Shabbat 141

קצירה גוררת קצירה וטחינה גוררת טחינה אבל נודע לו על קצירה של זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות קצירה גוררת קצירה וטחינה שעמה וטחינה שכנגדה במקומה עומדת

then [atonement for] the [first] reaping involves [atonement for] the [second] reaping and [atonement for] the [first] grinding involves [atonement for] the [second] grinding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect to expiation. The sacrifice for his first two acts of reaping and grinding is an atonement for his second two acts, since all were performed in one state of unawareness, without any appraisement in the interval, notwithstanding that his first unawareness differed in kind from his second unawareness. ');">¹</span> But if he was [first] apprised of his reaping [performed] in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of labours: then [atonement for] this [second] reaping involves [atonement for] the [first] reaping and its accompanying grinding;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he makes atonement for his second reaping he automatically makes atonement for the first too, and since his first reaping and grinding only necessitate one sacrifice, his first grinding too is atoned for thereby. ');">²</span> but the corresponding [second] grinding remains in its place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unatoned for, until another sacrifice is brought. ');">³</span>

אביי אמר טחינה נמי גוררת טחינה שם טחינה אחת היא ומי אית ליה לרבא גרירה והא איתמר אכל שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחד ונודע לו על אחת מהן וחזר ואכל כזית בהעלמו של שני אמר רבא הביא קרבן על ראשון ראשון ושני מתכפרין ג' אינו מתכפר

Abaye maintained: [Atonement for the first] grinding involves atonement for the second grinding too: the designation of grinding is the same.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all acts of grinding made in one state of unawareness are covered by this sacrifice, though it is not primarily offered on account of grinding at all. ');">⁴</span> Now, does then Raba hold the theory of involvement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That atonement for one involves atonement for the other, as above. ');">⁵</span> But it was stated: If one eats two olive-sized pieces of heleb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the minimum quantity of forbidden food the eating of which entails a sacrifice. ');">⁶</span>

הביא קרבן על השלישי שלישי ושני מתכפרין ראשון אינו מתכפר הביא קרבן על האמצעי נתכפרו כולן אביי אמר אפילו הביא קרבן על אחד מהן נתכפרו כולן בתר דשמעה מאביי סברה אי הכי טחינה נמי תגרר לטחינה גרירה אית ליה גרירה דגרירה לית ליה

in one state of unawareness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being apprised in between that he had eaten heleb. ');">⁷</span> is apprised of one of them, and then eats another olive-sized piece whilst still unaware of the second — Raba said: If he offers a sacrifice for the first, the first and second are expiated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they were eaten in one state of unawareness. ');">⁸</span> but the third is not. If he brings a sacrifice for the third, the third and second are expiated, but not the first. If he offers a sacrifice for the middle one, all are atoned for.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both the first and the third were eaten in the state of unawareness of the second. — The first two rulings show that he rejects the theory of involvement. ');">⁹</span>

מילתא דפשיטא להו לאביי ורבא מבעיא לר' זירא דבעי רבי זירא מרבי אסי ואמרי לה בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא קצר וטחן חצי גרוגרת בשגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות וחזר וקצר וטחן חצי גרוגרת בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות מהו שיצטרפו אמר ליה חלוקין לחטאות ולא מצטרפין

Abaye maintained: Even if he offers a sacrifice for the first, all are expiated! — After hearing from Abaye he adopted it. If so, let grinding too be carried along with grinding?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Abaye rules above. ');">¹⁰</span> — He accepts the theory of [direct], but not that of indirect involvement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'involvement of involvement'. Thus the first act of grinding is atoned for only because it is involved in the atonement for reaping; hence this in turn cannot involve the second act of grinding. ');">¹¹</span> The matter that is clear to Abaye and Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that awareness of the Sabbath and ignorance of the forbidden nature of one's labours followed by the reverse constitute a single state of unawareness, though the first differs in kind from the second, and the two states or periods are not separate in respect to sacrifice, but sacrifice for one makes atonement for the other. ');">¹²</span>

