SUKKAH - 042a – סוכה – פרק שלישי – לולב הגזול, מב ע”א

They taught this only where he had not yet fulfilled the mitzvah with it; but if he had already fulfilled it with it, he is liable.^[1]

לא שנו - he is exempt only where he had not yet fulfilled his obligation of taking it before he carried it out, for then he is occupied with the mitzvah and errs in a matter of mitzvah;^[2] but if he had fulfilled it before carrying it out, he no longer errs in a matter of mitzvah, and from then on he is not occupied with doing the mitzvah.

But once he lifted it, he fulfilled the mitzvah with it!^[3]

Abaye said: When he turned it upside down.

ה"ג הא מדאגבהיה נפיק ביה אמר אביי כשהפכו - this is the reading. His difficulty is: what is the case where he had not fulfilled the mitzvah with it? He could not carry it out without lifting it, and once he lifted it he fulfilled the obligation of taking — yet it teaches that he is exempt! Abaye said: when he turned it over — when he lifted it he turned the top downward and the binding upward, and we say below that one fulfils the mitzvah with them only in the way they grow.

Rava said: You may even say that he did not turn it over; here we are dealing with a case where he carried it out in a vessel.

But it is Rava himself who said: Taking by means of something else is called taking!^[4]

That applies to a respectful manner; but in a disrespectful manner, no.

דרך כבוד - for example, with a cloth, where he wraps his hands in a cloth, as we said above (Sukkah 37a).

ודרך בזיון - for example, in a bowl.

Rav Huna said: Rabbi Yosi used to say: A bird olah that was found among the wings,^[5]

אומר היה רבי יוסי עולת העוף שנמצאת בין אגפיים - it seems to me that this “among the wings” means nothing but “among birds”: a bird olah found among the birds nipped as chatas offerings, still twitching beside the altar. For sometimes both are done at one corner, as we learned in Shechitas Kodashim (Zevachim 63a): The bird chatas was done at the south-western corner, and that corner served three things below and three above — below: the bird chatas, the bringing near of the menachos, and the remainder of the blood; and above: the libation of the water and the wine, and the bird olah when there were many in the east. For the proper place of the bird olah is the south-eastern corner, and when many kohanim stood nipping bird olos in the east, they came to the west and it was done there, at the corner of the bird chatas — except that the olah was above the chut hasikra^[6] and the chatas below.

and the kohen thought it was a bird chatas, and ate it —

וכסבור - the kohen thought it was a bird chatas.

ואכלה - and it turns out that he committed me’ilah with things consecrated to Heaven, unwittingly.^[7]

he is exempt.

פטור - from the korban of me’ilah, since it was found among the chatas offerings, and eating those is a mitzvah, as it is written (Shemos 29:33) and they shall eat those things with which atonement was made; so he is one who erred in a matter of mitzvah, and he is exempt.

What does he teach us — that one who errs in a matter of mitzvah is exempt? That is the same thing!

היינו הך - why did Rav Huna need to say it? It is obvious — we already hear it from our Mishnah.

You might have said: There, one who errs in a matter of mitzvah is exempt because he did perform a mitzvah; but here, where he erred in a matter of mitzvah and did not perform a mitzvah, say he is not exempt,

מהו דתימא - in our Mishnah he is exempt because he erred in a matter of mitzvah and in the end did perform a mitzvah, for he took the lulav in this very carrying; but here he did no mitzvah in eating it, if it is a bird olah.

so he teaches us.

קא משמע לן - Rav Huna, who heard from his teacher that Rabbi Yosi draws no distinction between one who erred in a matter of mitzvah and did a mitzvah, and one who erred in a matter of mitzvah and did no mitzvah.

They raised an objection: Rabbi Yosi says: One who slaughters the Tamid that was not inspected as required, on Shabbos, is liable to a chatas, and another Tamid is needed!^[8]

This is the reading: Rabbi Yosi says: One who slaughters the Tamid that was not inspected as required — for blemishes — on Shabbos is liable to a chatas, for slaughtering on Shabbos that is not a mitzvah and does not override Shabbos. Evidently one who erred in a matter of mitzvah and did no mitzvah is liable, for this man was occupied with a mitzvah — he wanted to slaughter the Tamid of Shabbos and thought it had been inspected. The word “to make them fit” we do not read.

