Refuted Question: Even though the Gemara finally establishes the case where he filled in the gaps with various kinds of foliage, it is not appropriate to ask here why he is not permitted to carry inside the entire area, as the Gemara asked earlier ...

Refutation: Since there it speaks about a tree which is spread over the ground, which has a cover an which is therefore surrounded for habitation; whereas here there is no cover, only air.

Refutation (cont.): And even if he surrounded it and then opened it , it is not considered surrounded for habitation ...

Source: As the Gemara explains in Perek Osin Pasin (Eruvin, Daf 24a).

Explanation #1: People who are traveling in order to perform a Mitzvah, for example to study Torah, to greet their Rebbe or to redeem captives, are Patur from Sukah - even when they camped. So Rashi explains.

Proof #1: And this is also implied in the Gemara, which states (on Daf 26a) 'People who are traveling for a Mitzvah are Patur from Sukah, both by day and by night - implying that they are Patur even though they only travel in the day ...

Proof #1 (cont.): Because, if they traveled by day and by night, then they would be Patur, even if their journey was not one of Mitzvah, as the Beraisa states (Ibid.).

Proof #2: And there is also a proof from the case of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna (there), who slept on the banks of the river by Sura.

Question #1: If one can fulfill them both, on what grounds is one Patur? Is someone who is wearing Tzitzis on his garment and Tefilin on his head Patur from other Mitzvos?

Question #2: And in Perek Ein bein ha'Mudar (Nedarim, Daf 33b) in the case of 'Mudar Hana'ah', whose lost article he is permitted to return , even though he gains the 'P'rutah of Rav Yosef, because it is not common.

Question #2 (cont.): Now if he would be Patur from giving bread to a poor man as long as he has the lost article in his house, it would be common?

Conclusion: We must therefore say that he is only Patur as long as he is actually busy with the lost article (See Mesores ha'Shas), where for example, he is spreading out the lost cloak to preserve it, or where he feeding the lost animal ...

Reason: Seeing as it is not common for a poor man to come for alms just at that moment.

Explanation #2: So we must say here too, that it speaks in such a case where, if they were to get involved in fulfilling the Mitzvah of Sukah, they would negate the Mitzvah which they are currently performing.

Explanation #1: Even though he too, is performing a Mitzvah ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): We need both Pesukim - because had the Torah written only one Pasuk, since Chasan is not specifically mentioned in the Pasuk, we would have thought that the Torah only exempts someone who actually performs a Mitzvah with his hands or who is going to perform a Mitzvah ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): But not a Chasan, who is sitting idle and merely thinking about the forthcoming intimacy ...

Explanation #1 (conl.): Therefore, the extra Pasuk comes to teach us that he is Patur from Keri'as Sh'ma, since his mind is taken up with thoughts of intimacy.

Refutation #1: Our Sugya however, implies that preclude someone who is occupied with a Mitzvah from "u'Velecht'cha va'Derech"?

Refutation #2: And in the first Perek of B'rachos (Daf 11a) the Gemara inverts the text - when it says "be'Shiv't'cha", 'to preclude a Chasan; and "u'Velecht'cha va'Derech", 'to precude someone who is occupied with a Mitzvah'.

Explanation #2: And this appears to be the correct text - since the Pasuk implies 'It is when you are sitting with your personal issues that you are Chayav to recite the Sh'ma, but not when you are sitting with a Mitzvah - when you are sitting and thinking about the intimacy of Mitzvah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas "u'Velecht'cha" precludes someone who is performing a Mitzvah - implying 'When you are going on your personal journey but not when you are traveling on a journey of Mitzvah'.

Clarification: We would know other cases of someone who performs a Mitzvah from Chasan ...

Clarification (cont.): Because perhaps a Chasan is different, since it is no simple matter to remove the anxiety ...

Clarification (concl.): Despite the fact that by anxiety that is not connected with Mitzvah, one is obligated to set one's mind at rest and to remove one's anxiety.

Clarification: Later on Amud 'Beis', the Gemara explains that, since Hash-m told Yechezkel that his Pe'er (Tefilin) was on him, it was a sign that he was Chayav to do so, but that other mourners were Patur.

Implied Question: And the fact that the Lashon implies that the reason hinges upon the fact that it is referred to as "Pe'er" (glory), and that an Aveil is not subject to 'Pe'er', and if he does 'glorify himself', it demonstrates that he was not in mourning ...

Answer: It merely means that we cannot learn that the P'tur extends to other Mitzvos, since Tefilin are unique, in that they are called 'Pe'er'.

Question: Why, with regard to Tefilin, do we say that specifically Yechan (ezkel was told and not other Aveilim ...

