Shabbat 94aשבת צ״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shabbat 94a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
94aצ״ד א

ששגג על האוכלין והזיד על הכלי מתקיף לה רב אשי והא אף על הכלי קתני אלא אמר רב אשי כגון ששגג בזה ובזה ונודע לו וחזר ונודע לו ובפלוגתא דרבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש:

one acted unwittingly with regard to the food and intentionally with regard to the vessel. He is liable to bring a sin-offering for the food and to receive karet for the vessel. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this. Didn’t the baraita teach: He is liable even for the vessel? Apparently, the liability for the food and the liability for the vessel are identical. Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is referring to a case where one acted unwittingly both with regard to this, the food, and with regard to that, the vessel. And he became aware of one transgression, and then he became aware of the other transgression. And the ruling is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish cited above, with regard to the question whether or not one who unwittingly performed a single transgression twice and became aware of each separately is liable to bring two sin-offerings.

את החי במטה פטור אף על המטה: לימא מתניתין רבי נתן היא ולא רבנן דתניא המוציא בהמה חיה ועוף לרשות הרבים בין חיין ובין שחוטין חייב רבי נתן אומר על שחוטין חייב ועל חיין פטור שהחי נושא את עצמו אמר רבא אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי נתן אלא בבהמה חיה ועוף דמשרבטי נפשייהו אבל אדם חי דנושא את עצמו אפילו רבנן מודו

We learned in the mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: One who carries out a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl into the public domain on Shabbat is liable whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered. Rabbi Natan says: For carrying out slaughtered animals, he is liable, and for carrying out live animals, he is exempt, because a living being carries itself. A living being attempts to lighten the load of the person carrying it and thereby participates in the act of carrying. Rava said: The mishna can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Natan only as far as the case of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl is concerned because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves from the one carrying them. However, with regard to the fact that a live person carries himself, even the Rabbis agree. Therefore, one who carries a live person out is exempt.

אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא והא דתנן בן בתירא מתיר בסוס ותניא בן בתירא מתיר בסוס מפני שהוא עושה בו מלאכה שאין חייבין עליו חטאת ואמר רבי יוחנן בן בתירא ורבי נתן אמרו דבר אחד ואי אמרת דלא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי נתן אלא בבהמה חיה ועוף משום דמשרבטי נפשייהו מאי איריא בן בתירא ורבי נתן והאמרת אפילו רבנן מודו כי אמר רבי יוחנן בסוס המיוחד לעופות ומי איכא סוס המיוחד לעופות אין איכא דבי וייאדן

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna that it is prohibited to sell work animals to gentiles, to prevent a situation where animals still belonging to a Jew would be lent to a gentile who would perform labor with them on Shabbat, but ben Beteira permits selling a horse to a gentile. And it was taught in a baraita: Ben Beteira permits selling a horse for riding because the horse is performing an act for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as riding a horse is not actually a prohibited labor. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one, the same, thing. They both hold that an animal with a rider on its back is not considered to be bearing a burden. And if you say that the Rabbis only argue with Rabbi Natan with regard to a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say specifically that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan agree? Didn’t you say that in the case of a person riding a horse even the Rabbis agree? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said the same thing, he was referring to a horse designated specifically for carrying fowl. The Gemara asks: And is there a horse designated for carrying fowl? The Gemara answers: Yes, there is the horse for carrying a hunter’s falcons [devei vayadan].

אמר רבי יוחנן ומודה רבי נתן בכפות אמר ליה רב אדא בר מתנה לאביי והא הני פרסאי דכמאן דכפיתי דמו ואמר רבי יוחנן בן בתירא ורבי נתן אמרו דבר אחד התם רמות רוחא הוא דנקיט להו דההוא פרדשכא דרתח מלכא עילויה ורהיט תלתא פרסי בכרעיה:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And Rabbi Natan agrees in the case of a person who is bound because he is unable to lighten the load of the person carrying him. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: And what of those Persians who are considered as if they were bound because they don heavy armor and always ride horses, and nevertheless Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one thing and permitted selling horses even to Persians? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the Persians, it is not that they are unable to dismount their horses. It is arrogance that keeps them from dismounting their horses. As proof, the Gemara relates: There was that Persian officer [pardashka] at whom the king was angry, and he ran three parasangs on foot. Apparently, even Persian horsemen are not considered bound and are capable of walking without their horses.

את המת במטה חייב וכן כזית מן המת וכו׳: אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן ואמר רב יוסף אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש פוטר היה רבי שמעון

We learned in the mishna that according to the first tanna: One who carries out a corpse on a bed is liable. And similarly, one who carries out an olive-bulk of a corpse, or an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal is liable. Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon would deem exempt