א"ר אבא בר זבדא אמר רב: חתן והשושבינין וכל בני החופה פטורין מן הסוכה כל שבעה.
Rabbi Abba bar Zivda also said in the name of Rav: A bridegroom and the shoshvinin and all the wedding guests are free from the obligation of sukkah all seven days.
רבי בא בר זבדא אמר: שושבינין וכל בני חופה פטורין מן הסוכה.
Rabbi Ba bar Zivda said: The shoshvinin and all the wedding guests are free from the obligation of sukkah.
מאי טעמא? משום דבעו למחדי. וליכלו בסוכה וליחדו בסוכה? אין שמחה אלא בחופה. וליכלו בסוכה וליחדו בחופה? אין שמחה אלא במקום סעודה. וליעבדו חופה בסוכה? אביי אמר: משום ייחוד, ורבא אמר: משום צער חתן. מאי בינייהו? איכא בינייהו דשכיחי אינשי דנפקי ועיילי להתם. למאן דאמר: משום ייחוד, ליכא. למאן דאמר: משום צער חתן, איכא. א"ר זירא: אנא אכלי בסוכה וחדי בחופה, וכל שכן דחדאי ליבאי דקא עבידנא תרתי. ת"ר:
What is the reason? Because they have to rejoice. Can they not eat in the sukkah and rejoice in the sukkah? There is no proper rejoicing except under the wedding canopy.[1] Can they not eat in the sukkah and rejoice under the canopy? There can be no real rejoicing except where the banquet is held. But why should they not put up a canopy in the sukkah? Abbayye says: [This is impossible] because [of the lack] of privacy.[2] And Rava said: Because of the discomfort of the bridegroom.[3] What practical difference is there between them? The practical difference between them emerges where people are in the habit of going in and out of it. According to the view of [lack of] privacy, the restriction does not apply. According to the view of [the groom’s] discomfort, it does. Rabbi Zeira said: I held the banquet in the sukkah and rejoiced under the canopy and my heart rejoiced all the more, since I was fulfilling two [commandments]. Our rabbis taught:
[1] With relation to this text SATLOW, Tasting the Dish, 292, writes that: “Babylonians employed a rhetoric of pleasure in dealing with marital intercourse.”
[2] According to Rashi, this is because a stranger might enter the sukkah and seclude himself with the bride when the bridegroom goes to the toilet.
[3] Meaning according to Rashi, that such a sukkah is too exposed for the bridegroom to express his physical affection for the bride.
חתן והשושבינין וכל בני חופה פטורין מן התפילה ומן התפילין, וחייבין בק"ש. משום ר' שילא אמרו: חתן פטור והשושבינין וכל בני החופה חייבין.
The bridegroom and the shoshvinin and all the wedding guests are free from the obligation of prayer and tefillin but are bound to recite the Shema. In the name of Rabbi Shila they said: The bridegroom is free but the shoshvinin and the wedding guests are subject to the obligation.
השושבינין וכל בני חופה פטורין מן התפילה ומן התפילין כל שבעת ימים, חייבי' בקרית שמע. ר' שילא או': חתן פטור וכל בני חופה חייבין.
The shoshvinin and all the wedding guests are free from the obligation of prayer and tefillin but are bound to recite the Shema. Rabbi Shila said: The bridegroom is free but wedding guests are subject to the obligation.
@General observations
As can be seen above, the Yerushalmi contains a somewhat different and abbreviated version of Rav’s statement, which forms the basis of this sugya in the Bavli. In ySuk 2:5, 53a, Rabbi Abba bar Zivda[1] utters the statement himself, and not in the name of Rav, and neither are the exemption of the bridegroom himself, nor a time period (seven days) for which the exemption applies, mentioned. The general context of bSukkah – a collection of statements made by Rav, three of which were transmitted by Rabbi Abba bar Zivda – indicates that Rav’s name here was probably inserted in order to make this statement resemble the others. Likewise, the bridegroom’s exemption from dwelling in the sukkah may have been added in light of a similarly structured baraita exempting the bridegroom, the shoshvinin and the wedding guests from tefillin and Shema (tBer 2:3) which is cited in this sugya further down.[2] The words “all seven (days)” in the Bavli explain the length of time for the exemption.
