Talmud for Shabbat 181:5

בעי רבא הוציא חצי גרוגרת לזריעה ותפחה ונמלך עליה לאכילה מהו את"ל התם הוא דמיחייב דזיל הכא איכא שיעורא וזיל הכא איכא שיעורא הכא כיון דבעידנא דאפקה לא הוה ביה שיעור אכילה לא מיחייב או דילמא כיון דאילו אישתיק ולא חשיב עליה מיחייב אמחשבה דזריעה השתא נמי מיחייב

he is still culpable now? Now, should you rule that since he would be culpable for his intention of sowing if he were silent and did not intend it for another purpose, he is still culpable now: what if one carries out as much as a dried fig for food and it shrivels up and he decides [to keep it] for sowing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 4. ');">⁹</span> Here it is certain that if he remained silent he would not be culpable on account of his original intention; or perhaps we regard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go after'. ');">¹⁰</span> the present [only]; hence he is culpable? Should you rule that we regard the present, hence he is culpable: what if one carries out as much as a dried fig for food, and it shrivels and then swells up again? Does [the principle of] disqualification operate with respect to the Sabbath or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The principle of disqualification (lit., 'rejection') is that once a thing or a person has been rendered unfit in respect to a certain matter, it or he remains so, even if circumstances change. Thus here, when it shrivels, it becomes unfit to cause liability, being less than the standard: does it remain so or not? (Of course, if one carries it out thus and deposits it on another occasion, he is certainly culpable. But here it became unfit in the course of one act, and the question is whether it can become fit again for the completion of this same act.) ');">¹¹</span>

Explore talmud for Shabbat 181:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.