exempt

GEMARA When the body is lying before him, he is exempt; [it is consequently to be inferred that] when it is not lying before him, he is not exempt !

nor do others say Grace on his behalf or include him for Zimmun. He is likewise exempt from the reading of the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. On the Sabbath, however, he may recline at his meal, eat meat and drink wine, say Grace and arrange Zimmun, and others may say Grace on his behalf and include him for Zimmun ; and he is under the obligation of reading the Shema' and Tefillah, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : Since he is under the obligation of these, he has obviously the obligation of them all !

It is here at any rate taught that [the mourner, although he is not in the same room as the body,] is exempt from reading the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah ! Rab Pappa replied : [The Baraita] is to be interpreted as referring to one who turns his face from the body and eats. Rab Ashe said : Since the duty of burying rests upon him, it is to be regarded as though the body was lying before him; as it is said, "And Abraham rose up from before his dead" (Gen. xxiii. 3) and it is said "That I may bury my dead from before me" (ibid. v. 4), i.e. so long as the duty of burial rested upon him, it was as though the body was actually before him.

He whose dead [is lying before him] is exempt, but [so it may The be inferred,] not the watcher. But lo, there is a teaching :

Who watches the body, although it is not his dead, is exempt from reading the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah ! "Who watches the body, although it is not his dead" [so stated the Baraita ; therefore it is to be inferred] if it is his dead, although he does not watch the body, [he is exempt].

Who watches the body, although it is not his dead, is exempt from reading the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah ! "Who watches the body, although it is not his dead" [so stated the Baraita ; therefore it is to be inferred] if it is his dead, although he does not watch the body, [he is exempt].

If it be his dead or if he watches it, he is exempt ; but [so it may be inferred] one who walks in a cemetery is not ! But lo, there is a teaching : A man must not walk in a cemetery with his Tefillin on his head or holding a scroll of the Torah and reading therein ; should he do so, he commits a transgression because of the injunction : "Whoso mocketh the poor blasphemeth his Maker" (Prov. xvii. 5) !

In this latter case, within four cubits [of the grave] it is forbidden, but beyond that limit, he is under the obligation ; for the teacher has said : A dead body affects four cubits with regard to the reading of the Shema'. But here [in the case of a mourner or watcher], even beyond the limit of four cubits he is exempt.

It was stated above [in the Baraita] : "Who watches the body, although it is not his dead, is exempt from reading the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah." Should there be two [watchers], they take it in turn to watch and read. Ben Azzai says : Should they be bringing the body in a boat, they place it in one corner and they both pray in another corner !

As for those who stand in the row, etc. Our Rabbis have taught : The row which looks upon the inner space is exempt [from reading the Shema']; but the row which does not look upon the inner space is under the obligation. R. Judah says : Those who come out of regard for the mourner are exempt ; but those who come on their own account are under the obligation.

As for those who stand in the row, etc. Our Rabbis have taught : The row which looks upon the inner space is exempt [from reading the Shema']; but the row which does not look upon the inner space is under the obligation. R. Judah says : Those who come out of regard for the mourner are exempt ; but those who come on their own account are under the obligation.

MISHNAH Women, slaves and minors are exempt from reading the Shema'

GEMARA Why are the reading of the Shema' and Tefillin different [from the others] ? Because they are commands the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class. Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals, being commands the observance of which does not depend upon a certain point of time, are obligatory upon women. That the reading of the Shema' [is not obligatory upon women] is self-evident, because it is a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class!

GEMARA Why are the reading of the Shema' and Tefillin different [from the others] ? Because they are commands the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class. Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals, being commands the observance of which does not depend upon a certain point of time, are obligatory upon women. That the reading of the Shema' [is not obligatory upon women] is self-evident, because it is a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class!

[Why, then, does the Mishnah mention it ?] Thou mightest say that since it contains a reference to the Kingdom of Heaven [it should be read by women] ; therefore it informs us [they are exempt].

And from Tefillin. This too is evident ! Thou mightest say that since Tefillin are to be compared with Mezuzah [they should be obligatory upon women] ; therefore it informs us [they are exempt].

