Shabbat 137

(במדבר טו, כב) וכי תשגו ולא תעשו את כל המצות האלה וכתיב (במדבר טו, ל) והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה הוקשו כולם לע"ז מה להלן דבר שחייבים על זדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת אף כל דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת

and when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 22; in Hor. 8a it is deduced that this refers to idolatry. ');">¹</span> and it is written, And the soul that doeth aught with a high hand&nbsp;… [that soul shall be cut off]: thus they are all assimilated to idolatry: just as there it is something for the wilful transgression of which <i>kareth</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., cutting off. ');">²</span> is incurred, and for the unwitting transgression a sin-offering is incurred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. v. 27. ');">³</span>

ואלא מונבז שגגה במאי כגון ששגג בקרבן ורבנן שגגת קרבן לא שמה שגגה

so for everything the wilful transgression of which involves <i>kareth</i>, its unwitting transgression involves a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But where wilful transgression involves a lesser penalty than kareth, an unwitting offence does not involve a sin-offering. ');">⁴</span> But according to Monabaz, wherein lies his non-wilfulness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the offender has knowledge at the time of his action. ');">⁵</span> E.g., if he was ignorant in respect of the sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He knew that the wilful offence involved kareth, but not that the unwitting transgression involved a sin-offering. ');">⁶</span>

ורבנן שגגה במאי רבי יוחנן אמר כיון ששגג בכרת אף על פי שהזיד בלאו וריש לקיש אמר עד שישגוג בלאו וכרת אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרשב"ל אמר קרא (ויקרא ד, ב) אשר לא תעשינה (בשגגה) ואשם עד שישגוג בלאו וכרת שבה

But the Rabbis hold that ignorance in respect of the sacrifice does not constitute ignorance. Now according to the Rabbis, in respect to what is ignorance [required]? R. Johanan said: As long as one errs in respect to <i>kareth</i>, even if he wilfully sins in respect of the negative command;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he knows that it is forbidden by a negative injunction but not that its penalty is kareth. This constitutes sinning in ignorance, and involves a sin-offering. ');">⁷</span> while Resh Lakish maintained: He must offend unwittingly in respect of the negative injunction and <i>kareth</i>. Raba said, What is R. Simeon b. Lakish's reason? Scripture saith, [And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded] not to be done, and be guilty:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 27. ');">⁸</span>

ורבי יוחנן האי קרא דרשב"ל מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא ד, כז) מעם הארץ פרט למומר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי שמעון אשר לא תעשינה (בשגגה) ואשם השב מידיעתו מביא קרבן על שגגתו לא שב מידיעתו אינו מביא קרבן על שגגתו:

hence he must err both as to the negative injunction and its attendant <i>kareth</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to be done after 'sin unwittingly' implies that he is ignorant that it is forbidden at all. ');">⁹</span> And R. Johanan: how does he employ this verse adduced by R. Simeon b. Lakish? — He utilizes it for what was taught: [And if any one] of the common people: this excludes a mumar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who is professedly antagonistic to Jewish law. If he sins unwittingly, he cannot offer a sacrifice, even if he desires. This is deduced from the partitive of the common people, expressed in the original by the letter mem ( n ), which is regarded as a limitation. ');">¹⁰</span> R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on the authority of R. Simeon:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Simeon b. Yohai. ');">¹¹</span>

תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת והוינן בה מנינא למה לי ואמר ר' יוחנן שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת היכי משכחת לה בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות

[… sin unwittingly in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded] not to be done, and be guilty: he who would refrain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'turn back'. ');">¹²</span> on account of his knowledge, brings a sacrifice for his unwitting offence; but he who would not refrain on account of his knowledge cannot bring a sacrifice for his unwitting offence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verse implies that he acted solely through his ignorance; only then can he atone with a sacrifice. R. Simeon too teaches the exclusion of a mumar, but deduces it differently. ');">¹³</span> We learnt: The primary forms of labour are forty less one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 73a. ');">¹⁴</span>

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן דאמר כיון ששגג בכרת אע"פ שהזיד בלאו משכחת לה כגון דידע לה לשבת בלאו אלא לר"ש ב"ל דאמר עד שישגוג בלאו ובכרת דידע ליה לשבת במאי דידעה בתחומין ואליבא דר"ע

