Sukkah, Daf Mem Bet, Part 1

 

Introduction

Daf Mem Bet begins with a passage about R. Yose’s ruling from the mishnah, that if one accidentally carried a lulav out into the public domain on Shabbat he is not liable for even having committed an accidental transgression. Normally speaking if one accidentally transgresses the laws of Shabbat he must bring a sin offering.

 

 

רבי יוסי אומר יום טוב.

אמר אביי: לא שנו אלא שלא יצא בו, אבל יצא בו – חייב.

 

R. Yose says: If the first day of the festival [fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence of a religious act].

Abaye said: They taught [that he is not liable] only when he had not yet fulfilled his obligation, but if he had fulfilled his obligation, he is liable.

 

Abaye limits R. Yose’s ruling. He is exempt from a sin offering only if he didn’t yet fulfill his obligation to take the lulav. But if he had already fulfilled his obligation before he left the house with the lulav, then he has no excuse for doing so and he is liable to bring a sin offering.

 

הא מדאגבהיה נפק ביה!

אמר אביי: כשהפכו.

רבא אמר: אפילו תימא שלא הפכו. הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון שהוציאו בכלי.

 

But once he lifts it up, he has fulfilled his obligation!

Abaye answered: [This is a case] where he held it upside down.

Rava said: You may even say that he did not hold it upside down, but here we are dealing with a case where he carried it out in a vessel.

 

The problem with Abaye’s statement is that as soon as one picks up the lulav he has fulfilled his obligation. So how could someone ever have a case where he takes the lulav out of the house before he fulfills his obligation?

Abaye himself answers that if he held it upside down he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. By holding it upside down it would be possible that for him to take it out of the house before fulfilling his obligation. Only then would R. Yose would rule that he is exempt.

Rava says that there is another way for him to get it out of the house without first fulfilling his obligation he carries it out in a vessel, and in this way, he does not fulfill his obligation.

 

והא רבא הוא דאמר: לקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה!

הני מילי – דרך כבוד, אבל דרך בזיון – לא.

 

But was it not Rava who said that taking by means of something else counts as a valid taking?

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.

 

The Talmud now raises a difficulty. In this suyga Rava seems to say that when one takes something by holding it with something else he has not fulfilled his obligation. That is how he can get the lulav out of the house without first fulfilling his obligation. The problem is that elsewhere Rava himself said that if one holds the lulav with something else (like a holder) then he has fulfilled his obligation. So Rava contradicts himself!

The answer is that if he holds it with something that is respectful like a proper lulav holder then he has fulfilled his obligation. In our sugya, he takes the lulav out in something like a dish, which is not respectful and therefore he has not fulfilled his obligation. Elsewhere, when Rava said that holding a lulav with something else is a valid "taking" he meant with something respectful such as a kerchief.