Commentary for Shabbat 136:6
מאי טעמא דמונבז דכתיב (במדבר טו, כט) תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה וסמיך ליה והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה הקיש שוגג למזיד מה מזיד שהיתה לו ידיעה אף שוגג שהיתה לו ידיעה
But according to R. Johanan and Resh Lakish it presents a difficulty? — R. Johanan and Resh Lakish can answer you: Is there not Monabaz who declares him non-culpable? We rule as Monabaz. What is Monabaz's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The analogy on mere grounds of logic is insufficient, since wilful and unwitting transgression are obviously dissimilar. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Rashi on Shabbat
Exempt: as Rabbi Yochanon and Reish Lakish reasoned, it is said to be permitted [because] he was coerced; it was not merely an accidental transgression.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Shabbat
Obligated for the blood: which he ate all his life [he is only liable for] one [sin offering]; thus it is for all transgressions in the Torah [in which an intentional violator is liable for] excommunication.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Shabbat
All the more so with what you have added: to my words; here, you have improved them! I would also say that he is liable; later it will be explained why.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy