Chasidut for Shabbat 139:7

אחת שמעון מאחת

Now, let division of labours be derived, whence it is learnt by R. Jose? For it was taught: R. Jose said: [If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any one of the commandments of the Lord, concerning things which ought not to be done,] and shall do of one of them:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 2. ');">¹⁹</span> sometimes one sacrifice is incurred for all of them, whilst at others one is liable for each separately. Said R. Jose son of R. Hanina, What is R. Jose's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he deduce this from the verse? ');">²⁰</span> [Of one of them teaches that liability is incurred for] one [complete act]; [for one which is but part] of one; for performing labours forbidden in themselves [i.e. 'them'], and [for labours whose prohibition is derived] from others [i.e., 'of them']; [further,] 'one transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices [i.e., 'one'='them',] while many offences may involve but one sacrifice [i.e., 'them'='one'],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of one of them', Heb. [H] is a peculiar construction. Scripture should have written, 'and shall do one' (not of one) 'of them', or, 'and do of them' (one being understood), or, 'and shall do one' (of them being understood). Instead of which a partitive preposition is used before each. Hence each part of the pronoun is to be interpreted separately, teaching that he is liable for the transgression of 'one' precept, and for part of one (i.e., 'of one'); for 'them' (explained as referring to the primary labours); and for the derivatives 'of them' (toledoth — labours forbidden because they partake of the same nature as the fundamentally prohibited labours). Also, each pronoun reacts upon the other, as explained in the text. ');">²¹</span> [Thus:] one [complete act]: [the writing of] Simeon; [one which is but part] of one, —

Kedushat Levi