Shabbat 138

קמ"ל מיתיבי איזהו שגגת שבועת ביטוי לשעבר שאם אמר יודע אני ששבועה זו אסורה אבל איני יודע אם חייבין עליה קרבן או לא חייב הא מני מונבז היא

hence he [Abaye] informs us [otherwise]. An objection is raised: What is an unwitting offence in respect of an 'oath of utterance' relating to the past?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where one falsely swears that he has eaten. ');">¹</span>

(לישנא אחרינא מני אילימא מונבז פשיטא השתא בכל התורה דלאו חידוש הוא אמר שגגת קרבן שמה שגגה הכא דחידוש הוא לא כ"ש אלא לאו רבנן היא ותיובתא דאביי תיובתא):

Where one says, 'I know that this oath is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Knowing that he is swearing to an untruth. ');">²</span> but I do not know whether it entails a sacrifice or not,' he is culpable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts Abaye. ');">³</span>

ואמר אביי הכל מודים בתרומה שאין חייבין עליה חומש עד שישגוג בלאו שבה הכל מודים מאן רבי יוחנן פשיטא כי אמר רבי יוחנן היכא דאיכא כרת היכא דליכא כרת לא מהו דתימא מיתה במקום כרת עומדת וכי שגג במיתה נמי ליחייב קמ"ל רבא אמר מיתה במקום כרת עומדת וחומש במקום קרבן קאי:

— This agrees with Monabaz. (Another version: Who is the authority for this? Shall we say, Monabaz? But then it is obvious! seeing that in the whole Torah, where it [liability to a sacrifice] is not an anomaly, Monabaz rules that unawareness of the sacrifice constitutes unawareness, how much more so here that it is an anomaly!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 2. ');">⁴</span> Hence it must surely be the Rabbis, and this refutation of Abaye is indeed a refutation.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage 'Another … refutation' is bracketed in the edd., and Rashi deletes it. For in fact the ruling is necessary according to Monabaz too. For whereas elsewhere ignorance is constituted by unawareness either of the forbidden nature of the act or of the sacrifice it entails, here the former does not constitute ignorance, and there must be unawareness of the liability to a sacrifice. This does not follow from Monabaz's other ruling and so must be stated. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב הונא היה מהלך (בדרך או) במדבר ואינו יודע אימתי שבת מונה ששה ימים ומשמר יום אחד חייא בר רב אומר משמר יום אחד ומונה ששה במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר כברייתו של עולם ומר סבר כאדם הראשון מיתיבי היה מהלך בדרך ואינו יודע אימתי שבת משמר יום אחד לששה מאי לאו מונה ששה ומשמר יום אחד לא משמר יום אחד ומונה ששה

Abaye also said: All agree in respect to <i>terumah</i> that one is not liable to [the addition of] a fifth unless he is unaware of its interdict.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a non-priest eats terumah unwittingly. he must indemnify the priest for its value and add a fifth (Lev. XXII, 14). Abaye states that he must have been unaware of its forbidden nature, i.e., thinking it to be ordinary food. ');">⁶</span> 'All agree': who is that? R. Johanan: But that is obvious: when did R. Johanan say [otherwise], where there is the penalty of <i>kareth</i>, but here that there is no penalty of <i>kareth</i>, he did not state [his ruling]? — You might argue: death stands in the place of <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If terumah is knowingly eaten by a non-priest, he is liable to death inflicted by Heaven. ');">⁷</span>

אי הכי משמר יום אחד לששה משמר יום אחד ומונה ששה מיבעי ליה ועוד תניא היה מהלך בדרך או במדבר ואינו יודע אימתי שבת מונה ששה ומשמר יום אחד תיובתא (דר' חייא) בר רב תיובתא

and therefore if one is ignorant of [this penalty of] death, he is culpable; hence he informs us [otherwise]. Raba said: Death stands in the place of <i>kareth</i>, and the fifth stands in the place of a sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Death and the addition of a fifth for the conscious and unconscious eating of terumah respectively are the equivalent of kareth and a sacrifice in the case of other transgressions. Hence according to R. Johanan on the basis of the ruling of the Rabbis one is liable to the addition of a fifth if he eats terumah in ignorance that the conscious offence is punishable by death at the hands of Heaven. ');">⁸</span> R. Huna said: If one is travelling on a road or<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alfasi, Asheri, Maim., Tur and J.D. omit 'on a road or'. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבא בכל יום ויום עושה לו כדי פרנסתו [בר מההוא יומא] וההוא יומא לימות דעביד מאתמול שתי פרנסות ודילמא מאתמול שבת הואי אלא כל יום ויום עושה לו פרנסתו אפילו ההוא יומא וההוא יומא במאי מינכר ליה בקידושא ואבדלתא