But they are under the obligation of Tefillah ; [obviously] because this is prayer! [not translated] But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "Evening and morning and at noonday" (Ps. lv. 18), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [the obligation is theirs].

And Mezuzah. This is evident ! But thou mightest say that since it is to be compared with the study of Torah, [being exempt from the latter they are likewise exempt from the former] ; therefore it informs us [that women have the duty of fixing the Mezuzah].

And Mezuzah. This is evident ! But thou mightest say that since it is to be compared with the study of Torah, [being exempt from the latter they are likewise exempt from the former] ; therefore it informs us [that women have the duty of fixing the Mezuzah].

And Grace after meals. This too is evident ! But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "When the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat and in the morning bread to the full" (Exod. xvi. 8), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [that it is obligatory].

Rab Adda b. Ahabah said : Women are under the obligation to recite the Sanctitication of the [Sabbath] day by the ordinance of the Torah. But why, since it is a command the observance of which is dependent upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class ! Abbai answered : [The Sanctification by women] is a Rabbinical ordinance.

Rabina asked Raba : Is the recital of the Grace after meals by women an ordinance from the Torah or the Rabbis ? What is the point at issue ? It is whether they have the power of exempting others. It is quite right if thou sayest it is from the Torah ; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then it is not a compulsory observance, and one who is not under the obligation [to keep the observance] cannot exempt others. How is it then ?

in the ante-room of R. Osha'ya, and they came and consulted Rab Assi. He said to them : The teaching [about the nine Kabs] was meant to apply only to a delicate person who caused it to happen ; but the delicate person who experienced it involuntarily was exempt therefrom altogether. Rab Joseph said ; Rab Nahman's pitcher is repaired.

Abbai said : Ezra ordained forty Saot for a healthy person whose emission was voluntary and nine Kabs for a healthy person when it was involuntary. Then came the Amoraim and differed as to a person indelicate health. Some were of the opinion that the delicate person whose emission was voluntary is like the healthy man whose emission was voluntary [and requires forty Saot], and the delicate person when it was involuntary like the healthy man when it was involuntary [and requires nine Kabs]. Others, however, were of opinion that the delicate person whose emission was voluntary is like a healthy man whose emission was involuntary [and requires nine Kabs], and the delicate person when it was involuntary is exempt therefrom altogether.

Raba said : Granted that Ezra instituted immersion ; did he, then, institute the pouring of water? For lo, the teacher said, "Ezra instituted immersion for those who are Ba'al Keri" ! But, said Raba, Ezra instituted immersion in forty Saot for a healthy person whose emission was voluntary, and then the Rabbis came and instituted [the pouring of] nine Kabs for a healthy man when it was involuntary. After that the Amoraim came and differed as to what was to be done to a person in delicate health. Some were of opinion that the delicate person whose emission was voluntary was like a healthy man when it was voluntary [and required immersion], and a delicate person when it was involuntary like a healthy person when it was involuntary [and required pouring]. Others, however, were of opinion that the healthy person when it was voluntary required forty Saot ; and the delicate person when it was voluntary, like the healthy man when it was involuntary, required nine Kabs; but a delicate person whose emission was involuntary was exempt therefrom altogether.

Raba said : The Halakah is — Both the healthy man and the delicate person when it is voluntary require forty Saot ; the healthy man when it is involuntary requires nine Kabs; but the delicate person when it is involuntary is exempt therefrom altogether.

Rab Hamma used to bathe on the day preceding Passover in order to exempt others from their obligation. But the Halakah is not in accord with their view.

MISHNAH R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah says : The additional Tefillah is only to be said with the local Congregation. The Sages say: Whether with or without the local Congregation. R. Judah says in his name: In any place where there is a local Congregation, the individual is exempt from the additional Tefillah.

GEMARA R. Judah is identical with the first Tanna's view ! There is a difference between them, viz. : an individual who lives in a place where there is no local Congregation. The first Tanna holds that he is exempt [from the additional Tefillah], but R. Judah holds that he is under the obligation.

