Sukkah 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

And therefore Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: One may carry within it

only

if the circumference of the tree does not exceed

two se'a

[an area in which two se'a of seed can be sown, measuring one hundred by fifty cubits, like the courtyard of the Tabernacle]?! And we answer:

because it was a residence whose use is for the airspace

outside it. That is, the residence beneath the tree was made only for the sake of the airspace outside it, to guard the fields.

And any residence whose use is for the airspace

outside it is not considered a residence for purposes of determining the significance of its enclosure.

And an enclosure that is not made for residence

may contain no more than

a

two-se'a area.

Come and hear

from a beraita concerning the Shabbat limit:

A. One who was standing outside a city when Shabbat began, in a place not enclosed by partitions, has four cubits as his “place of residence,” which are considered a person’s place. For the Torah states: “Let every man remain in his place; let no man leave his place on the day of Shabbat.” From those four cubits he measures the Shabbat limit, two thousand cubits.

B. One who began Shabbat in an enclosed place considers the entire enclosed area as four cubits, and measures the Shabbat limit of two thousand cubits from the boundary of the enclosure and beyond.

C. An enclosure that is not made for residence is considered an “enclosure” only if it is smaller than a two-se'a area, as explained.

D. A mound ten handbreadths high is considered equivalent to a place enclosed by partitions, because we say: “Raise the partition.”

A person who

began Shabbat

at the onset of Shabbat

on a mound that is ten

handbreadths high,

and its

[area] is greater

than four cubits

up to a two-se'a area.

And

likewise

one who begins Shabbat

in a depression,

a hollow in the ground formed during the six days of Creation,

which is ten

handbreadths deep,

and

its area

is from four cubits up to a two-se'a area.

And likewise

one who begins Shabbat inside

a harvested field,

in a clearing formed within a field after the grain in the middle was harvested,

with stalks surrounding it,

and the clearing was from four cubits to a two-se'a area [Rashi].

He may

walk

on Shabbat

throughout the entire area

[the entire area of the enclosure], as one who begins Shabbat in the midst of partitions, who measures the Shabbat limit only from the partitions onward,

and outside it

an additional

two thousand cubits,

the measure of the Shabbat limit.

We have therefore learned that the stalks are considered a partition,

even though they move back and forth

[going and coming and swaying in an ordinary wind], which contradicts Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov?!

And we reject this:

There too, he reinforced it with branches and palm leaves,

strengthening the stalks with them so that they would not sway in the wind.

Mishna:

A.

Messengers engaged in a mitzva,

those traveling on a mitzva-related journey, such as one who goes to study Torah, to greet his teacher, or to redeem captives [Rashi], are

exempt from the sukka

even when they stop to rest, because anyone engaged in one mitzva is exempt from another mitzva when he cannot perform both [Rashi and Tosafot].

B.

The ill and their attendants are exempt from the sukka—

The ill are exempt because sitting in the sukka causes them distress, and it is written concerning the sukka: “You shall dwell” for seven days; and we require, “You shall dwell as you dwell” in your home. There is no dwelling where one suffers [Ritva].

The attendants are exempt because one engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva [Mishna Berura].

C.

One may eat and drink casually outside the sukka,

because a person eats casual meals outside his home [Ritva].

Gemara:

We inquire:

From where are these matters derived,

that one engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva?

For the Sages taught:

It is written: “And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and speak of them: when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” There is a redundancy here, for it should have said only: “And you shall speak of them when you lie down and when you rise” [Ritva]. Rather, the verse comes to teach: “

And when you walk on the way”—

When you sit in your house” —

excluding one engaged in a mitzva,

who is exempt from reciting the Shema. “

From here they said: One who marries a virgin, who has not yet had marital relations [Shulḥan Arukh], because he is preoccupied with the mitzva, thinking about the matter of the virginity, [Mishna Berura], he is exempt from reciting the Shema. And if he marries a widow, who is not preoccupied with thoughts of marital relations, he is

And when you walk on the way” —

excluding a bridegroom,

who is exempt from reciting the Shema because he is preoccupied with thoughts of consummating the marriage.

The Gemara explains how these laws are derived from the verses.

