Study Sukkah folio 42A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
לא שנו אלא שלא יצא בו, אבל יצא בו — חייב. הא מדאגבהיה נפק ביה! אמר אביי: כשהפכו.
A baraita states 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 Talmud 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.
רבא אמר: אפילו תימא שלא הפכו, הכא במאי עסקינן: כגון שהוציאו בכלי. והא רבא הוא דאמר: לקיחה על ידי דבר אחר — שמה לקיחה! הני מילי דרך כבוד, אבל דרך בזיון — לא.
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 Talmud asks: But isn’t Rava the one who said that taking by means of another object is considered taking? The Talmud 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.
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!
Rav Huna said that R' 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 Talmud 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 R' Yosei; what novel element is introduced by Rav Huna?