בעיגול של דבילה והוציאו לרשות הרבים בקורה והוציאו לרשות הרבים רבי יהודה אומר אם לא יכול אחד להוציאו והוציאוהו שנים חייבין ואם לאו פטורין רבי שמעון אומר אף על פי שלא יכול אחד להוציאו והוציאוהו שנים פטורים לכך נאמר בעשתה יחיד שעשאה חייב שנים שעשאוה פטורין
In contrast, if two people held a round cake of figs, which is too heavy for one person to carry, and they carried it out to the public domain, or if they held a beam and carried it out to the public domain, Rabbi Yehuda says: If one person is incapable of carrying it out alone, and two people carried it out, they are liable. And if not, if one person is capable of carrying it out alone, they are exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one person is incapable of carrying it out alone, and two people carried it out, they are exempt. It is with regard to that case that it is stated: “By performing it” (Leviticus 4:27), to establish a principle: An individual who performs a transgression is liable, two people who perform a transgression are exempt.
במאי קמיפלגי בהאי קרא ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשתה רבי שמעון סבר תלתא מיעוטי כתיבי נפש תחטא אחת תחטא בעשתה תחטא חד למעוטי זה עוקר וזה מניח וחד למעוטי זה יכול וזה יכול וחד למעוטי זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree over the interpretation of this verse: “And if one person among the common people sins unwittingly by performing it, any one of God’s commandments not to be done, and be guilty” (Leviticus 4:27). Rabbi Shimon holds: Three exclusionary statements are written in this verse. It is as if it were written: A person who sins, one who sins, and by performing it he sins. The Torah could have conveyed the same meaning by saying simply: And if one of the common people. Apparently, the superfluous words in the verse are exclusionary and the verse should be understood as follows: A person, and not many people; one, and not two; by performing it, and not by two performing it. One of the terms comes to exclude from liability a case where each of the two people performs a part of the transgression, i.e., this person lifts an object from one domain, and that person places it in another domain. And one of the terms comes to exclude a case where this person is capable of performing the action alone, and that person is also capable, and the two of them perform the action together. And one of the terms comes to exclude even a case where this person is incapable of performing the action alone, and that person is incapable of performing the action alone. Since the two of them violated this prohibition together, they are both exempt.
ורבי יהודה חד למעוטי זה עוקר וזה מניח וחד למעוטי זה יכול וזה יכול וחד למעוטי יחיד שעשאה בהוראת בית דין ורבי שמעון יחיד שעשאה בהוראת בית דין חייב
And Rabbi Yehuda holds: One of the terms comes to exclude a case where this person lifts an object, and that person places it, as he agrees that they are exempt in this case. And one of the terms comes to exclude a case where this person is capable of performing the action alone, and that person is also capable. And one of the terms comes to exclude the case of an individual who performed a transgression in accordance with the ruling of a court. If a court issued a mistaken ruling that a prohibited action is permitted, and an individual performed that action based on that ruling, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering and is considered to have sinned due to circumstances beyond his control. And Rabbi Shimon holds that an individual who performed a transgression in accordance with the ruling of a court is liable to bring a sin-offering for his mistake. His action is not considered intentional, but falls into the category of an unwitting act.
ורבי מאיר מי כתיב נפש תחטא אחת תחטא בעשתה תחטא תרי מעוטי כתיבי חד למעוטי זה עוקר וזה מניח וחד למעוטי יחיד שעשאה בהוראת בית דין:
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir, who deems them liable in a case where each was capable of performing the act alone, interpret the third exclusionary term? The Gemara answers: Is it written in the verse: A person who sins, one who sins, and by performing it he sins? There are not three exclusionary terms in the verse. Only two exclusionary terms are written, as the words: “One person who sins,” constitutes a single phrase. Therefore, one term comes to exclude from liability a case where this person lifts an object, and that one places it; and one term comes to exclude an individual who performed a transgression in accordance with the ruling of a court.