[1] Rabbi Abba bar Zivda, a second/third generation Palestinian amora, who emigrated to Babylonia and became Rav’s disciple, see HYMAN, Biographies, 43-44.
[2] The sugya concerning Rabbi Abba bar Zivda’s apparent innovation appears somewhat puzzling, as a baraita has already taught that a bridegroom is exempt. Ha-Meiri’s commentary (Bet HaBehira) on the sugya resolves this issue. He explains that the sugya relates to a bridegroom who has already consummated his marriage and is therefore not preoccupied with this act (which was initially the reason for his exemption). Rabbi Abba bar Zivda maintains that the bridegroom and his entourage are still exempt after the act, because of the commandment to be joyful for seven days.
@Feminist observations
@Shoshvinin
The concepts of שושבינין (shoshvinin), כל בני החופה (all the wedding guests), and their exemption from the obligation of sukkah are of interest here. In his comprehensive article on the term shoshvin, N. Tur Sinai demonstrates that the earliest evidence for this word is in Akkadian.[1] At first, scholars interpreted shoshvin as an official/functionary, since from the Akkadian sources its connotation as “a friend of the bridegroom/bride” was unclear. Tur Sinai believes that shoshvin was probably a grammatical form derived from the Assyrian root (w)ashabu meaning “one who seats.” It was used to designate the person who seats the bride and groom under the wedding canopy, or in their home. This Semitic root, designating a close friend of the bride and groom, probably influenced the development of the word in the Hebrew and Aramaic talmudic sources.
Based on Targum Yonatan’s translation of רעה המלך in I Kgs 4:5 and on its Syrian root, Michael Sokoloff also translates shoshvin as a close friend.[2] Such a meaning is found in bSan 113a, bKet 77b and bMQ 28a. The connotation of a “best man, friend of the bridegroom participating in the wedding ceremony” is found in bYev 63a and 121a, as well as in various other places in the Talmud.[3]
One of the earliest mentions of shoshvin in connection to marriage is in tKet 1:4:
ביהודה בראשונה היו מעמידין שושבינין שניים, אחד משל בית חתן, ואחד משל כלה. ואע"פ כן לא היו מעמידין אלא לנישואין. ובגליל לא נהגו כן. ביהודה בראשונה היו שושבינין ישנין במקום שחתן וכלה ישינין ובגליל לא נהגו כן. כל שאינו נוהג כמנהג זה אינו יכול לטעון טענת בתולים.
In olden times in Judaea they would appoint two shoshvinin, one from the house of the groom and one from the house of the bride, and in spite of this, they only provide them for marriage. But in Galilee they did not do so.[1] In Judaea the two shoshvinin would sleep where the bride and groom slept but in Galilee they did not do so. Whoever does not follow this custom cannot bring a virginity suit [later].[2]
[1] The previous section of tKet 1:4 states: “Rabbi Yehudah said: In Judaea, to begin with, they would bring the bride and bridegroom together for one hour before they entered the huppah (bridal canopy) so that he would get accustomed to her, and in Galilee they did not do so. In Judaea they would search the bodies of the groom and bride one hour before they entered the huppah, and in Galilee they did not do so.” LIEBERMAN, Tosefta kifeshutah, 194, points out the internal disparity among the various sections of tKet 1:4. He believes that this demonstrates the existence of three separate marriage customs: 1) the groom and bride would be alone together for one hour prior to the marriage ceremony; 2) the bodies of the bride and groom would be searched prior to the marriage ceremony; 3) shoshvinin would be present at the marriage. The last custom resembles yKet 1:1, 25a. Still bKet 12a combines the latter two customs into one: “In Judaea, to begin with, two shoshvinin would be present, one for him and one for her, in order to search the bodies of the bride and groom when they entered the huppah, and in Galilee they did not do so. In Judaea, to begin with, shoshvinin would sleep in the house of the bride and groom, and in Galilee they did not do so.”
