵר — פָּטוּר מִן הַסּוּכָּה. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: חוֹלִין וּמְשַׁמְּשֵׁיהֶם פְּטוּרִים מִן הַסּוּכָּה. חוֹלֶה אִין, מִצְטַעַר לָא! אָמְרִי: חוֹלֶה — הוּא וּמְשַׁמְּשָׁיו פְּטוּרִים, מִצְטַעֵר — הוּא פָּטוּר, מְשַׁמְּשָׁיו לָא.
The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava said: One who suffers in the sukka is exempt from the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the ill and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? By inference, with regard to an ill person, yes, he is exempt; with regard to one who suffers, no, he is not exempt. The Sages say: With regard to an ill person, he and his caretakers are exempt; however, with regard to one who merely suffers in the sukka, he is exempt but his caretakers are not.
אוֹכְלִים אֲכִילַת עֲרַאי חוּץ לַסּוּכָּה. וְכַמָּה אֲכִילַת עֲרַאי? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תַּרְתֵּי אוֹ תְּלָת בֵּיעֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין סַגִּי לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ בְּהָכִי, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ סְעוּדַת קֶבַע! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּדְטָעֵים בַּר בֵּי רַב וְעָיֵיל לְכַלָּה.
§ The mishna continues: One may eat and drink in the framework of a casual meal outside the sukka. The Gemara asks: And how much food is considered a casual meal? Rav Yosef said: It is two or three egg-bulks of bread. Abaye said to him: But often, doesn’t a person suffice with that measure of food, and then its legal status is that of a formal meal? Rather, Abaye said: A casual meal is like the measure that a student of the academy of Rav tastes and then enters the study hall to hear the lecture.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹכְלִין אֲכִילַת עֲרַאי חוּץ לַסּוּכָּה, וְאֵין יְשֵׁנִים שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי חוּץ לַסּוּכָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יֵרָדֵם.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One may eat a casual meal outside the sukka, but one may not take even a brief nap outside the sukka. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this distinction? After all, sleeping in the sukka is an obligation just as eating in the sukka is an obligation. Rav Ashi said: It is prohibited to nap outside the sukka due to a decree lest he fall into a deep sleep.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: יָשֵׁן אָדָם שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי בִּתְפִילִּין, אֲבָל לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע, לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יֵרָדֵם! אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִילַּאי: בְּמוֹסֵר שְׁנָתוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים.
Abaye said to him: But with regard to that halakha which is taught in a baraita: A person may take a brief nap while donning phylacteries but substantial sleep is not permitted. Let us be concerned in that case as well lest he fall into a deep sleep. Rav Yosef, son of Rav Illai, said: There is no concern with regard to phylacteries, as it is a case where one assigns responsibility for ensuring that his sleep will not be prolonged to others.
מַתְקֵיף לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: עָרְבָיךְ עָרְבָא צְרִיךְ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּמַנִּיחַ רֹאשׁוֹ בֵּין בִּרְכָּיו עָסְקִינַן. רָבָא אָמַר: אֵין קֶבַע לַשֵּׁינָה.
Rav Mesharshiyya strongly objects to Abaye’s statement: Your guarantor, who ensures that you do not sleep too long, requires a guarantor to ensure that he does not do the same. Rather, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We are dealing with a case where he places his head between his knees, a position that does not lend itself to deep sleep. Rava said: Neither with regard to sukka nor with regard to phylacteries is there concern lest he fall into a deep sleep. Taking a brief nap outside the sukka is prohibited because there is no concept of substantial duration with regard to sleep, i.e., there is no halakhic difference between a brief nap and a longer-lasting sleep. Depending on circumstances, sleep of any duration can be considered substantial and is therefore prohibited outside a sukka.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: יָשֵׁן אָדָם בִּתְפִילִּין שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי אֲבָל לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בֵּין קֶבַע בֵּין עֲרַאי. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא קֶבַע וְלֹא עֲרַאי. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּנָקֵיט לְהוּ בִּידֵיהּ. הָא — דְּמַנְּחִי בְּרֵישֵׁיהּ. הָא — דְּפָרֵיס סוּדָרָא עִלָּוֵיהּ.