Question (cont.): Whereas regarding Torah-study, the Gemara in the first Perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 15a) rules tha an Aveil is Patur, because Hash-m told Yechezkel to be silent, thereby equating other Aveilim with Yechezkel?

Answer: By Divrei Torah, seeing as the Torah distinguishes him from everybody else, one can deduce that it is because an Aveil is forbidden to study Torah ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas in the case of Tefilin, why did see fit to instruct him to wear Tefilin, unless it was because we would otherwise have thought that it is forbidden.

Question: According to the opinion in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin, Daf 52a) that they were literally burnt - body-wise, and that is also how the Toras Kohanim, on the Pasuk "va'Tochal Eish osam" explains it, why did they become Tamei?

Answer: Perhaps the shape of their bodies (i.e. their skeletons) remained intact, as if they were burned on a leather hide ....

Source: As the Gemar says in Perek ha'Mapeles (Nidah, Daf 27b) - 'A Meis that has been burned and has remained intact is Tamei'.

Introduction to Question: This poses a Kashya on Rebbi Levi, who says in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, 60a & 60b) 'Eight Parshiyos were said on the day that the Mishkan was erected, among them the Parshah of the Teme'im ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Which Rashi defines as "Vay'hi Anashim asher hayu Teme'im le'Nefesh ... "

Question: This cannot be correct, as is evident here - since that took place on Erev Pesach, whereas the MIshkan was erected on the first of Nisan?

Extension of Question: And even according to Rebbi Akiva it cannot go - according to the Sefarim in Perek has'Ishah (Pesachim, 90b) 'Rav holds like Rebbi Akiva who says it was Misha'el and Eltzafan, whose seventh day fell on Erev Pesach (See Maharsha).

Refutation: That text however, is not correct, but the text there reads 'Rebbi Yitzchak'.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'Parshas Teme'im' refers to Sheretz, Neveilah, Zav Zavah and Nidah (in Shemini) ...

Reason: Since they needed to be warned about them on account of Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav.

Refuted Question: One cannot query this from the Gemara at the beginning of 'T'vul-Yom' (Zevachim, 100a & 100b) which Darshens from "le'Achoso" that 'Someone who is on his way to Shecht the Korban Pesach must render himself Tamei for a Meis Mitzvah even after mid-day' ...

Refutation: Because a Meis Mitzvah is different ...

Implied Question: And when the Gemara here cites the Beraisa which states that 'They became Tamei for a Meis Mitzvah' ...

Answer: It does not mean a genuine 'Meis Mitzvah', but a relative, as Rashi explains

Answer: And it is after Chatzos that he may not render himself Tamei, as the Beraisa says there 'Say that he may not be Metamei himself', but before Chatzos he is Metamei himself ...

Proof: As the Gemara says there with regard to Yosef ha'Kohen, whose wife died on Erev Pesach, and whom his fellow Kohanim banded together and were Metamei him against his will.

Question: There is a Kashya however, according to Rava, who says there that 'Both cases speak after Chatzos; one before they Shechted (the Korban Pesach) and sprinkled (the blood) on his behalf, the other, after they Shechted and sprinkled it ...

Question (cont.): So we see that one is permitted to render oneself Tamei for relatives even after the time to Shecht the Pesach has arrived, seeing as they have not yet Shechted it and sprinkled the blood on his behalf?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that that too, we can learn from a Chasan, who is Patur from K'ri'as Sh'ma ...

Refutation: Because K'ri'as Sh'ma may well be different in that it is not subject to Kareis, as the Gemar says here, and we cannot therefore learn Pesach, which is, and whose alotted time has arrived, from it.

Inference: This implies that once the Chasan leaves his Chupah, even together with his Kalah - and they go to eat in another house, one no longer recites either 'she'ha'Simchah bi'Me'ono' or Birchaas Chasanim ...

Reason: Seeing as there is no Simchah other than in the Chupah.

Support: And this is borne out in Kesuvos (Daf 7b & Daf 8a) where the Gemara also says 'One recites Birchas Chasanim in "the house of Chasanim", implying specifically in the location of the Chupah - which is 'the house of Chasanim'.

Refutation: There is no proof from there however, since it is possible that it is coming to counter the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that 'One recites the B'rachah even in the house of Erusin'.

Question: It is necessary to define 'Chupah'? Because if it refers to the location where they recited the Birchas Nisu'in, then it sometimes happens that this is done in the main street of the town - when there are a lot of people, and there is insufficient room to accommodate them in a house.

Answer: It must therefore be that the main location where the Chasan and Kalah are staying is called 'Chupah', and that is where they recite the Birchas Chasanim all seven days.

Clarification: Since the Mitzvah of Kavanah is confined to the first Pasuk, and one can settle one's mind for the short time it takes to recite it - as Rashi explains.