Sukka 25 a, b

Our new Mishna teaches us three things:

1) one who is walking on their way (to perform a mitzva) is exempt from the mitzvot of sukkot
2) the ill and their caregivers are exempt from peforming the mitzvot of sukkot
3) it is permitted to eat and drink casual meals outside of the sukka

Daf 25 covers much of the first teaching.  What does the baraita mean when it says that one is on a path to perform a mitzvah?  The rabbis look to Deuteronomy 6:7, where the rabbis had interpreted similar wording in reference to reciting the Shema.   The rabbis use this interpretation and note that grooms are exempt from reciting the shema.  

We learn that men who marry virgins - and possibly men who marry widows, as well - are exempt from performing a mitzvah - that of reciting the shema - because of his preoccupation with performance of the bit mitzvah that follows the wedding.  For days grooms are allowed to ignore this mitzvah.  

But where did the idea come from; one is allowed to forgo the performance of one mitzvah if one is in the midst of performing another mitzvah.  We learn that at Pesach, two men were exempt from bringing their offering as they were impure from carrying a corpse to the Temple.  They were allowed to wait until the second Pesach to perform the mitzvah of bringing their offerings.  

The rabbis turn their attention to mourners.  Why are mourners required to perform the mitzvot of sukkot?  If grooms and those who are impure are allowed to forgo their obligations, why not mourners?  The rabbis suggest that mourners are not exempt because they can continue their mourning rituals in the sukka.  However, they note that mourners are allowed to forgo residence in the sukka if they find it impossible to perform the rituals of mourning while in the sukka.  For the most part, however, mourners are required to fulfill their obligations regarding the mitzvot of sukkot just like they are not exempt from other obligations.

The daf ends with a lively discussion about whether all of the groomsmen are allowed to forgo wearing tefillin; saying the shema; etc. due to their preoccupation with the wedding and care of the groom.  The rabbis go on to consider whether or not the newlyweds should also reside  in the sukka.  Would they be offered enough privacy?  Would the wife be forced to be alone with other men when the groom occasionally leaves the sukka?

Today's daf was easy to follow.  It focused on one point and I was able to follow the arguments with relative ease.  I have been wondering about those who put together all of these disparate, multi-layered commentaries and references.  It is almost impossible to imagine how to decide which details should go where. Two points: I'm thrilled it was done, and I'm thrilled tat I was not asked to perform the task.