Shabbat 139

מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אמר רב ספרא כאן מידיעת שבת הוא פורש וכאן מידיעת מלאכה הוא פורש א"ל רב נחמן כלום פריש משבת אלא משום מלאכות וכלום פריש ממלאכות אלא משום שבת אלא אמר רב נחמן קרבן דחייב רחמנא אמאי אשגגה התם חדא שגגה הכא טובא שגגות הויין:

Wherein does the first clause differ from the second? — Said R. Safra: Here he would refrain on account of the knowledge that it is the Sabbath: whilst there he would refrain through the knowledge of the [forbidden] labor[s]. Said R. Nahman to him: Does one refrain from [action on] the Sabbath [for any other reason] save that the labours [are forbidden]; and does one refrain from labours for aught save because of the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the matter is determined by what one would refrain from, the Sabbath and its forbidden labours are tantamount to the same thing, and there would be one law for both forms of ignorance. ');">¹</span> But said R. Nahman: for what does the Divine Law impose a sacrifice? For ignorance. There there is one fact of ignorance; here there are many facts of ignorance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. notes on the Mishnah 67b. ');">²</span> HE IS LIABLE FOR EVERY SEPARATE LABOUR. Whence do we know the division of labors?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a sacrifice is incurred for every separate labour, though they are all performed in one state of unawareness. ');">³</span>

חייב על כל מלאכה ומלאכה: חילוק מלאכות מנלן אמר שמואל אמר קרא (שמות לא, יד) מחלליה מות יומת התורה רבתה מיתות הרבה על חילול אחד האי במזיד כתיב אם אינו ענין למזיד דכתיב (שמות לה, ב) כל העושה מלאכה יומת תנהו ענין לשוגג ומאי יומת יומת בממון

— Said Samuel: Scripture saith, every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 14. 'Surely' is expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb, which according to Talmudic exegesis signifies extension. ');">⁴</span> the Torah decreed many deaths for one desecration. But this refers to wilful [desecration]? — Seeing that it is irrelevant in connection with wilful transgression, for it is written, whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 2. Here the verb is not doubled. ');">⁵</span> apply it to an unwitting offender;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is one of the methods of Talmudic exegesis: a text or its deduction which is irrelevant or incorrect in reference to its own case is applied to another case. ');">⁶</span>

ותיפוק ליה חילוק מלאכות מהיכא דנפקא ליה לר' נתן דתניא ר' נתן אומר (שמות לה, ג) לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר (שמות לה, א) ויקהל משה את כל עדת בני ישראל אלה הדברים וגו' ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה דברים הדברים אלה הדברים אלו שלשים ותשע מלאכות שנאמרו למשה בסיני

then what is meant by, shall be put to death? He shall be amerced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'put to death'. ');">⁷</span> in money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a sacrifice. Hence the verse teaches that many sacrifices may be incurred for the desecration of one Sabbath. ');">⁸</span> But let the division of labours be deduced whence R. Nathan derives it? For it was taught, R. Nathan said: Ye shall kindle 'no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">⁹</span>

יכול עשאן כולן בהעלם אחד אינו חייב אלא אחת ת"ל (שמות לד, כא) בחריש ובקציר תשבות ועדיין אני אומר על חרישה ועל הקצירה חייב שתים ועל כולן אינו חייב אלא אחת ת"ל לא תבערו אש הבערה בכלל היתה ולמה יצאת להקיש אליה ולומר לך מה הבערה שהיא אב מלאכה וחייבין עליה בפני עצמה אף כל שהוא אב מלאכה חייבין עליה בפני עצמה

why is this stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is apparently superfluous, being included in the general prohibition of labour. ');">¹⁰</span> Because it is said, And Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them, These are the words which the Lord hath commanded&nbsp;… Six days shall work be done:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 1f. ');">¹¹</span> 'words' [debarim], 'the words' [ha-debarim], 'these [eleh] are the words': this indicates the thirty-nine labours taught to Moses at Sinai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Words' implies at least two; 'the' (Heb. v ) is regarded as an extension, whereby two is extended to three; 'these' (Heb. vkt ) is given its numerical value, which is thirty-six, thus totalling thirty-nine in all. (Hebrew letters are also numbers.) — The existence of a large body of oral law, stated verbally to Moses or generally known, was assumed. V. Weiss, Dor, I, and supra p. 123, n. 7. ');">¹²</span>

