Sleeping in the Sukkah

(1) One who sleeps under a bed in a sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehudah says, "We practiced the custom of sleeping under a bed [in the sukkah] in the presence of the elders, and they never said a thing to [stop] us." Rabbi Shimon says: It happened that Tavi, the slave of Raban Gamaliel, would sleep under a bed [in the sukkah], and Raban Gamaliel said to the elders, "Have you see my slave Tavi? He is a disciple of the Sages, and he knows that slaves are exempt from [the obligations pertaining to] the sukkah; therefore, he sleeps under a bed." And thus in accordance with our way we deduce that one who sleeps under a bed [in a sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation.

§ It is stated in the mishna: The ill and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. The Sages taught in a baraita: The ill person that they said is exempt from sukka is not only an ill person whose condition is critical, but even an ill person whose condition is not critical, and even one who feels pain in his eyes, and even one who feels pain in his head. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One time I felt pain in my eyes in Caesarea, and the esteemed Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta permitted me and my attendant to sleep outside the sukka. The Gemara relates a similar tale: Rav permitted Rav Aḥa Bardela to sleep beneath a canopy in the sukka due to the biting flies [baki]. He permitted this although the canopy was more than ten handbreadths high and in sleeping beneath it he did not fulfill his obligation. Rava permitted Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda to sleep outside the sukka due to the foul odor of the earth [gargishta] floor of the sukka. The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava said: One who suffers in the sukka is exempt from the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the ill and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? By inference, with regard to an ill person, yes, he is exempt; with regard to one who suffers, no, he is not exempt. The Sages say: With regard to an ill person, he and his caretakers are exempt; however, with regard to one who merely suffers in the sukka, he is exempt but his caretakers are not.

The verse equated a woman to a man with regard to all punishments and prohibitions in the Torah. The mitzvot of Yom Kippur include prohibitions, as well as the punishment of karet. Why, then, was this additional derivation necessary? Abaye said: Actually, sukka is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach that a woman is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, as it might enter your mind to say: “Shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42) indicates that you reside in the sukka as you dwell; just as dwelling is typically performed by a man and his wife, so too, the mitzva of sukka is performed by both a man and his wife. Therefore, it teaches us that women are exempt.

Rem"a: And nowadays what is practiced to be lenient in the Sukkah, such that only the scrupulously observant sleep in the Sukkah; there are those who say that it is because of the cold, for it is uncomfortable to sleep in the cold places, and it seems to me that this is because the Mitzvah of Sukkah is a man and his household, a man and his wife, and in a place where he cannot sleep with his wife, that he does not have a suitable Sukkah, he is exempt; and it is good to be stringent, and to be there with his wife, just as he resides all year, if he can have a suitable Sukkah.

(8) A Man and His Wife. Such is apparent from the beginning of Arakhin [Arakhin 3b] where they say that priests are exempt from the Sukkah during the Avodah, see there. And this requires further study, for in Sukkah 28b: Since you might have thought, sit such as you dwell, since one dwells husband and wife, so too Sukkah must be husband and wife, so you have learned that women are exempt. And it should be said, that anyway the husband is not obligated in the Sukkah but where he can dwell there with his wife, and if not, he is Mitzta'er (discomforted) and is exempt from sleeping there, and such wrote the Shela"h, see there. But anyway, this is still difficult, since if he made the Sukkah in a place where he cannot sleep, he has not fulfilled his obligation [when he sits in it], as is written in the Rem"a in Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 640:14, and if so, if he does not have a Sukkah which is isolated [so that he can sleep there with his wife modestly] he has not fulfilled his obligation at all [even when he eats therein], and another difficulty is that in the Gemara we say that "all of Israel are fit to sit in one Sukkah", see there. And it must be said that since he can sleep there alone, the Sukkah is valid, for it is a residence, but he is anyway exempt, for he is considered discomforted.