Shabbat 136

אבל לא שכחה מאי חייב על כל מלאכה ומלאכה אדתני היודע שהוא שבת ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה חייב על כל מלאכה ומלאכה ליתני היודע עיקר שבת וכל שכן הא אלא מתניתין כשהכיר ולבסוף שכח ודרב ושמואל נמי כהכיר ולבסוף שכח דמי והכי איתמר רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו אפילו תינוק שנשבה בין הנכרים וגר שנתגייר לבין הנכרים כהכיר ולבסוף שכח דמי וחייב

What if he did not forget it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the essential law of the Sabbath, but merely that that particular day was the Sabbath. ');">¹</span> He is liable for each labour? Then instead of teaching, HE WHO KNOWS THAT IT IS THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, IS LIABLE FOR EVERY LABOUR, let him teach, He who knows the essential law of the Sabbath, and how much more so this case? Rather our Mishnah refers to one who knew but subsequently forgot, and Rab and Samuel's [ruling] too is similar to the case of one who knew but subsequently forgot, and it was thus stated: Rab and Samuel both maintain: Even a child who was taken captive among Gentiles or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles is as one who knew but subsequently forgot, and so he is liable. But R. Johanan and Resh Lakish maintain: Only one who knew but subsequently forgot [is liable], but a child who was taken captive among Gentiles, or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles, is not culpable.

ורבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו דוקא הכיר ולבסוף שכח אבל תינוק שנשבה בין הנכרים וגר שנתגייר לבין הנכרים פטור מיתיבי כלל גדול אמרו בשבת כל השוכח עיקר שבת ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה אינו חייב אלא אחת כיצד תינוק שנשבה לבין הנכרים וגר שנתגייר בין הנכרים ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה אינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת וחייב על הדם אחת ועל החלב אחת ועל ע"ז אחת ומונבז פוטר

An objection is raised: A great principle is stated in respect to Sabbath: He who forgets the essential law of Sabbath and performs many labours on many Sabbaths, incurs one sin-offering only. E.g., if a child is taken captive among Gentiles or a proselyte is converted in the midst of Gentiles and performs many labours on many Sabbaths, he is liable to one sin-offering only. And he is liable to one [sin-offering] on account of blood, one on account of heleb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²</span> and one on account of idolatry.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for the violation of each law, which if deliberately infringed, carries with it the penalty of kareth, he incurs one sin-offering only, no matter how many times he actually infringes it. The consumption of blood and heleb and the worshipping of idols are given as examples. ');">³</span>

וכך היה מונבז דן לפני רבי עקיבא הואיל ומזיד קרוי חוטא ושוגג קרוי חוטא מה מזיד שהיתה לו ידיעה אף שוגג שהיתה לו ידיעה אמר לו ר' עקיבא הריני מוסיף על דבריך אי מה מזיד שהיתה הידיעה בשעת מעשה אף שוגג שהיתה לו ידיעה בשעת מעשה

But Monabaz exempts him. And thus did Monabaz argue before R. Akiba: Since a wilful transgressor is designated a sinner, and an unwitting transgressor [too] is designated a sinner;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a wilful trangressor v. Lev. V, 1: And if any one sin, etc. That refers to wilful transgression, since Scripture does not maintain that his sin be hidden from him', i.e., committed in ignorance. For unwitting transgression v. Lev. IV, 2 et passim. ');">⁴</span> then just as wilful transgression implied that he had knowledge,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' of the forbidden nature of his action. ');">⁵</span>

אמר לו הן וכל שכן שהוספת אמר לו לדבריך אין זה קרוי שוגג אלא מזיד

so when unwittingly transgressing he must have had the knowledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Formerly, though at the time of sinning he had forgotten it. ');">⁶</span> Said R. Akiba to him, Behold, I will add to your words. If so, just as wilful transgression involves that he shall have had knowledge at the time of his deed, so in unwitting transgression he must have had knowledge at the time of his deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is absurd! ');">⁷</span>

קתני מיהא כיצד תינוק בשלמא לרב ושמואל ניחא אלא לרבי יוחנן ולרבי שמעון בן לקיש קשיא אמרי לך רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש לא מי איכא מונבז דפטר אנן דאמרינן כמונבז

Even so, he replied, and all the more so since you have added [this argument]. As you define it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'according to your words'. ');">⁸</span> such is not designated unwitting, but wilful transgression, he retorted. Now after all it is stated, 'E.g., if a child' [etc.]: as for Rab and Samuel, it is well.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they too maintain that he is liable. Now, they can argue that the same holds good even if one originally knew the law but subsequently forgot it, just as they explain the Mishnah, while the particular illustration is given because of Monabaz's dissent in this case. ');">⁹</span>

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. ');">¹⁰</span>

ורבנן האי תורה אחת מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי להו לכדמקרי ליה ר' יהושע בן לוי לבריה תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה וכתיב

Because it is written, Ye shall have one law for him that doeth unwittingly;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 29. ');">¹¹</span> and in proximity thereto [it is written], And the soul that doeth aught with a high hand:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 30; this obviously applies to deliberate transgression. ');">¹²</span> hence unwitting is assimilated to wilful transgression:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Scripture itself intimates by this proximity that the two are similar. ');">¹³</span> just as wilful transgression involves that he shall have had knowledge, so unwitting transgression implies that he shall have had knowledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before a sin-offering is incurred. ');">¹⁴</span> And the Rabbis: how do they employ this [verse], Ye shall have one law, [etc.]? — They employ it even as R. Joshua b. Levi taught his son: Ye shall have one law for him that doeth unwittingly; and it is written,