Sukkah 25b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Akiva says: They were Mishael and Elzaphan, who became impure—

Rashi

through Nadav and Avihu,

who died on the eighth day of the inauguration, on the first of Nisan in that year.

Rabbi Yitzhak says:

It is impossible to explain this according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean or according to Rabbi Akiva, for

if they were the bearers of Joseph’s coffin,

since they ceased carrying it from the time they encamped at Mount Horev, on the first of Sivan of the previous year,

they could—

were able—

Rashi—

to become pure

before the making of the Passover offering, for they already had the ashes of the red heifer from the second of Nisan onward.

And if they were Mishael and Elzaphan,

who became impure through Nadav and Avihu, who died on the first of Nisan of that year, they too

could have become pure,

for on the day after their death they already had the ashes of the red heifer.

Rather, they were occupied with a met mitzva.

Rather, they were occupied with a corpse of a mitzva.

Not actual corpses of a mitzva, for which there is no one to attend to them, but the seven close relatives for whom a priest becomes impure, since the mitzva of attending to their burial rests upon their relatives.

And they could not make the Passover offering at its proper time, since

the day

of their seventh day fell on the eve of Passover,

and it follows that at the time of making the Passover offering on the eve of Passover they were not yet fit to bring the offering, since they had not been sprinkled or immersed [Ritva].

As it is said: “And they could not make the Passover offering

on

that

day,”

on that day,

which was the seventh day of their impurity,

they cannot make it; but on the morrow,

on their eighth day,

they could

have

make it.

And from here it follows that their seventh day fell on the eve of Passover.

We have therefore learned that one occupied with a mitzva is exempt from the mitzva, for if not, they should have postponed the minor mitzva of burial because of the stringent mitzva of Passover that was destined to come [Rashi].

And we answer:

It is necessary!

For if it had informed us there,

with regard to Passover,

because the time of the obligation of Passover had not arrived,

the time for the obligation to make the Passover offering had not yet arrived when they became impure—

but here,

with regard to the recitation of Shema,

the time for the recitation of Shema had arrived

within the wedding canopy, and he was fit for it [the wording of Rashi] ,

I would say not,

that he would be exempt and would be obligated to recite Shema—

It is necessary!

And if it had informed us here,

with regard to the recitation of Shema, I would have said that this applies only to the recitation of Shema, that he is exempt

because there is no karet

when he does not recite it—

but there,

with regard to Passover,

where there is karet

for one who refrains from making the Passover offering, therefore

I would say not,

that they should become impure through a corpse during all seven days before Passover—

It is necessary to write “on that day,” to teach us that they became impure within the seven days, for one occupied with a mitzva is exempt from the mitzva [Rashi; see Arukh la-Ner].

to write “on that day,” to teach that they became impure within the seven days and that one occupied with a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva [Rashi; see also Arukh LaNer].

The essential matter: Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot stated in the Torah, except for phylacteries,

for he is exempt from putting them on,

for it is said concerning them: “splendor.”

And we explain the source of this law:

From what the Merciful One said to Ezekiel:

“Son of man, behold, I am taking from you the desire of your eyes through a plague, but you shall not mourn, nor shall you weep, nor shall your tears come. Groan silently, for the dead, but you shall not mourn;

your splendor shall be bound upon you”—

we have learned:

“you”,

you, the prophet Ezekiel, who were commanded not to mourn,

are obligated

to put on phylacteries, which are called “splendor.”

But everyone else,

when they are mourners, does not have his splendor bound upon him, but

is exempt

from the mitzva of phylacteries.

And this applies

that he is exempt from phylacteries

on the first day,

since the main bitterness is then,

because it is written: “And its end is like a

day” [one]

—

bitter,

for the main bitterness is only one day.

And Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in a sukka.

And we ask:

Is this obvious?!

And we explain:

Lest you say: Since Rava said

in

the name of:

One who suffers is exempt from the sukka, this one too suffers

more from sitting in the sukka than from sitting in the house , for a mourner desires to be secluded and sit in a place of distress and darkness, in order to be preoccupied with his grief [Rosh]—

he teaches us

that Rav obligates him, and because

this applies to suffering that comes on its own,

where the sukka causes him suffering, such as heat, cold, or foulness from the materials with which it was covered [Rashi],

but here,

with regard to a mourner,

he himself causes himself suffering,

and

he should settle his mind,

it being incumbent upon him to settle his mind for the mitzva.

And Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A groom,

who has already entered [the wedding canopy],

and the groomsmen and all the members of the wedding canopy,

are exempt from the sukka for all seven

days of the wedding feast [Rambam].

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because they need to rejoice

—[to rejoice]—and one occupied with a mitzva is exempt from the mitzva [Ran and Meiri]; or because of suffering, for if they do not rejoice with the groom throughout the seven days, they and the groom suffer [Raavad].

And we ask:

Let them eat in the sukka and rejoice in the sukka

[let them eat in the sukka and rejoice there]?! And we explain:

There is no joy except at the wedding canopy,

even if the sukka is in that very courtyard [Ran].

And we still ask:

Let them eat in the sukka and rejoice at the wedding canopy?!

There is no joy except at the place of the meal.

Let them make the wedding canopy in the sukka

[let them make the wedding canopy in the sukka as well]?!

Abaye said: Because of seclusion,

for ordinarily they would make the sukka on their roofs, and people do not regularly enter and leave there because of the effort, and perhaps the groom would descend to relieve himself and another would be secluded with the bride.

And Rava said: Because of the groom’s distress,

for the place is narrow and open, having only three walls, and he is embarrassed to play with his bride [Rashi]. And we explain:

What is the difference between them?!

The difference between them is when people are commonly going out and coming in there

[people are commonly entering and leaving the sukka]—

For

according to the one who says: Because of seclusion,

there

is none,

for there are people there.

But

according to the one who says: Because of the groom’s distress,

there

is.

Rabbi Zeira said: I,

when I was a groom,

ate in the sukka and rejoiced at the wedding canopy,

I ate in the sukka and they made me rejoice at the wedding canopy

; and all the more so my heart rejoiced,

[on the contrary, I had an even greater joy],

for I performed two,

[for I performed two mitzvot], the mitzva of sukka and the mitzva of marriage.

The following beraita is explained according to the understanding of the Ritva and Maharsha in Rashi’s view.

The Sages taught: A groom,

who has already entered [the wedding canopy],

and the groomsmen and all the members of the wedding canopy are exempt from prayer

for all seven days, since it requires concentration and they cannot settle their minds and concentrate—

And

they are exempt

from phylacteries,

since drunkenness and frivolity are common among them—

But they are obligated in the recitation of Shema,

since concentration is required only for the first verse, and they can settle their minds for a brief moment in order to recite the first verse; and as for their being occupied with a mitzva, the tannaim in this beraita hold that one occupied with a mitzva is not exempt from the mitzva.