Commentary for Shabbat 145:1

אלא לאו רישא בעכו"ם וסיפא בשאר מצות ושגג בלא מתכוין בשאר מצות ה"ד דסבור דשומן הוא ואכלו משא"כ בשבת דפטור דנתכוון לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר פטור ואביי שגג בלא מתכוין ה"ד דסבור רוק הוא ובלעו משא"כ בשבת דפטור דנתכוון להגביה את התלוש וחתך את המחובר פטור אבל נתכוון לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר חייב:

Surely then the first clause [dealing with the greater severity of the Sabbath] refers to idolatry, whilst the second treats of other precepts; and how is unwitting and unintentional transgression possible? When one thought that it [heleb] was permitted fat, and ate it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it was unwitting, because he thought it permitted fat, and unintentional, since he had no intention of eating heleb. On the present hypothesis it is regarded as unwitting but intentional only when he knows that it is heleb and eats it as such, thinking, however, that heleb is permitted. ');">¹</span> [While] 'this is not so with respect to the Sabbath,' viz., that he is not culpable, for if [by analogy] one intended cutting something detached but cut something attached [instead], he is not culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus on this interpretation the Baraitha supports Raba. ');">²</span>

Explore commentary for Shabbat 145:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.