Mistakes were made by me* TB Sukkah 42

Usually when a person unintentionally sins for example he accidentally carries something from one domain to another on Shabbat, he has to bring a sin offering. Today’s daf TB Sukkah 42 teaches us that if one erred in the matter of a mitzvah (טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה פָּטוּר), he is exempt from bringing a sin offering. If a person carries his lulav and etrog from one domain to another on Shabbat, he has violated the Shabbat. However, his intentions were good because he wanted to fulfill the mitzvahh of lulav and etrog. Even though the action is never permitted, he is excused from bringing a sin offering. A comparable case is a policeman catches a man speeding but decides not to give him a ticket because the man says that he is rushing to the hospital so that his wife can give birth there. The act of speeding is still illegal, but more times than not the policeman will not issue a ticket.

Let’s see how the Gemara teaches this principle of “if one erred in the matter of a mitzvah (טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה פָּטוּר), he is exempt.” Remember as soon as the person holds the four species together he has already fulfilled the mitzvah and this might negate this exemption.

“The mishna continues: Rabbi Yosei says that if the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and one forgot and carried the lulav out into the public domain, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering. Abaye said: 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.

“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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav Huna provides us with another example which teaches an innovation. A person is exempt from bringing a sin offering even if he didn’t observe a mitzvah. “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 mitzvah, he is exempt? This is identical to that statement of Rabbi Yosei; what novel element is introduced by Rav Huna?

“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 mitzvah is exempt and that is because he performed a mitzvah; however, here, with regard to mistakenly identifying the bird-offerings, where he erred in the matter of a mitzvah but did not perform a mitzvah 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.

“The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to one who slaughters the daily offering on Shabbat that is not properly inspected (a sacrifice needs to be observed for four days to make sure that it is blemish less-gg), 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 mitzvah, he is liable.” (Sefaria.org translation) Tosefot ד"ה שיהו מבוקר כהלכתו says that this four day period is essential and nonnegotiable. Even if the sacrifice was blemish less, the person is still liable for sin offering when the four day period was not observed.

Rav Huna teaches us that the principle “if one erred in the matter of a mitzvah (טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה פָּטוּר)” only frees the person from the obligation to bring a sin offering if the act is excusable. “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 mitzvah. Therefore, although he was engaged in performance of a mitzvah, he is not exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering.” (Sefaria.org translation)

*We are in the month of Elul, the month before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. It is time set aside for introspection so that we may become the people we truly want to be. I highly recommend reading Carol Tavis’ book Mistakes Were made (but not by me) explaining why we find admitting mistakes is hard. Once you understand this defensive mechanism, you can admit your mistakes and then correct them. Once you correct your mistakes you can become the best version of yourself.