וכל היכא דחלוקין לחטאות לא מצטרפי והתנן אכל חלב וחלב בהעלם אחד אינו חייב אלא אחת אכל חלב ודם ונותר ופגול בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת זו חומר במינין הרבה ממין אחד וזו חומר במין אחד ממינין הרבה שאם אכל חצי זית וחזר ואכל חצי זית ממין אחד חייב משני מינין פטור

was a problem to R. Zera: For R. Zera asked R. Assi — others state, R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: What if one reaped or<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The context shows that the waw is disjunctive here, and it is thus translated by Rashi. ');">¹³</span> ground [corn] of the quantity of half a dried fig in unawareness of the Sabbath but awareness in respect of the labours, then he again reaped or ground [corn] of the quantity of half a dried fig in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of the labours; can they be combined?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the two reapings or the two acts of grinding. Is it all regarded as a single state of unawareness, so that they do combine, or as two states of unawareness, since they differ in kind and they do not combine? Thus he was doubtful of what was clear to Abaye and Raba. ');">¹⁴</span> — Said he to him: They are distinct in respect of sin-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had each reaping been sufficient to entail a sin-offering, a sacrifice for one would not make atonement for the other. He thus differs from Abaye and Raba. ');">¹⁵</span>

והוינן בה ממין אחד חייב צריכא למימר ואמר ריש לקיש משום בר תוטני הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכלו בשני תמחויין ורבי יהושע היא דאמר תמחויין מחלקין מהו דתימא אמר רבי יהושע בין לקולא בין לחומרא קא משמע לן דלקולא לא אמר לחומרא קאמר

therefore they do not combine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there is no liability. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, wherever [acts] are distinct in respect of sin-offerings, do they not combine? Surely we learnt: If one eats heleb and [then again] heleb in one state of unawareness, he is culpable for only one [sin-offering]. If one eats heleb, blood, nothar, and piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁷</span> in one state of unawareness, he is culpable for each separately: in this many kinds [of forbidden food] are more stringent then one kind. — But in the following one kind is more stringent than many kinds: viz., if one eats half the size of an olive and then eats half the size of an olive of the same kind of [commodity],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The overall time being less than is required for the eating of half an average meal. It is then regarded as one act of eating. ');">¹⁸</span>

והא הכא דחלוקין לחטאות וקא מצטרפי אמר ליה מר ארישא מתני לה וקשיא ליה אנן אסיפא מתנינן לה ולא קשיא לן משני מינין פטור צריכה למימר ואמר ריש לקיש משום בר תוטני לעולם ממין אחד ואמאי קרי ליה שני מינין שאכלו בשני תמחויין ור' יהושע היא דאמר תמחויין מחלקין והא קא משמע לן דאמר רבי יהושע בין לקולא בין לחומרא

he is culpable; of two different commodities, he is not culpable. Now we questioned this: 'of the same commodity, he is culpable': need this be stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is obvious. ');">¹⁹</span> And Resh Lakish said on the authority of Bar Tutani: The reference here is to one e.g., who ate [them] from two tureens,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two pieces of heleb were differently prepared. ');">²⁰</span> this being according to R. Joshua, who ruled: Tureens divide.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one eats two pieces, each the size of an olive, out of different tureens, in one state of unawareness, they are treated as two separate acts, and he must make atonement on account of each. ');">²¹</span>

מדסיפא מין אחד ושני תמחויין

You might say that R. Joshua rules [thus] whether it leads to leniency or to stringency: hence we are informed that he did not rule thus leniently, but only stringently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the two half-olive sized pieces combine, though they are of two tureens. ');">²²</span> Thus here, though distinct in respect of sin-offerings, yet they combine? — Said he to him: You learn this in reference to the first clause: hence it presents a difficulty to you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it must be explained as treating of two tureen. ');">²³</span> But we learn it in reference to the second clause, and it presents no difficulty to us. [Thus:] 'Of two kinds of [commodities], he is not culpable': need this be said? And Resh Lakish answered on the authority of Bar Tutani: After all, it means of the same kind of [commodity]. Yet why is it designated two kinds of [commodities]? Because he ate them out of two tureens, this agreeing with R. Joshua, who maintained: Tureens divide, and we are informed this: that R. Joshua ruled [thus] both leniently and stringently. Now, since the second clause refers to one kind of [commodity] and two tureens,