Now we pondered thereon, Why state the number?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are enumerated by name. ');">¹⁵</span> And R. Johanan replied: [To teach] that if one performs all of them in a single state of unawareness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of their forbidden nature. ');">¹⁶</span> he is liable [to a sin-offering] for each. Now, how is this possible? [Surely only] where he is aware of the Sabbath but unconscious of [the forbidden nature of] his labours.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the reverse case he incurs only one sin-offering (v. Mishnah 67b). Now awareness of the Sabbath implies that he knows at least one of the labours forbidden, for otherwise the Sabbath is the same to him as any other day, and he cannot be said to be aware thereof. But in the present passage he appears to have known none at all: how then can we regard him as being aware of the Sabbath? This the Talmud proceeds to discuss. ');">¹⁷</span>

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן שגג בזה ובזה זהו שוגג האמור בתורה הזיד בזה ובזה זו היא מזיד האמור בתורה שגג בשבת והזיד במלאכות או ששגג במלאכות והזיד בשבת או שאמר יודע אני שמלאכה זו אסורה אבל איני יודע שחייבין עליה קרבן או לא חייב כמאן כמונבז

As for R. Johanan, who maintained that since he is ignorant in respect of <i>kareth</i>, though fully aware of the negative injunction, [his offence is unwitting], it is well: it is conceivable e.g., where he knew [that labour is forbidden on] the Sabbath by a negative injunction. But according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, who maintained that he must be unaware of the negative injunction and of <i>kareth</i>, wherein did he know of the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that he was ignorant of all the forbidden labours. ');">¹⁸</span> — He knew of [the law of] boundaries,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one may not go on the Sabbath more than a certain distance beyond the town limits. Infringement of this law does not entail a sacrifice. ');">¹⁹</span> this being in accordance with R. Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that the limitation of boundaries is Biblical. The Rabbis dispute this. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר אביי הכל מודים בשבועת ביטוי שאין חייבין עליה קרבן עד שישגוג בלאו שבה הכל מודים מאן ר' יוחנן פשיטא כי קא"ר יוחנן היכא דאיכא כרת אבל הכא דליכא כרת לא

Who is the authority for the following which was taught by the Rabbis: If one is unaware of both,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the Sabbath and that this labour is forbidden on the Sabbath. ');">²¹</span> he is the erring sinner mentioned in the Torah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He certainly falls within this category. ');">²²</span> if one wilfully transgresses in respect of both, he is the presumptuous offender mentioned in the Torah. If one is unaware of the Sabbath but conscious of [the forbidden character of] his labours or the reverse, or if he declares, 'I knew that this labour is forbidden, but not whether it entails a sacrifice or not, he is culpable? With whom does this agree? With Monabaz.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. ');">²³</span>

סד"א הואיל וחייב קרבן חידוש הוא דבכל התורה כולה לא אשכחן לאו דמייתי עליה קרבן והכא מייתי כי שגג בקרבן נמי ליחייב

Abaye said: All agree in respect to an 'oath of utterance'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., 'I swear that I will eat', or, 'I swear that I will not eat', and then broken, cf. Lev. V, 4. ');">²⁴</span> that a sacrifice is not incurred on account thereof unless one is unaware of its interdict.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the offender must have forgotten his oath at the time of breaking it, so that he is unaware that his action is interdicted by his oath. A sacrifice for a broken oath is decreed in Lev. V, 4 seq. ');">²⁵</span> 'All agree': who is that? R. Johanan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Abaye cannot mean by 'all' that even Monabaz agrees that it is insufficient that he shall merely be ignorant that a vain oath entails a sacrifice. For how can this be maintained? On the contrary, the reverse follows a fortiori: if Monabaz regards unawareness of the liability to a sin-offering elsewhere as true unawareness, though such liability is in accordance with the general principle that where kareth is incurred for a wilful offence a sin-offering is incurred for an unwitting transgression, how much more so here, seeing that the very liability to a sacrifice is an anomaly unexpected, for the deliberate breaking of an oath does not entail kareth. Hence Abaye must refer to R. Johanan's view on the ruling of the Rabbis. ');">²⁶</span> But that is obvious! When did R. Johanan say [otherwise], where there is [the penalty of] <i>kareth</i>; but here [in the case of an 'oath of utterance'] that there is no [penalty of] <i>kareth</i>, he did not state [his ruling]? — One might argue: Since liability to a sacrifice [here] is an anomaly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a new thing' — something outside the general rule. ');">²⁷</span> for we do not find in the whole Torah that for a [mere] negative injunction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not entail kareth. ');">²⁸</span> one must bring a sacrifice, whilst here it is brought; hence even if he is unaware of the [liability to a] sacrifice, he is culpable:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even on the views of the Rabbis. ');">²⁹</span>