Sukkah — Daf 42a

לא שנו אלא שלא יצא בו אבל יצא בו חייב הא מדאגבהיה נפק ביה אמר אביי כשהפכו

רבא אמר אפילו תימא שלא הפכו הב"ע כגון שהוציאו בכלי והא רבא הוא דאמר לקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה הני מילי דרך כבוד אבל דרך בזיון לא

אמר רב הונא אומר היה רבי יוסי עולת העוף שנמצאת בין אגפיים וכסבור חטאת העוף היא ואכלה פטור מאי קא משמע לן דטעה בדבר מצוה פטור היינו הך

מהו דתימא התם הוא דטעה בדבר מצוה פטור היינו דעבד מצוה אבל הכא דטעה בדבר מצוה ולא עבד מצוה אימא לא קא משמע לן

מיתיבי רבי יוסי אומר השוחט את התמיד שאינו מבוקר כהלכתו בשבת חייב חטאת וצריך תמיד אחר

אמר ליה בר מינה דההיא דהא אתמר עלה אמר רב שמואל בר חתאי אמר רב המנונא סבא אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן אמר רב הונא אמר רב כגון שהביאו מלשכה שאינן מבוקרין:

מתני׳ מקבלת אשה מיד בנה ומיד בעלה ומחזירתו למים בשבת רבי יהודה אומר בשבת מחזירין ביום טוב מוסיפין ובמועד מחליפין

קטן היודע לנענע חייב בלולב:

גמ׳ פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל ואשה לאו בת חיובא היא אימא לא תקבל קא משמע לן:

קטן היודע לנענע: ת"ר קטן היודע לנענע חייב בלולב להתעטף חייב בציצית לשמור תפילין אביו לוקח לו תפילין יודע לדבר אביו לומדו תורה וק"ש

תורה מאי היא א"ר המנונא (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב ק"ש מאי היא פסוק ראשון

היודע לשמור גופו אוכלין על גופו טהרות לשמור את ידיו אוכלין על ידיו טהרות היודע לישאל ברשות היחיד ספיקו טמא ברשות הרבים ספיקו טהור היודע לפרוס כפיו חולקין לו תרומה בבית הגרנות

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