Sukkah

They taught [that he is not culpable] only when he had not yet fulfilled his obligation,1 but if he had fulfilled his obligation,1 he is guilty of a transgression.2 But has he not fulfilled his obligation3 the moment he lifted it up?4 — Abaye answered, [This is a case] where he held it upside down.5 Raba replied, You may even say that he did not hold it upside down,6 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?7 — 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.8 R. Huna stated, R. Jose used to say, A fowl [offered as] a burnt-offering9 that was found10 among other fowls11 and [the priest] thought that it was a fowl of a sin-offering, and ate it, he is not culpable.12 What, however, does he13 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]?14 — It might have been assumed that only there15 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,16 but here,17 where, by erring in connection with a matter of religious duty he does not perform another religious duty,18 might have said that he is culpable, therefore he19 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,20 he is liable to bring a sin-offering21 and another daily offering must be offered!22 — The other answered him, That case lies in a different category,23 for concerning it it has been stated: R. Samuel b. Hattai citing R. Hamnuna Saba24 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.25 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 WATER26 ON THE SABBATH.27 R. JUDAH RULED, ON THE SABBATH IT MAY BE PUT BACK [INTO THE WATER IN WHICH IT WAS PREVIOUSLY KEPT],28 ON A FESTIVAL DAY29 [WATER] MAY BE ADDED,30 AND ON THE INTERMEDIATE DAYS [OF THE FESTIVAL THE WATER] MAY ALSO BE CHANGED. A MINOR31 WHO KNOWS HOW TO SHAKE [THE LULAB] IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF LULAB. GEMARA. Is not this32 obvious? — I might have said that, since a woman does not come under the obligation [of lulab] she may not take it,33 therefore he informs us [that she may].34 A MINOR WHO KNOWS HOW TO SHAKE THE [LULAB]. Our Rabbis taught, A minor who knows how to shake [the lulab] is35 subject to the obligation of the lulab;36 [if he knows how] to wrap himself [with the tallith]37 he is subject to the obligation of zizith;38 [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.39 What [in this context] is meant by the Shema’? — The first verse.40 If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body41 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,42 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 part43 that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean.44 [If he45 knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction]46 terumah37 may be shared out to him in the threshing-floors.47 fulfilled the prescribed duty? of respect, it is not valid. sometimes offered. sin-offering is a religious duty, no offence is committed by the man who, intending to do a good deed, has mistakenly eaten the wrong bird. should R. Huna merely repeat a ruling of our Mishnah? is guilty of doing forbidden work. of religious duty without performing one, he is culpable. An objection against R. Huna. committed when under the anxiety of performing a religious duty, but almost a wilful transgression. might allow his hands to touch a minor uncleanness. private one. Meg. 24a) to preserve the terumah in its levitical purity, it may be given to him even in public. (V. Tosaf). If he is unable to ‘spread his hands’ he cannot be assumed to know how to take proper care of terumah and, therefore, only those who know him personally to be able to do it may privately send terumah to his house (cf. Yeb. 99b).