## Sukkah Daf 42a

###### Sukkah 42a:1
[Sukkah 42a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:1)

לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא בּוֹ, אֲבָל יָצָא בּוֹ — חַיָּיב. הָא מִדְּאַגְבְּהֵיהּ נְפַק בֵּיהּ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּשֶׁהֲפָכוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **taught** that he is exempt **only** in a case **where he did not** yet **fulfill** his obligation. **However,** if **he** already **fulfilled** his obligation and he carries the *lulav* out, he is **liable** to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: Is it possible to carry the *lulav* without fulfilling one’s obligation? **Didn’t he, from** the moment **that he lifted it, fulfill** his obligation **with it? Abaye said:** It is referring to a case **where he overturned it** and lifted it. One fulfills his obligation only when lifting it in the manner in which it grows.


###### Sukkah 42a:2
[Sukkah 42a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:2)

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא שֶׁלֹּא הֲפָכוֹ, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּכְלִי. וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר: לְקִיחָה עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר — שְׁמָהּ לְקִיחָה! הָנֵי מִילֵּי דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד, אֲבָל דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Even if you say that** it is referring to a case where **he did not invert it, with what are we dealing here?** It is with a case **where he took** the *lulav* **out in a vessel** and did not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t Rava the one who said** that **taking by means of another object is considered taking?** The Gemara answers: **This applies only** when the addition is in **a deferential manner,** for wrapping or ornamentation. **But** if the addition is in **a degrading manner,** as in this case, where one places the *lulav* into a vessel and carries it that way, **no,** it is not considered taking.


###### Sukkah 42a:3
[Sukkah 42a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:3)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִים, וּכְסָבוּר חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הִיא וַאֲכָלָהּ — פָּטוּר. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה — פָּטוּר? הַיְינוּ הָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said** that **Rabbi Yosei would say:** In the case of **a bird** sacrificed as **a burnt-offering that is found among** other **birds** in one of the corners of the altar, **and** the priest **thought that it was a bird** sacrificed as **a sin-offering and he ate it,** as sin-offerings are eaten by priests, **he is exempt** from liability to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items. The Gemara asks: **What is** Rav Huna **teaching us?** Is it **that** if **one erred in the matter of a mitzva, he is exempt? This is** identical to **that** statement of Rabbi Yosei; what novel element is introduced by Rav Huna?


###### Sukkah 42a:4
[Sukkah 42a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:4)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה פָּטוּר — הַיְינוּ דַּעֲבַד מִצְוָה. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּטָעָה בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה וְלָא עֲבַד מִצְוָה — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **lest you say** that **it is** only **there,** in the case of carrying the *lulav*, **that one who erred in a matter of a mitzva is exempt** and **that is** because **he performed a mitzva; however, here,** with regard to mistakenly identifying the bird-offerings, **where he erred in the matter of a mitzva but did not perform a mitzva** at all, **say no,** in that case he would not be exempt from liability to bring a guilt-offering. Therefore, Rav Huna **teaches us** that he is in fact exempt.


###### Sukkah 42a:5
[Sukkah 42a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:5)

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתָּמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבוּקָּר כְּהִלְכָתוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, וְצָרִיךְ תָּמִיד אַחֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection. Rabbi Yosei says:** With regard to **one who slaughters the daily offering on Shabbat that is not properly inspected,** and a blemish is discovered that disqualifies the sacrifice, he unwittingly performed the prohibited labor of slaughtering on Shabbat. **He is liable** to bring **a sin-offering, and he needs** to bring **a different daily offering.** Even though he erred in a matter of a mitzva, he is liable.


###### Sukkah 42a:6
[Sukkah 42a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּר מִינַּהּ דְּהַהִיא. דְּהָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר חַתַּאי אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא סָבָא אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָאן אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֱבִיאוֹ מִלִּשְׁכָּה שֶׁאֵינָן מְבוּקָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna **said** in response to the objection: Proof may be cited, **except** not **from that** *baraita*, **as it was stated concerning** that *baraita* that **Rav Shmuel bar Ḥatai said** that **Rav Hamnuna Sava said** that **Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashian said** that **Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** It is referring to **a case where they brought** the sheep for the daily offering **from a chamber** in which there were sheep **that are not inspected.** Since under no circumstances should one take a sheep for the daily offering from uninspected sheep, his error cannot be attributed to preoccupation with the mitzva. Therefore, although he was engaged in performance of a mitzva, he is not exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering.