[2] Translation based on ILAN, Integrating Women, 244.
According to Rashi,[1] the Tosefta clarifies that the duty of a shoshvin in ancient times was to be present where the bride and groom slept on the wedding night so that they could serve as witnesses if there was a dispute concerning the bride’s virginity. Ilan suggests a reason for the strange custom of shoshvinin being present during the wedding night:
Since that text proves that the Judaeans were notorious in their premarital sexual license, if a Judean husband wished to preserve his right to file a virginity suit he had to make sure to follow several precautions designed to guard his wife’s virginity until entering wedlock.[2]
The following story in Kalla Rabbati 2:2 mentions an incident with a shoshvin:
פעם אחת היו זקנים יושבים. עברו לפניהם שני תינוקות, אחד גילה ראשו ואחד כסה את ראשו. זה שגילה ראשו ר' אליעזר אומר: ממזר, ר' יהושע אומר: בן הנידה. ר' עקיבא אומר: ממזר ובן הנידה. אמרו לו: ר' עקיבא, איך מלאך לבך לעבור על דברי רבותיך. אמר להם: אני אקיימנו. הלך אצל אמו של אותו תינוק, שהיא יושבת ומוכרת קטנית בשוק. אמר לה: בתי, אם תאמרי לי דבר זה שאני שואלך, הריני מביאך לחיי העולם הבא. אמרה לו: השבע לי. היה ר' עקיבא נשבע בשפתיו ומבטל לו בלבו. אמר לה: בנך זה מה טיבו? אמרה לו: כשנכנסתי לחופה נדה הייתי, ופירש ממני בעלי ובעלני שושביני.
ושושבינא מנא נפל תמן? כדתניא: בראשונה היו השושבינים ישנים בבית שהחתן והכלה ישנים, בו כדי למשמש את החתן ואת הכלה.
Once, elders were sitting [together]. Two children walked in front of them. One bared his head and the other covered his head. The one who bared his head, Rabbi Eli‘ezer said of him: He is illegitimate (mamzer), Rabbi Yehoshu‘a said: [He is] the son of a menstruant. Rabbi Aqiva said: A mamzer, son of a menstruant. They said to him: Rabbi Aqiva, how did you dare to contradict the words of your teachers? He said to them: I shall prove it. He went to the boy’s mother, who was sitting and selling legumes in the market. He said to her: My daughter, if you tell me this thing I will bring you to life in the world to come. She said to him: Swear to me. Rabbi Aqiva swore to her with his lips and cancelled it in his heart. He said to her: This son of yours, whose is he? She said to him: When I entered the marriage canopy (huppah) I was menstruating, and my husband removed himself from me, and the shoshvin slept with me.
And the shoshvin, from where did he fall? As it is taught: In the beginning the two shoshvinim would sleep where the bride and groom slept, in order to examine the bride and groom.
The end of the story shows that the tannaitic custom of shoshvinin sleeping where the bride and groom slept no longer existed at the time of this tradition, and was even forgotten in the amoraic period. Therefore the text expresses surprise and questions the reason for the shoshvin’s presence together with the bride and groom מנא נפל תמן.
Amoraic midrashim refer to shoshvinin as attendants,[1] and they are not always mentioned
in connection to marriage. Thus, GenR 8 connects shoshvinin to Adam and the Creation story: “Said Rabbi Yehudah bar Simon: Michael and Gabriel were Adam’s shoshvinin” אמר ר' יהודה בר' סימון: מיכאל וגבריאל, הם היו שושבינין שלאדם הראשון. And PesK 15:6, in a parable, compares three shoshvinin to Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah:
[1] SATLOW, Jewish Marriage, 174 writes: “I think it is unlikely that the attendants ever did serve such a function (ensure that neither the bride nor the groom attempted to lodge a false claim against the woman’s virginity). The rabbis themselves acknowledge that this was a practice of a distant place at a foregone time and appear to have no firsthand knowledge of the practice. Palestinian and Babylonian sources assume the presence of attendants to the groom. These attendants were not “best men” in our sense of the term. Rather they had a formal relationship with concrete, and (in rabbinic law) actionable, economic obligation. A man, for example, expected that on his wedding day that man to whom he had given gifts in his role as attendant would reciprocate. The purpose of this gift-giving was probably to establish and formalize social relationships rather than to provide significant economic support.”
