Parallel
סוכה 25:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
except where its area was not bigger than two beth se'ah? — The reason is that it is an abode made to serve the open air and in every abode that is made to serve the open air objects may be moved in it only if its area is no more than two beth se'ah. Come and hear: If one made his Sabbath rest in a mound which is ten [handbreadths] high and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two beth se'ah and so also with a cavity which is ten [handbreadths] deep, and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two beth se'ah and so also with a harvested spot that was surrounded by ears of corn, he may walk throughout its whole extent and two thousand cubits outside it [on the Sabbath]. [Now is not this permitted] even although it sways to and fro? — There also it refers to where he plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees. MISHNAH. THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED ON A RELIGIOUS ERRAND ARE FREE FROM [THE OBLIGATIONS OF] SUKKAH. INVALIDS AND THEIR ATTENDANTS ARE FREE FROM [THE OBLIGATIONS OF] SUKKAH. CASUAL EATING AND DRINKING ARE PERMITTED OUTSIDE THE SUKKAH. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — From what our Rabbis taught: When thou sittest in thy house excludes the man who is occupied with a religious duty, And when thou walkest by the way excludes a bridegroom. Hence they said, He who marries a virgin is free [from the obligation of reading the Shema’], but [he who marries] a widow is bound [by the obligation]. How is this inferred? — R. Huna said, It is compared to ‘the way’ just as ‘the way’ refers to a secular way, so must every act be secular, thus excluding such a man who is occupied with the performance of a religious duty. But does it not refer to where one is going on a religious errand [also]? And does not the Divine Law nevertheless say that one should read? — If so, the verse should have said, ‘When sitting and when walking’; why [then does it say,] ‘When thou sittest and when thou walkest’? [It must consequently mean:] When walking for thy own purpose thou art bound by the obligation, but when walking on a religious errand thou art free. If so, should not even the man who marries a widow also be exempt?-When he marries a virgin his mind is pre-occupied but when he marries a widow his mind is not preoccupied. Does this mean that whenever a man's mind is pre-occupied he is exempt? If so, if his ship was sunk, so that his mind is preoccupied is he also exempt? And if you will say, ‘It is indeed so’, did not R. Abba b. Zabda [it may be retorted] say in the name of Rab: A mourner is bound by all the commandments that are enumerated in the Torah, with the sole exception of that of tefillin because the word ‘beauty’ was applied to them? — In the former case his pre-occupation is on account of a religious duty; in the latter it is on account of a secular event. But is the law that he who is engaged on one religious duty is free from any other deduced from here? Is it not deduced from elsewhere, As it has been taught: And there were certain men who were unclean by the dead body of a man, etc. Who were these men? They were those who bore the coffin of Joseph, so R. Jose the Galilean.
—