He said to him: Leave that one aside,

for it was stated about it — Rav Shmuel bar Chasai said in the name of Rav Hamnuna Sava, who said in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Ashian, who said in the name of Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav: For example, where he brought it from a chamber of lambs that had not been inspected.^[9]

מלשכה שאינן מבוקרין - this is not erring in a matter of mitzvah, for he is not preoccupied with the lambs in this chamber, since they are not standing ready to be offered, that he should be anxious about them, when they will be offered; and even anxiety over the time of the Tamid does not apply here, for it is close to deliberate — he did not take care among the chambers to see from which one he was bringing.

Mishnah

A woman may take the lulav from the hand of her son or from the hand of her husband, and put it back into water on Shabbos.^[10]

מתני' מקבלת אשה מיד בנה ובעלה - their lulavim; and we do not say that she is moving something that is of no use to her.

מחזירין למים - so that it does not wilt.

Rabbi Yehudah says: On Shabbos one puts it back; on Yom Tov one adds water; and on chol hamoed one changes the water.

בשבת מחזירין - for they took them out of there today. But one does not add water — and all the more so one does not change the water, pouring this out and putting in other water colder than it — because he takes trouble to put a vessel in order.

במועד מחליפין - on chol hamoed it is a mitzvah to change it.

A child who knows how to shake the lulav is obligated in lulav.

Gemara

This is obvious!

You might have said: Since a woman is not obligated, say she may not take it,

גמ' אימא לא - for as far as she is concerned there is a prohibition of moving it.

so he teaches us.

קא משמע לן - since it is fit to be taken by men, it has the status of a utensil and may be moved by everyone.

A child who knows how to shake:^[11]

The Rabbis taught: A child who knows how to shake is obligated in lulav;

חייב בלולב - to train him, by Rabbinic law.

one who knows how to wrap himself is obligated in tzitzis;

one who knows how to look after tefillin — his father buys him tefillin;

לשמור תפילין - that he will not go into the lavatory wearing them.

one who knows how to speak — his father teaches him Torah and the reading of the Shema.

What is “Torah”?

Rav Hamnuna said: (Devarim 33:4) Moshe commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov.

What is “the reading of the Shema”?

The first verse.^[12]

One who knows how to guard his body — taharos may be eaten on the strength of his body.^[13]

היודע לשמור גופו - from tumah by touching, by carrying, and by ohel.

אוכלין על גופו טהרות - if his body touched taharos we have no concern for them; but not on the strength of his hands — if he touched taharos with his hands we are concerned for them. For a child may know how to guard his body and not know how to guard his hands from the rule of ordinary hands, which the Sages decreed to be seconds,^[14] unless he knows how to guard them. But one who knows how to guard his hands, once he has washed them, touches nothing doubtful, nor anything of doubtful status that makes the hands impure; and if he was not careful and comes to touch taharos, he washes his hands.

One who knows how to guard his hands — taharos may be eaten on the strength of his hands.

אוכלין על ידיו טהרות - that his hands touched.

One who knows how to be questioned: in a private domain his doubt is tamei, in a public domain his doubt is tahor.^[15]

והיודע לישאל - if they ask him, “Did you touch this tumah?” he knows how to answer yes, or no, or “I do not know.”

ברשות הרבים ספיקו טהור - if they asked him and he said, “I do not know.”

ברשות היחיד ספיקו טמא - this law was received from the case of the sotah, as we say in Maseches Sotah (Sotah 28a): and from here you derive for a sheretz, and so on.

One who knows how to spread his hands — they give him a share of terumah at the threshing floors.^[16]

היודע לפרוס כפיו - when he is a kohen.

חולקין לו תרומה בבית הגרנות - before this they do not give him a share at the threshing floor, but they send it to his home if he knows how to keep it pure. For so it is taught in the Gemara of Nos’in Al Ha’anusah in Yevamos (Yevamos 99b): Ten do not receive a share of terumah at the threshing floors: a deaf-mute, a shoteh and a minor, and so on, and to all of them it is sent at home. At the threshing floors they do not give them a share, because it is a disgrace to terumah, since not all who see him know that he is expert in keeping it; but to their homes it is sent by those who are familiar with them. And once he knows how to spread his hands and spreads them with the congregation, all know that he has brought two hairs, for a minor does not spread his hands, as we say in Megillah (Megillah 24a). Therefore they give him a share.