The Gemara comments that it is taught in one baraita: A person may take a brief nap with phylacteries, but substantial sleep is not permitted. And it was taught in another baraita: Both substantial sleep and a brief nap are permitted. And it was taught in another baraita: Neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap is permitted. The Gemara explains that this is not difficult: This baraita, where it is taught that even a brief nap is prohibited, is in a case where one holds the phylacteries in his hands. It is prohibited to sleep at all lest he drop them. That baraita, where it was taught that a brief nap is permitted, is in a case where the phylacteries are placed on his head. There is no concern during a brief nap lest he break wind or experience a seminal emission. During deep sleep, that is a concern. That third baraita, where it was taught that even substantial sleep is permitted with phylacteries, is in a case where he removes the phylacteries and spreads a cloth over them and sleeps alongside them.
וְכַמָּה שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי? תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: כְּדֵי הִילּוּךְ מֵאָה אַמָּה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַיָּשֵׁן בִּתְפִילִּין וְרוֹאֶה קֶרִי — אוֹחֵז בָּרְצוּעָה
The Gemara asks: And how much is the duration of a brief nap? Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: It is equivalent to the time required for walking one hundred cubits. The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: One who sleeps with phylacteries and experiences a seminal emission grips the strap of the phylacteries to remove them
וְאֵינוֹ אוֹחֵז בַּקְּצִיצָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָשֵׁן אָדָם בִּתְפִילִּין שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי, אֲבָל לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע. וְכַמָּה שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי — כְּדֵי הִילּוּךְ מֵאָה אַמָּה.
and does not grip the box of the phylacteries, which he may not touch while impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. And the Rabbis say: A person may take a brief nap with his phylacteries, but substantial sleep is not permitted, and he will thereby avoid a seminal emission while donning phylacteries. And how long is the duration of a brief nap? It is equivalent to the time required for walking one hundred cubits.
אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לָאָדָם לִישַׁן בַּיּוֹם יוֹתֵר מִשֵּׁינַת הַסּוּס. וְכַמָּה שֵׁינַת הַסּוּס — שִׁיתִּין נִשְׁמֵי.
Apropos the duration of a brief nap, the Gemara cites that Rav said: It is prohibited for a person to sleep during the day longer than the duration of the sleep of a horse. One who sleeps for longer is derelict in the study of Torah. And how long is the duration of the sleep of a horse? It is sixty breaths long.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שִׁנְתֵּיהּ דְּמָר כִּדְרַב, וּדְרַב כִּדְרַבִּי, וּדְרַבִּי כִּדְדָוִד, וּדְדָוִד כִּדְסוּסְיָא, וּדְסוּסְיָא שִׁיתִּין נִשְׁמֵי.
Abaye said: The sleep of the Master, Rabba, is like that of Rav, and that of Rav is like the sleep of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is like that of King David, and that of King David is like that of a horse. And that of a horse is sixty breaths.
אַבָּיֵי הֲוָה נָיֵים כְּדִמְעַיֵּיל מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא לְבֵי כוּבֵּי. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: ״עַד מָתַי עָצֵל תִּשְׁכָּב מָתַי תָּקוּם מִשְּׁנָתֶךָ״.
