Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sukah 25

1) TRAVELING TO LEARN TORAH

QUESTION: The Mishnah says that people who are traveling in order to perform a Mitzvah are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. RASHI gives three examples: one who is traveling to greet his rebbi, one who is traveling to learn Torah, and who is traveling to redeem captives.

Why is it that one who is traveling to learn Torah is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah? The Gemara (Mo'ed Katan 9a) teaches that a person must interrupt his Torah study in order to perform any Mitzvah which cannot be performed by others. How, then, could the act of traveling to learn Torah be more weighty than the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah itself? Furthermore, the Yerushalmi (Berachos 1:2) says that even Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai would stop learning in order to perform Mitzvos such as Sukah and Lulav since "one who learns Torah but does not accept upon himself to perform the Mitzvos, it is better that he not have been created." The same should apply to one who is traveling to learn Torah -- he should be required to interrupt his traveling in order to perform the Mitzvah of Sukah!

(The MAHARACH OR ZARU'A #183 goes even further than Rashi and says that even when one has arrived at the place of learning and has started to learn, he is exempt from Mitzvos all the while that he is learning!)

ANSWERS:

(a) The OR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Talmud Torah 3, and in MESHECH CHACHMAH, Parshas Ki Savo 28) quotes the RI of KURVEILLE (quoted in Tosfos, Kesuvos 17a, DH Mevatlin), who says that even though one must be Mevatel Talmud Torah in order to perform the Mitzvah of Hotza'as ha'Mes (burying the dead), "Shimush Talmidei Chachamim" *does* override burying the dead (even a "Mes Mitzvah"). "Shimush Talmidei Chachamim" refers to learning directly from a rebbi the reasons and explanations of the Torah. It is not in the same category as normal Torah study, because it can only be done through close interaction with a rebbi who transmits the reasons and explanations for the Mitzvos. As such, it overrides even a Mitzvah which cannot be done by someone else. Our Mishnah is referring to this type of learning. Since the Talmidim are traveling to the house of the rebbi in order to learn Torah from him, they have the status of those who are performing "Shimush Talmidei Chachamim," which overrides other Mitzvos.

(b) The CHAZON YECHEZKEL quotes the VILNA GA'ON (in the beginning of Pe'ah) who says that each word of Torah is another Mitzvah. Perhaps that explains why one must stop learning Torah for a Mitzvah, but one does not have to stop traveling when on the way to learn Torah. When learning Torah, after each word that one learns, he has fulfilled one Mitzvah. If another Mitzvah has come up which needs to be fulfilled, he must do that Mitzvah first before he starts another Mitzvah of Talmud Torah (by saying the next word). He is not interrupting the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah in order to perform another Mitzvah, since he is in-between Mitzvos when the other Mitzvah needs to be performed. In contrast, when one travels to learn Torah, the traveling itself is one complete Mitzvah, and therefore it is not required to interrupt it to perform another Mitzvah.

QUESTION: Our Gemara says that one who is involved in a Mitzvah is exempt from the Mitzvah of Keri'as Shema. This is the source, the Gemara says, for the general rule, "ha'Osek ba'Mitzvah Patur Min ha'Mitzvah" -- "One who is involved in one Mitzvah is exempt from another Mitzvah."

TOSFOS (DH Sheluchei Mitzvah) asks that according to this, one who is wearing Tzitzis or Tefilin should be exempt from all other Mitzvos!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS answers that only when the second Mitzvah would interrupt one's performance of the first Mitzvah, is the person exempt from the second Mitzvah. If one could perform the second Mitzvah without affecting his performance of the first Mitzvah (such as is the case when wearing Tzitzis or Tefilin), he is not exempt from the second Mitzvah.

The OR ZARU'A questions this answer of Tosfos. It is obvious that one may not stop performing one Mitzvah in order to perform another. Why would we have thought to give precedence to one Mitzvah over another, had the verse not taught us otherwise?