###### Sukkah 42a:7
[Sukkah 42a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** מְקַבֶּלֶת אִשָּׁה מִיָּד בְּנָהּ וּמִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ, וּמַחְזִירָתוֹ לְמַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּשַּׁבָּת מַחְזִירִין, בְּיוֹם טוֹב מוֹסִיפִין, וּבַמּוֹעֵד מַחְלִיפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A woman** may **receive** a *lulav* **from her son or from her husband and return it on Shabbat to the water** in which it had been placed. **Rabbi Yehuda says: On Shabbat one may return** the *lulav* to the water; **and on the Festival one may** even **add** fresh water to the vessel so the *lulav* will not wilt; and **during** the intermediate days of **the Festival, one may** even **change** the water.


###### Sukkah 42a:8
[Sukkah 42a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:8)

קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעְנֵעַ — חַיָּיב בְּלוּלָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A minor who knows** how **to wave** the *lulav* **is obligated in** the mitzva of ***lulav*** due to the requirement to train him in the performance of mitzvot.


###### Sukkah 42a:9
[Sukkah 42a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִשָּׁה לָאו בַּת חִיּוּבָא הִיא, אֵימָא לָא תְּקַבֵּל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the *halakha* in the mishna that a woman may receive the *lulav*, the Gemara asks: That is **obvious.** Why would it be prohibited? The Gemara answers that it is necessary to state this **lest you say: Since a woman is not subject to the obligation** of the four species, as it is a time-bound, positive mitzva, **say** that **she should not receive** the *lulav*, as for her, moving the *lulav* is tantamount to moving set-aside objects and would therefore be prohibited. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that it is permitted.


###### Sukkah 42a:10
[Sukkah 42a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:10)

קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעְנֵעַ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעְנֵעַ — חַיָּיב בְּלוּלָב, לְהִתְעַטֵּף — חַיָּיב בְּצִיצִית, לִשְׁמוֹר תְּפִילִּין — אָבִיו לוֹקֵחַ לוֹ תְּפִילִּין, יוֹדֵעַ לְדַבֵּר — אָבִיו מְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה וּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna: **A minor who knows** how **to wave** the *lulav* is obligated in the mitzva of *lulav*. **The Sages taught: A minor who knows how to wave** the *lulav* **is obligated** in the mitzva of ***lulav*;** one who knows how **to wrap himself** in a garment, **is obligated in** the mitzva of **ritual fringes;** if he knows **to preserve** the sanctity of **phylacteries** in a state of cleanliness, **his father buys him phylacteries;** if he **knows** how **to speak, his father** immediately **teaches him Torah and *Shema*.**


###### Sukkah 42a:11
[Sukkah 42a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:11)

תּוֹרָה מַאי הִיא? אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: ״תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב״. קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע מַאי הִיא? פָּסוּק רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in this context, **what is** the **Torah** taught to a child who has just learned to speak? **Rav Hamnuna said:** It is referring to the verse: **“Moses commanded us Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob”** (Deuteronomy 33:4), underscoring the relationship between the Jewish people and the Torah. The Gemara asks further: **And what is *Shema*** taught to a child who has just learned to speak? The Gemara answers: It is referring to the **first verse** of *Shema*.


###### Sukkah 42a:12
[Sukkah 42a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/42a:12)

הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמוֹר גּוּפוֹ — אוֹכְלִין עַל גּוּפוֹ טְהָרוֹת. לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת יָדָיו — אוֹכְלִין עַל יָדָיו טְהָרוֹת. הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִישָּׁאֵל, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר. הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִפְרוֹס כַּפָּיו — חוֹלְקִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages continued: If the minor is one **who knows to protect his body** from ritual impurity, it is permitted to **eat ritually pure** food that came into contact **with his body.** If he is one who knows **to protect his hands** from ritual impurity, it is permitted to **eat ritually pure** food that came into contact **with his hands.** If he is one **who knows to be asked** and accurately clarify which objects he touched, his status is like that of an adult based on the following distinction: If the question was with regard to ritual impurity **in the private domain** and it is a case of **uncertainty,** the item in question is deemed **impure.** However, if the question was with regard to ritual impurity **in the public domain** and it is a case of **uncertainty,** the item in question is deemed **pure.** If the minor is a priest **who knows** how **to spread his hands** and recite the priestly benediction, **one distributes *teruma* to him in the granary** as one would to any other priest.