אמר מר זה יכול וזה אינו יכול דברי הכל חייב הי מנייהו מיחייב אמר רב חסדא זה שיכול דאי זה שאינו יכול מאי קא עביד אמר ליה רב המנונא דקא מסייע בהדיה אמר ליה מסייע אין בו ממש
We learned earlier that the Master said: In a case where this person is capable, and this person is incapable, and they performed it together, everyone agrees that he is liable. The Gemara seeks to clarify: Which of them is liable? Rav Ḥisda said: The one who is capable of performing the act alone is liable, as if it was the one who is incapable of performing the act alone that was liable, what is he doing that would render him liable? His efforts are inadequate to perform the task. Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: He is doing quite a bit, as he is assisting him. He said to him: The assistance provided by one who assists another to perform a task that the other could have performed himself is insubstantial.
אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא אף אנן נמי תנינא היה יושב על גבי המטה וארבע טליות תחת רגלי המטה טמאות מפני שאינה יכולה לעמוד על שלש ורבי שמעון מטהר היה רוכב על גבי בהמה וארבע טליות תחת רגלי הבהמה טהורות מפני שיכולה לעמוד על שלש ואמאי הא קמסייע בהדי הדדי לאו משום דאמרינן מסייע אין בו ממש
Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: We, too, also learned that halakha in a mishna, with regard to vessels upon which a zav lies or rides. By Torah law, any vessel designated for lying and riding, upon which a zav lies or rides, becomes impure even if the zav did not come into direct contact with it. If a zav was sitting on a bed, and there were four garments beneath the four legs of the bed, they are all ritually impure. The weight of the zav is considered to have rested on each of the garments because the bed is incapable of standing on three legs. And Rabbi Shimon deems the garments ritually pure, since only a portion of his weight rested on each garment. However, if he was riding on an animal, and there were four garments beneath the legs of the animal, they are all ritually pure because the animal is capable of standing on three legs. And why are the garments ritually pure? Aren’t the animal’s legs assisting each other in supporting the weight of the zav? Is it not because we say: An object that assists is insubstantial?
אמר רב יהודה מדיסקרתא לעולם אימא לך מסייע יש בו ממש ושאני הכא דעקרה לה לגמרי וכיון דזימנין עקרה הא וזימנין עקרה הא ליהוי כזב המתהפך מי לא תנן זב שהיה מוטל על חמשה ספסלין או על חמש פונדאות לאורכן טמאים לרחבן טהורין ישן ספק מתהפך עליהן טמאין
Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: Actually, I will say to you that a person or an object that assists is substantial. However, it is different here, in this case, as the animal lifted its foot completely. The mishna is not discussing the case of an animal that could theoretically stand on three legs, but an actual situation where it completely lifted one of its feet and the fourth foot did not even assist in supporting the animal’s weight. The Gemara rejects the suggestion of Rav Yehuda of Diskarta. And since it sometimes lifts this foot and sometimes lifts that foot, it should have the legal status of a zav who turns over. Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to a zav who was lying on five benches or on five money belts, if he was lying along their length, they are impure. At different times, his entire body was lying on each of the benches or on each of the money belts. If he was lying across their width, they are ritually pure because at no point was his entire weight supported by one of the benches or the money belts. However, if he slept across their width, there is uncertainty whether or not, while sleeping, he turned over on them. This raises the possibility that, at some point, he lay along their length, and his entire weight was supported by one of the benches. Therefore, all of the benches are impure. A zav who moves his weight from one place to another renders all of those places ritually impure. Similarly, the fact that the animal lifts different legs is not sufficient for each to be considered as not assisting to support the weight of the zav.
אלא לאו משום דאמרינן מסייע אין בו ממש אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא אף אנן נמי תנינא
Rather, is it not that the garments beneath the legs of the animal remain ritually pure because we say: An object that assists is insubstantial? Each foot merely assists in supporting the weight of the zav. Similarly, Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: We, too, also learned support for this halakha,