Shabbat 140

Chapter 140

א שם משמעון הנה אבות מהנה תולדות אחת שהיא הנה זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות הנה שהיא אחת שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות ושמואל אחת שהיא הנה והנה שהיא אחת לא משמע ליה:
1 [the writing of] Shem as part of Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering is incurred only when a complete action is performed. The writing of a complete word — Simeon — is given as an example. Now, if one commences the word Simeon, [H] SHiMeoN in Hebrew, but writes only the first two letters thereof, viz., SHeM [H], he is also liable, though his intention is only partly fulfilled, because SHeM is a complete word in itself. This is called one labour which is part of another (i.e., 'of them'). If, however, the part he writes is not complete in itself, e.g., the first two letters of Reuben, in Hebrew, there is no liability. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> Labours forbidden in themselves' [i.e., 'them']-the primary labours,' [labours whose prohibition is derived] from others' [i.e., 'of them'] — derivatives; 'one transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices [i.e., 'one' = 'them'] — awareness of the Sabbath coupled with unawareness of [the forbidden nature of his] labours.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence though he violates only one injunction, viz. the sacredness of the Sabbath, yet since he is ignorant of each of these acts, he is regarded as having committed a number of separate inadvertent transgressions, for each of which a sacrifice is due. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> Many offences may involve but one sacrifice [i.e., 'them' = 'one'] — unawareness of the Sabbath coupled with awareness of [the forbidden nature of his] labours.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since all his actions are the result of being unaware of one single fact, viz., that it is the Sabbath, only one sacrifice is due. — Hence the same difficulty, why does Samuel not learn from these verses? (The notes on this passage follow Rashi's explanation in Sanh. 62a; v. Sonc. ed., pp. 421 ff.) ');"><sup>3</sup></span> — Samuel does not accept the interpretation that 'one' [transgression] may involve liability for a number of sacrifices, while many offences may involve but one sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not agree to their implication of the verse, holding that it is all required in respect of primary and derivative labours. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ב בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן העלם זה וזה בידו מהו א"ל הרי העלם שבת בידו ואינו חייב אלא אחת אדרבה הרי העלם מלאכות בידו וחייב על כל אחת ואחת אלא אמר רב אשי חזינן אי משום שבת קא פריש הרי העלם שבת בידו ואינו חייב אלא אחת ואי משום מלאכה קפריש הרי העלם מלאכות בידו וחייב על כל אחת ואחת א"ל רבינא לרב אשי כלום פריש משבת אלא משום מלאכות כלום פריש ממלאכות אלא משום שבת אלא לא שנא
2 Raba asked R. Nahman: What if one forgot both?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if there is the forgetfulness of both in his hand'. — I.e., he was unaware that it was the Sabbath and that his acts are forbidden on the Sabbath. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> — Said he, Surely he is unaware of the Sabbath; hence he incurs only one [sacrifice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in n. 2. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> On the contrary, he has forgotten the labours; hence he is liable for each?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in n. 1. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> But said R. Ashi: We see: if he would desist [from these labours] on account of the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on being informed that it is the Sabbath. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ג תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת והוינן בה מנינא למה לי ואמר ר' יוחנן שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת אי אמרת בשלמא העלם זה וזה בידו חייב על כל אחת ואחת שפיר אלא אי אמרת העלם שבת בידו אינו חייב אלא אחת היכי משכחת לה בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות
3 his unawareness is of the Sabbath, and he incurs only one sacrifice. While if he would desist on account of the labours,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When informed that these labours are forbidden on the Sabbath. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> his unawareness is [chiefly] of the labours, and he is liable for each. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Would he then desist on account of the Sabbath save because of the [forbidden nature of his] labours; and would he desist on account of [the forbidden nature of his] labours save because of the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he is reminded of one, he naturally understands that the other is meant too, and desists on account of both. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> Hence there is no difference.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the problem remains in both cases; therefore only one sacrifice is brought, since a sin-offering may not be offered unless one is definitely liable thereto (Rashi as elaborated by Maharsha). ');"><sup>11</sup></span> We learnt: The primary labours are forty less one. Now we pondered thereon, Why state the number? And R. Johanan answered: [It is to teach] that if one performs all of them in one state of unawareness he is liable for each separately. Now, it is well if you say that if one is unaware of both he is liable for each separately; then it is correct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he is ignorant of all the forbidden labours of the Sabbath, the Sabbath is exactly the same as any other day to him, and he may be regarded as unaware of both. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ד הניחא אי סבר ליה כרבי יוחנן דאמר כיון ששגג בכרת אע"פ שהזיד בלאו משכחת לה דידע ליה שבת בלאו אלא אי סבר לה כרבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמר עד שישגוג בלאו וכרת דידע ליה שבת במאי דידע לה בתחומין ואליבא דרבי עקיבא:
4 But if you maintain that this is [mainly] an unawareness of the Sabbath [and] entails only one sacrifice, then how is this possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he should be liable for every single labour. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> [Presumably] by awareness of the Sabbath and ignorance of the [forbidden] labours. Now, that is well if he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman. Rashi reads.: That is well in the view of R. Johanan etc., v. supra 69a. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> agrees with R. Johanan, who ruled: As long as one is unaware of <i>kareth</i>, even if he deliberately offends in respect of the negative command:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 329, n. 3. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> then it is conceivable where he knows that the Sabbath is the object of a negative injunction. But if he agrees with R. Simeon b. Lakish, who maintained: He must offend unwittingly in respect of both the negative injunction and <i>kareth</i>, then wherein does he know that it is the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that he does not know of a single forbidden labour: v. n. 1. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ה אמר רבא קצר וטחן כגרוגרת בשגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות וחזר וקצר וטחן כגרוגרת בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות ונודע לו על קצירה וטחינה של שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות וחזר ונודע לו על קצירה ועל טחינה של זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות
5 — He knew of boundaries, this being in accordance with R. Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 69a for notes. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Raba said: If one reaped and ground [corn] of the size of a dried fig<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the minimum for which one is culpable. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> in unawareness of the Sabbath but awareness in respect of the labours,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he is liable to one sacrifice only. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> and then he again reaped and ground [corn] of the size of a dried fig in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of the labours,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been apprised of the Sabbath, whilst he forgot that these are prohibited labours. In this case he is separately culpable on account of each. In the interval between his first labours and his second he did not learn of his offence. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> and then he was apprised of the reaping and/or grinding [performed] in unawareness of the Sabbath but awareness of the labours,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereupon he set aside one sacrifice on account of both labours — this being before he learnt of his second series of offences. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> then he was apprised of the reaping and/or grinding [performed] in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of the labours: