Sukkah 25b (כה:) — 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 of that year.

Rabbi Yitzḥak says:

It is impossible to interpret the verse in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili or Rabbi Akiva, for

if they were the bearers of Joseph’s coffin,

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

they could—

have—

Rashi—

become pure

before the offering of the Pesaḥ, 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.

They were not literally metei mitzva, for whom there was no one to attend to them; rather, they were the seven close relatives for whom a priest becomes impure, since the mitzva of attending to the dead rests upon their relatives.

And they could not offer the Pesaḥ at its proper time, since

their

seventh

day fell on the eve of Pesaḥ,

with the result that at the time of offering the Pesaḥ on the eve of Pesaḥ they were still unfit to bring the offering, since they had not yet been sprinkled or immersed [Ritva].

As it is stated: “And they could not offer the Pesaḥ”

“on

that

and the implication is:

on that day,

which was the seventh day of their impurity,

they could not offer it; but on the following day,

on their eighth day,

they could

have

offered it.

This indicates that their seventh day fell on the eve of Pesaḥ.

We have therefore learned that one occupied with a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva, for otherwise they should have deferred the less stringent mitzva of burial because of the more stringent mitzva of the Pesaḥ that was soon to arrive [Rashi].

And we answer:

It is necessary!

For if it had taught us this only there,

with regard to Pesaḥ,

because the time for the obligation of Pesaḥ had not yet arrived,

as the time for the obligation to offer the Pesaḥ had not yet arrived when they became impure—

but here,

with regard to reciting the Shema,

when the time for reciting the Shema had arrived

during the wedding canopy and he was fit to do so [the wording of Rashi],

I might say that he is not

exempt and is obligated to recite the Shema—

It is necessary!

And if it had taught us this only here,

with regard to reciting the Shema, I might say that it is only from reciting the Shema that he is exempt

because there is no karet

if he does not recite it—

but there,

with regard to Pesaḥ,

where there is karet

for one who refrains from offering the Pesaḥ, therefore

I might say that they should not

have become impure through contact with the dead during all seven days before Pesaḥ—

It is necessary

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 mishna itself: Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot stated in the Torah, except for phylacteries

which he is exempt from putting on,

as it is stated concerning them: “splendor.”

And we explain the source of this law:

From the fact that 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 neither mourn nor weep, and your tears shall not come. Sigh in silence; for the dead, but do not perform mourning;

let your splendor 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; rather, he is

exempt

from the mitzva of phylacteries.

And this applies

that he is exempt from phylacteries

on the first day,

since that is when the principal bitterness is felt,

because it is written: “And its end is as”

“one day” [

one]

bitter,

indicating that the principal bitterness lasts only one day.

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

And we challenge this:

Is it obvious?!

And we explain:

Lest you say: Since Rava said

in

chapter

that one in distress is exempt from the sukka, this person too is in distress

when sitting in the sukka rather than in the house, for a mourner wishes to withdraw and sit in a place of distress and darkness so that he will be preoccupied with his grief [Rosh]—

he teaches us

that Rav obligates him, because

this applies only to distress that comes on its own,

where the sukka causes him distress, such as heat, cold, or a foul odor from the materials with which it was roofed [Rashi],

but here,

with regard to a mourner,

he himself is causing himself distress,

and

he should settle his mind,

for he is obligated to settle his mind for the sake of the mitzva.

And Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: A groom,

who has already entered the wedding canopy,

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

are exempt from the sukka for all seven days

of the wedding celebration [Rambam].

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because they need to rejoice,

[that is, to rejoice], and one occupied with a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva [Ran and Meiri]; or because of distress, for if they do not rejoice with the groom throughout all seven days, they and the groom will be distressed [Raavad].

And we challenge this:

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 rejoicing except at the wedding canopy,

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

We still challenge this:

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

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

Let them make the wedding canopy in the sukka

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

Abaye said: Because of seclusion,

for ordinarily they would make the sukka on their roofs, and people did not regularly enter and leave there because of the effort involved; perhaps the groom would go down to relieve himself, and another man 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 engage in playful intimacy with his bride [Rashi]. And we explain:

What is the practical difference between them?!

The practical difference between them is a case where people are commonly entering and leaving there

[people regularly enter and leave the sukka]—

For

according to the one who says: Because of seclusion,

there is

no

seclusion, since there are people there.

Whereas

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

there

is distress.

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 caused me to rejoice at the wedding canopy,

and certainly my heart rejoiced all the more,

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

for I was performing two

[since I was performing two mitzvot], the mitzva of sukka and the mitzva of marriage.

The following beraita is explained according to the understanding of the Ritva and the Maharsha regarding 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 party are exempt from prayer

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

And

they are exempt

from phylacteries,

since intoxication and levity are common among them—

But they are obligated to recite the Shema

since concentration is required only for the first verse; they can settle their minds for a brief moment in order to recite the first verse. And if the reason is that they are occupied with a mitzva, the tanna’im of this beraita maintain that one occupied with a mitzva is not exempt from another mitzva.