Tosafos

אמר אביי כשהפכו - since he needed to answer this way, it implies that he holds that mitzvos do not require kavanah.^[17] For this refers to one who carries it into the public domain, and there one cannot speak of intending to fulfil the mitzvah so long as he has not made the berachah; and moreover, it deals with one who is going to an expert to learn. And this is difficult: at the end of Ra’uhu Beis Din (Rosh Hashanah 28b), where Rava says mitzvos do not require kavanah, Abaye raises many objections against him. Perhaps Abaye accepted it from him.

עולת העוף שנמצאת בין אגפיים - according to what we say at the end of Elu Devarim (Pesachim 72b), that Rabbi Yosi exempted with the lulav only because its time is pressing, we must say that here too its time is pressing, so that the chatas should not become nosar.

מהו דתימא התם הוא דטעה בדבר מצוה ועבד מצוה אבל הכא טעה בדבר מצוה ולא עשה מצוה אימא לא קא משמע לן - this is a dispute in Pesachim, chapter Elu Devarim (ibid.), where one is held liable in the case where a skewer of nosar was exchanged for a skewer of roast meat and he ate it. And some books read: You might have said: That applies to a mitzvah incumbent upon him, but a mitzvah not incumbent upon him — say not; that is, the lulav, which he cannot do without taking, since it cannot be done through others; but the chatas can be eaten by someone else.

שאינו מבוקר כהלכתו - even if it was found unblemished, because it requires inspection four days before slaughter, which in the chapter Mi Shehayah Tamei (Pesachim 96a) is derived from the Pesach by a gezeirah shavah.

היודע לישאל ברשות היחיד ספקו טמא - but one who does not know how to be questioned — even in a private domain his doubt is tahor, as we expound in Sotah, chapter Kesheim (Sotah 28b).

היודע לפרוס כפיו חולקין לו תרומה בבית הגרנות - before this they do not give him a share at the threshing floor, but they send it to his home if he knows how to keep it pure. And so it is taught in the Gemara of Nos’in Al Ha’anusah in Yevamos (99b and there): Ten do not receive a share of terumah at the threshing floors — and it lists a deaf-mute, a shoteh and a minor — and it teaches in the later clause: it is sent to their homes. At the threshing floor they do not give him a share, because it is a disgrace to terumah, since not all who see him are familiar enough with him to know that he can keep it pure; but to his home it is sent by those familiar with him. And one who knows how to spread his hands and spreads them with the congregation — all know that he has brought two hairs, for a minor does not spread his hands, as we learned in Megillah (24a). So Rashi explained. But it does not seem so; rather, it speaks of an actual minor, like “one who knows how to speak, his father teaches him Torah,” and “one who knows how to slaughter,” and so all the others. And what is said in Nos’in Al Ha’anusah (Yevamos 99b and there), that terumah is not given to a minor at the threshing floor, refers to one who does not know how to raise his hands. And what we learned in the chapter Hakorei Es Hamegillah Omed (Megillah 24a and there), that a minor does not raise his hands, refers to him on his own; but together with the adults he does raise them, as we find regarding the song of the Mikdash in the chapter Ein Ne’erachin (Arachin 13b), where we learned: they stood between the feet of the Levi’im, and they were called the young ones of the Levi’im. And what we say at the end of the first chapter of Chulin (Chulin 24b and there), once his beard has filled out he is fit to be made shliach tzibbur, to go down before the ark and to raise his hands — “until his beard has filled out” can be explained of one on his own, with no one else with him; or else of raising his hands on a fixed basis, and at times when the people increase their pleas for mercy, such as Yom Kippur, fast days and the ma’amados. And one must make the same distinction regarding going down before the ark, for in Hakorei Es Hamegillah Omed (Megillah 24a) we learned: A minor may read in the Torah, but he may not lead the Shema, nor go down before the ark, nor raise his hands — implying that an adult may go down before the ark even though his beard has not filled out. So you must explain that passage in Chulin as being made a fixed shliach tzibbur, and going down before the ark on Yom Kippur, on fast days and at the ma’amados.