Raba said : Like that of Rab Hosha'ya who stated : A man should act cunningly with his produce, and store it together with the chaff, so that his cattle may eat of it and it become exempt from the tithe.

But this is self-contradictory ! Thou declarest, "He who pronounces the 'Division' in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup of wine"; hence it is sufficient to say it in the Tefillah alone ! And then he teaches, "But if he says it in both, may blessings alight upon his head"; but since he has fulfilled his obligation with the former, he is exempt and [the latter] will be a superfluous benediction, and Rab has declared (another version : R. Simeon b. Lakish ; or R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both declare) : Whoever utters a superfluous benediction commits a transgression because of [the injunction], "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exod. xx. 7) !

Rabbah b. Bar Hannah also stated that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Judah b. R. El'ai : Come and see that the later generations are not like the former generations. The former generations used to bring their fruits home by way of the kitchen-garden in order to make them liable to the tithe ; whereas the later generations bring their fruits home by way of the roof, or courts, or enclosures in order to exempt them from the tithe. For R. Jannai has said : Produce is not subject to the tithe until it sees the face of the house ; as it is said, "I have put away the hallowed things out of my house" (Deut. xxvi. 13).

Troknin is subject to Hallah. When Rabin came, R. Johanan said: It is exempt from Hallah. What is Troknin ? Abbai said : Dough baked in a cavity made in the ground.

Abbai also said : Tarita is exempt from Hallah. What is Tarita? Some say : A scalded puff-pastry. Others declare it to be Indian bread. Yet others declare it to be bread made into Kuttah.

R. Hiyya taught : Bread made into Kuttah is exempt from Hallah. But there is a teaching ; It is subject to Hallah ! Yes, but there it mentions the reason, viz. : R. Judah says : The way they are made decides.

If he made them into cakes, they are subject [to Hallah]; but if he made them into "shingles," they are exempt. Abbai asked Rab Joseph : Which benediction is to be said over dough baked in a cavity made in the ground ? He said to him : Dost thou consider it to be bread ? It is only a thick mass, and the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Against this is quoted : If radishes and olives were before him, he pronounces the benediction over the radishes and he is exempt from saying it over the olives ! With what are we here dealing? With the case where the radishes are the principal item.

MISHNAH If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal. If he said it over the dainty served before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty served after the meal. If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

MISHNAH If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal. If he said it over the dainty served before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty served after the meal. If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

MISHNAH If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal. If he said it over the dainty served before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty served after the meal. If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

MISHNAH If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal. If he said it over the dainty served before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty served after the meal. If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

The question was asked : How is it if wine is brought in the course of the meal — does it make the benediction over the wine after the meal unnecessary? Shouldest thou wish to quote our Mishnah : If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal — this is because both of them are for drinking ; but here, since one is for steeping and the other for drinking, it is not so ; or perhaps that makes no difference ?

Rab said : He is exempt [from repeating the benediction] ; but Rab Kahana said : He is not. Rab Nahman said: He is exempt; but Rab Sheshet said : He is not. Rab Huna, Rab Judah and all the pupils of Rab say : He is not. Raba quoted against Rab Nahman : If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself ; after the meal, one may say it for all! He replied : This is what he means to say, If no wine was set for them in the course of the meal, only after it, then one may say the benediction for all.

Rab said : He is exempt [from repeating the benediction] ; but Rab Kahana said : He is not. Rab Nahman said: He is exempt; but Rab Sheshet said : He is not. Rab Huna, Rab Judah and all the pupils of Rab say : He is not. Raba quoted against Rab Nahman : If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself ; after the meal, one may say it for all! He replied : This is what he means to say, If no wine was set for them in the course of the meal, only after it, then one may say the benediction for all.

If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty ; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty ; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

Rab Pappa said to Abbai : In that case, even if [the Levite] anticipated [and separated his tithe] from the corn-heap, it would likewise [be exempt from the great Terumah] ! He replied : To meet thy objection the Scriptures state,

R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: Two sukkot of potters one further in than the other, the inner one is not valid as a sukkah, and is obligated to have a mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is exempt from the obligation of a mezuzah.

Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

Mishnah: Messengers to do a mitzvah are exempt from sukkah. The sick and their attendants are exempt from sukkah. Non-established [meals] are eaten and drunk outside of the sukkah.

Mishnah: Messengers to do a mitzvah are exempt from sukkah. The sick and their attendants are exempt from sukkah. Non-established [meals] are eaten and drunk outside of the sukkah.

Gemara: From where are these words? As our rabbis taught: (Deuteronomy 6:7) "in your sitting in your house" exempts one involved in a mitzvah. "and in your going in the road" exempts a groom. From here they said: One who brings in a maiden is exempt. And a widow, he is obligated.

Are we not discussing one who is traveling to perform a mizvah, and the Merciful One said that he should read it? If so, then let the verse say "in sitting and in going". What is [the reason for] "in your sitting and in your going?" One who is going for himself is obligated. This one traveling to perform a mitzvah is exempt.

If so, then even one who brings in a widow also [should be exempt]! One who brings in a maiden is preoccupied. One who brings in a widow is not preoccupied.

And all who are preoccupied, they too should be exempt? But from that, one who is preoccupied from losing his ship at sea, he should also be exempt. And would you say here also? But Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah, except for tefillin, as behold, they are spoken of as splendor.

And all who are preoccupied, they too should be exempt? But from that, one who is preoccupied from losing his ship at sea, he should also be exempt. And would you say here also? But Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah, except for tefillin, as behold, they are spoken of as splendor.

And one who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah comes out from here? It comes from there, as it is taught in a Baraita: (Numbers 9:6) "There were people that were impure by the flesh of man..." Those people, who were they? They were the carriers of Yosef's body, the words of Rabbi Yose HaGlili.

[Both texts] are necessary. For if he had only informed us of the former, I would have said [that they were free from the obligation there] because the time of the obligation of the pesah sacrifice had not yet come, but here where the time of the reading of the Shema had come, I would have said that he is obligated, [therefore] it was necessary [to have the later]. And if he had informed us of the case here only, I would have said [that one is exempt here] because this does not involve karet, but there where it involves karet, I would have said no. [Therefore the other was] necessary.

[Going back to] the main text: R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all the commandments of the Torah with the exception of tefillin since the word "beauty" is applied to them’. Since the God said to Ezekiel, "Bind your beauty upon yourself," (Ezekiel 24:17) you are obligated in this, but all other people are exempt.’

R. Abba b. Zavda also said in the name of Rav, A mourner is obligated in the Sukkah Is not this obvious? What might I have said? Since R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav that he who is in discomfort is exempt from the obligation of Sukkah, this [one] is also in discomfort, therefore he informs us that this applies only to discomfort that comes on its own, but [the mourner] since it is he himself who is the cause of his discomfort, he must settle his mind

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. 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 Sukkah? There is no rejoicing but in the huppah.

Our rabbis taught: The bridegroom, and the groomsmen and all the wedding guests are exempt from prayer and tefillin, but are obligated to read the Shema.

In the name of R. Shila they said: The bridegroom is exempt, but the groomsmen and the wedding guests are liable.

It has been taught: R. Hanania b. Akavya said: Scribes writing [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot, their agents and their agents’ agents, and all who are engaged in holy work including sellers of blue [for tzitzit] are exempt from the obligation of prayer and tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah, to confirm the words of R. Yose the Galilean, for R. Yose the Galilean used to say: He who is occupied with the performance of a mitzvah is [at that time] exempt from other mitzvot

It has been taught: R. Hanania b. Akavya said: Scribes writing [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot, their agents and their agents’ agents, and all who are engaged in holy work including sellers of blue [for tzitzit] are exempt from the obligation of prayer and tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah, to confirm the words of R. Yose the Galilean, for R. Yose the Galilean used to say: He who is occupied with the performance of a mitzvah is [at that time] exempt from other mitzvot

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Our rabbis taught: The day watchmen of a town are exempt from the sukkah by day and obligated at night; night watchmen are exempt by night and obligated by day; day and night watchmen are exempt both by day and at night.

