Shabbat 70bשבת ע׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shabbat 70b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
70bע׳ ב

שם משמעון הנה אבות מהנה תולדות אחת שהיא הנה זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות הנה שהיא אחת שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות ושמואל אחת שהיא הנה והנה שהיא אחת לא משמע ליה:

only shem, part of the word, the letters shin and mem, from Shimon. Them refers to one who performed the primary categories of labor. Of them refers to one who performed subcategories of prohibited labors. One that is them refers to one transgression with multiple punishments, as in a case where his action was intentional with regard to Shabbat in that he was aware that it was Shabbat, and his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors in that he was unaware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable for each primary category of labor. Them that are one refers to several transgressions with one punishment, as in a case where his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat in that he was unaware that it was Shabbat, and his action was intentional with regard to the prohibited labors in that he was aware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei has a source for the division of Shabbat labors. Why doesn’t Shmuel derive the halakha from that source? The Gemara answers: Shmuel did not derive one that is them and them that are one from the verse.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן העלם זה וזה בידו מהו אמר ליה הרי העלם שבת בידו ואינו חייב אלא אחת אדרבה הרי העלם מלאכות בידו וחייב על כל אחת ואחת אלא אמר רב אשי חזינן אי משום שבת קא פריש הרי העלם שבת בידו ואינו חייב אלא אחת ואי משום מלאכה קפריש הרי העלם מלאכות בידו וחייב על כל אחת ואחת אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי כלום פריש משבת אלא משום מלאכות כלום פריש ממלאכות אלא משום שבת אלא לא שנא

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: What is the halakha if a person had a lapse of awareness of both this, Shabbat, and that, a particular labor? He said to him: He had a lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat and is liable to bring only one sin-offering. Rava said to him: On the contrary, he had a lapse of awareness with regard to prohibited labors, and he should be liable for each and every labor that he performed. Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see, if it is due to awareness of Shabbat that he desists from performing the labor when he is told what day it is, then, apparently, it was a lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat, and he is liable for only one. And if it is due to awareness of the prohibited labor that he desists, then, apparently, it was a lapse of awareness with regard to the labors and he is liable for each and every one. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Does he desist due to Shabbat for any reason other than because he knows that the labors are prohibited? And similarly, does he desist from performing the labors when told that it is prohibited for any reason other than because he knows that it is Shabbat? When one desists from labor when he is told that it is Shabbat, it is because he understands that the labor he is performing is prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, when one desists from his labor when he is told that the labor is prohibited, it is because he understands that the day is Shabbat. Rather, there is no difference between the cases, and in both he is considered unwitting with regard to Shabbat.

תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת והוינן בה מנינא למה לי ואמר רבי יוחנן שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת אי אמרת בשלמא העלם זה וזה בידו חייב על כל אחת ואחת שפיר אלא אי אמרת העלם שבת בידו אינו חייב אלא אחת היכי משכחת לה בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות

The Gemara further discusses the matter from a different perspective. We learned in a mishna: The number of primary categories of prohibited labors on Shabbat is forty-less-one, which the mishna proceeds to list. And we discussed this mishna: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? Isn’t merely listing the prohibited labors sufficient? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The tally was included to teach that if he performed all the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one. Granted, if you say that one who had a lapse of awareness of both this and that is liable for each and every one, it works out well. However, if you say that since one who had a lapse of awareness of this and that had a lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat, and he is liable to bring only one sin-offering, under what circumstances can you find a case where one would be liable for unwittingly violating all thirty-nine labors? It must be in a case where, with regard to Shabbat, his actions were intentional, as he was aware that it was Shabbat, and, with regard to the prohibited labors, his actions were unwitting, as he was unaware that these labors were prohibited on Shabbat.

הניחא אי סבר ליה כרבי יוחנן דאמר כיון ששגג בכרת אף על פי שהזיד בלאו משכחת לה דידע ליה שבת בלאו אלא אי סבר לה כרבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמר עד שישגוג בלאו וכרת דידע ליה שבת במאי דידע לה בתחומין ואליבא דרבי עקיבא:

It works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: Once he was unwitting with regard to the fact that the punishment for his transgression is karet, even though he was aware that his action was in violation of a Torah prohibition and performed the transgression intentionally, he is considered to have sinned unwittingly. You find that possibility in a case where he was aware that performing labor on Shabbat involves violation of a Torah prohibition, but he was unaware that the punishment for violating that prohibition is karet. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said: It is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, the result is that he is completely unaware of all the prohibited labors of Shabbat. The question then arises: With regard to what aspect of Shabbat was he aware? If he was completely unaware of all the labors prohibited on Shabbat, in what sense were his actions intentional with regard to Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He was aware of the halakhot of the prohibition of Shabbat boundaries, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that that prohibition is by Torah law.

אמר רבא קצר וטחן כגרוגרת בשגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות וחזר וקצר וטחן כגרוגרת בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות ונודע לו על קצירה וטחינה של שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות וחזר ונודע לו על קצירה ועל טחינה של זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות

Rava said: One who reaped and ground grain in the measure of a dried fig-bulk, the measure that determines liability for the labors of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, while in performing those actions he was unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with regard to the prohibited labors. He was unaware that it was Shabbat, but he was aware that the labors were prohibited. And he did not realize that he had sinned until he again reaped and ground grain in the measure of a dried fig-bulk, while in performing those actions he was intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors. He was aware that it was Shabbat, but he was unaware that the labors were prohibited. And afterward he became aware that he had performed the labors of reaping and grinding while unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with regard to the prohibited labors. He set aside a sin-offering to atone for his sin, based on the principle that he need set aside only one sin-offering even though he performed two primary categories of labor in the same lapse of awareness. And afterward he became aware that he had performed the labors of reaping and grinding while intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors. For performing two categories of prohibited labor unwittingly, reaping and grinding, one should be liable to bring two sin-offerings.