Sukkah 42a — the Talmud in English

They taught this only

that he is exempt,

but

if he took it out at a time

when

he still

had not fulfilled his obligation with it,

for then he should be exempt, since his preoccupation with a mitzva caused him to forget.

But

if he took it out after he had already

fulfilled his obligation with it—

he is liable

for a sin-offering, because he is no longer preoccupied with a mitzva.

And the Gemara asks: How is it possible for him to take it out into the public domain while he still has not fulfilled his obligation with it?

But [

surely]

from

the time

he lifted it

for the purpose of taking it and going with it into the public domain, while he was in the private domain, he had already

fulfilled his obligation with it!

For through the very lifting of the lulav from its place, its mitzva is fulfilled?!

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: It is

for example,

that he inverted it

the lulav when he took it, for he does not fulfill his obligation with it until he takes it in the manner of its growth, as explained above.

Rava said: Even if you say that he did not invert it, here with what are we dealing? For example, that he took it out

the lulav while it was placed

in a vessel,

and it follows that he did not fulfill his obligation with it, because the vessel separates between his hand and the lulav.

The Gemara asks: How did Rava establish it in such a manner?

But Rava

himself

is the one who said: “Taking through another thing is called taking,”

and he does not need to hold the lulav itself in his hand?!

The Gemara answers:

These words

that he fulfills his obligation by taking it through another thing apply when he takes it in this manner

in a dignified manner,

for example, when he wraps a cloth around his hand for the adornment of the mitzva. But if he takes it through another thing in

a degrading manner,

for example, when he takes it while it is placed in a bowl, and not in the manner in which it is ordinarily taken,

he does not

fulfill his obligation with it.

Rav Huna said: Rabbi Yosei would say

that one who, while mistaken concerning a mitzva, transgressed a negative commandment and is exempt from bringing a sin-offering:

a bird burnt-offering

whose law is that it is to be burned entirely upon the altar,

which was found among the wings,

among birds that had been slaughtered as bird sin-offerings, and because of this he erred

and thought

that

the bird sin-offering is

the one eaten by the priests,

and he ate it—

he is exempt

from bringing a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated property, since eating the bird sin-offering is a mitzva, and one who errs concerning a mitzva is exempt from an offering.

The Gemara asks:

What does Rav Huna come to teach us

through this,

that one who errs concerning a mitzva is exempt

from an offering according to Rabbi Yosei?

But

this is the same thing

that is stated in our Mishna: If he forgot and took the lulav out on Shabbat into the public domain, he is exempt from an offering?!

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say: There

in our Mishna

is where one who errs concerning a mitzva is exempt—

that is, he performed a mitzva,

for in the end he fulfilled the mitzva of the lulav by taking it, and it follows that the mitzva was fulfilled through this taking out.

But here,

concerning the bird burnt-offering, which he thought was a sin-offering and ate it,

where he erred concerning a mitzva but did not perform a mitzva,

for its eating is prohibited,

I might say that he does not

be exempt from an offering.

Therefore

he comes to teach us

Rav Huna that even in this case Rabbi Yosei exempted him from an offering, since in the end this mishap came to him because he was preoccupied with a mitzva.

They raised an objection

against Rav Huna from that which we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: One who slaughters

by mistake

the

daily

offering that was not inspected according to its law,

to know whether it had a blemish and the like [for this law of inspecting blemishes is indispensable for the fitness of the offering],

on Shabbat,

because he mistakenly thought that it had been inspected,

is liable for a sin-offering.

Since it was not offered as an offering, it follows that he transgressed the prohibition of taking a life on Shabbat.

And he must

bring

another daily offering

that has been inspected for blemishes.

And it is clear that although he erred concerning a mitzva, he is liable for a sin-offering. Apparently, the reason is that the mitzva was not fulfilled, and it is proven that Rabbi Yosei said that one who errs concerning a mitzva is exempt only where the mitzva was ultimately performed, but not in the case of a burnt-offering that was found among the wings, contrary to Rav Huna?!

He said to him,

Rav Huna: My statement applies

except for that case.

That is, apart from this case.

And the reason is

for it was stated concerning it: Rav Shmuel bar Hatai said in the name of Rav Hamnuna the Elder, who said in the name of Rav Yitzhak bar Ashyan, who said in the name of Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav:

that it is dealing

with a case where they brought it

a daily offering that had not been inspected

from the chamber

of lambs

that had not been inspected.