Notes

1. 1. This qualifies the Mishnah on Sukkah 41b: when the first day of Sukkos falls on Shabbos and a man carries his lulav out into the public domain, he is exempt from a chatas, because he carried it with permission — he was busy with the mitzvah. The Gemara now limits that exemption to one who had not yet fulfilled the mitzvah.
2. 2. To’eh bidvar mitzvah: one who commits an unwitting transgression while he is occupied with a mitzvah. In Rabbi Yosi’s view he is exempt from the korban his error would otherwise require, and this whole sugya turns on the limits of that exemption.
3. 3. The mitzvah of taking the four species is fulfilled the moment they are lifted. Since he could not carry the lulav out without first lifting it, he must already have fulfilled the mitzvah before he set out — and then, by the rule just stated, he should be liable.
4. 4. This is Rava’s own ruling above (Sukkah 37a): one who holds the lulav with a cloth wrapped round his hand has still “taken” it. If so, carrying it in a vessel should also count as taking, and he would again have fulfilled the mitzvah before he carried it out.
5. 5. Bird offerings: a bird olah is burnt whole on the altar, while the meat of a bird chatas is eaten by the kohanim; both are killed by melikah, the kohen nipping the neck with his thumbnail. Here an olah bird was found among the chatas birds, and a kohen ate it thinking it was a chatas.
6. 6. The chut hasikra was a red line running around the altar halfway up its height. The blood of a bird olah was squeezed out above it and that of a bird chatas below it, which is how both could be done at one corner — and how one could be mistaken for the other.
7. 7. Me’ilah is the use of consecrated property for one’s own benefit. One who does so unwittingly repays its value plus a fifth and brings an asham me’ilos; that korban is what Rabbi Yosi exempts this kohen from.
8. 8. The Tamid is the daily communal olah, one lamb in the morning and one in the afternoon, and it overrides Shabbos. Its lamb must be inspected for blemishes four days before it is slaughtered. Slaughtering an uninspected one is no mitzvah, so on Shabbos it is a desecration carrying a chatas — although the kohen erred while busy with the mitzvah of the Tamid, which seems to contradict Rav Huna’s report.
9. 9. The lambs already inspected for the Tamid were kept in a chamber of their own. One who took a lamb from a different chamber, of uninspected animals, was close to acting deliberately rather than erring in the course of a mitzvah, so Rabbi Yosi’s ruling no longer contradicts Rav Huna.
10. 10. On Shabbos an object with no permitted use is muktzeh and may not be moved. A woman is exempt from lulav, a positive mitzvah bound to a set time, so one might have thought that for her the lulav is muktzeh; the Mishnah lets her take it and put it back in water to keep it fresh.
11. 11. The Gemara takes up the Mishnah’s last clause. Chinuch is the Rabbinic duty to train a child in mitzvos before he reaches bar mitzvah; a child who knows how to shake the lulav properly has reached the age of training in that mitzvah. The beraisa now gives the same measure for other mitzvos.
12. 12. That is, the verse Shema Yisrael, Hashem is our G‑d, Hashem is One (Devarim 6:4), with which a child begins the reading of the Shema.
13. 13. Taharos are foods prepared and kept in ritual purity. A child who knows how to keep his body from tumah may be relied on, so taharos that his body touched may still be eaten as tahor.
14. 14. The Sages decreed that hands not deliberately guarded are presumed to have touched something impure and carry tumah of the second degree, which disqualifies terumah and taharos they touch. So a child may guard his body and still not his hands.
15. 15. A doubt whether someone touched tumah is treated as tamei in a private domain and tahor in a public one, a law learned from the sotah (Sotah 28a). It applies only to one with the understanding to be questioned, so a child counts once he can answer.
16. 16. Terumah was handed out to kohanim at the threshing floors. A minor is not given a share there, since not everyone present knows that he can keep it pure; it is sent to his home instead (Yevamos 99b). Rashi and Tosafos below differ over whether the child here is already an adult or an actual minor.
17. 17. Whether mitzvos require kavanah — the intention to fulfil the mitzvah — is disputed. If they do not, simply lifting the lulav fulfils the mitzvah even without that intention, which is why Abaye needs the case of a lulav lifted upside down.