The Gemara relates: Abaye would sleep during the day for a period equivalent to the time it takes to enter from Pumbedita to Bei Kuvei. Rav Yosef read the following verse as pertaining to Abaye: “How long will you sleep, sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep?” (Proverbs 6:9). Rav Yosef considered this dereliction in the study of Torah.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לִישַׁן בַּיּוֹם, רָצָה — חוֹלֵץ, רָצָה — מַנִּיחַ. בַּלַּיְלָה — חוֹלֵץ וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נָתָן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הַיְּלָדִים, לְעוֹלָם חוֹלְצִין וְאֵינָן מַנִּיחִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרְגִילִין בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters his bed to sleep during the day, if he wishes, he may remove his phylacteries, and if he wishes, he may leave them in place. One who enters to sleep at night removes his phylacteries and may not leave them in place. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yosei says: The young men must always remove them and not leave them in place while sleeping because they are accustomed to impurity, as they are more likely to experience a seminal emission.
לֵימָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּעַל קֶרִי אָסוּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּילָדִים וּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן עִמָּהֶן עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי הֶרְגֵּל דָּבָר.
The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is prohibited for one who experienced a seminal emission to don phylacteries. Abaye said: This is not so; rather, we are dealing with young men whose wives are with them, and the concern is lest they overlook the fact that they are donning phylacteries and inadvertently come to engage in matters to which they are accustomed, i.e., relations with their wives, which is certainly demeaning to the phylacteries.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁכַח וְשִׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בִּתְפִילִּין — אֵינוֹ אוֹחֵז לֹא בָּרְצוּעָה וְלֹא בַּקְּצִיצָה עַד שֶׁיִּטּוֹל יָדָיו וְיִטְּלֵם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַיָּדַיִם עַסְקָנִיּוֹת הֵן.
The Sages taught in a baraita: If one forgot that he was donning phylacteries and engaged in relations with his phylacteries in place, he may grip neither the strap nor the box until he washes his hands, and only then may he remove the phylacteries. This is because the hands are active and tend to inadvertently touch parts of the body that are unclean.
מַתְנִי׳ מַעֲשֶׂה וְהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי לִטְעוֹם אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל, וּלְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שְׁנֵי כּוֹתָבוֹת וּדְלִי שֶׁל מַיִם. וְאָמְרוּ: הַעֲלוּם לַסּוּכָּה.
MISHNA: Apropos eating in the sukka, which is discussed in the previous mishna, this mishna relates: An incident occurred where they brought a cooked dish to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai for him to taste, and to Rabban Gamliel they brought two dates and a bucket of water. And they each said: Take them up to the sukka and we will eat them there.
וּכְשֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹכֶל פָּחוֹת מִכְּבֵיצָה, נְטָלוֹ בַּמַּפָּה, וַאֲכָלוֹ חוּץ לַסּוּכָּה, וְלֹא בֵּירַךְ אַחֲרָיו.
In contrast, the mishna relates: And when they gave Rabbi Tzadok less than an egg-bulk of food, he took the food in a cloth for cleanliness; he did not wash his hands because in his opinion, one is not required to wash his hands before eating less than an egg-bulk. And he ate it outside the sukka and did not recite a blessing after eating it. He holds that one is not required to recite a blessing after eating less than an egg-bulk, as it is not satisfying, and it is written: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10). The Gemara will explain the halakhic rationale for each of these actions described.
גְּמָ׳ מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר?! חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אִם בָּא לְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ — מַחְמִיר, וְלֵית בֵּיהּ מִשּׁוּם יוּהֲרָא. וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי וְהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי לִטְעוֹם אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל, וּלְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שְׁתֵּי כוֹתָבוֹת וּדְלִי שֶׁל מַיִם,
GEMARA: The Gemara wonders: Is the mishna citing an incident to contradict the halakha cited in the previous mishna that one may eat or drink in the context of a casual meal outside the sukka? The incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel indicates that one may eat nothing outside the sukka. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, as it is lacking a significant element, and it teaches the following: If one seeks to impose a stringency upon himself and eat nothing outside the sukka, he may be stringent, and there is no element of presumptuousness in adopting that stringency. And there was also an incident supporting that ruling: They brought a cooked dish to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai for him to taste, and to Rabban Gamliel they brought two dates and a bucket of water,