We could answer that Tosfos learns from the verse that one who is involved in one Mitzvah is exempt from other Mitzvos even in a case where the opportunity for the second Mitzvah will pass if it is not done right away. One might have thought that in such a situation, one should halt the performance of the first Mitzvah and fulfill the second Mitzvah. The verse teaches us that even in such a case, one may not leave the first Mitzvah to perform the second. (M. Kornfeld)

(b) RASHBA in the name of RAV HAI GA'ON, the MAGID MISHNAH (Hilchos Sukah 6:4) in the name of the GE'ONIM, and the OR ZARU'A (Hilchos Sukah) explain that as long as a person is involved in preparing to fulfill a Mitzvah, such as when he is traveling in order to perform a Mitzvah, he is not obligated by the Torah to perform other Mitzvos even if they do not distract him from the first Mitzvah. The Almighty does not give us two things to do at one time.

With regard to Tzitzis and Tefilin, however, one has already done what was needed to fulfill the Mitzvah. He is now in the process of *fulfilling* the Mitzvah, and not in the process of *preparing to fulfill* the Mitzvah. The exemption from other Mitzvos applies only when one has not yet fulfilled the first Mitzvah, and is doing something in order to fulfill the Mitzvah.

(c) The RAN makes a compromise. He agrees with the Rashba that one is exempt from the second Mitzvah even if performing it does not distract him from the first Mitzvah. However, if there is a way to fulfill the second Mitzvah while still performing the first Mitzvah *in its normal manner*, then one is not exempt from the second Mitzvah ("Why not fulfill a Mitzvah if nothing is lost in the process?"). Only when one must change his normal way of performing the first Mitzvah in order to fulfill the second Mitzvah is he exempt from the second Mitzvah.

(It could be that according to the Ran, the obligation to do the second Mitzvah does not stem from the normal obligation to perform Mitzvos, but rather from the requirement not to disgrace a Mitzvah. Technically, he may be exempt since he is involved in another Mitzvah. But in practice, since the second Mitzvah could be performed without making any change from one's normal way of performing the first Mitzvah, it would be disgraceful to the second Mitzvah not to perform it. -M. Kornfeld)

HALACHAH: The REMA (Orach Chayim 38:8) cites the opinion of the Ran as the Halachah; when there is a way to fulfill the second Mitzvah while still performing the first Mitzvah in its normal manner, then one is not exempt from the second Mitzvah. Otherwise, he is exempt.

25b

QUESTION: Rebbi Aba bar Zavda says in the name of Rav that an Avel (mourner) is Chayav to fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah. The Gemara says that this statement is necessary, because we might have thought that an Avel is exempt, because an Avel is Mitz'ta'er (distressed) and one who is Mitz'ta'er is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah. Therefore, we are taught that the only time one who is Mitz'ta'er is exempt from Sukah is when the Tza'ar comes from an external source. In the case of an Avel, though, the mourner is causing himself his own anguish, and therefore he is not included in the category of Mitz'ta'er and he is Chayav to perform the Mitzvah of Sukah because "he should settle his mind."

The Gemara implies that if he does not settle his mind, he will not be able to fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah. How can that be? The Tza'ar of an Avel is in no way related to his sitting in the Sukah. Why should it prevent him from fulfilling the Mitzvah? The only reason one who is Mitz'ta'er is exempt from Sukah is because of the principle of "Teshvu k'Ein Taduru" -- one must live in the Sukah during Sukos in the same manner that one lives in his home during the rest of the year. Normally, when one becomes uncomfortable in his house, he leaves it (TOSFOS 26a, DH Holchei). If, however, a person is Mitz'ta'er in such a way that leaving the house or the Sukah will not relieve his distress, then he is certainly not exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah (as the MORDECHAI (#740) cites in the name of the YERE'IM, and as is clear from many Rishonim, see Rashi 26a DH Mitzta'er). Why, then, does the Gemara say that an Avel must "settle his mind" and relieve himself of his distress? His Tza'ar is not the type that would exempt him from the Mitzvah of Sukah! (MAHARIK, Shoresh 176, cited in an insert in the MORDECHAI here)

ANSWER:

(a) The ROSH was apparently bothered by this question. He explains that an Avel likes to be alone and sit in the dark, and therefore leaving the Sukah will make him more comfortable, since he will not be in a place where there is a meal with candles and with other people present. Staying in the Sukah causes him more Tza'ar since he wishes that he could *avoid* the relaxing environment of the Sukah. (That is, the Tza'ar he has is that he is unable to have the Tza'ar he seeks for himself as long as he is in the Sukah because of its joyful atmosphere.)