למטרונה שהיו לה שלשה שושבינין. אחד ראה אותה בשליוותה, אחד ראה אותה בפחזה, אחד ראה אותה בניוולתה. כך משה ראה את ישראל בשילוותן: "איכה אשא לבדי" (דברים א יב); ישעיה ראה אותן בפחזן ואמר: "איכה היתה לזונה" (ישעיה א כא). ירמיה ראה אותן בניוולן ואמר: "איכה ישבה בדד" (איכה א א).
[This is likened] to a matron who had three shoshvinin. One saw her when calm, one saw her in revelry and one saw her disheveled. So Moses saw Israel calm: “How can I bear unabided” (Deut 1:12). Isaiah saw them in their revelry and said: “How[1] has she become a harlot” (Isa 1:12). Jeremiah saw them disheveled and said: “How[2] lonely sits the city” (Lam 1:1).
The Tosefta uses בני חופה (wedding guests) as a synonym for shoshvinin. In tBer 2:10, the groom, the shoshvinin and the wedding guests are exempt from the obligation of prayer and tefillin. Likewise tShab 17:4 indicates that shoshvinin refer to wedding guests:
ר' שמעון בן לעזר או': השושבינין וכל בני חופה מפייסין על מנותיהן, שאם הותירו מחזירין אותן לשידה. מפייס אדם עם אורחיו, ואורחיו מפייסין זה עם זה, כדי שיטול חלקו תחלה. לא שיטול חלקו ושל חבירו.
Rabbi Shim‘eon ben Ele‘azar says: The shoshvinin and all the members of the wedding cast lots for their portions, for if they leave any over, they return [extra food] to the chest. A man casts lots for his guests, and his guests cast lots for one another, so that one takes his portion first and does not take his portion and that of his fellow.
In this text the shoshvinin and the guests seem to be the same.
A feminist discussion of bSuk 25b-26a should take the following into account: The sugya begins with a halakhic statement of Rabbi Abba bar Zivda in the name of Rav (“A bridegroom and the shoshvinin and all the wedding guests are free from the obligation of sukkah all seven days”). In this form, it is a Babylonian halakhic statement.
Stylistically, the response to this statement is divided into two levels. The first level discusses why rejoicing exempts a person from the obligation of sukkah and encompasses statements ascribed to the stama. It relates only to the exemption of the shoshvinim and the wedding guests. In this context we may note that the stama’s questions are in Aramaic (מאי טעמא? משום דבעו למחדי. וליכלו), while the responses are in Hebrew (אין שמחה אלא בחופה [...] אין שמחה אלא במקום סעודה), indicating perhaps that these answers are actually popular sayings that were “imported” into the sugya, and did not originate with the stama. One such saying, (there is no joy without a festive meal or banquet), is also found as a question in bYev 43b, which discusses an engagement: ?בשלמא נישואין בלא סעודה איכא שמחה (Is there joy in marriage without a banquet?). The Hebrew saying of the stama in bSukkah: “There can be no real rejoicing except where the banquet is held” apparently indicates that the original utterance about festive meals was not necessarily connected to marriage. Our sugya may have connected a festive meal to marriage in light of the question in bYev 43b.
