Parallel
סוכה 42
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
They taught [that he is not culpable] only when he had not yet fulfilled his obligation, but if he had fulfilled his obligation, he is guilty of a transgression. But has he not fulfilled his obligation the moment he lifted it up? — Abaye answered, [This is a case] where he held it upside down. Raba replied, You may even say that he did not hold it upside down, but here we are dealing with a case where he carried it out in a vessel. But is it not Raba himself who laid down that taking by means of something else is regarded as a valid taking? — That applies only [where the taking with something else is done] as a mark of respect, but not [if it is done] in a disrespectful manner. R. Huna stated, R. Jose used to say, A fowl [offered as] a burnt-offering that was found among other fowls and [the priest] thought that it was a fowl of a sin-offering, and ate it, he is not culpable. What, however, does he teach us by this ruling? Is it that if a man errs in connection with a matter of religious duty he is exempt? But this is, is it not, exactly the same [as the one in our Mishnah]? — It might have been assumed that only there is the man not culpable when he errs in connection with a matter of religious duty, because [by his very mistake] he performs a religious duty, but here, where, by erring in connection with a matter of religious duty he does not perform another religious duty, might have said that he is culpable, therefore he informs us [that even here he is not culpable]. An objection was raised: R. Jose ruled, If a man slaughters on the Sabbath the daily offering which has not been properly examined, he is liable to bring a sin-offering and another daily offering must be offered! — The other answered him, That case lies in a different category, for concerning it it has been stated: R. Samuel b. Hattai citing R. Hamnuna Saba who cited it in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian who had it from R. Huna who cited Rab, explained, This is a case, for instance, where the daily offering was brought from a chamber that contained animals which had not been examined. MISHNAH. A WOMAN MAY TAKE [THE LULAB] FROM THE HAND OF HER SON OR FROM THE HAND OF HER HUSBAND AND PUT IT BACK IN WATER ON THE SABBATH. R. JUDAH RULED, ON THE SABBATH IT MAY BE PUT BACK [INTO THE WATER IN WHICH IT WAS PREVIOUSLY KEPT], ON A FESTIVAL DAY [WATER] MAY BE ADDED, AND ON THE INTERMEDIATE DAYS [OF THE FESTIVAL THE WATER] MAY ALSO BE CHANGED. A MINOR WHO KNOWS HOW TO SHAKE [THE LULAB] IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF LULAB. GEMARA. Is not this obvious? — I might have said that, since a woman does not come under the obligation [of lulab] she may not take it, therefore he informs us [that she may]. A MINOR WHO KNOWS HOW TO SHAKE THE [LULAB]. Our Rabbis taught, A minor who knows how to shake [the lulab] is subject to the obligation of the lulab; [if he knows how] to wrap himself [with the tallith] he is subject to the obligation of zizith; [if he knows how] to look after tefillin, his father must acquire tefillin for him; if he is able to speak, his father must teach him Torah and the reading of the Shema’. What [in this context] could be meant by Torah? — R. Hamnuna replied, [The Scriptural verse] Moses commanded us a Law, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. What [in this context] is meant by the Shema’? — The first verse. If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; if he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] terumah may be shared out to him in the threshing-floors.47
—
If he knows how to slaughter [animals ritually] we may eat from [the meat of animals] which he has slaughtered. R. Huna explained: This applies only where an adult was standing by his side [when he performed the act]. If [a child] is able to eat an olive size of [bread made of] corn, one must remove oneself a distance of at least four cubits from his excrement or water. R. Hisda explained: This applies only where the child is able to consume it in the time [which it takes an ordinary adult] to eat half a loaf. (R. Hiyya the son of R. Yeba observed, But in the case of an adult [the law applies] even if he cannot eat it in the time [which it takes a normal person] to eat half a loaf, since it is written, He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.) If [a child] can eat an olive of roast meat, the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered on his behalf, as it is said, According to the eating of every man. R. Judah ruled, [This is not allowed] until he is able to pick out an eatable. In what manner? — If he is given a splinter, he throws it away; if he is given a nut, he eats it. CHAPTERIV MISHNAH. [THE CEREMONIALS OF] THE LULAB AND THE WILLOW [CONTINUED FOR] SIX [DAYS] OR SEVEN; THE [RECITAL OF THE WHOLE] HALLEL AND THE REJOICING [CONTINUED FOR] EIGHT [DAYS]; [THE DWELLING IN A] SUKKAH AND THE WATER LIBATION SEVEN [DAYS]; THE FLUTE PLAYING FIVE OR SIX [DAYS]. ‘[THE CEREMONIALS OF] THE LULAB . . . SEVEN’. HOW IS THIS? IF THE FIRST DAY OF THE FESTIVAL FELL ON A SABBATH, THE LULAB [IS CARRIED FOR] SEVEN DAYS; BUT [IF IT FELL] ON ANY OTHER DAY, [IT IS CARRIED ONLY] FOR SIX. ‘THE WILLOW . . . SEVEN DAYS’. HOW IS THIS? IF THE SEVENTH DAY OF [THE CEREMONIALS OF] THE WILLOW FELL ON SABBATH, [THEY LAST] SEVEN DAYS; IF IT FELL ON ANY OTHER DAY, [THEY LAST ONLY] SIX. HOW WAS [THE CEREMONIAL OF] THE LULAB CARRIED OUT? IF THE FIRST DAY OF THE FESTIVAL FELL ON A SABBATH, THEY BROUGHT THEIR LULABS TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT, AND THE ATTENDANTS RECEIVED THEM AND ARRANGED THEM IN ORDER UPON THE PORTICO, WHILE THE ELDERS LAID THEIRS IN A CHAMBER. AND THE PEOPLE WERE INSTRUCTED TO SAY, ‘WHOSOEVER GETS MY LULAB IN HIS HAND, LET IT BE HIS AS A GIFT’. ON THE MORROW THEY AROSE BETIMES, AND CAME [TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT] AND THE ATTENDANTS THREW DOWN [THEIR LULABS] BEFORE THEM, AND THEY SNATCHED AT THEM, AND SO THEY USED TO COME TO BLOWS WITH ONE ANOTHER. WHEN THE BETH DIN, HOWEVER, SAW THAT THEY REACHED A STATE OF DANGER, THEY INSTITUTED THAT EACH MAN SHOULD TAKE [HIS LULAB] IN HIS OWN HOME. GEMARA. But why [should it be forbidden to carry the lulab on the Sabbath]? It involves only a mere movement, why then should it not override the Sabbath? — Rabbah answered, It is a restrictive measure, lest a man take [the lulab] in his hand and go to an expert in order to learn [the rites connected with it]
—