Our rabbis taught: The day watchmen of a town are exempt from the sukkah by day and obligated at night; night watchmen are exempt by night and obligated by day; day and night watchmen are exempt both by day and at night.

Our rabbis taught: The day watchmen of a town are exempt from the sukkah by day and obligated at night; night watchmen are exempt by night and obligated by day; day and night watchmen are exempt both by day and at night.

Watchmen of gardens and orchards are exempt both by day and by night. But let them make a Sukkah there and dwell in it? Abaye said, "You shall dwell" as you normally dwell

Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah]. Our Rabbis taught, The sick one spoken of here is not [only] one who sick and is in danger, but also one who is sick but not in danger, even one who has a pain in his eye or a pain in his head. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said: On one occasion I had a pain in my eye in Caesarea and R. Yose Berebi permitted me and my attendants to sleep outside the Sukkah.

Rava follows his own reasoning, since Rava said: One who is in discomfort is exempt from the Sukkah. But have we not learned: Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah] One who is sick but not one who is merely in discomfort? I will explain: A sick person and his attendants are exempt, whereas he who is in discomfort is exempt, but not his attendants.

Rava follows his own reasoning, since Rava said: One who is in discomfort is exempt from the Sukkah. But have we not learned: Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah] One who is sick but not one who is merely in discomfort? I will explain: A sick person and his attendants are exempt, whereas he who is in discomfort is exempt, but not his attendants.

Rava follows his own reasoning, since Rava said: One who is in discomfort is exempt from the Sukkah. But have we not learned: Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah] One who is sick but not one who is merely in discomfort? I will explain: A sick person and his attendants are exempt, whereas he who is in discomfort is exempt, but not his attendants.

Rava follows his own reasoning, since Rava said: One who is in discomfort is exempt from the Sukkah. But have we not learned: Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah] One who is sick but not one who is merely in discomfort? I will explain: A sick person and his attendants are exempt, whereas he who is in discomfort is exempt, but not his attendants.

1) Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. 2) A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah. 3) It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor.

Which is based on a Scriptural verse and which on a tradition? And, moreover, what is the necessity for a Scriptural verse or for a traditional law? Is not a Sukkah a positive time-bound commandment and women are exempt from all positive commandments which have a set time?

Rava said: It is necessary, since I might have said, derive [the law from a similar case] of the fifteenth, from the fifteenth of the Festival of Matzot: just as there women are obligated, so too here women are bound. Therefore he taught that [women are exempt].

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

The master said, [The word] "every" comes to include minors. But have we not learned: women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah? There is no difficulty. One source refers to a minor who has reached the age of education, and one source refers to where he has not yet reached the age of being trained. But is not the obligation of a minor who has reached the age of being trained a derabanan (from the rabbis) commandment? It is indeed of rabbinical origin, the Scriptural verse was merely a support.

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

Let him derive this question from that which we have learned: If he covered it and it became uncovered, he need not cover it again. If the wind covered it, he must cover it again. And Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: They taught this only where it subsequently became uncovered, but if it did not subsequently become uncovered, he is exempt from [the duty of] covering it.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir, while the Sages say that it is liable? Can we say that the following supports [this view]! It is the identical statement!

A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.

R. Sheshet objected: And [if one buys] from what is ownerless, [may he buy] three meals and no more? But there is a contradiction: Rue, asparagus, fenugreek, coriander of the mountains, water-parsley and meadow-eruca are always exempt from tithe and may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical Year, since the like of these is not guarded.

R. Huna said: R. Yose used to say: A bird [offered as] a burnt-offering that was found among other fowls and [the priest] thought that it was a bird sin-offering, and ate it, he is exempt. What does he teach us by this ruling? That one who errs in connection with a mitzvah is exempt? But this is the same [as the Mishnah]?

R. Huna said: R. Yose used to say: A bird [offered as] a burnt-offering that was found among other fowls and [the priest] thought that it was a bird sin-offering, and ate it, he is exempt. What does he teach us by this ruling? That one who errs in connection with a mitzvah is exempt? But this is the same [as the Mishnah]?