The second level of the response consists of statements attributed to Babylonian amoraim: Abbayye, Rava, and Rabbi Zeira.[1] It gives two reasons for why one may not put up a canopy in a sukkah: the presence of numerous guests, which prevents privacy, and the discomfort of the bridegroom. Note that Abbayye’s concern over “privacy” (that the bridegroom’s temporary absence might permit someone else to be alone with the bride) and Rava’s concern, that the bridegroom may be “discomforted” (namely, that the presence of people will force him to postpone consummating the marriage) relate to the canopy in the sukkah, but not to the exemption of the shoshvinin or the wedding guests from it. Furthermore, the phrases מאי בינייהו? [...] איכא בינייהו (What practical differences are there between them? […] The practical differences between them are) are used differently in our sugya than in other places in the gemara. In our sugya, the stama indicates that one of the opinions (that of Abbayye) is unreasonable, because if the concern were privacy only (as Abbayye suggests), the prohibition to put up a canopy in a sukkah would not apply if there are people going in and out, since the bride is never alone with another man. Yet usually this introduces a symmetrical formula where the other opinion is also presented as unreasonable. This does not happen here. The reason for this unique usage in our sugya may be that the editor supported Rava’s opinion and therefore only showed Abbayye’s unreasonableness.
The sugya ends with Rabbi Zeira’s statement, which appears to contradict the preceding view of the stama concerning the exemption of the bridegroom from the sukkah/the prohibition to put a canopy inside a sukkah (“Rabbi Zeira said: I held the banquet in the sukkah and rejoiced under the canopy and my heart rejoiced all the more since I was fulfilling two [commandments]”). Rabbi Zeira argues that there is no need for such an exemption. Although his statement relates only to the exemption of a bridegroom from the sukkah, based on the following stories in the Yerushalmi one can also claim that they are related to the exemption of shoshvinin and wedding guests:
[1] A third generation amora, born in Babylon and migrated to Palestine, see HYMAN, Biographies, 386-398.
ר' מנא הוה שושביניה דר' יעקב בר פליטי. אתא שאל לר' יוסי. א"ל: איזיל דמיך גו מטללתך. ר' יצחק בר מריון הוה שושביניה דחד בר נש. שאל לרבי לעזר. אמר ליה: איזיל דמיך גו מטללתך.
Rabbi Mana was Rabbi Ya‘aqov bar Pliti’s shoshvin. He came and asked Rabbi Yosi. [The latter] said to him: Go sleep in your sukkah. Rabbi Yishaq bar Marion was the shoshvin of a certain man. He asked Rabbi Ele‘azar. He said to him: Go sleep in your sukkah.
From these stories we can learn that at least according to two rabbis from the Land of Israel, the shoshvinin were not exempt from fulfilling the obligation of dwelling in the sukkah.
The entire text ends with a baraita which exempts the groom and his attendants not only from the sukkah, but also from prayer and tefillin. Aside from a stylistic similarity, there is no editorial connection between this baraita and the preceding discussion.
Based on the above, we can conclude that bridegrooms were usually exempted from the obligation of sukkah in Babylonia from the beginning of the amoraic period onwards. The halakhic statement is Babylonian, the rabbis who respond to it are Babylonian and the stama is Babylonian. Babylonian sages probably exempted bridegrooms from sukkah because they believed that this obligation would interfere with the main commandment of marriage – sexual relations for the purpose of procreation. Likewise, the sukkah could interfere with the commandment of the bridegroom to be joyous with his bride. Rabbi Zeira’s viewpoint is opposed to that of the sugya in its entirety and may reflect a common practice in the Land of Israel, as evidenced by the Yerushalmi (“Rabbi Ba bar Zivda said: The shoshvinin and all the wedding guests are free from the obligation of sukkah” – but not the bridegroom). The baraita claiming that the tannaim agreed that bridegrooms were exempt from the commandment of prayer and tefillin is located after Rabbi Zeira’s statement. Thus, it demonstrates that the early sages from the Land of Israel did abide by exempting the groom from certain obligations. By composing the sugya in this manner, the editor universalizes the Babylonian exemption of the bridegroom from the obligation of sukkah.