And consequently, he is not considered compelled because he was preoccupied with a mitzva, since this mistake is close to intentional, as he should have paid attention from which chamber he was bringing the offering.

Mishna:

The lulav is not considered muktzeh on the Shabbat that falls during the festival, although it is not a vessel and is not fit for work, and it is permitted to move it even after its mitzva has been fulfilled [before the enactment of the Sages not to take it on Shabbat ].

And therefore,

a woman receives

the lulav

from her son’s hand and from her husband’s hand,

after they have fulfilled their obligation with it,

and returns it to the water on Shabbat,

so that it will not dry out.

The Mishna brings another law:

Rabbi Judah says: On Shabbat they return

the lulav to the place from which they took it, but they do not add water, because it is forbidden to exert oneself in “repairing a vessel.”

But

on a Festival, they add

water, but they do not replace it with other water colder than it.

And on

the intermediate days of

the festival

they even

replace

the water.

They further said:

A minor who knows how to wave is obligated in the lulav

by the law of education.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A woman receives it from her son and her husband and returns it to the water on Shabbat.

And we ask:

Obviously

it is permitted for her to take it from them, for since the lulav is taken on Shabbat, it is certainly not muktzeh?!

The Gemara explains:

Lest you say: Since a woman is not obligated

in the mitzva of the lulav, for it is a positive time-bound commandment, the lulav becomes muktzeh with regard to her, since it is fit for nothing for her, and therefore

I might say that she should not receive

the lulav from her husband’s hand.

It comes to teach us

our Mishna that since men are commanded to take it, its status is that of a vessel also with regard to women, and it is not muktzeh at all.

We learned in the Mishna:

A minor who knows how to wave

is obligated in the lulav.

The Sages taught: A minor who knows how to wave is obligated in the lulav

by rabbinic law, because of the mitzva of education.

A minor who knows

how to wrap himself

in a garment

, is obligated in ritual fringes.

A minor who knows

how to safeguard phylacteries

so as not to treat them in a degrading manner and not to enter with them into a lavatory—

his father acquires phylacteries for him.

Маленький ребёнок,

A minor who

knows how to speak, his father teaches him Torah and the recitation of the Shema.

Torah

that his father teaches him first,

what is it?

Rav Hamnuna said:

He first teaches him the verse [Deuteronomy 33]:

“Torah Moses commanded us, a heritage of the congregation of Jacob.”

The recitation of the Shema

that his father teaches him first,

what

is it? The first verse

of the recitation of the Shema.

A minor

who knows how to safeguard his body

from impurity,

pure foods may be eaten on account of his body.

That is, one may eat the pure foods that this minor touched with his body. But one may not eat the pure foods that he touched with his hands. Since not all minors who know how to safeguard their bodies from impurity know how to safeguard the purity of their hands, for they do not know that the Sages decreed impurity upon “ordinary hands” until they wash their hands. That is, the law of hands is stricter than that of the rest of the body: with hands, even if one does not know that he touched something impure, they decreed impurity upon them unless he knows clearly that he safeguarded them. But regarding the rest of his body, whenever it is not known that he touched something impure, they did not have concern. Therefore, a minor, although he knows to take care not to touch pure foods after touching impurity, nevertheless does not know to take care not to touch them with hands that were not explicitly safeguarded.

And if the minor knows

how to safeguard

also

his hands,

and washes his “ordinary hands” before touching pure foods [although he does not remember touching something impure],

pure foods may be eaten on account of his hands.

A minor

who knows how to be questioned,

that is, who knows how to answer the question whether he touched something impure: if it was a doubt of impurity located

in the private domain

and they asked the minor whether he touched it or not, and he said, “I do not know,”

his doubt is impure.

But if the doubt was

in the public domain

and they asked him whether he touched it and he did not know how to answer—

his doubt is pure.

This law, that a doubt of impurity in the private domain is impure, is learned by a kal va-chomer from a woman suspected of adultery, as explained in tractate Sotah, page 28a. And since the place of a woman suspected of adultery is the private domain, we learn that in every doubt of impurity one must be stringent only in the private domain.

A minor priest

who knows how to spread his hands,

everyone knows that he has already matured and grown two hairs, since a minor does not spread his hands; therefore

they allot teruma to him

at the threshing floor.

But before this, they do not allot teruma to him at the threshing floor, even if the person distributing it knows that this minor knows how to safeguard it. The reason is that since not everyone recognizes him and knows that he safeguards the teruma, if they see that it is being handed to him, this will be a degradation of the teruma, for they will think that he does not safeguard it.