From here they said: One who marries a virgin,

and has not yet consummated the marriage [Shulḥan Arukh], being preoccupied with a mitzva-related concern, thinking about the matter of virginity [Mishna Berura],

is exempt

from reciting the Shema.

But

if one marries

a widow,

who is not preoccupied with thoughts of consummation, he

is obligated

to recite the Shema!

What is the implication,

how is it implied from these verses that one engaged in a mitzva is exempt?

Rav Huna said:

Since it is stated, “when you sit and when you walk,” the two were compared to a way [Rashi, Berakhot], to tell you: The Torah obligated one only in reciting the Shema

in a “

way”

of one traveling for business:

Just as a way is optional, so too, every optional activity.

To exclude this person,

one engaged in a mitzva, and a bridegroom preoccupied with a mitzva-related concern,

who is engaged in a mitzva.

We challenge this:

Are we not dealing with one who goes

[travels]

for a mitzva-related matter?

Why can you not include the way of a mitzva together with an optional way? The Torah wrote “way” without qualification,

and

even so

the Merciful One says: Let him recite

the Shema?!

And we explain:

If so,

if the verse speaks even of a way undertaken for a mitzva,

let the verse say

[let Scripture say]:

“When you sit and when you walk.”

What is “

when you sit in your house and when you walk on the way”?

It teaches you:

It is when you walk in your own manner

—an optional way undertaken for yourself and your needs—

that you are obligated; but when you walk for a mitzva

—which is not for yourself and your needs, but for the needs of the Omnipresent—

you are exempt.

We challenge this:

If so,

that one engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva,

even one who marries a widow as well

should be exempt from reciting the Shema, because although he is not preoccupied, he is engaged in a mitzva!

And we explain:

One who marries a virgin

is exempt because his heart is

preoccupied

with thoughts of consummation, and he cannot perform both mitzvot. But

one who marries a widow

is

not preoccupied

with this, and can perform both.

It entered our minds to explain that a bridegroom is exempt not because of the law that one engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva, but because his preoccupation prevents him from concentrating properly and reciting; and therefore we challenge:

And whenever one is preoccupied,

is it

indeed so that he is exempt?!

If that is so,

if

his ship sank at sea, and he is preoccupied,

with his distress, is it

indeed so

that we should say

that he is exempt?!

And if you would say that it is indeed so,

if you would say: Yes, one who is preoccupied with his distress is exempt from reciting the Shema—

But didn’t Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot stated in the Torah, except for phylacteries, concerning which it is stated

“splendor”.

As it is written concerning Ezekiel: “Bind your splendor upon you,” and a mourner is not fit for splendor; when he adorns himself, he appears to be demonstrating that he is not a mourner [Rashi].

We have therefore learned that even a mourner who is preoccupied with his distress is obligated to recite the Shema, since he is exempt only from phylacteries?!

And we answer: The bridegroom’s exemption from reciting the Shema is not because he cannot concentrate his heart. Rather:

Here,

in the case of a bridegroom preoccupied with thoughts of consummation, he is

preoccupied

with a

mitzva-related preoccupation,

and therefore he is exempt. The verse comes to teach that he is not required to remove his mind from thoughts of the first mitzva for the sake of the mitzva that has now come upon him; rather, he should occupy himself with the first mitzva and devote his heart to being fully attentive to it—

But

there,

in the case of a mourner [or one whose ship sank at sea], he is

preoccupied with an optional concern.

Although he is obligated to observe the mourning practices of refraining from wearing shoes, bathing, and anointing, in order to demonstrate honor for his deceased, he is not obligated to suffer. Since that is so, he is obligated to remove these thoughts from his mind and concentrate.

We challenge this:

And

the law that

one engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva—is it derived from here,

from “when you sit in your house,”

is that where it emerges?

But

it emerges from there,

from another verse one can learn that one engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva?!

As it was taught:

It is written concerning the Paschal offering that Israel brought in the second year after leaving Egypt:

“And there were people who were impure through contact with a human corpse

and could not perform the Paschal offering on that day.”

The beraita explains:

Who were those people?

They were those who carried Joseph’s coffin,

those people—

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.