If being in the Sukah causes him more Tza'ar, why indeed is he not exempt? The Gemara teaches that even though being in the Sukah causes him discomfort, he is not exempt, because he is choosing on his own to feel uncomfortable while in the Sukah.

(b) RASHI 28b DH Bar mi'Metalalta implies that anyone in distress feels more comfortable in the broad outdoors than in an enclosed Sukah. If so, why indeed is an Avel not exempt from the sitting in a Sukah due to his distress? The RITVA here adds a new dimension to the Gemara's words which answers this question. By going into the Sukah and being amidst the joyful atmosphere, the Avel will begin to feel better. Since the cause of his distress is of a psychological, and not physical, nature, once he gets over his initial apprehension and enters the Sukah the atmosphere of the Sukah will relax him and make him less distressed, and then he will feel completely comfortable in the Sukah.

(The TAZ (OC 640:7-8) suggests that perhaps any type of Tza'ar exempts a person from the Mitzvah of Sukah, even if the Tza'ar is not related to the Sukah, because the Mitzvah requires concentration and one who is distressed cannot concentrate. A person must keep in mind that the reason he is fulfilling the Mitzvah of Sukah is to remember that Hashem protected us in Sukos when we left Mitzrayim (Vayikra 23:43), and if he is distressed he is exempt because he cannot concentrate on this.)

QUESTION: The Gemara says that a Chasan and the members of his wedding party are exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah for the seven days of the wedding celebration, because they have to perform the Mitzvah of rejoicing in the Chupah and not in the Sukah. The Gemara asks that they should just make the Chupah inside of the Sukah. Abaye answers that the Chupah is not done in the Sukah because of Yichud -- we are afraid that the Chasan might leave the Sukah to fulfill his needs, leaving his Kalah alone with one of the members of the wedding party. Rava says that the Chupah cannot be done in the Sukah because of the Tza'ar of the Chasan (that is, he will be embarrassed to express his happiness with his Kalah with others able to see him through the open wall of the Sukah (Rashi), or the Sukah is too narrow for him to be able to invite all of his friends (Me'iri)).

How can Abaye say that there is a problem of Yichud? First, we know that when a woman's husband is in the city, there is no prohibition of Yichud, since he might walk in at any time (Kidushin 81a). Here, certainly the Chasan is in the city, because he merely walked out to fulfill his needs. Why should there be a problem of Yichud?

Second, according to Rashi's explanation, when Rava says that the Chasan is exempt because of Tza'ar, he means that the Chasan is distressed that he cannot express his happiness with his Kalah because others may see him through the open side of the Sukah, since their Sukos usually had only three walls. If the Sukah has only three walls and people are able to see inside of it, how can Abaye say that there is a problem of Yichud? There is no prohibition of Yichud when the place is visible to others!

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARSHAM (Mafteichos to Teshuvos, Even ha'Ezer II:76) says that when Abaye said that the Chasan is exempt from the Mitzvah of Sukah because of a fear of Yichud, he was not referring to the *prohibition* of Yichud. Certainly, even if the Chasan goes out and someone else is left with his Kalah, there is no prohibition of Yichud because the Chasan is in the city, and people can see into the Sukah through the open side. Rather, Abaye means that there might be a *suspicion* of Yichud; that is, the Chasan -- if he goes out and leaves his Kalah alone in the Sukah -- might think that his Kalah is together with another man and have misgivings about his Kalah. Therefore, in order to prevent the Chasan from having such suspicions, he is exempt altogether from the Mitzvah of Sukah. (See also Sefer "He'oros b'Maseches Sukah" from Rav Elyashiv.)

(b) Alternatively, Abaye might mean that there *is* a prohibition of Yichud. How can that be if the husband is in the city? The Gemara in Kidushin (ibid.) says that even when the husband is in the city, it is forbidden for a man who is very friendly with the wife to be alone with her. In this case, some of the members of the wedding party (Shoshvinim) are very friendly with the Kalah, and thus there is a fear of Yichud even if the Chasan is in the city. (Sefer "He'oros b'Maseches Sukah" in the name of Rav Elyashiv Shlita - - perhaps this answers the second question as well; with a Shoshvin there is a problem of Yichud even in an area that is only semi-secluded.)