Reference for Shabbat 306:15
ומאי ניהו לאו דמחמר לא תחומין ואליבא דר"ע והבערה אליבא דר' יוסי
But it is impossible that she shall not stop for the calls of Nature,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And when she recommences there is 'removal', and when she stops again there is 'depositing', which together constitute 'work'. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> and so there is removing and depositing? — When she is walking he places it upon her, and when she stops he removes it from her. If so, [the same may be done] even [to] his neighbour too? — R. Papa answered: Where one is liable to a sin-offering in his own case, in the case of his neighbour though he is not culpable nevertheless it is forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if a man carries an article four cubits in public ground, even if he picks it up while walking, he is culpable. Consequently one must not put a burden upon another person while walking, though there is no culpability. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> and wherever in the case of one's neighbour he is not culpable though it is forbidden, in the case of one's ass it is permitted at the outset. R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If one's bundle is lying on his shoulder, he must run with it until he arrives home. He may only run, but not walk leisurely. What is the reason? — Since he has nothing to mark a distinction, he will come to perform removing and depositing. Yet after all, when he arrives at the house it is impossible that he shall not stop for a moment, and so he carries it from public to private ground? — He throws it in a 'back-handed manner.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 188, n. 2. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> Rami b. Hama said: If one leads a laden ass on the Sabbath unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is liable to stoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In theory only. In actual practice the death penalty was restricted by so many conditions as to be non-existent in all but cases of murder (cf. Herzog. Main Institutions of Jewish Law, Vol. I, Introduction, XXI). ');"><sup>16</sup></span> What is the reason? Said Rabbah, because Scripture said, Thou shalt not do any work, — thou, … — nor thy cattle: his cattle is assimilated to himself. Just as when he [himself does work], if unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering: if deliberately, he is liable to stoning: so [when he works with] his cattle too, if unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is liable to stoning. Raba observed, There are two objections to this. Firstly, because it is written, Ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught unwittingly … But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, [etc.]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 29f, q.v. The latter refers to idolatry. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> all laws are assimilated to idolatry: just as in the case of idolatry, he personally performs an action, so here too [one does not incur a sin-offering] unless he personally performs work. Moreover, we learnt: He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], provided that it is an offence punished by stoning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Sanh. 66a the reading is: kareth. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. Hence it follows that there is an offence for which if done unwittingly one does not incur a sin-offering, nor stoning if deliberate: and what is that? Surely leading a laden ass? — No: [the violation of] tehumin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tehum, pl. tehumin, v. Glos. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> in accordance with R. Akiba's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who regards the prohibition as Biblical, v. Sot. 36b. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> or kindling, in accordance with R. Jose s view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 70a. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>