Yevamot

lead forth some boys and girls [to the spot] and let them take a walk  there, for if they find [the keys] they will bring them back'. [From this] it is clearly evident that he  is of the opinion that if a minor eats nebelah,  it is not the duty of the Beth din to take it away from him.  May it be suggested that the following provides support for his view? A man must not say to a child, 'Bring me  a key', or 'bring me  a seal'; but he may allow him to pluck or to throw!  Abaye replied: 'To pluck' [may refer] to a non-perforated plant-pot,  and 'to throw' [may refer] to a neutral domain,  [acts which are no more than prohibitions] of the Rabbis. Come and hear: If an idolater came to extinguish [a fire],  he is not to be told either. 'Put it out' or 'Do not put it out', because it is not the duty of the Israelites present  to enforce his Sabbath rest. If a minor [Israelite], however, came to extinguish [the fire], he must be told, 'Do not put it out', since it is the duty of the Israelites present  to enforce his Sabbath rest!  R. Johanan replied: [The child is inhibited only] where he [appears to] act with his father's approval. Similarly, then, in respect of the idolater,  [it is a case] where he acts with the approval of an Israelite? Is this, however, permitted!  — An idolater acts on his own initiative. Come and hear: If the child of a haber  was in the habit of visiting his mother's father who was an 'am ha-rez,  there is no need to apprehend that [the latter] might feed him with [levitically] unprepared foodstuffs;  and if fruit  was found in his  possession, it is not necessary [to take it from] him!  — R. Johanan replied: The law was relaxed in respect of demai. The reason, then,  is because [the fruit was] demai,  but [had its prohibition been] certain  it would have been necessary to tithe it;  but, surely [it may be objected] R. Johanan said  that [a child is inhibited only] where he [appears to] act with his father's approval  — But [the fact is that] R. Johanan was in doubt. When, therefore, he dealt with the one subject  he rebutted the argument  and when he dealt with the other  he [again] rebutted the argument. Come and hear: If the child of a haber  who was a priest was in the habit of visiting his mother's father who was a priest and an 'am ha-arez,  there is no need to apprehend that [the latter] might feed him with unclean terumah; and if fruit was found in his  possession it is not necessary [to take it away from] him!  — [This refers only] to Rabbinical terumah. Come and hear: An [Israelite] child may be regularly  breast fed by an idolatress or an unclean beast, and there is no need to have scruples about his sucking from a detestable thing;  but he must not be directly fed with nebeloth,  terefoth,  detestable creatures or reptiles. From all these, however, he may suck, even on the Sabbath,  though this is forbidden to an adult.  Abba Saul stated: It was our practice to suck from a clean beast on a festival.  At any rate it was here stated that 'there is no need to have scruples about his sucking from a detestable thing'!  — [The permissibility] there is due to [the presence of] danger. If so, an adult also [should be permitted]!  — [Permissibility for] an adult is dependent on medical opinion.  [Permissibility for] a child also should be made dependent on medical opinion!  — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: The ordinary child is in danger when deprived of his  milk. 'Abba Saul stated: It was our practice to suck from a clean beast on a festival'. How is one to understand this?  If danger was involved, [the sucking should be permitted] even on the Sabbath also; and if no danger was involved, it should be forbidden even on a festival! — This can only be understood as a case where  pain  was involved, [Abba Saul] being of the opinion [that sucking]  is an act of indirect  detaching.  [In respect of the] Sabbath, therefore, where the prohibition  [is one involving the penalty] of stoning, the Rabbis have instituted a preventive measure;  [in respect of] a festival, however, where the prohibition  [is only that of] a negative precept,  the Rabbis have not instituted any preventive measure. Come and hear: These ye shall not eat,  for they are a detestable thing  [is to be understood  as] 'you shall not allow them to eat',  this being a warning  to the older men concerning the young children. Does not this imply  that [minors] must be ordered, you shall not eat [such things']!  — No; that [adults] may not give them  with their own hands. Come and hear: No soul of you shall eat blood  implies  a warning  to the older men concerning the young children. Does not this signify  that [minors] must be told,  'Do not eat [blood]'!  — No; that [adults] must not give them with their own hands. Come and hear: Speak … and say  conveys a warning  to the older [Priests] concerning the [priests who are] minors. Does not this imply that minors must be ordered not to defile themselves!  — No; that [adults] must not defile them with their own hands. And [all the Scriptural texts cited are] required. For if we had been informed concerning detestable things only,