Sukkah, Daf Kaf Heh, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today’s section teaches that people who are involved with celebrating a wedding are exempt from sitting in the sukkah.

 

וא"ר אבא בר זבדא אמר רב חתן והשושבינין וכל בני החופה פטורין מן הסוכה כל שבעה. מאי טעמא? משום דבעו למיחדי.

 

And R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav: A bridegroom and the groomsmen and all the wedding guests are exempt from the Sukkah all the seven days.

What is the reason? Because they have to rejoice.

 

R. Abba bar Zavda says that all of the wedding celebrants are exempt from sitting in the sukkah, for all seven days of the wedding celebration. Note that in talmudic times proper weddings seem to have been seven days of celebration. This is already reflected in the Torah where Jacob marries Leah and then must wait another seven days to marry Rachel.

Note that this halakhah seems to be a derivative of his other halakhah one who is occupied with a mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah. People who are occupied in celebrating the marriage are not liable to perform the mitzvah of sukkah.

וליכלו בסוכה וליחדו בסוכה!

אין שמחה אלא בחופה.

וליכלו בסוכה וליחדו בחופה!

אין שמחה אלא במקום סעודה.

 

But let them eat in the Sukkah and rejoice in the Sukkah?

There is no rejoicing but in the huppah.

But let them eat in the Sukkah and rejoice in the huppah?

There can be no real rejoicing except where the banquet is held.

 

The Talmud now tries to find some way to allow the wedding celebrators to still fulfill the commandment of the sukkah. The first option would be to have the wedding feast in the sukkah. The problem with that is that in Talmudic times they seem to have celebrated in the actual huppah. You can’t have the wedding feast anywhere else. We should note that it is not all that clear what the "huppah" was in the times of the Talmud. It was certainly not the symbolic huppah we use today. In this sugya we can see that it seems to have been some sort of room.

The next idea would be to eat in the sukkah, but celebrate in the huppah. The problem with that is that you can’t really celebrate somewhere besides where the food is [still remains 100 per cent true today!].

 

וליעבדו חופה בסוכה!

אביי אמר משום ייחוד.

ורבא אמר משום צער חתן.

But let them do the huppah in the Sukkah?

Abaye says: [They cannot] because of seclusion. .

And Rava said, Because of the discomfort of the bridegroom.

 

The next possibility would be just to do the huppah inside the sukkah. I take this to mean, why not just move the entire wedding and celebration into the sukkah.

Rashi explains Abaye as saying that the problem is that they used to put their sukkot on their roofs. The sukkah was not particularly accessible to people. If the husband had to go down to the bathroom it might happen that he would leave another man alone in the sukkah with his wife. This was strictly forbidden because of what is known as "yihhud" or "seclusion."

Rava says that having the huppah in the sukkah would be a discomfort to the groom. Rashi notes that since it was so small he would have trouble "playing" there with his wife. It seems that the couple was supposed to consummate their marriage in the huppah, which was originally an actual room. Doing so in a sukkah, while possible, just isn’t the same.

 

מאי בינייהו? איכא בינייהו דשכיחי אינשי דנפקי ועיילי להתם: למאן דאמר משום ייחוד ליכא, למאן דאמר משום צער חתן איכא.

 

What practical difference is there between them?

The practical difference between them is a case where people are going in and out of there. According to the one who said "because of seclusion", the restriction does not apply; according to the one who said because of discomfort to the groom, it does.

 

As the Talmud often does, it asks what the practical difference is between Abaye’s reason for why one can’t have the huppah in the sukkah, and Rava’s.

The two amoraim will differ in a case where people are going in and out of the sukkah. Since there will not be a problem of seclusion in such a case, Abaye would say that it is okay. Rava would say that the problem of the discomfort still exists so it is not allowed.

א"ר זירא אנא אכלי בסוכה וחדי בחופה וכ"ש דחדי ליבאי דקא עבידנא תרתי.

 

R. Zera said, I ate in the Sukkah and rejoiced in the huppah and my heart rejoiced all the more since I was fulfilling two [commandments].

 

Despite the fact that the sugya says one is not obligated to eat in the sukkah during the seven days of feasting following a marriage, R. Zera says that he did indeed do both he ate in the sukkah and celebrated in the huppah. This caused him even greater rejoicing in that he could fulfill both commandments. We should note that this is a slightly different "rejoicing" then was referred to before. Rejoicing at a wedding is not because it is a commandment, but because one is genuinely happy, or at least supposed to be, about what has actually happened. In contrast, R. Zera’s rejoicing is at the opportunity to perform a commandment. It is a religious type of rejoicing. I don’t think these contradict each other (most of the time), but I do believe that they are slightly different.