in the wilderness and does not know when it is the Sabbath, he must count six days and observe one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the day that he discovers that he has forgotten when it is the Sabbath. ');">¹⁰</span> Hiyya b. Rab said: He must observe one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first after his discovery. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא אם היה מכיר מקצת היום שיצא בו עושה מלאכה כל היום כולו פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דשבת לא נפיק במעלי שבתא [נמי] לא נפיק והאי אי נמי בחמשה בשבתא נפיק לישתרי ליה למיעבד מלאכה תרי יומי קא משמע לן זימנין דמשכח שיירתא ומקרי ונפיק:

and count six [weekdays]. Wherein do they differ? One Master holds that it is as the world's Creation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the Sabbath followed six working days. ');">¹²</span> the other Master holds that it is like [the case of] Adam.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was created on the sixth day; thus his first complete day was the Sabbath. ');">¹³</span>

היודע עיקר שבת: מנהני מילי אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה תרי קראי כתיבי (שמות לא, טז) ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת וכתי' (ויקרא יט, ג) ואת שבתותי תשמורו הא כיצד ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת שמירה אחת לשבתות הרבה ואת שבתותי תשמורו שמירה אחת לכל שבת ושבת

An objection is raised: If one is travelling on a road and does not know when it is the Sabbath, he must observe one day for six. — Surely that means that he counts six days and observes one? No: he keeps one day and counts six. If so, [instead of] 'he must observe one day for six,' he should state, 'he must observe one day and count six'? Moreover, it was taught: If one is travelling on a road or in a wilderness and does not know when it is the Sabbath, he must count six and observe one day.' This refutation of Hiyya b. Rab is indeed a refutation. Raba said: Every day he does sufficient for his requirements [only],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But no unnecessary work, since each day may be the Sabbath. ');">¹⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב נחמן בר יצחק אדרבה איפכא מסתברא ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת שמירה אחת לכל שבת ושבת ואת שבתותי תשמורו שמירה אחת לשבתות הרבה:

except on that day. And on that day he is to die? — He prepared double his requirements on the previous day. But perhaps the previous day was the Sabbath? But every day he does sufficient for his requirements, and even on that day. Then wherein may that day be recognized? By kiddush and habdalah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kiddush =sanctification; habdalah=distinction. The former is a prayer recited at the beginning of the Sabbath; the latter is recited at the end thereof, and thanks God for making a distinction between the sanctity of the Sabbath and the secular nature of the other days of the week. ');">¹⁵</span> Raba said: If he recognizes the relationship to the day of his departure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the day that he discovers that he has forgotten when it is the Sabbath, he nevertheless remembers how many days it is since he set out. The passage may also possibly be translated: if he recognizes a part, viz., the day on which he set out. ');">¹⁶</span>

היודע שהוא שבת:

he may do work the whole of that day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., on the seventh after he set out, without any restrictions, since he certainly did not commence his journey on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁷</span> But that is obvious? — You might say, Since he did not set out on the Sabbath, he did not set out on the eve of the Sabbath either;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is unusual. ');">¹⁸</span> hence this man, even if he set out on Thursday. it shall be permitted him to do work on two days. Hence he informs us that sometimes one may come across a company and chance to set out [on a Friday]. HE WHO KNOWS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH. How do we know it? — Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, Two texts are written: Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 16. ');">¹⁹</span> and it is written, and ye shall keep my Sabbaths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 3. ');">²⁰</span> How is this to be explained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the employment of the sing. in one verse and the plural in the other. ');">²¹</span> 'Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath' [implies] one observance for many Sabbaths;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that if one desecrates many Sabbaths he fails in a single observance and is liable to one sin-offering only. ');">²²</span> [whereas] 'and ye shall keep my Sabbaths' [implies] one observance for each separate Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the desecration of each Sabbath entails a separate sacrifice. It then rests with the Rabbis to decide where each shall apply. ');">²³</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath [implies] one observance for each separate Sabbath; [whereas] 'and ye shall keep my Sabbaths' [implies] one observance for many Sabbaths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman b. Isaac agrees that the distinctions of the Mishnah follow from these texts, but he reverses their significance. ');">²⁴</span> HE WHO KNOWS THAT IT IS THE SABBATH.