שמואל סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר הבערה ללאו יצאת דתניא הבערה ללאו יצאת דברי רבי יוסי ר' נתן אומר לחלק יצאת

I might think that if one performs all of them in a single state of unawareness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without being informed in between that some of these labours are forbidden, but remaining in ignorance from the first labour to the last. ');">¹³</span> he incurs only one [sin-offering]: therefore it is stated, from ploughing and from harvesting thou shalt rest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXXIV, 21. Since these are specified individually, it follows that each entails a separate sacrifice. ');">¹⁴</span> Yet I might still argue, For ploughing and for harvesting one incurs two sacrifices, but for all others [together] there is but a single liability: therefore it is stated, 'Ye shall kindle no fire' — Now kindling is included in the general law: why is it singled out? That analogy therewith may be drawn, teaching: just as kindling is a principal labour and it entails a separate liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is stated separately. ');">¹⁵</span>

ותיפוק ליה לחלוק מלאכות מהיכא דנפקא ליה לר' יוסי דתניא רבי יוסי אומר (ויקרא ד, ב) ועשה מאחת מהנה פעמים שחייבים אחת על כולן ופעמים שחייבין על כל אחת ואחת אמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא מ"ט דר' יוסי אחת מאחת הנה מהנה אחת שהיא הנה הנה שהיא אחת

so for every principal labour a separate liability is incurred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the difficulty, why does Samuel quote different verses to learn this? ');">¹⁶</span> — Samuel holds as R. Jose, who maintained: Kindling is singled out to teach that it is [merely the object of] a negative precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas other labours, wilfully performed, are punishable by death or kareth, this is punished by flagellation, like the violation of any negative precept. ');">¹⁷</span> For it was taught: Kindling is singled out to teach that it is [merely the object of] a negative precept: this is R. Jose's view. R. Nathan said: It is particularly specified to indicate division.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As above. ');">¹⁸</span>

אחת שמעון מאחת

Now, let division of labours be derived, whence it is learnt by R. Jose? For it was taught: R. Jose said: [If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any one of the commandments of the Lord, concerning things which ought not to be done,] and shall do of one of them:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 2. ');">¹⁹</span> sometimes one sacrifice is incurred for all of them, whilst at others one is liable for each separately. Said R. Jose son of R. Hanina, What is R. Jose's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he deduce this from the verse? ');">²⁰</span> [Of one of them teaches that liability is incurred for] one [complete act]; [for one which is but part] of one; for performing labours forbidden in themselves [i.e. 'them'], and [for labours whose prohibition is derived] from others [i.e., 'of them']; [further,] 'one transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices [i.e., 'one'='them',] while many offences may involve but one sacrifice [i.e., 'them'='one'],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of one of them', Heb. [H] is a peculiar construction. Scripture should have written, 'and shall do one' (not of one) 'of them', or, 'and do of them' (one being understood), or, 'and shall do one' (of them being understood). Instead of which a partitive preposition is used before each. Hence each part of the pronoun is to be interpreted separately, teaching that he is liable for the transgression of 'one' precept, and for part of one (i.e., 'of one'); for 'them' (explained as referring to the primary labours); and for the derivatives 'of them' (toledoth — labours forbidden because they partake of the same nature as the fundamentally prohibited labours). Also, each pronoun reacts upon the other, as explained in the text. ');">²¹</span> [Thus:] one [complete act]: [the writing of] Simeon; [one which is but part] of one, —