Parallel
סוכה 25
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.
—
R. Akiba said, They were Mishael and Elzaphan who were occupied with [the remains of] Nadab and Abihu. R. Isaac said, If they were those who bore the coffin of Joseph, they had time to cleanse themselves [before Passover,] and if they were Mishael and Elzaphan they could [also] have cleansed themselves [before the Passover]. But it was those who were occupied with a meth mizwah, the seventh day [of whose purification] coincided with the eve of Passover, as it is said, They could not keep the Passover on that day, on ‘that’ day they could not keep the Passover, but on the morrow they could? — [Both texts] are necessary. For if he had only informed us of the former, I would have said [that they were free from the obligation there] because the time of the obligation of the Passover had not yet come, but not here where the time of the reading of the Shema’ had come, [therefore] it was necessary [to have the latter]. And if he had informed us of the latter only, I would have said [that one is exempt here] because this does not involve kareth, but not there, where it involves kareth [therefore the former also was] necessary. [Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Abba b. Zabda said in the name of Rab, A mourner is bound by all the commandments of the Torah with the sole exception of that of tefillin since the word "beauty" is applied to them’. Since the All Merciful said to Ezekiel, Bind thy beauty upon thee, the implication must be, ‘Thou art under this obligation, but other people are free.’ This, however, applies only to the first day, since of that day it is written, And the end thereof as a bitter day. R. Abba b. Zabda also said in the name of Rab, A mourner is bound by the obligation of Sukkah. Is not this obvious? — I might have said that since R. Abba b. Zabda said in the name of Rab that he who is in discomfort is free from the obligation of Sukkah, this [mourner should be exempt] since he also is in discomfort, therefore he informs us that this applies only to discomfort over which one has no control, but [not to that experienced by a mourner]; since it is he himself who is the cause of his discomfort, it is incumbent upon him to compose his mind. R. Abba b. Zabda also said in the name of Rab, A bridegroom and the shoshbins, and all the wedding guests are free from the obligation of Sukkah all the seven days. What is the reason? Because they have to rejoice. But let them eat in the Sukkah and rejoice in the Sukkah? — There is no proper rejoicing but under the wedding canopy. But let them eat in the Sukkah and rejoice under the canopy? — There can be no real rejoicing except where the banquet is held. But why should they not put up a canopy in the Sukkah? — Abaye says, [This is impossible] because [of the possibility] of privacy and Raba said, Because of the discomfort of the bridegroom. What practical difference is there between them? — The practical difference between them emerges where people are in the habit of going in and out of there. According to the view of privacy, the restriction does not apply; according to the view of discomfort, it does. R. Zera said, I had the banquet in the Sukkah and rejoiced under the canopy and my heart rejoiced all the more since I was fulfilling two [commandments]. Our Rabbis have taught, The bridegroom, and the shoshbins and all the wedding guests are free from the obligations of prayer and tefllin, but are bound to read the Shema’.42
—